Set of five annual international awards, primarily established in 1895 by Alfred Nobel
POPULARITY
64 episodes with Nobel Prize
68 episodes with Nobel Prize
36 episodes with Nobel Prize
38 episodes with Nobel Prize
17 episodes with Nobel Prize
56 episodes with Nobel Prize
27 episodes with Nobel Prize
41 episodes with Nobel Prize
33 episodes with Nobel Prize
18 episodes with Nobel Prize
14 episodes with Nobel Prize
14 episodes with Nobel Prize
30 episodes with Nobel Prize
24 episodes with Nobel Prize
16 episodes with Nobel Prize
10 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
23 episodes with Nobel Prize
16 episodes with Nobel Prize
11 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
14 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
12 episodes with Nobel Prize
10 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
12 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
14 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
10 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
11 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
9 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
12 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
11 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
8 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
10 episodes with Nobel Prize
10 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
2 episodes with Nobel Prize
7 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
5 episodes with Nobel Prize
6 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
2 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
3 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
4 episodes with Nobel Prize
Highlights: “CNN knows that Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug developed by 2 Nobel Prize-winning scientists that has multiple uses for both animals and humans and yet they isolate and propagate a single usage and that promotion is used to mock, ridicule, smear, and denigrate Joe Rogan.”“The question is emphatically not whether Ivermectin can be used as a horse dewormer, the question is whether CNN is right in claiming that Rogan took a horse dewormer. That's the issue.” “And rather than correct themselves, rather than admit what they did, rather than fact-check themselves, CNN through pompous imbecile, Don Lemon, has chosen to double down on their blatant lie.”“This is what CNN and the mainstream media are doing on a daily basis. They're using lies as a way of undermining their political opponents.” Timestamps:[03:12] Joe Rogan's interview with Dr. Sanjay Gupta confronting CNN's lies[05:12] How Don Lemon tries to double down on the lie[07:02] How others are reacting to CNN's lies[08:26] Why the mainstream media is lying and doing it knowingly and deliberatelyResources:Ep. 688 CNN MELTDOWN! ADMITS TRUMP WILL WIN IN 2024!!!JOIN US for our Virtual gathering of New Conservative Patriots on November 12th and 13th and Learn How YOU Can Build a Society FREE from WOKENESS! Register today at http://conferences.turleytalks.com/no...Get Your Brand-New PATRIOT T-Shirts and Merch Here: https://store.turleytalks.com/Become a Turley Talks Insiders Club Member and get the first 7 days FREE!!: https://insidersclub.turleytalks.com/welcomeFight Back Against Big Tech Censorship! Sign-up here to discover Dr. Steve's different social media options …. but without the censorship! https://www.turleytalks.com/en/alternative-media.com Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review.Do you want to be a part of the podcast and be our sponsor? Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture!If you would like to get lots of articles on conservative trends make sure to sign-up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts.
In one corner, the welter weight challenger, Quantum Mechanics! In the other corner, the veteran, the heavyweight, the titan, destroyer of apples: GRAVITY! These guys just CAN'T GET ALONG. What The IF, asks our brilliant guest, Astronomer Brian Keating... they will NEVER come together? Is science DOOMED to failure? Was Einstein too fussy? What if it's all just a scrambled mess and DAT'S DA WAY IT IZ, YO! Dr. Keating takes us to the front line, where theorists and experimentalists hunker down in the trenches, trying to figure it ALL out. It's a titanic clash of cosmologies, bring your helmet! Brian Keating is a Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of physics at the Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences (CASS) in the Department of Physics at the University of California, San Diego. He is a public speaker, inventor, and an expert in the study of the universe's oldest light, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), using it to learn about the origin and evolution of the universe. Keating is a writer and podcaster and the best-selling author of one of Amazon Editors' ‘Best Non-fiction Books of All Time”, Losing the Nobel Prize. His newest book is "Into The Impossible: Lessons from Laureates to Stoke Curiosity, Spur Collaboration, and Ignite Imagination in Your Life and Career" in which the wisdom of nine Nobel Laureates has been distilled and compressed into concentrated, actionable data you can use. While each mind is unique, they are united in their emphasis that no one wins alone—and that science, and success itself, belongs to us all. Got an IF of your own? Want to have us consider your idea for a show topic? Send YOUR IF to us! Email us at feedback@whattheif.com and let us know what's in your imagination. No idea is too small, or too big! --- Want to support the show? Click a rating or add a review on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app! itunes.apple.com/podcast/id1250517051?mt=2&ls=1 Don't miss an episode! Subscribe at WhatTheIF.com Keep On IFFin', Philip, Matt & Gaby
#32 — Today's guest on The Microscopists is none other than Martin Chalfie of Columbia University. In this inspiring episode, we discover more about the work on the discovery and development of GFP that led to Martin sharing the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. We'll also hear about some of the early challenges that Martin faced in his career, why he temporarily gave up on science, his various jobs before applying for grad school—including selling dresses for his parents' manufacturing company—and his lockdown signature dish. Watch or Listen to all episodes of The Microscopists here: http://bit.ly/the-microscopists-pds
Guest: Abdulrazak Gurnah | Author and Nobel Prize Literature Prize 2021 John is joined by the winner of the 2021 Nobel laureate for literature. Abdulrazak Gurnah is a Tanzanian-born novelist and academic who is based in the United Kingdom. The Swedish Academy shared the news on October 7th. They praised “his uncompromising and compassionate penetration of the effects of colonialism and the fate of the refugees in the gulf between cultures and continents.” Gurnah has published 10 novels and is the 7th African to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, following Albert Camus (1957), Wole Soyinka (1986), Naguib Mahfouz (1988), Nardine Gordimer (1991), J.M Coetzee (2003), and Doris Lessing (2007). The win is landmark. Gurnah is only the fourth black person to win the prize in its 120-year history. Gurnah grew up on Zanzibar, off the coast of Tanzania, in the 1950s and 60s. Several of his novels deal with leaving, dislocation and exile. In Admiring Silence, the narrator, though he builds a life and family for himself in England, finds himself neither English nor any longer Zanzibari. Prominent themes of his literature include exile, displacement and belonging, alongside colonialism and broken promises on the part of the state. Most of his novels focus on telling stories about social and humanitarian issues, especially about war or crisis affected individuals living in the developing world that may not have the capability of telling their own stories to the world - or documenting their experiences. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
''Rule of law'' is the generally accepted description for how well a political system conforms to formal rules - rather than functioning through the whims of the most powerful social or political agents. For a society to be described as one functioning under rule of law - there must be rules and those rules must be equally applied to everyone in the society. Let us call this Letter of the Law. These rules are usually expressed through the constitution of a country and enforced through the courts. But simply having rules and enforcing them does not suffice in the making of the rule of law - and it is an incomplete (however accurate) conception of it. Some rules can be drafted in bad faith or with the express purpose of protecting the interest of the political elites responsible for governance. This is why many scholars have argued that the rule of law can only be said to exist in a state that functions under rules designed to protect the civil liberties (individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.) of the people living within its territory. Let us call this the Character or Spirit of the Law. The character of the law understood as the fulfilment of constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties is the most common standard by which governance is judged to conform or deviate from the rule of law. For example, countries that routinely violate the rights of citizens in whatever form cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law, even if it has a written constitution. Consideration of the character of the law is the context to understanding the work of my guest on this episode, Paul Gowder.He is a professor of law at NorthWestern university with a broad research interest and expertise. Paul departs from this common derivation of the character of the law as rooted in liberty - and argued that for the rule of law to be broadly applicable in different societies (not dependent on the political institutions and ethical ideals of any specific society) with varying cultures and traditions of governance, it must be rooted in Equality. To understand Paul's argument, I will briefly state two important aspects that set the tone for our conversation - this should not be taken as an exhaustive summary of his work and I encourage you to check out his website and book. The first is that the rule of law as a principle regulates the actions of the state (government), and it is not to be conflated with other rules that regulate the actions of citizens. This is such an important point because one of the most egregious expressions of the law is when a government uses it to oppress citizens. Secondly, Paul outlines three components of the rule of law based on equality as 1) regularity - the government can only use coercion when it is acting in ''good faith'' and under ''reasonable interpretation'' of rules that already exist and are specific to the circumstances. 2) publicity - the law has to be accessible to everyone without barriers (''officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, ...failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public"). 3) generality - the law must be equally applicable to all. Putting all these elements together gives us a rule of law regime where everyone is equal before the law, and the state does not wantonly abuse citizens or single out particular groups for systematic abuse.I enjoyed this conversation very much, and I want to thank Paul for talking to me. Thank you guys too for always listening, and for the other ways you support this project.TRANSCRIPTTobi; I greatly enjoyed your work on the rule of law. I've read your papers, I've read your book, and I like it very much. I think it's a great public service if I can say that because for a lot of time, I am interested in economic development and that is mostly the issue that this podcast talks about. And what you see in that particular conversation is there hasn't really been that much compatibility between the question of the rule of law or the laws that should regulate the actions of the state, and its strategy for economic development. Most of the time, you often see even some justification, I should say, to trample on rights in as much as you get development, you get high-income growth for it. And what I found in your work is, this does not have to be so. So what was your eureka moment in coming up with your concept, we are going to unpack a lot of the details very soon, but what motivated you to write this work or to embark on this project?Paul; Yeah, I think for me, part of the issue that really drives a lot of how I think about the rule of law and you know, reasons behind some of this work is really a difference between the way that those of us who think about human freedom and human equality, right? I think of it as philosophers, right. So they're philosophers and philosophers think about the ability of people to live autonomous lives, to sort of stand tall against their government, to live lives of respect, and freedom and equality. And that's one conversation. And so we see people, like, you know, Ronald Dworkin, thinking about what the rule of law can deliver to human beings in that sense. And then, you know, there's this entire development community, you know, the World Bank, lots of the US foreign policy, all of the rest of those groups of people and groups of ideas, talk about the rule of law a lot and work to measure the rule of law and invest immense amounts of money in promoting what they call the rule of law across the world. But mostly, it seems to be protecting property rights for multinational investment. And I mean, that makes some kind of sense, if you think that what the rule of law is for is economic development, is increasing the GDP of a country and integrating it into favourable international networks of trade. But if you think that it's about human flourishing, then you get a completely different idea of what the rule of law can be, and should be. And so this sort of really striking disjuncture between the two conversations has driven a lot of my work, especially recently, and especially reflecting even on the United States, I think that we can see how domestic rule of law struggles - which we absolutely have, I mean, look at the Trump administration, frankly, as revolving around this conflict between focusing on economics and focusing on human rights and human wellbeing.Tobi; It's interesting the polarization you're talking about. And one way that I also see it play out is [that] analyst or other stakeholders who participate in the process of nation-building in Africa, in Nigeria… a lot of us that care about development and would like to see our countries grow and develop and become rich, are often at opposite ends with other people in the civil society who are advocating for human rights, who are advocating for gender equality, who are advocating for so many other social justice issues. And it always seems like there's no meeting ground, you know, between those set of views, and I believe it does not have to be so. So one thing I'm going to draw you into quite early is one of the distinctions you made in so many of your papers and even your book is the difference between the conception of the rule of law that you are proposing versus the generally accepted notion of the rule of law based on individual liberty in the classical liberal tradition. I also think that's part of the problem, because talking about individual liberty comes with this heavy ideological connotation, and giving so many things that have happened in Africa with colonialism and so many other things, nobody wants any of that, you know. So you are proposing a conception of the rule of law that is based on equality. Tell me, how does that contrast with this popularly accepted notion of the rule of law [which is] based on individual liberty?Paul; So I think the way to think about it is to start with the notion of the long term stability of a rule of law system. And so here is one thing that I propose as a fact about legal orders. Ultimately, any kind of stable legal order that can control the powerful, that is, that can say to a top-level political leader, or a powerful multinational corporation, or whomever, no, you can't do this, this violates the law and make that statement stick depends on widespread collective mobilization, if only as a threat, right. And so it's kind of an analytic proposition about the nature of power, right? If you've got a top-level political leader who's in command of an army, and they want to do something illegal, it's going to require very broad-based opposition, and hence very broad-based commitment to the idea of leaders that follow the law in order to prevent the person in charge of an army from just casually violating it whenever they want. Okay, accept that as true, what follows from that? Well, what follows from that is that the legal system has to actually be compatible with the basic interests of all. And what that tends to mean and I think this is true, both historically, and theoretically, is leaving aside the philosophical conceptual difference between liberty and equality, which I'm not sure is really all that important. Like I think, ultimately, liberty and equality as moral ideas tend to blur together when you really unpack them. But practically speaking, any stable legal order that can control the powerful has to be compatible with the interests of a broad-based group of the human beings who participate in that legal order. And what that entails is favouring a way of thinking about the rule of law that focuses on being able to recruit the interests of even the worst off. In other words, one that's focused on equality, one that's focused on protecting the interests of the less powerful rather than a laissez-faire libertarian conception of the rule of law that tends to be historically speaking, compatible with substantial amounts of economic inequality, hyper-focus on ideas - like property rights, that support the long-standing interests of those who happen to be at the top of the economy, often against the interests of those that happened to be at the bottom of the economy, right. That's simply not a legal order that is sustainable in the long run. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way that this has played out in [the] United States history, in particular. I might have a book that's coming out in December that focuses on a historical account of the development of the rule of law, particularly in the United States. I mean, it's my own country. And so at some point, I had to get talked into writing that book. And we can see that in our history right at the get-go, you know, in the United States, at the very beginning, the rule of law dialogue tended to be focused on protecting the interests of wealthy elite property holders. And this actually played a major part, for example, in the United States' most grievous struggle, namely the struggle over slavery, because slaveholders really relied on this conception of the Rule of Law focusing on individual freedom and property rights to insist on a right to keep holding slaves against the more egalitarian idea that “hey, wait a minute, the enslaved have a right to be participants in the legal system as well.” And so we can see these two different conceptions of legality breaking the United States and breaking the idea of legal order in the United States right at the get-go. And we see this in country after country after country. You know, another example is Pinochet's Chile, which was the victim of [the] United States' economics focused rule of law promotion efforts that favoured the interests of property holders under this libertarian conception over the interests of ordinary citizens, democracy and mass interests. In other words, over the egalitarian conception, and again, you know, devolved into authoritarianism and chaos.Tobi; Yeah, nice bit of history there, but dialling all the way, if you'll indulge me... dialling all the way to the present, or maybe the recent past, of course; where I see another relevance and tension is development, and its geopolitical significance and the modernization projects that a lot of developed countries have done in so many poor and violent nations, you know, around the world. I mean, at the time when Africa decolonized, you know, a lot of the countries gravitated towards the communist bloc, socialism [and] that process was shunted, failed, you know, there was a wave of military coups all over the continent, and it was a really dark period.But what you see is that a lot of these countries, Nigeria, for example, democratized in 1999, a lot of other countries either before then or after followed suit. And what you see is, almost all of them go for American-style federal system, and American-style constitutional democracy, you know. And how that tradition evolved... I mean, there's a lot you can explain and unpack here... how that tradition evolved, we are told is the law has a responsibility to treat people as individuals. But you also find that these are societies where group identities are very, very strong, you know, and what you get are constitutions that are weakly enforced, impractical, and a society that is perpetually in struggle. I mean, you have a constitution, you have rules, and you have a government that openly disregards them, because the constitutional tradition is so divorced from how a lot of our societies evolve. And what I see you doing in your work is that if we divorce the rule of law from the ideal society, you know [like] some societies that we look up to, then we can come up with a set of practical propositions that the rule of law should fulfil, so walk me through how you resolve these tensions and your propositions?Paul; Well, so it's exactly what you just said, right? I mean, we have to focus on actual existing societies and the actual way that people organize their lives, right. And so here's the issue is, just like I said a minute ago, the rule of law fundamentally depends on people. And when I say people, I don't just mean elites. I don't just mean the wealthy, I don't just mean the people in charge of armies, and the people in charge of courthouses, right? Like the rule of law depends, number one, on people acting collectively to hold the powerful to the law. And number two, on people using the institutions that we say are associated with the rule of law. And so just as you describe, one sort of really common failure condition for international rule of law development efforts - and I don't think that this is a matter of sort of recipient countries admiring countries like the US, I think this is a matter of international organizations and countries like the US having in their heads a model of what the law looks like and sort of pressing it on recipient countries.But you know, when you build institutions that don't really resemble how the people in a country actually organize their social, political and legal lives, you shouldn't be surprised when nobody uses them. You shouldn't be surprised when they're ineffective. But I mean, I think that it's been fairly compared to a kind of second-generation colonialism in that sense where countries like the US and like Germany, attempt to export their legal institutions to other countries, without attending to the ways that the people in those countries already have social and legal resources to run their lives. And so I'll give you an example that's interesting from Afghanistan. So in Afghanistan, sort of post the 2000s invasion, and so forth, some researchers, mostly affiliated with the Carnegie Institution, found that the really effective rule of law innovations, the really effective interventions were ones that relied on existing social groups and existing structures of traditional authority. And so, you know, you could build a courthouse and like, ask a formal centralized state to do something, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't. But if you took local community leaders, local religious leaders, gave them training, and how to use the social capital they already have to help do things like adjudicate disputes, well, those would actually be effective, because they fit into the existing social organization that already exists. So I'll give you another example. I have a student who... I had… I just graduated an S.J.D student from Uganda who wrote a dissertation on corruption in Uganda. And one of the things that he advocated for I think, really sensibly was, “ okay, we've got this centralized government, but we've also got all of these traditional kingdoms, and the traditional kingdoms, they're actually a lot more legitimate in the sociological sense than the centralized government.People trust the traditional kingdoms, people rely on the traditional kingdoms for services, for integrating themselves into their society. And so one useful way of thinking about anti-corruption reforms is to try and empower the traditional kingdoms that already have legitimacy so that they can check the centralized government. And so that kind of work, I think, is where we have real potential to do global rule of law development without just creating carbon copies of the United States. Tobi; The process you describe, I will say, as promising as it may sound, what I want to ask you is how then do you ensure that a lot of these traditional institutions that can be empowered to provide reasonable checks to the power of the central government also fulfil the conditions of equality in their relation to the general public? Because even historically, a lot of these institutions are quite hierarchical...Paul; Oh, yeah... and I think in particular, women's rights are a big problem.Tobi; Yeah, yeah and there's a lot of abuses that go on locally, even within those communities, you know. We have traditional monarchies who exercise blanket rights over land ownership, over people's wives, over so many things, you know, so how then does this condition of equality transmit across the system?Paul; Yeah, no, I think that's the really hard question. I tell you right now that part of the answer is that those are not end-state processes. By this I mean that any realistic conception of how we can actually build effective rule of law institutions, but also genuinely incorporate everyone's interests in a society is going to accept that there's going to be a kind of dynamic tension between institutions.You know, sometimes we're going to have to use the centralized state to check traditional institutions. Sometimes we're going to have to use traditional institutions to check the centralized state. Elinor Ostrom, Nobel Prize-winning political scientist and her sort of the Bloomington School of Political Economy, emphasized for many years this idea that they called Polycentrism. That is the idea that multiple, overlapping governance organizations that are sort of forced to negotiate with one another, and forced to learn from one another, and really integrate with one another in this sort of complex tension-filled kind of way, actually turns out to be a really effective method of achieving what we might call good governance. And part of the reason is because they give a lot of different people, in different levels of [the] organization, ways to challenge one another, ways to demand inclusion in this decision, and let somebody else handle that decision, and participate jointly in this other decision. And so I think that neither the centralized state alone, nor traditional institutions alone is going to be able to achieve these goals. But I think efforts to integrate them have some promise. And India has done a lot of work, you know, sort of mixed record of success, perhaps, but has done a lot of work in these lines. I think, for example, of many of the ways that India has tried to promote the growth of Panchayats, of local councils in decision making, including in law enforcement, but at the same time, has tried to do things like promote an even mandate, the inclusion of women, the inclusion of Scheduled Castes, you know, the inclusion of the traditionally subordinated in these decision making processes. And as I said, they haven't had complete success. But it's an example of a way that the centralized state can both support traditional institutions while pushing those institutions to be more egalitarian.Tobi; Let's delve into the three conditions that you identified in your work, which any rule of law state should fulfil. And that is regularity, publicity, and generality. Kindly unpack those three for me.Paul; Absolutely. So regularity is...we can think of it as just the basic rule of law idea, right? Like the government obeys the law. And so if you think about this notion of regularity, it's... do we have a situation where the powerful are actually bound by legal rules? Or do we have a situation where, you know, they just do whatever they want? And so I'd say that, you know, there's no state that even counts as a rule of law state in the basic level without satisfying that condition, at least to some reasonable degree. The idea of publicity really draws on a lot of what I've already been saying about the recruitment of broad participation in the law. That is, when I say publicity, what I mean is that in addition to just officials being bound by the law, ordinary people have to be able to make use of the law in at least two senses. One, they have to be able to make use of the law to defend themselves. I call this the individualistic side of publicity, right? Like if some police officer wants to lock you up, the decision on whether or not you violated the law has to respond to your advocacy, and your ability to defend yourself in some sense. And then there's also the collective side of this idea of publicity, which is that the community as a whole has to be able to collectively enforce the boundaries of the legal system. And you know, we'd talk a lot more about that, I think that's really the most important idea. And then the third idea of generality is really the heart of the egalitarian idea that we've been talking about, which is that the law has to actually treat people as equals. And one thing that I think is really important about the way that I think about these three principles is that they're actually really tightly integrated. By tightly integrated, I mean you're only going to get in real-world states, regularity (that is, officials bound by the law) if you have publicity (that is, if you have people who aren't officials who actually can participate in the legal system and can hold officials to the law). We need the people to hold the officials in line. You're only going to get publicity if you have generality. That is, the people are only going to be motivated to use the legal system and to defend the legal system if the legal system actually treats them as equals. And so you really need publicity to have stable regularity, you really need generality to have stable publicity.Tobi; Speaking of regularity, when you say what constrains the coercive power of the state is when it is authorised by good faith and reasonable interpretation of pre-existing reasonably specific rules. That sounds very specific. And it's also Scalonian in a way, but a lot of people might quibble a bit about what is reasonable, you know, it sounds vague, right? So how would you condition or define reasonable in this sense, and I know you talked about hubris when you were talking about publicity. But is there a minimum level of responsibility for reasonability on the part of the citizen in relation to a state?Paul; That's, in a lot of ways, the really hard philosophical question, because one of the things that we know about law is that it is inherently filled with disagreement, right? Like our experience of the legal system and of every state that actually has something like the rule of law is that people radically disagree about the legal propriety of actions of the government. And so in some sense, this idea of reasonableness is kind of a cop-out. But it's a cop-out that is absolutely necessary, because there's no, you know, what [Thomas] Nagel called a view from nowhere. There's no view from nowhere from which we can evaluate whether or not on a day to day basis, officials are actually complying with the law in some kind of correct sense. But again, I think, you know, as you said, to some extent, that implies that some of the responsibility for evaluating this reasonableness criterion falls down to day to day politics, falls down to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Like, my conception of the rule of law is kind of sneakily a deeply democratic conception, because it recognizes given the existence of uncertainty as to what the law actually requires of officials both on a case by case basis. And, broadly speaking, the only way that we're ever going to be able to say, Well, you know, officials are more or less operating within a reasonable conception of what their legal responsibilities are, is if we empower the public at large to make these judgments. If we have institutions like here in the US, our jury trials, if we have an underlying backstop of civil society and politics, that is actively scrutinizing and questioning official action.Tobi; So speaking of publicity, which is my favorite...I have to say...Paul; Mine too. You could probably tell. Tobi; Because I think that therein lies the power of the state to get away with abusive use of its legitimacy, or its power, so to speak. When you say that officials have a responsibility to explain their application of the law, and a failure to do so commits hubris and terror against the public. So those two situations - hubris and terror, can you explain those to me a bit?Paul; Yeah. So these are really, sort of, moral philosophy ideas at heart, particularly hubris. The idea is there's a big difference, even if I have authority over you, between my exercising that authority in the form of commands and my exercising that authority in the form of a conversation that appeals to your reasoning capacity, right. So these days, I'm thinking about it in part with reference to... I'm going to go very philosophical with you here... but in reference to Kant's humanity formulation of the categorical imperative, sorry. But that is a sense in which if I'm making decisions about your conduct, and your life and, you know, affecting your fundamental interests, that when I express the reasons to you for those decisions, and when I genuinely listen to the reasons that you offer, and genuinely take those into account in my decision making process, I'm showing a kind of respect for you, which is consistent with the idea of a society of equals.As opposed to just hi, I'm wiser than you, and so my decision is, you know, you go this way, you violated the law, right? Are we a military commander? Or are we a judge? Both the military commander and the judge exercise authority, but they do so in very different ways. One is hierarchical, the other I would contend is not.Tobi; Still talking about publicity here, and why I love it so much is one important, should I say… a distinction you made quite early in your book is that the rule of law regulates the action of the state, in relation to its citizens.Paul; Yes.Tobi; Often and I would count myself among people who have been confused by that point as saying that the rule of law regulates the action of the society in general. I have never thought to make that distinction. And it's important because often you see that maybe when dealing with civil disobedience, or some kind of action that the government finds disruptive to its interests, or its preferences, the rule of law is often invoked as a way for governments to use sometimes without discretion, its enforcement powers, you know.So please explain further this distinction between the rule of law regulating the state-citizen relation versus the general law and order in the society. I mean, you get this from Trump, you get this from so many other people who say, Oh, we are a law and order society, I'm a rule of law candidate.Paul; Oh, yeah.Tobi; You cannot do this, you cannot do that. We cannot encourage the breakdown of law and order in the society. So, explain this difference to me.Paul; Absolutely, then this is probably the most controversial part of my account of the rule of law. I think everybody disagrees with this. I sort of want to start by talking about how I got to this view. And I think I really got to this view by reflecting on the civil rights movement in the United States in particular, right. Because, you know, what we would so often see, just as you say about all of these other contexts, is we would see officials, we would see judges - I mean, there are, you know, Supreme Court cases where supreme court justices that are normally relatively liberal and sympathetic, like, you know, Justice Hugo Black scolding Martin Luther King for engaging in civil disobedience on the idea that it threatens the rule of law. It turns out, and this is something that I go into in the book that's coming out in December... it turns out that King actually had a sophisticated theory of when it was appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and when it wasn't. But for me, reflecting on that conflict in particular, and reflecting on the fact that the same people who were scolding peaceful lunch-counter-sit-ins for threatening the rule of law and, you know, causing society to descend into chaos and undermining property rights and all the rest of that nonsense, were also standing by and watching as southern governors sent police in to beat and gas and fire hose and set dogs on peaceful protests in this sort of completely new set of like, totally unbounded explosions of state violence. And so it seems to me sort of intuitively, like these can't be the same problem, right, like ordinary citizens, doing sit-ins, even if they're illegal, even if we might have some reason to criticize them, it can't be the same reason that we have to criticize Bull Connor for having the cops beat people. And part of the reason that that's the case, and this is what I call the Hobbesian property in the introduction to the rule of law in the real world...part of the reason is just the reality of what states are, right? Like, protesters don't have tanks and police dogs, and fire hoses, right? Protesters typically don't have armies. If they do, then we're in a civil war situation, not a rule of law situation, the state does have all of those things. And so one of the features of the state that makes it the most appropriate site for this talk about the rule of law is this the state has, I mean, most modern states have, at least on a case by case basis, overwhelming power. And so we have distinct moral reasons to control overwhelming power than we do to control a little bit of legal disobedience, right, like overwhelming power is overwhelming. It's something that has a different moral importance for its control. Then the second idea is at the same time what I call the [...] property... is the state makes claims about its use of power, right? Like ordinary people, when they obey the law or violate the law, they don't necessarily do so with reference to a set of ideas that they're propagating about their relationship to other people. Whereas when modern states send troops in to beat people up, in a way what they're doing is they're saying that they're doing so in all of our names, right, particularly, but not exclusively in democratic governments. There's a way in which the state represents itself as acting on behalf of the political community at large. And so it makes sense to have a distinctive normative principle to regulate that kind of power.Tobi; I know you sort of sidestepped this in the book, and maybe it doesn't really fit with your overall argument. But I'm going to push you on that topic a bit. So how does the rule of law state as a matter of institutional design then handles... I know you said that there are separate principles that can be developed for guiding citizen actions, you know...Paul; Yes. Tobi; I mean, let's be clear that you are not saying that people are free to act however they want.Paul; I'm not advocating anarchy.Tobi; Exactly. So how does the rule of law state then handle citizens disagreements or conflicting interests around issues of social order? And I'll give you an example. I mentioned right at the beginning of our conversation what happened in Nigeria in October 2020. There's a unit of the police force that was created to handle violent crimes. Needless to say that they went way beyond their remit and became a very notoriously abusive unit of the police force. Picking up people randomly, lock them up, extort them for money. And there was a situation where a young man was murdered, and his car stolen by this same unit of the police force and young people all over the country, from Lagos to Port Harcourt to Abuja, everywhere, felt we've had enough, right, and everybody came out in protest. It was very, very peaceful, I'd say, until other interests, you know, infiltrated that action. Paul; Right. Tobi; But what I noticed quite early in that process was that even within the spirits of that protests, there were disagreements between citizens - protesters blocking roads, you know, versus people who feel well, your protest should not stop me from going to work, you know, and so many other actions by the protesters that other people with, maybe not conflicting interests, but who have other opinions about strategy or process feel well, this is not right. This is not how to do this. This is not how you do this, you know, and I see that that sort of provided the loophole, I should say, for the government to then move in and take a ruthlessly violent action. You know, there was a popular tollgate in Lagos in the richest neighbourhood in Lagos that was blocked for 10 days by the protesters. And I mean, after this, the army basically moved in and shot people to death. Today, you still see people who would say, Oh, well, that's tragic. But should these people have been blocking other people from going about their daily business? So how does the rule of law regulate issues of social order vis-a-vis conflict of interest?Paul; So I think this is actually a point in favour of my stark distinction between state action and social action as appropriate for thinking about the rule of law. Because when you say that the state used...what I still fundamentally think of as like minor civil disobedience...so, like blocking some roads, big deal! Protesters block roads all the time, right, like protesters have blocked roads throughout human history, you know, like, sometimes it goes big, right? Like they love blocking roads in the French Revolution. But oftentimes, it's just blocking... so I blocked roads.I participated in, you know, some protests in the early 2000s. I participated in blocking roads in DC, right, like, fundamentally "big deal!" is the answer that the state ought to give. And so by saying to each other and to the government, when we talk about the rule of law, we mean, the state's power has to be controlled by the law, I think that gives us a language to say... even though people are engaging in illegal things, the state still has to follow legal process in dealing with it, right.The state still has to use only the level of force allowed by the law to arrest people. The state can't just send in the army to shoot people. And the principle that we appeal to is this principle of the rule of law. Yeah, maintaining the distinction between lawbreaking by ordinary people and law-breaking by the state helps us understand why the state shouldn't be allowed to just send in troops whenever people engage in a little bit of minor lawbreaking and protests.Tobi; So how does the law... I mean, we are entering a bit of a different territory, how does the law in your conception handles what... well, maybe these are fancy definitions, but what some people will call extraordinary circumstances. Like protests with political interests? Maybe protesters that are funded and motivated to unseat an incumbent government? Or in terrorism, you know, where you often have situations where there are no laws on paper to deal with these sort of extraordinary situations, you know, and they can be extremely violent, they can be extremely strange, they're usually things that so many societies are not equipped to handle. So how should the rule of law regulate the action of the state in such extraordinary circumstances?Paul; Yeah, so this is the deep problem of the rule of law, you know, this is why people still read Carl Schmitt, right, because Carl Schmitt's whole account of executive power basically is, hey, wait a minute emergencies happen, and when emergencies happen, liberal legal ideas like the rule of law dropout, and so fundamentally, you just have like raw sovereignty. And that means that the state just kind of does what it must. Right. So here's what I feel about Schmitt. One is, maybe sometimes that's true, right? And again, I think about the US context, because I'm an American and you know, I have my own history, right? And so in the US context, I think, again, about, Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, right.Like Abraham Lincoln broke all kinds of laws in the Civil War. Like today, we'd call some of the things that he did basically assuming dictatorial power in some respects. I mean, he did that in the greatest emergency that the country had ever faced and has ever faced since then. And he did it in a civil war. And sometimes that happens, and I think practically speaking, legal institutions have a habit of not standing in the way in truly dire situations like that. But, and here's why I want to push back against Carl Schmitt... but what a legal order can then do is after the emergency has passed...number one, the legal order can be a source of pressure for demanding and accounting of when the emergency has passed, right. And so again, I think of the United States War on Terror, you know, we still have people in United States' custody imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.September 11 2001, was almost 20 years ago. It's actually 20 years ago and a month, and we still have people locked up in Guantanamo Bay. That's insane. That's completely unjustifiable. And one of the jobs of the legal system is to pressure the executive to say, okay, buddy, is the emergency over yet? No, really, we think that the emergency is over yet. I want reasons, right, publicity again, I want an explanation from you of why you think the emergency is still ongoing. And the legal system can force the executive to be accountable for the claim that the emergency is still ongoing. That's number one. Number two is that law tends to be really good at retroactively, sort of, retrofitting things into legal order, right. And so again, I think about the Civil War. You know, after the US Civil War, lots of civil wars, sorry. American-centric person trying to fight against it. But after the US Civil War, you know, the courts took a pause. And then we have a lot of cases where they took a lot of the things that Lincoln did, they said, okay, some of them at least were illegal, some of them were legal, but only under very specific circumstances. And so they actually built legal doctrine that took into account the emergency that Lincoln faced, and then later wars, such as in the Second World War, the courts took the lessons from the experience in the American Civil War, and used that to impose more constraints. So to bring it about that the emergency actions that Franklin Roosevelt took in the Second World War weren't completely sui generis, sort of like right acts of sovereignty, but were regulated by legal rules created during the Civil War, and after the Civil War. And again, they weren't perfect, right? You know, during the Second World War, the United States interned Japanese Americans, you know, again, sort of completely lawless, completely unjustifiable, but you know, it's an ongoing process. The point is that the legal system is always... the law is always reactive in emergencies. But the reactive character of the law can nonetheless be used as a way to control and channel sovereign power, even in these sort of Schmittian emergency situations.Tobi; So two related questions, your work is interdisciplinary, because you try to blend a lot of social science into legal philosophy. But speaking of legal order and your primary profession, I mean.. for the sake of the audience parties into a lot of other cool stuff, I'm going to be putting up his website in the show notes. But speaking of legal order, and the legal profession, why is so much of the legal profession fascinated with what I would say the rule by law, as opposed to the rule of law. A lot of what you get from lawyers, even some law professors in some situations is [that] the law is the law, and you have to obey it. And even if you are going to question it, however unjustified it may seem, you still have to follow some processes that maybe for ordinary citizens are not so accessible or extremely costly, you know, which I think violate regularity, right, the way you talk about it retrospective legislation, and so many other things. So why is the legal profession so fascinated with the law, as opposed to justification for the law?Paul; Yeah, I think that question kind of answers itself, right. It's unfortunate... I mean, it's sort of natural but it's unfortunate that the people who most influence our dialogue about the way that we, you know, live in [the] society together with a state, namely by organizing ourselves with law happen to be people who are the specialists who find it easiest, right? And so I think the simple answer is right on this one, at least in countries like the United States, I'm not sure how true this is in other countries. But in the United States, the domination of legal discourse by lawyers necessarily means that the sort of real practical, real-world ways in which ordinary people find interacting with anything legal to be difficult, oppressive, or both just aren't in view, right? This is hard for them to understand.But I think in the US, one of the distortions that we've had is that we have an extremely hierarchical legal profession, right. So we have very elite law schools, and those very elite law schools - one of which I teach at - tend to predominantly produce lawyers who primarily work for wealthy corporations and sort of secondarily work for the government. Those lawyers tend to be the ones that end up at the top of the judiciary, that end up in influential positions in academia, that end up, you know, in Congress. The lawyers that, you know, see poor people, see people of subordinated minority groups and see the very different kinds of interactions with the legal system that people who are worse off have, that see the way that the law presents itself, not as a thing that you can use autonomously to structure your own life. But as a kind of external imposition, that sort of shows up and occasionally inflicts harm on you. Those lawyers aren't the ones who end up in our corridors of power. And it's very unfortunate, it's a consequence of the hierarchical nature of, at least in the US, our legal profession. And I suspect it's similar in these other countries as well.Tobi; In your opinion, what's the... dare I say the sacrosanct and objective - those are rigid conditions sorry - expression of the rule of law? The current general conception of the rule accedes to the primacy of the Constitution, right. I've often found that problematic because in some countries you find constitutional provisions that are egregious, and in other cases, you find lawyers going into court to challenge certain actions that they deem unjust, or that are truly unjust on the basis of the same constitution. Right. So what do you think is the most practical expression of the rule of law? Is it written laws? Is it the opinion of the judges? Is it how officials hold themselves accountable? What's the answer?Paul; So I think I'm gonna like sort of twist this a little bit and interpret that question is like, how do you know the extent to which the rule of law exists in a particular place? And my answer is, can ordinary people look officials in the eye, right, you know... if you're walking down the street, and you see a police officer, you know, are you afraid? Or can you walk past them and confidently know you're doing nothing wrong so there's nothing really effectively but they can do to you, right? If you're called in to deal with some kind of bureaucratic problem, like the tax office, can you trust that you exist in a relationship of respect? You know, can you trust that when you show them, actually here are my receipts, I really did have that expense, that that's going to be taken seriously? You know, if people, everybody, feels like they can stand tall, and look government officials in the eye, then to that extent, I think that the rule of law exists in a society.Tobi; Final question, what's the coolest idea you're working on right now?Paul; Oh, gosh. So like I said, I've got two books under contract right now. The first book is a history/theoretical constitutional law account of the development and existing state of the rule of law in the United States. The second book, which I'm more excited about, because it's the one that I plan to write this year, but it's also a lot harder, is I'm trying to take some of the governance design ideas that we see from the notion of rule of law development, and others such as governance development things and apply them to Private Internet platforms, right? Like, basically to Facebook. Um, I was actually involved in some of the work, not at a super high level, but I was involved in some of the work in designing or doing the research for designing Facebook's oversight board. And I'm kind of trying to expand on some of those ideas and think about, you know, if we really believe that private companies, especially in these internet platforms are doing governance right now, can we take lessons from how the rest of the world and how actual governments and actual states have developed techniques of governing behaviour in highly networked, large scale super-diverse environments and use those lessons in the private context? Maybe we can maybe we can't I'm not sure yet. Hopefully, by the time I finish the book, I'll know.Tobi; That's interesting. And I'll ask you this, a similar, I'll say a related situation is currently happening in Nigeria right now, where the President's Twitter handle or username, tweeted something that sounded like a thinly veiled threat to a particular ethnic group. And lots of people who disagreed with that tweet reported the tweet, and Twitter ended up deleting the tweet in question, which high-level officials in Nigeria found extremely offensive, and going as far as to assert their sovereign rights over Twitter and say, well, it may be your platform, but it is our country and we are banning you. How would you adjudicate such a situation? I mean, there's the question of banning Donald Trump from the platform and so many other things that have come up.Paul; Yeah, I mean, it's hard, right? So there are no easy answers to these kinds of problems. I think, ultimately, what we have to do is we have to build more legitimate ways to make these decisions. I mean, here are two things that we cannot do, right?Number one is we can't just let government officials, especially when, you know, as with the Donald Trump example, and so many others, the government officials are the ones who are engaging in the terrible conduct make these decisions. Number two is we also just can't let a bunch of people sitting in the Bay Area in California make those decisions. Like, ultimately, this is on, you know, property in some abstracted sense of like the shareholders of these companies. But we cannot simply allow a bunch of people in San Francisco, in Menlo Park, and you know, Cupertino and Mountain View, and all of those other little tech industry cities that have no understanding of local context to make the final decisions here. And so what we need to do is we need to build more robust institutions to include both global and local and affected countries, grassroots participation, in making these decisions. And I'm trying to sort of sketch out what the design for those might look like. But, you know, talk to me in about a year. And hopefully, I'll have a book for you that will actually have a sketch.Tobi; You bet I'm going to hold you to that. So, a year from now. So still on the question of ideas, because the show is about ideas. What's the one idea you'd like to see spread everywhere?Paul; Oh, gosh, you should have warned me in advance... that... I'm going to go back to what I said at the very beginning about the rule of law. Like I think that the rule of law depends on people, right? Like there is no such thing as the rule of law without a society and a legal system that genuinely is equal and advantageous to ordinary people enough to be the kind of thing that people actually support. Like ordinary people... if you cannot recruit the support of ordinary people for your legal political and social system, you cannot have the rule of law. That's true whether you're a developing country, that's true whether you're the United States, right. Like I think, you know, part of the reason that we got Donald Trump in the United States, I think, is because our legal system and with it our economy, and all the rest are so unequal in this country, that ordinary voters in the United States didn't see any reason to preserve it. Right and so when this lunatic and I mean, I'm just going to be quite frank here and say Donald Trump is a complete lunatic, right... when this lunatic is running for office who shows total disregard for existing institutions, like complete willingness to casually break the law. An electorate that actually was full of people who felt (themselves) treated respectfully and protected and supported by our legal and political institutions would have sent that guy packing in a heartbeat. But because the American people don't have that experience right now, I think that's what made us vulnerable to somebody like Donald Trump.Tobi; Thank you so much, Paul. It's been so fascinating talking to you.Paul; Thank you. This has been a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm happy to come back in a year when I've got the platform thing done.Tobi; Yeah, I'm so looking forward to that. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe
Today is the birthday of the inventor of dynamite, Alfred Nobel (1833). Nobel, to prevent his legacy from being one of death, established the Nobel Prizes to celebrate humankind's greatest achievements.
When labor economist David Card began studying the minimum wage in the 1990's, conventional wisdom, and economic theory, held that an increase in the minimum wage would lead to job loss. But in a move that revolutionized the way economics could be done, Card and his colleague, Alan Krueger, compared the real world data from a state that raised the minimum wage to one that didn't, and found that the increase didn't kill jobs. This “natural experiment” allowed Card to study the effects of policy changes or chance events in a way similar to clinical trials in medicine. Another natural experiment found that an influx of immigrants did not lower the wages of low-skilled native born workers. Forum talks with Berkeley professor David Card about his work, the “credibility revolution” in economics that it spawned and winning, with Stanford professor Guido Imbens and Joshua Angrist from MIT, the Nobel Prize in economics.
A preeminent physicist unveils a field-defining theory of the origins and purpose of life. Why are we alive? Most things in the universe aren't. And everything that is alive traces back to things that, puzzlingly, weren't. For centuries, the scientific question of life's origins has confounded us. But in Every Life Is on Fire, physicist Jeremy England argues that the answer has been under our noses the whole time, deep within the laws of thermodynamics. England explains how, counterintuitively, the very same forces that tend to tear things apart assembled the first living systems. But how life began isn't just a scientific question. We ask it because we want to know what it really means to be alive. So England, an ordained rabbi, uses his theory to examine how, if at all, science helps us find purpose in a vast and mysterious universe. Get the book: https://www.amazon.com/Every-Life-Fire-Thermodynamics-Explains/dp/1541699017 LinkedIn Jobs is the best platform for finding the right candidate to join your business this fall. It's the largest marketplace for job seekers in the world, and it has great search features so that you can find candidates with any hard or soft skills that you need. And now, you can post a job for free. Just visit linkedin.com/impossible to post a job for free. Audible is hands-down my favorite platform for consuming podcasts, fiction and nonfiction books! With an Audible membership, you can download titles and listen offline, anytime, anywhere. The Audible app is free and can be installed on all smartphones and tablets. You can listen across devices without losing your spot. Audible members don't have to worry about using their credits right away. You can keep your credits for up to a year—and use them to binge on a whole series if you'd like! And if you're not loving your selection, you can simply swap it for another.Start your free 30-day trial today: Audible.com/impossible or text “impossible” to 500-500 00:00:00 Intro 00:01:31 The story of the title and cover 00:05:47 How do you reconcile the major differences in the interpretation of a creator between Judaism and Christianity? 00:12:11 Why are there so many Jewish and Atheist Nobel Prize winners? 00:22:13 What is life? 00:25:52 What was your impression of Schrodinger's monograph; What is Life? 00:31:08 Why is theremodynamics so relevant to the question of life? 00:36:58 Are there new dissipative adaptation "probes"/experiments that should be done? 00:47:45 Is there a Darwinian principle involved in the thermodynamics of microsystems? 00:56:14 What are the new trends in Biophysics research? 01:17:09 On the implausibility of random biogenesis and evolution. 01:04:54 Why does the dissipation of heat produce structure and order? 01:06:37 Talk about your Jewish Journey. 01:16:16 Is the existence of God an important presence in your life? 01:37:45 What is consciousness?
This month is more Back 2 Basics as we discuss the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment. In addition to the classic version, we contemplate thought experiments, photonic analogs, spin pedagogy, cigar smoke, Nobel Prizes, interpretations of quantum mechanics, God, and approximately infinite universes. Did I miss anything?
In this episode Dan & Henry discuss; Nobel Prize beefs, more fun things to do in Cuba, and painting chicken coops. Content Warning: frank discussion of sensitive subjects.
The class struggle and the fight to eradicate COVID-19 / Huge opposition from television and movie workers as union calls off strike and pushes sellout deal / Nobel Prize committee hails US-aligned journalists, silent on Assange
❗您的一杯咖啡錢 = 我們遠大的目標！捐款支持我們：https://pse.is/3jknpx
A Nobel Prize winner joins us. And, what does the American Heart Association have to say about salt and aspirin?
Garett Reppenhagen is the son of a Vietnam Veteran and grandson of two World War II Veterans. He served in the U.S. Army as a Cavalry/Scout Sniper in the 1st Infantry Division. Garett completed a deployment in Kosovo on a 9-month peace-keeping mission and a combat tour in Baquaba, Iraq. Garett gained an Honorable Discharge in May of 2005 and began working as a veterans advocate and a dedicated activist. He served as the Chairman of the Board of Iraq Veterans Against the War, worked in Washington, DC, as a lobbyist and as Vice President of Public Relations for the Nobel Prize winning Veterans For America, as a Program Director for Veterans Green Jobs and was the Rocky Mountain Director for Vet Voice Foundation. Garett lives in Colorado where he serves as the Executive Director for Veterans For Peace. In this episode Ethan and Garett discuss what peace means, how Garett got involved in the military and how his mindset shifted as he got out. They also dig into love, activism and what safety looks like as we push beyond our current political and economic climate. Find Garett at veteransforpeace.org and check out People Over Pentagon as discussed in the episode Join the Love Extremists at www.extremist.love and on Clubhouse at www.joinclubhouse.com/club/loveextremists Find Ethan on Instagram at www.instagram.com/ethanlipsitz
Anna and Annie discuss the Nobel Prize for Literature winner, Abdulrazak Gurner. Our book of the week is Assembly by Natasha Brown. A short novel about a Black woman's experience in modern Britain, this has been described as 'diamond-sharp, timely and urgent' (The Observer) and 'the literary debut of the summer' (Vogue) and is short-listed for the Goldsmiths Prize 2021. We loved this small gem. Coming up: Matrix by Lauren Groff. Follow us! Email: booksonthegopodcast@gmail.com Facebook: Books On The Go Instagram: @abailliekaras and @mr_annie Twitter: @abailliekaras and @mister_annie Litsy: @abailliekaras Credits Artwork: Sasha Wilkosz
In honor of Nobel prize season, we remember some people whose important work in the past has been overlooked by the Nobel committee.Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/whythisuniverse
On today's episode: NASA and SpaceX are smashing rockets into asteroids to DEFEND PLANET EARTH! A new app is effective in helping people deal with arachnophobia. It's nobel prize time! Let's talk about them winners! All that and more today on All Around Science. LINKS: ARTICLE: NASA to crash DART spacecraft into Dimorphos asteroid in hopes of changing its orbit to test planetary defense systems ARTICLE: Augmented reality helps tackle fear of spiders THEME MUSIC by Andrew Allen https://twitter.com/KEYSwithSOUL http://andrewallenmusic.com
This week in the news The Beanies talk about delays in post getting to your house, La Niña bringing rain this summer, and the Nobel Prize winners! Follow us on Facebook or Instagram: https://www.facebook.com/TheBeaniesAus www.instagram.com/thebeaniesaus See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Robin explores rising campaigns in the US and abroad to ban books and censor reporters, and revisits crusading Filipina journalist Maria Ressa, who was a prophetic special guest on the podcast in May 2018, and who has now just won the Nobel Prize.
One of Bob Dylan's creative superpowers is to not be afraid of anything. His fearlessness as an artist means constant reinvention, forever changes in repertoire and style, pushing through low ebbs of popularity and ignoring minor blips of success like the Nobel Prize for Literature, responding to his own personal or spiritual concerns in private when celebrity demands constant exposure, and simply staying relevant and outlasting nearly all of his peers. But things do haunt him. They always have. There are ghosts in his machine. What are they? And should they scare us too? Welcome to Bob Dylan's Halloween Hootenanny! This is Episode 3 of Season 2 of Bob Dylan: About Man and God and Law. Check out the forthcoming book About Man and God and Law: The Spiritual Wisdom of Bob Dylan and stayed tuned for more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We currently have enough fossil fuels to progressively transition off of them, says climate campaigner Tzeporah Berman, but the industry continues to expand oil, gas and coal production and exploration. With searing passion and unflinching nerve, Berman reveals the delusions keeping true progress from being made -- and offers a realistic path forward: the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. Learn more about the global initiative for transparency and accountability in phasing out fossil fuels forever, supported by the Dalai Lama, Nobel Prize laureates and many more.
Netflix's "Squid Game" became its most streamed original show ever this week. It's popularity may lie in its handling of cultural touchstones in South Korea, and a more universal satire of capitalism. Professor Seung-hwan Shin weighs in. And, David Card shared the 2021 Nobel Prize in economics this week with two other economists. Card talks about his studies on the minimum wage, as well as the current state of labor — strikes, resignations and "stolen" jobs.
Juan & Terence discuss the winners of the 2021 Nobel prize in physics and why they were the winners. Complex systems, Replica symmetry breaking, and spin glasses are discussed during the episode.
The labor economist and UC Berkeley professor of economics, who won the 2021 Nobel Prize in economics, talks about why his research on the economics of the minimum wage, immigration and education was so controversial — and how it continues to be today. Listen to the episode and read a transcript on Berkeley News. (UC Berkeley photo by Keegan Houser) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Its that time of year again! Sit down with Priyankaa and Lexus as they discuss the latest Nobel Prizes in Medicine, Chemistry and Physics as well as giving you the science news of the week and the woman in science of the week (she's related to one of the laureates this year!) Woman of the week: Christiane Volhard (1995 Nobel Prize winner) Science family tree: https://academictree.org Timepoints 14:20-Medicine Prize 31:30-Chemistry Prize 42:14-Physics Prize Sources: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2021/advanced-information/ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2021/advanced-information/
This week Cameron Abadi and Adam Tooze discuss the economists who won the Nobel Prize—for helping make the science of economics…more scientific.Also: Whatever happened to cap and trade? The strategy for stemming climate change is largely dead in the United States but surging in Europe. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In 1992, the science Magazine named Nitric Oxide (NO) the molecule of the year. In 1998, a Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to three scientists responsible for discovering this molecule.Nitric Oxide regulates oxygen and nutrients delivery to our cells. It is also a signaling molecule regulating cellular communication. Additionally, it plays a vital role in our immune system.Loss of Nitric Oxide production in the body is one of the earliest events in the onset and progression of most chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease.Naturally, our body should produce enough Nitric Oxide. But due to factors such as aging, oxidative stress, high sugar diet, lack of physical exercise, smoking, etc., our ability to produce enough is limited, which leads to chronic illness.To understand more about this topic, I have the world's leading authority and expert in Nitric Oxide biochemistry, Dr. Nathan Bryan.Dr. Bryan has made many seminal discoveries in the field of Nitric Oxide, which has resulted in multiple patents. The product technology resulting from his discoveries and inventions has vastly improved patient care worldwide.Let's dive in and learn why we should be saying yes to N.O. to reach ultimate health!Key Takeaways- Meet Dr. Nathan Bryan (00:28)- What is Nitric Oxide (02:46)- Difference between Nitric Oxide and Nitrous Oxide (04:36)- How to know if you have proper levels of Nitric Oxide (05:08)- How to maximize our nitric oxide production (09:05)- Two things that are messing your Nitric Oxide levels (10:53)- The foods that you should be eating (13:45)- Lifestyle changes to improve the production of nitric oxide (18:57)- Why you need to stop using mouthwash (20:15)- Relationship between nitric oxide deficiency and Covid (24:48)Additional ResourcesConnect with Dr. Nathan Bryan:WebsiteTwitter-----ditchthequickfix.com/Do you want to improve your physical health? Learn More Here---------You can find the podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.If you haven't already, please rate and review the podcast on Apple Podcasts!
One of Bob Dylan's creative superpowers is to not be afraid of anything. His fearlessness as an artist means constant reinvention, forever changes in repertoire and style, pushing through low ebbs of popularity and ignoring minor blips of success like the Nobel Prize for Literature, responding to his own personal or spiritual concerns in private when celebrity demands constant exposure, and simply staying relevant and outlasting nearly all of his peers. But things do haunt him. They always have. There are ghosts in his machine. What are they? And should they scare us too? Welcome to Bob Dylan's Halloween Hootenanny! This is Episode 3 of Season 2 of Bob Dylan: About Man and God and Law. Check out the forthcoming book About Man and God and Law: The Spiritual Wisdom of Bob Dylan and stayed tuned for more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
❗您的一杯咖啡錢 = 我們遠大的目標！捐款支持我們：https://pse.is/3jknpx
One of this year's winners of the Nobel Prize in economics, David Card, co-authored the notorious Card-Krueger study of the minimum wage, which appeared to turn the conventional economic wisdom about the effects of minimum wages on its head. Peter Klein of Baylor University joins us to discuss what's gone wrong with economics such that we've reached the point where economists, rather than describing the constraints on what politics can accomplish, have become cheerleaders for the state.
In today's episode for 14th October 2021, we see why Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens were awarded the Nobel Prize in economics
The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it will lift travel restrictions at Canadian and Mexican borders to tourists, shoppers and casual visitors who can show proof of vaccination. This will boost business on the Mexican side of the border, as people are free again to drive into Mexico from the US. And, the European Union pledged 1 billion euros in aid to Afghanistan on Tuesday, earmarked for humanitarian assistance and stabilization efforts for Afghanistan and its neighbors. Also, we speak to Nobel Prize-winning author Abdulrazak Gurnah about his commitment to telling migrants stories of injustice and cruelty. Gurnah says the ongoing trauma of colonialism and themes of exile and belonging continues to inform his literary work.
The Nobel Prize & the Floor-Maid A doctor, touring Tewksbury Institute, accidentally collided with an elderly floor maid. To cover the awkward moment he asked, “How long have you worked here?” “I’ve worked here almost since the place opened,” the maid replied. “What can you tell me about the history of this place?” he asked.… Continue reading Teach only kindness The post Teach only kindness appeared first on Mahmood Habib Masjid and Islamic Centre - We came to give, not to take..
Topics covered include astrophysics (theoretical and observational), the big bang theory, string theory, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, cosmic Darwinism, black holes, the hierarchy of the sciences, intellectual variety seeking, evolutionary theory, political tribalism, woke physicists, UFOs, and the importance of play. _______________________________________ Dr. Brian Keating is Distinguished Professor of Physics at UCSD. He is the author Losing the Nobel Prize (2018), and the host of the Into the Impossible podcast: https://www.youtube.com/c/DrBrianKeating. _______________________________________ Note: At the time that I had taped this clip, I had not yet signed the termination contract with PodTV. Hence, the segment between 77:52 to 78:40 is no longer relevant in that this chat was never licensed to them, but the gist of my point holds. _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This chat was posted earlier today (October 13, 2021) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1316: https://youtu.be/Mk2NJyfoAYc _______________________________________ The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (paperback edition) was released on October 5, 2021. Order your copy now. https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.ca/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________
Topics covered include astrophysics (theoretical and observational), the big bang theory, string theory, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, cosmic Darwinism, black holes, the hierarchy of the sciences, intellectual variety seeking, evolutionary theory, political tribalism, woke physicists, UFOs, and the importance of play. _______________________________________ Dr. Brian Keating is Distinguished Professor of Physics at UCSD. He is the author Losing the Nobel Prize (2018), and the host of the Into the Impossible podcast: https://www.youtube.com/c/DrBrianKeating. _______________________________________ Note: At the time that I had taped this clip, I had not yet signed the termination contract with PodTV. Hence, the segment between 77:52 to 78:40 is no longer relevant in that this chat was never licensed to them, but the gist of my point holds. _______________________________________ If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad _______________________________________ This chat was posted earlier today (October 13, 2021) on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1316: https://youtu.be/Mk2NJyfoAYc _______________________________________ The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense (paperback edition) was released on October 5, 2021. Order your copy now. https://www.amazon.com/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.ca/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parasitic-Mind-Infectious-Killing-Common/dp/162157959X _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense. _______________________________________
Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: Novel Follow us on social media!• Central European University: @CEU• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentreSubscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! BibliographyBurg, A (2018). In Days to Come["A New Hope for Israel"]. Israel: Nation BooksBurg, A. (2016). The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From Its Ashes. UnitedStates: St. Martin's Publishing Group.Burg, A (2012). Very Near to You: Human Readings of the Torah, Jerusalem,Israel: Gefen Pub House.Elkana, Yehuda (1988), ‘The Need to Forget'. Ha'aretz.Hirschman, A (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,Organizations, and States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.GlossaryJewish Agency (for Israel)The Jewish Agency since 1929 provides the global framework for Jewish people, ensures global Jewish safety, strengthens Jewish identity and connects Jews to Israel and one another. Source:Benjamin NetanyahuBenjamin Netanyahu, Israeli politician and diplomat who served as Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations in the ‘80s and twice as his country's prime minister (1996–99 and 2009–21) and was the longest-serving prime minister since Israel's independence. Source:Nation LawIsrael as the Nation-State of the Jewish People informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill, is an Israeli Basic Law largely symbolic and declarative in nature,passed by the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) on 19 July 2018. The legislation declares that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and that “the right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” It establishes Hebrew as the official language of Israel and downgrades Arabic to a language with “special status”. The law also asserts that Jewish settlement—without specifying where—is a national value, and promises to encourage and advance settlement efforts. Source:Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)The OPT consists of the West bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza. Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza during the 1967 war. The launch of the 1993 Oslo peace process between Israel and the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Source:Targeted prevention or targeted killings by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF): Targeted prevention occurred in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict against persons accused of carrying out or planning attacks on Israeli targets in the West Bank or inside Israel. Source:Yehuda Elkana (1934-2012)Yehuda Elkana was a historian and philosopher of science, the third President and Rector of Central European University (1999-2009), an Auschwitz survivor who became an international scholar and public intellectual with a deep commitment to open society. He was an academic pioneer, leading CEU for nearly half the life of the University. Source:Green LineIsrael's territory according to the agreed 1949 Armistice Demarcation Line encompassed about 78% of the Mandate area, while the other parts, namely the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. The 1949 Armistice Lines between Israel and its Arab neighbors came to be known as The Green Line. Source:'73 WarYom Kippur War, also called the October War, the Ramadan War, the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973, or the Fourth Arab-Israeli War, was initiated by Egypt and Syria on October 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy day of Yom kippur. It also occurred during Ramadan, the sacred month of fasting in Islam. The war was launched with the diplomatic aim of persuading Israel to negotiate on terms more favourable to the Arab countries. The Six-Day War in 1967, the previous Arab-Israeli war, in which Israel had captured and occupied Arab territories including the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights was followed by years of sporadic fighting. When Anwar Sadat became President of Egypt shortly after the War of Attrition (1969–70) ended, made overtures to reach a peaceful settlement if, Israel would return the territories it had captured. Israel rejected those terms, and the fighting developed into a full-scale war in 1973. Source:Peace with Egypt known as Camp David AccordsCamp David Accords, agreements between Israel and Egypt signed on September 17, 1978, that led in the following year to a peace treaty between those two countries, the first such treaty between Israel and any of its Arab neighbours. Brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and officially titled the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East,” the agreements became known as the Camp David Accords because the negotiations took place at the U.S. presidential retreat at Camp David, Maryland. Sadat and Begin were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1978 for their contributions to the agreements. Source:IntifadaIntifadah, (“shaking off”), either of two popular uprisings of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza aimed at ending Israel's occupation of those territories and creating an independent Palestinian state. The first intifada began in December 1987 and ended in September 1993 with the signing of the first Oslo Accords which provided a framework for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The second intifada, sometimes called the Al-Aqṣā intifada, began in September 2000. Although no single event signaled its end, most analysts agree that it had run its course by late 2005. The two uprisings resulted in the death of more than 5,000 Palestinians and some 1,400 Israelis. Source:Oslo accordsThe Oslo Accords were a landmark moment in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. A set of two separate agreements signed by the government of Israel and the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)—the militant organization established in 1964 to create a Palestinian state in the region—the Oslo Accords were ratified in Washington, D.C., in 1993 (Oslo I) and in Taba, Egypt, in 1995 (Oslo II). While provisions drafted during the talks remain in effect today, the relationship between the two sides continues to be marred by conflict. Source:
The winners for the the Nobel Prize in Economics for this year are…*drumroll*…US-based economists David Card, Joshua D. Angrist and Guido W. Imbens. In today's episode for 13th October 2021, we'll focus on David Card's work today and hopefully talk about the other two tomorrow. And with that introduction out of the way, let's get to the story, shall we?
My guest in this episode--my first ever livestream--is my UCSD colleague, Professor Brian Keating. Brian is a Chancellor's distinguished professor of physics at UC San Diego, co-director of the Arthur C Clarke Center for the imagination, host of the Into the impossible podcast, YouTuber with 30k subscribers, and writer of the scientific memoir “Losing the Nobel Prize.” Brian is joining me today to discuss his new book, Into the impossible, thinking like a Nobel prize winner. Lessons from Laureates to Stoke Curiosity, Spur Collaboration, and Ignite Imagination in your life and career. The book is a distillation of conversations with nine different Nobel prize winners in physics on his podcast, into the impossible. The book deals not with the technical details of their discovery, but rather with the collaborations involved, the importance of working in a team, curiosity and the process of discovery, and also personal insecurities. Topics include: Is this a science book or a self-help book? Why should we care about Nobel Prize winners? Do they really suffer from the Imposter Syndrome or know what it is? Does high-level academic work allow service? That is, were any of these people ever Department Chair or Associate Dean? Did any of them have a podcast? ;) Is partisanship and rivalry helpful in advancing science?
Joshua Angrist, Guido Imbens and David Card won the economics Nobel on Monday. On today's show, we talk to the Princeton professor who mentored two of the winners.
Kathleen opens the show drinking a Woodscraft IPA from Great Escape Beerworks in Springfield, MO. She then gives the Termites a summary of her birthday activity at her sister's house in Jefferson City, where her nieces and nephew made her a cake covered in animal faces to represent her yard. Kathleen then headed to Johnny Morris's Big Cedar Lodge in Branson, MO for a few days of fun golf with her siblings and friends, thrilled to be able to play Tiger Woods' Payne's Valley course while she was there. Kathleen was given a few birthday presents last week: Ron White gave her a new driver for her golf bag, her cousins gave her a pair of limited edition Hidden Valley Ranch Crocs (which she's excited to wear), and her friend Heidi gave her a cool Ranch cookbook and gallons of ranch dressing, which she'll put to good use the next time her nieces and nephews visit her house.TERMITE SHOUTOUTS: Kathleen gives thanks to the Termites who leave notes at shows and send mail to her PO Box. She begins by thanking Termite Denise for the “May I Please Have a Vodka Cranberry?” mask to wear on airplanes. Termites Kendra (who is a Liquor Inspector) and Sarah sent some fun “Bridgeport Badger” tees to celebrate their basement bar, and Termites Ashley and Joseph invited Kathleen to their wedding and sent a Ranch themed insulated cup that Kathleen can't wait to use on her boat. “GOOD BAD FOOD”: In her quest for new and delicious not-so-nutritious junk food AND in continuing her search for the best Ranch, Kathleen samples Scorchin' BBQ Pringles, which she finds to be WAY too hot. She moves on to taste Sir Kensington's Ranch, which is dairy-free and has a hint of dill in it. Kathleen gives it a thumbs-up, but she feels that the texture and tang makes it more of a dip than a dressing. She finishes her tasting with Charlie Gitto's Sweet Italian Vinaigrette from St. Louis, which she loves on a salad as part of a massive Italian dinner but will always prefer anything from Imo's (also a St. Louis original.)UPDATE ON KATHLEEN'S QUEEN'S COURT: Kathleen provides an update on the Queens, reporting that Queen Dolly has released a line of Christmas holiday cooking line with Williams Sonoma which is available to order now. Queen Tanya celebrated her birthday October 10th and posted a video of her cake, and Cher announced on Twitter that “she's back,” whatever that means to Queen Cher this week ☺ WALLY THE WALRUS WEBCAM: As a follow-up to Episode 56, Kathleen announces that Wally the Walrus has swum from Ireland to Iceland, where the Icelandic people have renamed him, Valli. A webcam has been set up so that people can watch a live stream of his activity. NRA REELECTS THEIR KING: Kathleen reads an update announcing that the NRA recently reelected their CEO, Wayne LaPierre. The NY Attorney General's office is suing to dissolve the NRA for allegedly misusing charitable funds, but the NRA feels as though the AG's office has a “misinformed view” of their unparalleled dedication to the Second Amendment. OOPS BRITNEY DID IT AGAIN: Waist-deep in the aftermath of the #FreeBritney movement, Kathleen shakes her head when reading an update that Britney Spears, temporarily free from her Conservatorship, has once again taken to Instagram to post a risqué video of her frolicking topless in the ocean. SHAKIRA ATTACKED BY WILD BOARS: Kathleen reads an article from Spain advising that in addition to Shakira's tax woes, the pop singer has also revealed that she and her son were recently attacked by a pair of wild boars in a park near Barcelona. The hogs attacked Shakira and stole her purse, which was documented in a series of Instagram Stories on the singer's account. Kathleen muses that the cause of the purse snatching must have been caused by “secret snacks” in Shakira's handbag, admitting that she also has secret treats in her travel purse with her favorites being Lance Crackers and Tootsie Pops (specifically the “red” kind.)MURDAUGH MURDER INVESTIGATION CONTINUES: Kathleen is fascinated with the ongoing news being released in South Carolina regarding the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh and is thrilled to have been connected with journalist Mandy Matney via Twitter. Matney, along with her fiancé David, are the team investigating this corrupt family and all the cover-ups that have been made on their behalf for decades as they maintained power in a finite area of South Carolina, reporting their findings on their “Murdaugh Murders” podcast. Kathleen reads the latest development after the arrest of patriarch Alex Murdaugh, who is accused of being the mastermind behind the diversion of more than $3.5 million in death settlement money meant for the sons of his family's deceased housekeeper to an account said to be fraudulent.BARRY MANILOW SET TO BREAK ELVIS'S VEGAS RECORD: Kathleen is a massive fan of both Elvis and Barry Manilow, and is excited to read an article advising that although Elvis Presley holds the record for most performances in Vegas, Barry Manilow will pass him after signing a major deal that runs through 2023.Elvis Presley played a staggering 837 shows in Sin City, according to Showbiz 411, but Manilow's new contract with the Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino will push him past that mark. SCIENCE IS HARD: Kathleen reads an article announcing the winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry and laughs out loud because she doesn't understand ANY of the details explaining why the award was given. Benjamin List and David MacMillan received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2021 for their development of a precise new tool for molecular construction: organocatalysis. The technology has had a great impact on pharmaceutical research and has made chemistry greener. Kathleen reads the released a few times and states her ongoing position that “science is hard.”A CRYPTO TRADING HAMSTER: That's right, Termites. Kathleen reads an article about Mr. Goxx, a German hamster who is crushing the cryptocurrency market with his trading and outtrading human investors. Mr. Goxx initiates a trade by entering The Goxx Box, occasionally running on the “Intention Wheel” and then choosing either the “Buy” or “Sell” tunnel that will cause the transaction to take place. All trading activity is available to stream on Twitch (where he is listed as the CEO of Goxx Capital), or you can watch Mr. Goxx's YouTube channel for past activity ☺ MISSOURI CANNIBALS AND VICKI'S GUN: Kathleen is horrified to read an article from her home state of Missouri, where the FBI office in Kansas City received an anonymous tip on September 16th advising that a woman had been kidnapped and photos of her in a cage were being circulated on the Dark Web. Local law enforcement in Dallas County obtained a search warrant for James Phelps, who has since been arrested. Further investigation found that Phelps is a cannibal, and human remains have been located on his property. As this county isn't far from Kathleen's family “farm,” she shares that her mom is usually armed when walking the property, and everyone makes fun of her because she carries a gun to prevent animal attacks and “rape.” While the rape of an 80-year-old most likely isn't a concern in acres of Missouri backwoods, nobody in the Madigan clan ever thought a cannibal would be roaming the area. Stay tuned, Termites…THE OLDEST MAN IN THE WORLD DIES AT 127: Kathleen reads an article from the Guinness World Records team, announcing that at the age of 127 the oldest man who ever lived has died. OCEAN DRONE FILMS INTERIOR OF CAT 4 HURRICANE: Kathleen LOVES following extreme weather patterns, and is excited when she reads that a new ocean drone has captured footage from the inside of a major hurricane. The technology behind the Saildrone Explorer SD1045 battles 50-foot waves and 120mph winds, gathering scientific data that will help NOAA scientists improve their forecast models that predict rapid intensification of hurricanes.NAZI CAMP SECRETARY ATTEMPTS TO FLEE TRIAL: Kathleen reads an article about a 96-year-old woman who was scheduled to go on trial for war crimes as a Nazi secretary and fled into hiding. Irmgard Furchner left her home near Hamburg in a taxi a few hours before proceedings were due to start at the state courthouse. Despite her advanced age, the German woman was to be tried in juvenile court because she was under 21 at the time of the alleged crimes. Police detained her hours after her attempted escape, and the court is reviewing whether the flight attempt should be considered in her sentencing. APPLAUDING THE FACEBOOK WHISTLEBLOWER: Kathleen has a renowned hatred for Mark Zuckerberg's lack of accountability in monitoring false narratives and polarizing content on Facebook and applauds the recent actions of whistleblower Frances Haugen, a former data scientist at Facebook, whose Senatorial testimony has led to what may be the most threatening scandal in the company's history. Haugen provided a clear and detailed glimpse inside the notoriously secretive tech giant, stating that Facebook harms children, sows division, and undermines democracy in pursuit of breakneck growth and "astronomical profits." There is currently a decades-old law known as Section 230, which immunizes social media companies from being sued over what their users post, but lawmakers are examining possible carve-outs. WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEK: Kathleen recommends watching the “Untold” series on Netflix, especially the episode called “Crimes and Penalties.” See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Nobel Prize-winning economist David Card joins us to discuss his research into minimum wage, along with the application of other Econ 101 theories in real-world settings. Also today: We also look into those confusing letters from the IRS that tell you that you’ve made a mistake.
Nobel Prize-winning economist David Card joins us to discuss his research into minimum wage, along with the application of other Econ 101 theories in real-world settings. Also today: We also look into those confusing letters from the IRS that tell you that you’ve made a mistake.
The artist behind Chubbies' shorts is going public, but it's really a fraternity. Southwest Airlines just canceled so many weekend flights that its stock dropped (and the mysteries began). And the Nobel Prize for economics just tested an ancient theory: Would a $15 minimum wage make McDonald's lay off their burger crew? $DTC $LUV Got a SnackFact? Tweet it @RobinhoodSnacks @JackKramer @NickOfNewYork Want a shoutout on the pod? Fill out this form: https://forms.gle/KhUAo31xmkSdeynD9 Got a SnackFact for the pod? We got a form for that too: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe64VKtvMNDPGSncHDRF07W34cPMDO3N8Y4DpmNP_kweC58tw/viewform Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
How damaging is the stereotype of white males in white coats? Do scientists think differently? Or do the qualities we associate with being a nerd do them a disservice? Is specialism the best way to solve 21st century problems when so many great discoveries are made in the cracks between the disciplines? In short, what makes a scientist, a scientist? Jim and distinguished guests consider the lessons learnt from nearly 250 leading scientists talking with extraordinary honesty about their life and work. And ask: has the job description changed? Success in science is often defined by making discoveries and publishing papers but, as the pandemic made clear, we also need scientists who can interact with decision makers in government and elsewhere. Do scientists need to learn new skills to participate in the decision making process? Do they (or at least some of them) need to be more outward looking, aware of the world beyond their laboratories and ready to engage? Or do the corridors of power need to open their doors to more people with a scientific training? And, if Britain is to become a science superpower, is it time that scientists stopped being squeamish about making money? Jim's guests are Chief Executive of UK Research and Innovation, Prof Dame Ottoline Leyser; Nobel Prize winning biologist and Director of the Crick Institute, Prof Sir Paul Nurse; geologist and Royal Institution Christmas Lecturer, Prof Christopher Jackson; and forensic scientist and member of the House of Lords, Prof Dame Sue Black. Producer: Anna Buckley
Iraq's security forces say they have captured a very senior figure in the Islamic State group. Sami Jasim al-Jaburi was allegedly the jihadists' finance chief Sami Jasim al-Jaburi was arrested in a "complex external operation", Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi tweeted, without specifying a location. Also in the programme, our recently expelled Moscow correspondent on repression in Russia, one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for economics tells us how to read real life, and how ancient Israel didn't just export religion, but wine too. (Picture shows Sami Jasim al-Jaburi after his arrest. Credit: Iraqi Army Joint Operations Command)
Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Groups of people who don't like being pushed around Southwest Airline employees Dave Chappelle's latest on Netflix Travel and women Nobel prize for economics shoulda been me Fake News Identifier Filter https://tinyurl.com/2esjzm23 If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, … The post Episode 1526 Scott Adams: Dave Chapelle, Nobel Prize Craziness, and More Surprises appeared first on Scott Adams Says.
The recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day is growing, which has led to a concerted effort to call attention to back Indigenous-owned businesses. The effect of the push has been real, as some businesses have seen sales spikes. Also today, senior economics contributor Chris Farrell chats with us about the Nobel Prize in economics. A new law in California allows more freedom for workers to speak out about abuse at the workplace.
The recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day is growing, which has led to a concerted effort to call attention to back Indigenous-owned businesses. The effect of the push has been real, as some businesses have seen sales spikes. Also today, senior economics contributor Chris Farrell chats with us about the Nobel Prize in economics. A new law in California allows more freedom for workers to speak out about abuse at the workplace.
Update on SGU Activities; News Items: Space Radiation Shielding, Nobel Prizes in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry; SGU Recommends: Oats Studios; Quickie with Bob - Large Comet; Name That Logical Fallacy; Science or Fiction
7 Steps To Biohack Your Health To Live Longer | This episode is brought to you by PaleovalleyIncreasing lifespan and healthspan are not just about treating disease but about building long-term resilience and vitality. Some say if you live longer, you will spend more time with chronic disease and disability,increasing the burden on society and our health care system. Not true. A famous Stanford University study found that if you kept your ideal weight, exercised, and didn't smoke, you were likely to live a long, healthy life and die painlessly, quickly, and cheaply. In fact, simple, daily habits hold the key to unlocking your longevity potential. As my patients get older and more concerned about longevity, we focus on habits that create the most reward. Today, I dive into seven biohacks you can use to live longer with my guests: Dave Asprey, Dr. Elizabeth Boham, Dr. Cindy Geyer, Drew Ramsey, Gary Taubes, and Dr. Louis Ignarro.This episode is brought to you by Paleovalley. Right now, Paleovalley is offering 15% off your entire first order. Just go to paleovalley.com/hyman to check out all their clean Paleo products and take advantage of this deal.Dave Asprey is the founder and CEO of Bulletproof 360, creator of the global phenomenon Bulletproof Coffee, a two-time New York Times bestselling author, the host of the Webby award-winning podcast Bulletproof Radio, serial entrepreneur, and global change agent.Dr. Elizabeth Boham is Board Certified in Family Medicine from Albany Medical School, and she is an Institute for Functional Medicine Certified Practitioner and the Medical Director of The UltraWellness Center. She is on the faculty for the Institute for Functional Medicine.Dr. Cindy Geyer received her bachelor of science and her doctor of medicine degrees, with honors, from the Ohio State University. She completed residency in internal medicine at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, N.Y. and is triple board certified in internal medicine, integrative medicine, and lifestyle medicine.Dr. Drew Ramsey is a writer, farmer, and doctor who focuses on the connection between mental health and food. He is passionate about nutritional interventions and creative media to share a different way of thinking about the brain and mood. He is an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and in active clinical practice in New York City. Gary Taubes is an award-winning science and health journalist, and co-founder and director of the Nutrition Science Initiative. He is the author of The Case Against Sugar, Why We Get Fat, Good Calories, Bad Calories, and, most recently, The Case for Keto. He has received three Science in Society Journalism Awards from the National Association of Science Writers, and is also the recipient of a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy Research. Dr. Louis Ignarro is a medical research scientist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his breakthrough discovery of nitric oxide and how it positively impacts health and longevity. His groundbreaking research on nitric oxide paved the way for—among other innovations—Viagra. He is an award-winning Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Molecular & Medical Pharmacology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and has his Ph.D. in Pharmacology with over 35 years of experience teaching. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
© 2020-2021 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
