The guys preview the Michigan vs Northwestern matchup and discuss the Lions visiting the Rams. The Detroit Red Wings fall to the Calgary Flames and the Browns beat the Broncos. Is Stafford a hall of fame talent?Plus:How much time should Pistons fans give Killian Hayes?Around the NFLListen Live on FB, YouTube and TwitterFollow The Woodward Sports Network!Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/woodwardspo...Twitter: https://twitter.com/woodwardsportsFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/WoodwardSports/Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/woodwardsportsTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@woodwardsport...Watch our Shows Live on Youtube, Facebook & TwitterThe Morning Woodward Show | Monday - Friday 8am-10am Big D Energy | Monday - Friday 11am-1pmThe Bottom Line | Monday - Friday 3pm-5pmWoodward Bets | Monday - Friday 6pm-7pm / Saturday & Sunday 9am-10am
Today on the show we're talking about the Pistons and their opening game last night against the Bulls. We also talked some Michigan and Michigan State football, the Lions taking on the Rams and Stafford on Sunday, and so much more. We kicked off the show with our friend Johnny Kane as he and Huge discussed what they liked and disliked from that Pistons loss last night. Based off the one game, they talked about what this season could end up looking like with this young roster. We also took your calls on the Lions and Pistons. We were joined by Chris Balas at the top of our second hour so he could give us his opinion on the Wolverines taking on Northwestern this weekend. He and Huge also talked a little about the rivalry game next weekend. We continued the conversation regarding Michigan and Michigan State football as we were joined by Tim Staudt. We played Huge's interview with MSU Head basketball Coach Tom Izzo to start off the final hour. We were then joined by Aaron McMann to talk a little more Wolverine football and to get his pick for the game. We wrapped up the show with Tom Rosenbach from BeeneGarter so he could get Huge's football picks for the weekend, and to talk about the Beat Huge Contest. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on the show we're talking about the Pistons and their opening game last night against the Bulls. We also talked some Michigan and Michigan State football, the Lions taking on the Rams and Stafford on Sunday, and so much more. We were joined by Chris Balas at the top of our second hour so he could give us his opinion on the Wolverines taking on Northwestern this weekend. He and Huge also talked a little about the rivalry game next weekend. We continued the conversation regarding Michigan and Michigan State football as we were joined by Tim Staudt. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Dan Leach discusses Matthew Stafford and Jared Goff playing in "revenge games." Michigan is a 24-point home favorite against Northwestern in the meeting before Michigan State. Also, put a flyer on the Pistons to make the playoffs +1400? If you're enjoying the Detroit CityCast podcast, follow/subscribe wherever you get your podcasts! Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Trevor Woods catches up with Inside NU's Ben Chasen to get insight into the Northwestern Wildcats ahead of their tilt vs. Michigan. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Bye week over, Michigan prepares to play Northwestern. Fair to call it a trap game with Michigan State looming? Plus the guys answer a simple question: Are the Wolverines playing the wrong QB? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out 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
The fellas take a look around the Big Ten and college football in general before breaking down the matchup against Northwestern this weekend in Ann Arbor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Mark Rogers, "The Voice of College Football", welcomes Justin Roh of Blue by 90 Podcast to break down Michigan's matchup with Northwestern and the growing quarterback debate between starter Cade McNamara and 5-star J.J. McCarthy. For complete college football coverage go to markrogerstv.com.
Some would say this is a trap game. I say it's a game against a well coached team that better get our full attention. No looking ahead to next Saturday, or we will head to East Lansing at 6-1. With us today is the radio play by play voice of Northwestern Football Dave Eanet
In this episode, we discuss some of the key storylines surrounding the Michigan football team this week, and preview the Wolverines' upcoming game against Northwestern. We open with a look at Michigan's much-discussed team culture. We break down strong comments from players about how the Wolverines handled the bye week, and what that means for the trust and energy Michigan has within its program. We then turn our attention to the Xs and Os, and discuss additional thoughts on where Michigan stacks up coming out of the bye week. We discuss concerns the Wolverines have to address, and what Michigan can show this weekend (beyond a win) to make this weekend a success for the Wolverines. In the second half of the show, we do our weekly prop bets, and offer our thoughts on how Saturday's game will transpire. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
#6 Michigan takes on The Wildcats @ The Big House, we talk all about the match up this Saturday. Mailbag questions and CFP with our the Big Ten? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/realtalktoledo/message
The Northwestern Wildcats are coming to town on Saturday, and while they are 3-3 on the season, let's dig a little deeper on what they bring to the table. We address the stats, what we can expect in terms of running vs. passing, the defensive standouts and much, much more! Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! SweatBlock Get it today for 20% off at SweatBlock.com with promo code LockedOn, or at Amazon and CVS. Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. BetOnline AG There is only 1 place that has you covered and 1 place we trust. Betonline.ag! Sign up today for a free account at betonline.ag and use that promocode: LOCKEDON for your 50% welcome bonus. Rock Auto Amazing selection. Reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Visit RockAuto.com and tell them Locked On sent you. PrizePicks Don't hesitate, check out PrizePicks.com and use promo code: “LOCKEDON” or go to your app store and download the app today. PrizePicks is daily fantasy made easy! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Noted Northwestern internetsman Ben Goren joins Ace, Connor, and Dan to discuss the Big Ten, the Michigan-Northwestern game, and much more. Topics include: Ben Simmons, the George Jewett Trophy, the chad Adam Schefter and the virgin Darren Rovell, Dan's mea culpa to Mel Tucker, whether a Michigan State head coach would ever leave for LSU, what is Nebraska's deal, Iowa finally getting exposed, Spencer Petras is from California(?!?), whether Kirk Ferentz has ever seen an ocean, whether Northwestern will score multiple points this weekend, the two (two!) fast players to watch, will Michigan need to attempt a pass, what would need to happen for the Wildcats to win, running power with the punter, and this week's picks. Use promo code BUCKETPROBLEM for 15% off your first order at homefieldapparel.com, your home for the best, softest, retro logo-est, dunking mascot-est, most fashionable licensed collegiate gear you can imagine. Yes, they have Michigan—and Slippery Rock. Sign up for the newsletter and the bonus podcast at www.thebucketproblem.com.
Today on the show we're discussing the return of the NBA, Pistons opening night, MSU football and basketball, and Michigan football and basketball. We were joined by some of our great insiders to get their thoughts on a variety of topics. We were joined by MSU Head basketball coach Tom Izzo to kick off the broadcast. Huge and Tom caught up on what's been going on in the off-season as college basketball is just around the corner. They also discussed some MSU football and so much more. We were then joined Keith Langlois to talk about the Pistons and their opening game tonight. We continued our conversation about the Pistons and the NBA throughout the second hour today. We started the hour with our friend Scoop Jackson so he and Huge could take a look around the rest of the NBA. They also talked about the first games that started up last night, as well as the Pistons starting tonight. We were then joined by Rod Beard to get his thoughts on tonight's Pistons game against the Bulls, and to talk about Cade Cunningham. We were joined by New York Times Best-Selling author John U. Bacon in our final hour today. He came in studio with Huge to talk about John's new book "Let Them Lead: Unexpected Lessons in Leadership from America's Worst High School Hockey Team" as he's doing a book signing tonight in Caledonia. He and Huge also broke down Michigan football as they take on Northwestern this weekend. They also looked ahead to the Rivalry game happening on the 30th. We wrapped up the show talking with Ashley Owen from the Van Andel Institute so she could tell us about a great Purple Community event coming up. Visit: https://www.vai.org/event/gaming-for-hope-2021/ to learn more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We were joined by New York Times Best-Selling author John U. Bacon in our final hour today. He came in studio with Huge to talk about John's new book "Let Them Lead: Unexpected Lessons in Leadership from America's Worst High School Hockey Team" as he's doing a book signing tonight in Caledonia. He and Huge also broke down Michigan football as they take on Northwestern this weekend. They also looked ahead to the Rivalry game happening on the 30th. We wrapped up the show talking with Ashley Owen from the Van Andel Institute so she could tell us about a great Purple Community event coming up. Visit: https://www.vai.org/event/gaming-for-hope-2021/ to learn more. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What can southern Black joy teach us about agency? What role does refusal have in liberation? What more might there be to root work than resistance? In The Politics of Black Joy: Zora Neale Hurston and Neo-Abolitionism (Northwestern UP, 2021), Lindsey Stewart explores Hurston's contributions to political theory and philosophy of race to develop a politics of joy that owes much to indifference, refusal, and tactical misrecognition. Contending with white supremacy and countering neo-abolitionist approaches that reduce southern Black life to tales of tragedy, Stewart suggests how a politics of Black joy can broaden our imaginations to think emancipation anew. Sarah Tyson is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Denver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography
What can southern Black joy teach us about agency? What role does refusal have in liberation? What more might there be to root work than resistance? In The Politics of Black Joy: Zora Neale Hurston and Neo-Abolitionism (Northwestern UP, 2021), Lindsey Stewart explores Hurston's contributions to political theory and philosophy of race to develop a politics of joy that owes much to indifference, refusal, and tactical misrecognition. Contending with white supremacy and countering neo-abolitionist approaches that reduce southern Black life to tales of tragedy, Stewart suggests how a politics of Black joy can broaden our imaginations to think emancipation anew. Sarah Tyson is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Denver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
What can southern Black joy teach us about agency? What role does refusal have in liberation? What more might there be to root work than resistance? In The Politics of Black Joy: Zora Neale Hurston and Neo-Abolitionism (Northwestern UP, 2021), Lindsey Stewart explores Hurston's contributions to political theory and philosophy of race to develop a politics of joy that owes much to indifference, refusal, and tactical misrecognition. Contending with white supremacy and countering neo-abolitionist approaches that reduce southern Black life to tales of tragedy, Stewart suggests how a politics of Black joy can broaden our imaginations to think emancipation anew. Sarah Tyson is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Denver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy
What can southern Black joy teach us about agency? What role does refusal have in liberation? What more might there be to root work than resistance? In The Politics of Black Joy: Zora Neale Hurston and Neo-Abolitionism (Northwestern UP, 2021), Lindsey Stewart explores Hurston's contributions to political theory and philosophy of race to develop a politics of joy that owes much to indifference, refusal, and tactical misrecognition. Contending with white supremacy and countering neo-abolitionist approaches that reduce southern Black life to tales of tragedy, Stewart suggests how a politics of Black joy can broaden our imaginations to think emancipation anew. Sarah Tyson is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Denver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies
CHAPter ONE: MSU's ugly win over Indiana, Michigan has Northwestern next week. MSU Punched their ticket at 7-0 for October 30th, will the Wolverines do the same?CHAPter TWO: This time the SOLions didn't even play a full half of football. How we did with our bets, and the GOOD NFL teams.CHAPter THREE: Pistons open their season tomorrow at LCA facing the Bulls. Will Cade Cunningham play?CHAPter FOUR: The Red Wings. What has jumped out about the Wings after two games?FITH CHAPter: Astros got demolished last night and both the ALCS & the NLCS are tonight
So, there's been some blowback from an admittedly vocal minority to looking ahead, past Northwestern, to Michigan football's Oct. 30 matchup vs. Michigan State. If you're upset about this, stop it! We explain why before getting into the other weird argument -- this time coming from State fans -- about our strength of schedule argument (ignoring the fact that we were talking about offense vs. defense and such, not team record vs. team record). All that and more! Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!SweatBlock Get it today for 20% off at SweatBlock.com with promo code LockedOn, or at Amazon and CVS. Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. BetOnline AG There is only 1 place that has you covered and 1 place we trust. Betonline.ag! Sign up today for a free account at betonline.ag and use that promocode: LOCKEDON for your 50% welcome bonus. Rock Auto Amazing selection. Reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Visit RockAuto.com and tell them Locked On sent you. PrizePicks Don't hesitate, check out PrizePicks.com and use promo code: “LOCKEDON” or go to your app store and download the app today. PrizePicks is daily fantasy made easy! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Dr. Jim Adams, Chief Medical Officer of Northwestern Medicine, joins Steve Bertrand on Chicago’s Afternoon News to explain the purpose of COVID-19 vaccine boosters, and whether it’s safe to mix boosters of the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. “Better knowledge means better health for you and your family. Turn to Northwestern Medicine at nm.org/healthbeatnews for health tips, research and […]
We'll be back later this fall with another full season of Agile Giants, but I wanted to interrupt our break to share a conversation I had with David Schonthal. David is the Clinical Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Business, and the reason I'm interrupting this is he's got a book that came out on October 5th called The Human Element It looks at how resistance to innovation and change can be overcome using some really interesting techniques. I think there are applications obviously, for introducing new products and services, but there are also a ton of applications around how you just create change in many of your larger established organizations, and really drive towards transformation. Get the book here: humanelementbook.com
Today on the show we're looking ahead to the Michigan Wolverines taking on Northwestern this weekend with some of our great Wolverine insiders. We also looked ahead to next weekend's match up with the Spartans, and the Noon start time for that game. We asked the audience as well as our insiders whether they like that Noon start time, and whether this game against Northwestern is a trap game or not. Chris Balas joined us in our first hour to give us his opinion on this game, and to also talk about the Wolverines and the Spartans next weekend. We stepped aside briefly from the Wolverine conversation at the top of our second hour to discuss the Detroit Lions as we were joined by our friend Tim Twentyman. Huge and Tim talked about the Lions playing Matt Stafford and the Rams this Sunday, what they need to do to not get blown out of the water, and so much more. We then went back to talking some more college football as John Borton came on the show with Huge. John and Huge looked ahead to the next two weekends for the Wolverines. Jim Brandstatter joined us in our final hour to give us his thoughts on the game this weekend. He and Huge also looked ahead to the Wolverine/Spartan game next weekend, and that Noon start time. We wrapped up the show with our friend Tim McCullough from the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort in Mt. Pleasant. He filled us in on what shows and promotions they have going on. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today on the show we're looking ahead to the Michigan Wolverines taking on Northwestern this weekend with some of our great Wolverine insiders. We also looked ahead to next weekend's match up with the Spartans, and the Noon start time for that game. We asked the audience as well as our insiders whether they like that Noon start time, and whether this game against Northwestern is a trap game or not. Jim Brandstatter joined us in our final hour to give us his thoughts on the game this weekend. He and Huge also looked ahead to the Wolverine/Spartan game next weekend, and that Noon start time. We wrapped up the show with our friend Tim McCullough from the Soaring Eagle Casino & Resort in Mt. Pleasant. He filled us in on what shows and promotions they have going on. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
https://bvmsports.com/ (BVM Sports)'https://twitter.com/cody_kluge ( Cody Kluge) andhttps://twitter.com/MikeRoberts_1 ( Mike Roberts) discuss weekly action around the Big Ten Conference. This week's episode features a recap of several B1G football matchups including Purdue's shocking win over No. 2 Iowa. The guys also give their winners and losers of the week, analyze this weekend's biggest Big Ten football matchups and preview the B1G men's college basketball season with in-depth looks at Minnesota, Penn State, Nebraska, Northwestern and Rutgers. (music by scottholmesmusic.com)
Today on the show we're looking ahead to the Michigan Wolverines taking on Northwestern this weekend with some of our great Wolverine insiders. We also looked ahead to next weekend's match up with the Spartans, and the Noon start time for that game. We asked the audience as well as our insiders whether they like that Noon start time, and whether this game against Northwestern is a trap game or not. Chris Balas joined us in our first hour to give us his opinion on this game, and to also talk about the Wolverines and the Spartans next weekend. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Lindsey Munday has served since 2013 as the inaugural head coach of the USC Trojans women's lacrosse team after a stellar collegiate career at Northwestern winning two national championships. We have a great talk about the travel necessary for a west coast lacrosse team playing a sport that has its roots based on the east coast.The talk includes her thoughts on recruiting players, the west coast growth of women's lacrosse and how she and her assistant coaches balance their personal lives outside of the rigors of a D1 program.To follow her journey or the Ladies of Troy lacrosse team make sure to follow them both on their social media pages.ABOUT Lindsey MundayMunday was raised in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey and graduated from Mountain Lakes High School in 2002, where she played basketball and soccer, as well as lacrosse. She was inducted into the school's hall of fame in 2018.As a member of the Northwestern Wildcats women's lacrosse team, Munday was part of the team that won the 2005 NCAA Division I Women's Lacrosse Championship and was chosen as a member of the all-tournament team. She was also a part of the 2006 NCAA title. She graduated from Northwestern with a bachelor's degree in communications in 2006.She was a member of the gold-medal-winning U.S. team at the 2009 Women's Lacrosse World Cup and was part of the U.S. team that won the 2013 Women's Lacrosse World Cup, where she was chosen to the All-World Team. Lacrosse Magazine chose Munday as its person of the year in 2013.She spent four years as an assistant coach at her alma mater and one season as head coach for the Mount St. Mary's Mountaineers women's lacrosse team. She was selected in 2011 as the inaugural coach of the USC Trojans women's lacrosse team, a program that played its first game in February 2013 at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, losing to Northwestern. Her USC team has a record of 79–38 overall record, which includes 42–11 record in league competitionSUBSCRIBEYou can subscribe to The Travel Wins Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, YouTube, iHeart Radio, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, Spreaker, Podnews, Castbox, Pocket Casts, Radio Public, and Amazon.The Travel Wins intro song by Allison Johnson and Steve StevensWebsite Design by Stack Host#lindseymunday #lacrosse #womenslacrosse
Fanshen Cox has been featured in the New York Times and on NPR, with OpEds published for Blavity, Shondaland and The Lily. Reared in Cambridge, Massachusetts by a Pan Africanist, Jamaican-born father and white Northwestern mother, Fanshen uses her family's heritage to spark conversation and challenge notions around race, class and gender. Fanshen talks to Kim about her dedicated work regarding the Hollywood Inclusion Rider, why she's critical of the mixed community, doing theater with Matt Damon and Ben Affleck and working with them years later at Pearl Street Films.
Michigan football has a chance to setup potentially the biggest Michigan-Michigan State game in history if they can beat Northwestern at the Big House on Saturday. While Michigan football has had to win 6 games before they received the #6 ranking in the country, that's where Michigan hoops will begin the season after the preseason AP Poll dropped Monday. Luke Ghiardi and Stephen Osentoski break down football and hoops in this week's Brewcast. All of our Maize n Brew podcasts are available wherever you get your shows! Subscribe, rate, and leave us a review: Apple | Spotify | Google | Stitcher | Megaphone Twitter: https://twitter.com/MaizenBrew Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/maizenbrewsbn/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/maizenbrewsbn Discord: https://discord.com/invite/vZMsMTF Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Just a short week ago, we came on this podcast and predicted that Michigan football will lose on the road in East Lansing. However, now we're changing that. Isaiah Hole shares why his belief has changed, bringing up stats and nuance. Also: Pat Fitzgerald says the Wolverines will be the best team Northwestern will face 'and it's not even close,' and more looking ahead. Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! SweatBlock Get it today for 20% off at SweatBlock.com with promo code LockedOn, or at Amazon and CVS. Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKED15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. BetOnline AG There is only 1 place that has you covered and 1 place we trust. Betonline.ag! Sign up today for a free account at betonline.ag and use that promocode: LOCKEDON for your 50% welcome bonus. Rock Auto Amazing selection. Reliably low prices. All the parts your car will ever need. Visit RockAuto.com and tell them Locked On sent you. PrizePicks Don't hesitate, check out PrizePicks.com and use promo code: “LOCKEDON” or go to your app store and download the app today. PrizePicks is daily fantasy made easy! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
wsg Matt from Endless Motor. 1 hour and 32 minutes The Sponsors Thank you to Underground Printing for making this all possible. Rishi and Ryan have been our biggest supporters from the beginning. Check out their wide selection of officially licensed Michigan fan gear at their 3 store locations in Ann Arbor or learn about their custom apparel business at undergroundshirts.com. And let's not forget our associate sponsors: Peak Wealth Management, HomeSure Lending, Ann Arbor Elder Law, Michigan Law Grad, Human Element, The Phil Klein Insurance Group, SignalWire (use the code MUPPETS), Prentice 4M, where we recorded this, and introducing The View from the Cheap Seats podcast by the Sklars, who will now be joining us for the Hot Takes segments. Please go subscribe and like their podcast, and leave your hot takes about this game in the reviews. 1. The Frontcourt (Fours and Fives) starts at 1:00 Hunter Dickinson was pretty good, awesome in fact, and then just plain awesome as they doubled him and took away his favorite shoulder. He can develop that and/or a three. Moussa Diabate is going to be an IMPACT defender, can play the four, might develop a shot, switchable nightmare. Versatility with Brandon Johns able to play 4 or 5. He was more commanding as a starter, team X factor. Terrance Williams is about to bust out. Will Tschetter: redshirt or instant Wisconsin center? [The rest of the writeup and the player after THE JUMP] 2. The Backcourt: Wings and Guards starts at 32:24 Caleb Houstan is like bringing in an NBA three-and-D dude. Not going to feel like a freshman, can shoot over anyone 6'5” and lower so he could be the new Chaundee shoots it guy. Backups: all the fours and twos. Eli Brooks is the most important player on the team (no hot take). Kobe Bufkin is going to outplay his rankings—this year he's something in between freshman and sophomore Caris. Could see a jump from Zeb Jackson, or he could fall behind Isaiah Barnes. Not Jace's turn yet. Could be Frankie's turn soon but Devante Jones is your starting PG and could be an upgrade on Smith. 3. Big Ten Basketball Preview starts at 1:06:53 Tier 1: Illinois gets back Kofi and Curbelo, Trent Frazier is a problem for Brooks, who else can play on this team? Purdue brings back everybody, can a sophomore breakout from Ivey and Edey and Newman and Gillis take them all the way? Ohio State replaced its backcourt, waiting to see if Seth Towns can take a big role. Maryland found a center and a PG to go with Ayala and Scott. Tier 2: Indiana is 2015 Michigan football. They'll put four out so TJD can work alone inside, and brought in four transfers/recruits to do it. MSU has a few dudes but can't figure out which and when to play. Iowa and Wisconsin suffered huge losses. Nebraska > Penn State and Northwestern. Are 200 teams better than Minnesota? 4. Hot Takes, and Around the Big Ten, wsg Jamie Mac starts at 1:46:57 Signs of life from future opponents who looked like pushovers, signs of death from objects in the rearview mirror. Indiana has to be a frustrating follow, but not enough that we can wish Jamie luck on fixing that OL. MUSIC: “Silver Dollar”—Sierra Ferrell “Proofs”—Mates of State “In the Stone”—The Goon Sax “Across 110th Street”
A discussion on her recently closed 42-unit C class Apartment complex in Kansas city, Missouri with Kathy Jang. Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, and TwitterFor more educational content, visit our website at www.diaryofanapartmentinvestor.comInterested in investing with Four Oaks Capital? First step is to schedule a call with us. ----Kathy Jang Kathy started renting out her first townhome in 2007 and eventually built out a single family home portfolio and then scaled into multifamily properties in 2018, where she leveraged her experience in buying and managing multiple properties and now focuses on acquisitions and asset management. Her real estate portfolio consists of >1,500 multifamily units, predominantly in value-add Class B/C+ properties. Kathy has an undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business and started her career as a Big 4 consultant at Deloitte and KPMG before getting her MBA from Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, where she sharpened her operation and strategy skills and pivoted her career into medical device marketing in nuclear medicine and heart failure therapy. To this day, Kathy continues to advise the makers of Invisalign® clear aligners, contributing to their tremendous growth over the past 5 years. She lives in Phoenix, AZ with her husband and two sons. Visit her website https://www.diamondpointhomes.com/----Your host, Brian Briscoe, is a co-founder and principal in the real estate investing firm Four Oaks Capital. He and his team currently have 629 units worth $36 million in assets under management and are continuing to grow. He will retire as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Marine Corps in 2021. Learn more about him and the Four Oaks team at www.fouroakscapital.com or contact him at email@example.com - be sure to let him know where you found him.Connect with him on LinkedIn or Facebook.vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv> Check out our multifamily investing community!> The Tribe of Titans> Get exclusive access to the Four Oaks Team!> Find it at https://www.thetribeoftitans.info^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Miranda Oda was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawaii. She attended Punahou school where she competed on the varsity wrestling team. Recently, Miranda has graduated with her Master of Science in Global Business degree from Pepperdine University. While in graduate school, Miranda ran a successful national financial planning practice through Northwestern Mutual. She recently became a top 5 new financial advisor in the country and was celebrated in her local office. Miranda loves meeting and helping new people and believes that everyone deserves to understand what's possible in the realm of financial planning. Outside of work, she enjoys art, music, traveling, dancing, and learning languages.Connect with my guest co-host Doris Horne :)Support the show (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=CQWQVRBGQCK7E&source=url)
-Sip predicted a blowout win for Nebraska over Northwestern and he was right—Jake thought it would be close, he was wrong -Sip has thought the whole week that Nebraska may win by 10 or more, and Scott Frost said Thursday that the team is ready and will pour everything into the game -The offense was […]
Head Coach Hugh McCutcheon joins Justin Gaard to review the last few matches and talk about the season so far with matches coming up at home against Indiana, Penn State and Ohio State.
In this episode, Julija chats with Emily Schafer, a PhD student studying biomedical engineering at Northwestern University. Learn about how polymers are everywhere, what it's like having bottles of neurotransmitters laying around, and the challenges of communicating science through podcasting! Check out Julija's episode of In the Spotlight on Spotify or Apple Podcasts! Follow Emily on Twitter Check out In the Spotlight on Twitter Learn more about Northwestern's Science Policy Outreach Taskforce on their website Read the episode transcript here (coming soon!!) **************************************************************** Follow Hooked on Science on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter Check out the Linktree if you have an idea for an episode topic, have a question about an episode, or want to get in touch! Theme by Javier Suarez and is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hookedonscience/message
Matt and Steve breakdown what went wrong at home vs Michigan State. Also, we welcome Northwestern grad and former editor for insidenu.com Noah Coffman, to discuss the state of Northwestern football and the match up with RU on Saturday.
This week we're decoding with the man who wrote the code - Terence Blanchard, composer of Fire Shut Up in My Bones. Not only is it the work that reopened the Met after its 18-month pandemic shutdown, but it's also the first opera by a Black composer ever to be performed there. Based on the 2014 memoir of the same name by New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, Fire Shut Up in My Bones is a coming-of-age story about his childhood in a tiny town in northwest Louisiana. From a young age, Charles knew he was different, not like his brothers or the other boys. After being sexually assaulted by his older cousin, he was consumed by shame, and especially when he began to feel attraction toward boys as well as girls. The South was not the place to be questioning one's sexual identity as a Black man in the 1970s and 80s. But in the aria “Peculiar Grace,” he puts his questions aside and looks forward to a brighter future. Host Rhiannon Giddens and her guests explore the experience of feeling like an outsider, and the life-changing path toward self-acceptance. Composer Terence Blanchard is a multiple Grammy-winning composer and jazz trumpeter. Fire Shut Up In My Bones is his second opera, and it premiered at Opera Theatre of St. Louis in 2019. He has scored countless films, and is known for his many collaborations with the film director Spike Lee, including most recently Da 5 Bloods and BlacKkKlansman. Each was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Score. He credits his father for his love of opera, and he has a particular fondness for Puccini's La bohème. Baritone Will Liverman is singing the role of Charles in the Met's production of Fire Shut Up In My Bones. While he was sitting on his couch during the pandemic, wondering if he'd ever get to sing in front of an audience again, he was invited to send an audition tape and landed the role just a few days later. Will has collaborated with D.J. and artist K-Rico to create The Factotum, a contemporary adaptation of Rossini's The Barber of Seville for the Lyric Opera of Chicago. He is an alumnus of the Ryan Opera Center at the Lyric Opera of Chicago. Dr. E. Patrick Johnson is an artist, writer, and professor of Performance Studies and African American Studies at Northwestern, where he is also the Dean of the School of Communication. He is the author and editor of several award-winning books, including Sweet Tea: Black Gay Men of the South. His research for the book included dozens of interviews with men who were born, raised, and still live in the South, and he later adapted it into a staged-reading, Pouring Tea, as well as a full-length play and a documentary. He has received multiple awards both for his scholarship and his stage work.
-It's a team that has beaten you twice in a row and last year, it's because of a horrendous game plan against a team missing 30+ players and couldn't stop the run anyways -Nebraska's offense the last few games has been much better than what we saw last year, and the Huskers enter as 3-point […]
-As we feared, it's a season-ending injury for Prochazka, who performed very well against Northwestern and held is own against Michigan before getting hurt. Now, it's back to Turner Corcoran at LT and Bryce Benhart at RT. Better hope they play like they did against Michigan -What else did the players say and what tone […]
On this week's episode of Inside Outside Innovation, we sit down with Kevin Leland, CEO and Founder of Halo and Matt Muller, Director of Applied Innovation at Baxter. The three of us talk about the changing world of open innovation and what it takes to connect and collaborate, to solve big industry problems. Let's get started. Inside Outside Innovation is the podcast to help new innovators navigate what's next. Each week, we'll give you a front row seat into what it takes to learn, grow, and thrive in today's world of accelerating change and uncertainty. Join us as we explore, engage, and experiment with the best and the brightest innovators, entrepreneurs, and pioneering businesses. It's time to get started. Interview Transcript with Kevin Leland, CEO and Founder of Halo and Matt Muller, Director of Applied Innovation at BaxterBrian Ardinger: Welcome to another episode of Inside Outside Innovation. I'm your host, Brian Ardinger. And as always, we have another amazing set of guests. Today, we have Kevin Leland, who is the CEO and Founder of Halo. And Matt Muller, who is the Director of Applied Innovation at Baxter. Welcome. Kevin Leland: Thank you. Brian Ardinger: Hey, I'm excited to have you both on the show to talk about a topic that's near and dear to a lot of folks out there. That's the topic of open innovation and how to corporates and startups and new ideas get started in this whole world of collaborative innovation. Kevin you're the CEO and founder of Halo. What is Halo? And how did you get started in this open innovation space? Kevin Leland: Halo is a marketplace and network where companies connect directly with scientists and startups for research collaborations. It's about as simple to post RFP or a partnering opportunity on Halo as it is to post a job on LinkedIn. And then once it's posted scientists submit their research proposals. We went live in January. Matt and the team of Baxter was our very first customer. So, the earliest of early adopters and they were a really fantastic partner.I came across the idea of Halo and got into open innovation really kind of by accident. The original concept for Halo was crowd funding for medical research. So, a little bit different, but we would work with technology transfer offices at universities to identify promising technology that just needed a little bit of funding to get to the next level.And through that experience, I learned that scientists needed more than just funding. They needed the expertise and the resources of industry. Meanwhile, I was learning how industry was actively trying to partner with these scientists and these early-stage startups, because they realized that they were less good at the early-stage discovery process of research. And so to me, it seemed like an obvious marketplace solution. And so that's where the impetus of the business came and how we started. Brian Ardinger: Let's turn it over to you Matt. From the other side of the table, from a corporation, trying to understand and facilitate and accelerate innovation efforts. What is open innovation mean to you and how did Halo come to play a part in that?Matt Muller: As you mentioned earlier, I'm Director of Applied Innovation here at Baxter and I am in our Renal Care Business. And so that's the business at Baxter that's focused on treating end stage kidney disease. And that's one of Baxter's largest businesses. As a company, we have over $12 billion in sales annually, and dialysis in the renal care businesses, is our largest business unit.And it is an area that we've struggled with innovation. And particularly what we excel at, at Baxter is we excel at treating kidney disease in the home. So, this is a particular therapy called peritoneal dialysis. Patients are able to do it in their home while they sleep. And one of the big challenges that we have today with peritoneal dialysis is that patients need dialysis solution. They use about 12, 15 liters of this sterile medical solution every night to do their therapy. And today the way we do that and the way we've done it ever since this therapy has been around since early seventies is we literally deliver that solution in bags, by trucks. We make it in big plants in the United States and trucks drive all across the country and they deliver it to patients in their home.And as a company, we, for a long time have said, we really need to change this business model. It's not sustainable for us. It requires our patients store a lot of water in their home or the solution rather in their home. And they have to essentially dedicate a whole room of their houses to storage of their supplies.So, we have, for the longest time said, we want to change how this is done. And we want to be able to use the patient's own water in their home. And instead of delivering all these bags of solutions deliver concentrates much like if you go on, you buy a soft drink at the movie theater, it comes from a concentrated box of syrup that is, you add water to it and you have your soft drink. And so that's our vision. And we've struggled for many years of how to bring innovation into the marketplace for making that pure water that we need in the home. We have a lot of very bright scientists at Baxter. The problem is that as Kevin mentioned before, our scientists are really good at solving particular problems in particular getting products to market. Where we've been struggling is that the science has not or at least we haven't been aware of the science that could really allow us to break this barrier and make the leap to be able to make this pure solution medical grade solution in the home. And that's why we've reached out to Kevin and his platform as a way to do that is to go out to a really broad community of researchers to bring new ideas into the company, to help us figure out new ways to approach the problem.Brian Ardinger: The history of open innovation is long. And there's a lot of things that have been tried in the past. Did Baxter try other methods in the past? Or how did you go about trying to determine what things we should innovate internally and try to solve that way versus when and where we go outside for solutions? Matt Muller: I would say as a company, we probably hadn't been as involved specifically in the university and in the startups space. So, a lot of times as a company, we have a lot of people that come to us with ideas and looking for funding. Most of the time, it's a very common proposition that they give you. They need a certain amount of funding, and in three years, they'll have a product. Three years is like the magic number. And the reality is that it's frequently the claims and the charity are very oversold, and we haven't been really successful in that type of space. And so, we've been really looking at different ways to engage a larger community. The other element of it too, is sometimes when you talk open innovation, we're limited by our existing network of people. And so that is the employees and who they work with. Maybe it's the fact we're in Northern Illinois, we're close to Northwestern University and people here have relationships with professors at Northwestern.So, we develop those relationships and the open innovation opportunities through those connections. We've been looking into how do we expand that? Reach a broader audience and get a global connection, so to speak and open to new ideas. Brian Ardinger: And that's a great segue. Kevin, you've worked with companies also besides Baxter out there and that. What are some of the typical mistakes or challenges that you see corporations making when trying to get started in an open innovation.Kevin Leland: First of all get started is kind of the big challenge, because there's still some resistance to open innovation, and even the term open can be scary to some companies because it implies, or it can be interpreted as we're letting all of our competitors know what our strategic interests are. And so, I'm even hesitant sometime about using the word open. I mean, we're really about facilitating partnerships between companies and researchers who have mutually shared interests and can work together to solve problems. Some of the approaches in the past to me just seemed really inefficient, like traveling around the world and going to conferences and hoping you hear somebody speak or get a referral from someone or just call up the universities. Or just more likely to just work with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton are just example of select universities as if there couldn't possibly be great research coming out anywhere else.And so that was part of the problem that I was trying to solve with Halo in terms of democratizing access to companies like Baxter for all scientists, regardless of where they are in the world, or what institution, where they reside and making the process a lot easier for both the scientists and for the company.Because one of the reasons that companies don't pass a wider net is because it's a lot of tedious administrative work in terms of emailing and downloading attachments and PDFs. So, the platform is designed to streamline that entire process so they can cast a wider net. The Ewing Marion Kauffman FoundationSponsor Voice: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonpartisan foundation based in Kansas City, Missouri, that seeks to build inclusive prosperity through a prepared workforce and entrepreneur-focused economic development. The Foundation uses its $3 billion in assets to change conditions, address root causes, and break down systemic barriers so that all people – regardless of race, gender, or geography – have the opportunity to achieve economic stability, mobility, and prosperity. For more information, visit www.kauffman.org and connect with us at www.twitter.com/kauffmanfdn and www.facebook.com/kauffmanfdn.Brian Ardinger: Are there types of businesses or types of challenges that seem to work better when tackled in this open format or open environment? Kevin Leland: We're focused on scientific innovation. So the other key difference is that all of our community are PhDs or part of funded startups. So it's not a challenge site where just anybody can submit an idea. So that's one of the key differences. Brian Ardinger: Are the types of businesses or types of challenges that seem to work better in this type of environment.Kevin Leland: In the case of Halo, we seen everything from very specific requirements that were similar to what Baxter was looking for where they lay out the actual technical requirements of what they're looking for. And then on the other side of the spectrum, we have what Bayer has done, which is a very open-ended call for proposals around the area of sustainable agriculture. And so, the platform is flexible enough that it works for either approach. The key difference, I mean, it really depends on the goal of the company. So in the case of Baxter, a lot of our other customers like Pepsi or Reckitt, they're looking for a very specific solution, to a challenge that they have. Whereas a company like Bayer kind of doesn't know what they don't know, and they're just kind of want to see what's out there.And then from a management perspective, when you do have a very open-ended call, you get a lot more proposals and the more specific requirements the fewer you are going to get. So, it kind of depends on, on what your ultimate strategy is. Brian Ardinger: That's a great way to segue it back to Matt. I'm assuming that your work with Halo is not the only type of innovation initiative that's going on at Baxter. Can you talk a little bit about some of the other innovation efforts that are going on there and how does your work with Halo fit in with those?Matt Muller: As a company, really, a lot of our innovation framework is built into our core business objectives. The way we're structured as a company we're in business units. So, as I said, I work in renal care, so everything, we start with our business and understanding what does that business strategy. Where do we want to play as a company? And then what are the key problems that we want to solve?And I mentioned up front one of the key problems right now that we want to solve, is we want to figure out how to be a more sustainable business and get away from shipping water across the globe. So that's a key strategic initiative for our business. So, then what we define at that point, what are the key elements or the problems that we need to solve in meeting that strategic initiative. One is how do we purify water in the home? And then we figure out what are the ways, you know, based on those specific problems we find we have, what are the best ways to solve that problem?So, in some cases, we're at a point where we need more ideas. Whereas a company, we stagnated and we tried these pathways are not fruitful. We're kind of keep banging our head against the wall. Let's really go out there and see what's out there. And that was an example of what we did with Halo. We also have our own internal engineering organization. We're a global company. So, there are specific things that we may do from an innovation project where we would work on it internally because we feel like we have the internal expertise. Or a lot of times what we will do is we'll look for external partnerships and that may be in the form of through various engineering consulting companies and product development consulting companies that we may partner with because they may have very specific experiences in a space that we're interested in, or maybe an adjacent space.And that's another big element is we get siloed and focused in medical. But there are a lot of adjacent areas where technologies are being developed and, you know, maybe it's the petroleum or refining industry, or maybe it's, you know, some other area of medical that we just don't play in. And we can bring in these consultant firms that just have much broader exposure. And so that's also an element that we look at. So it's really a mix between this open concept like what we do with Halo, engineering consulting and partnerships, and then internal. Brian Ardinger: You know the world is changing so fast and everything is happening so rapidly that it's tough to keep up. Even if you're an expert in your particular industry, like you said, even understanding what's going on in cross industries and that. Kevin, can you talk a little bit about the types of industries that you serve and why a platform like this can give advantage to corporate?Kevin Leland: Yeah, absolutely. I thought it was interesting when Matt was talking about getting inspiration from other industries like oil and gas or petroleum, because that's really what the platform is designed for. Researchers don't necessarily think in terms of what the commercial application is. They think of what their expertise is. And by collecting all this data on what their focus area is and then on the flip side, what companies are interested in, we can more programmatically find connections that in potential partners where otherwise, it would really have no idea that there might be a fruitful opportunity there. In general, we've been focused like broadly on the area of sustainability, which can include anything from sustainable agriculture, like Bayer to sustainable packaging or work with PepsiCo and then water treatment, which is what we did with Matt and his team.So that's a really broad category. We do have a few other opportunities are kind of outside that scope. But we are also looking at doing more in the medicine and pharmaceutical areas as well. Brian Ardinger: Matt, can you talk a little bit about the early days of finding an innovation effort like this? What were some of the challenges or pitfalls or things you had to do to get buy in and then go and actually execute on this particular challenge? Matt Muller: It's hard to sometimes in a large company get traction. And so, you need a champion. And Kevin's known that cause we've actually worked together to help to get that traction within Baxter. I think it helped as we got started because Kevin had some prior connections with some core people at Baxter, which helped to get some initiative.But I think the biggest challenge is getting started and showing the value and gaining the buy-in to get something like this funded internally in a large company. I think a lot of people have an opinion of large companies have endless resources. And can do anything they want. But the reality is everything's looked at very closely.You're constantly getting distracted with the new crisis or the new area of focus. And people are constantly changing roles and companies. So, you need that champion internally. You need to then be able to get that own internal opportunity to influence. To get the approval, to fund something like this.But then secondly, you need the success stories to come out of it, because if you don't have that initial success, chances are that then you're not going to get that momentum and people aren't going to believe in following through with it. And that was key to our relationship here is getting really some initial successes that we could point to. And then things have kind of evolved from there. Brian Ardinger: And that's a great point. I think a lot of companies are naturally more fearful because failing in an existing business model is not a good thing, but yet to innovate, you know, that there are some things that are probably not going to work and that. Open innovation almost gives you some opportunity to try and test and experiment a little bit outside of your core realm.Gives you a little bit more ground cover sometimes to have different types of conversations than you would have, just if it was only internal and working from that perspective. Kevin, what else are you seeing when it comes to the benefits of companies reaching outside of their four walls to create their innovation initiatives? Kevin Leland: The biggest benefit and maybe Matt can speak to this is they're identifying partners that they would have never known about otherwise. So Matt was able to identify a team in Australia. UNSW Sydney. And I don't think Baxter has anyone on the ground there, and probably wouldn't have found that otherwise. And then the secondary benefit is it's almost like a market analysis tool or market intelligence tool because the companies are learning about new technologies and trends and different pockets of innovation around the world that they really didn't have visibility into previously.Brian Ardinger: What are you guys most excited about moving forward?Kevin Leland: I'm really excited to see this working. So, you know, I did a ton of customer discovery before launching Halo. I had dozens of interviews with innovation executives on one side and scientists on the other side. But you never really know until you actually go into the wild and introduce a platform to the users to see if it's going to work. And we've done 20 plus RFPs now since Baxter. We work to put 12 Fortune 500 companies, every one of them has resulted in signed agreements. And, you know, obviously it takes time to see these products into the marketplace, but that's the next thing I'm excited about is when Baxter introduces a new home dialysis device, where patients can make the dialysis solution from their kitchen and don't have to have 900 pounds of solution sitting in their bedroom.Brian Ardinger: Matt, what are you excited about? Matt Muller: Well, I like your vision of the future there, Kevin, first of all. Beyond that, you know, and obviously helping us accelerate, getting the innovative products to market. The other thing that I've really enjoyed is being able to make these broader connections that we never would have before. Kevin used the example of we're connected now with the University of New South Wales on a really interesting research project.But the other thing that this connected us with is a whole network of experts on an NSF Foundation called New, which is very well aligned with some of our core business and research interests that we never would have had before. You know, if we hadn't been involved with this initiative. And so, it's those types of things that also really get me excited because it really helps us.You know, at the end of the day we're scientists. We're engineers. We all like collaborating with other scientists and engineers to solve problems. And this is just exciting because it broadens that network for us even more. For More InformationBrian Ardinger: Matt and Kevin, thank you for collaborating here at Inside Outside Innovation and sharing some of the insights on what's working in this new changing landscape that we're in. So, I appreciate you both being on. If people want to find out more about yourselves or the companies and that that you work at, what's the best way to do. Kevin Leland: For me, they can connect with me on LinkedIn. Just search Kevin Leland should be one of the top three, I think, or go to Halo. Science Matt Muller: And similarly, you can connect with me on LinkedIn. I'm Matthew Muller, Director of Applied Innovation, Baxter Healthcare. We also have a company bio description on Kevin's platform. Halo. We also have put out two new challenge statements with respect to some of the key technical challenges that we have in our space. So, you know, go to Kevin's platform and check those out as well, please.Brian Ardinger: Well, Matthew, Kevin, thank you again for being on Inside Outside Innovation. I look forward to continuing the conversation and thank you very much.Kevin Leland: Thanks Brian.Brian Ardinger: That's it for another episode of Inside Outside Innovation. If you want to learn more about our team, our content, our services, check out InsideOutside.io or follow us on Twitter @theIOpodcast or @Ardinger. Until next time, go out and innovate.FREE INNOVATION NEWSLETTER & TOOLSGet the latest episodes of the Inside Outside Innovation podcast, in addition to thought leadership in the form of blogs, innovation resources, videos, and invitations to exclusive events. SUBSCRIBE HEREYou can also search every Inside Outside Innovation Podcast by Topic and Company. For more innovations resources, check out IO's Innovation Article Database, Innovation Tools Database, Innovation Book Database, and Innovation Video Database.