Podcast appearances and mentions of Oliver Wendell Holmes

Write of Passage Podcast: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Ward Farnsworth is a law professor and former dean at the University of Texas School of Law who has written popular books about clear thinking, language, and philosophy. His books include Classical English Style and works on rhetoric and legal writing. He's a genius at making complex ideas simple and useful for everyday life. Enjoy! Get 60 days free Readwise Reader at https://readwise.io/davidperell/ TIMESTAMPS 00:00:00 Intro 00:04:53 Example 1 (King James Bible) 00:07:09 Example 2 (Winston Churchill) 00:11:45 Example 3 (Winston Churchill) 00:15:19 Example 4 (King James Bible) 00:18:18 Example 5 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:22:57 Example 6 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) 00:26:40 Classical English Rhetoric 00:27:40 Example 7 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:29:59 Example 8 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:31:48 The only app I use to read articles [Readwise Reader] 00:33:15 Example 9 (Winston Churchill) 00:35:53 Example 10 (Lloyd Bentsen) 00:38:34 Example 11 (JFK) 00:42:00 Example 12 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:43:40 Example 13 (Henry Fielding - Tom Jones) 00:45:32 Example 14 (King James Bible) 00:47:42 The 3 Techniques, explained 00:52:24 Practical advice for everyone 00:56:08 The ideal writing curriculum WARD FARNSWORTH http://wardfarnsworth.com/ I also made a website that helps you learn from the best writing of all-time: https://writingexamples.com/ Hey! I'm David Perell and I'm a writer, teacher, and podcaster. I believe writing online is one of the biggest opportunities in the world today. For the first time in human history, everybody can freely share their ideas with a global audience. I seek to help as many people publish their writing online as possible. FOLLOW ME YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DavidPerellChannel Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-write/id1700171470 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2DjMSboniFAeGA8v9NpoPv X: https://x.com/david_perell Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ward Farnsworth is a law professor and former dean at the University of Texas School of Law who has written popular books about clear thinking, language, and philosophy. His books include Classical English Style and works on rhetoric and legal writing. He's a genius at making complex ideas simple and useful for everyday life. Enjoy! Get 60 days free Readwise Reader at https://readwise.io/davidperell/ TIMESTAMPS 00:00:00 Intro 00:04:53 Example 1 (King James Bible) 00:07:09 Example 2 (Winston Churchill) 00:11:45 Example 3 (Winston Churchill) 00:15:19 Example 4 (King James Bible) 00:18:18 Example 5 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:22:57 Example 6 (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) 00:26:40 Classical English Rhetoric 00:27:40 Example 7 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:29:59 Example 8 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:31:48 The only app I use to read articles [Readwise Reader] 00:33:15 Example 9 (Winston Churchill) 00:35:53 Example 10 (Lloyd Bentsen) 00:38:34 Example 11 (JFK) 00:42:00 Example 12 (Abraham Lincoln) 00:43:40 Example 13 (Henry Fielding - Tom Jones) 00:45:32 Example 14 (King James Bible) 00:47:42 The 3 Techniques, explained 00:52:24 Practical advice for everyone 00:56:08 The ideal writing curriculum WARD FARNSWORTH http://wardfarnsworth.com/ I also made a website that helps you learn from the best writing of all-time: https://writingexamples.com/ Hey! I'm David Perell and I'm a writer, teacher, and podcaster. I believe writing online is one of the biggest opportunities in the world today. For the first time in human history, everybody can freely share their ideas with a global audience. I seek to help as many people publish their writing online as possible. FOLLOW ME YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DavidPerellChannel Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-write/id1700171470 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2DjMSboniFAeGA8v9NpoPv X: https://x.com/david_perell Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

#193This is the 7th instalment of our Daily Sevens Season in which we're giving you seven gifts each day over the Xmas period.Today it's quotes.As I was trying to choose, it got too difficult to stick to seven.So  instead I picked seven themes so that I can squeeze in a couple more quotes for you. The seven themes are:MoneyQuote: "The only thing that money gives is the freedom of not worrying about money." - Johnny CarsonHard WorkQuote: "About the only thing that comes to us without effort is old age." - Gloria PitzerEducationQuote: "A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." - George SantayanaKnowledgeQuote 1: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - ConfuciusQuote 2: "To pretend to know when you do not is a disease." - LaoziMindsetQuote 1: "The mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open." - Frank ZappaQuote 2: "The empires of the future are the empires of the mind." - Winston ChurchillQuote 3: "A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions." - Oliver Wendell HolmesHabitQuote: "Habit is a cable. We weave a thread of it every day, and at last, we cannot break it." - Horace MannKeep It SimpleQuote: "Everything is both simpler than we imagine and more entangled than we can conceive." - GoetheOur investor list is full right now, but we'll be doing more projects in the year ahead.Schedule a callto see if we're a good fit for each other.I'd Like Help With Setting My Goals(Download a Free Comprehensive Cheat Sheet PDF)Leave an honest review of Expat Property StoryJoin our Mailing List to join our WhatsApp  group AND access our 37 Question Due Diligence Checklist AND our 23 Step Guide to Buying Property at Auction AND our Monthly NewsletterFollow Us on InstagramWhat's the one thing you're struggling with in UK propertyDetails of where to meet Expat Property Investors (For FREE):Hong Kong: Pacific Coffee, 2/F, Central Building, Central (1st Saturday each month from 11:30 am)Dubai: Holiday Inn, Science Park (1st Wednesday each month from 7pm)Singapore: The Providore at VivoCity (1st Saturday each month  from 10:30 am)Keywordssuccess, failure, quotes, expat property, podcast, UK property portfolio, Christmas, gifts, review, money, Johnny Carson, freedom, hard work, Gloria Pitzer, property education, property courses, knowledge, Confucius, Laozi, mindset, Frank Zappa, Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes, habits, Horace Mann, goal setting, fixed rate return, savings, investment, Goethe.

The Western Allies' demand that the Axis Powers unconditionally surrender was essential to keep the Soviets and the Chinese in the war while enduring incredible losses, to keep up the morale of the western allies, and to achieve the elimination of the Nazi regime and reforming Japanese society. 

In 1809 the international scene was tumultuous. Napoleon was sweeping through Austria; blood was flowing freely. Nobody then cared about babies, but the world was overlooking some significant births. William Gladstone was born that year. He was destined to become one of England's finest statesmen. That same year, Alfred Tennyson was born to an obscure minister and his wife. The child would one day greatly affect the literary world in a marked manner. On the American continent, Oliver Wendell Holmes was born in Cambridge, Mass. And not far away in Boston, Edgar Allan Poe began his eventful, albeit tragic, life....Article Link

Send us a text In our discussion on Oliver Wendell Holmes and the outward mindset, we reflected on key ideas that stood out. Holmes' emphasis on pragmatism and flexibility in thought resonated deeply, aligning with the outward mindset's principle of focusing on others' needs and perspectives. We highlighted stories and examples illustrating how shifting from self-centered thinking to understanding others can foster better relationships and outcomes. A particular takeaway was how Holmes' legacy of intellectual openness serves as a reminder to remain adaptable and empathetic in both personal and professional interactions. This inspired us to think about how we can apply these principles in our own lives to create more meaningful connections. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "To reach a port, we must sail, sometimes with the wind and somtimes against it. But we must not drift or lie at anchor." Communities all over central Newfoundland are now deciding whether they're for the wind or against it as they struggle to survive. Scott Sceviour is a town councillor in Botwood, and a director of Exploits Marine and Logistics. That company is in a partnership with the Exploits Valley Renewable Energy Corporation or EVREC, which has proposed to build hundreds of green-energy windmills around Central. The CBC's Leigh Anne Power spoke with Sceviour about the future of Botwood and why he's so invested in wind energy

First Amendment scholar and philosopher Tara Smith offers a comprehensive analysis of free speech, situating her work within the broader intellectual landscape. She examines the perspectives of historical figures like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and John Stuart Mill while addressing contemporary issues such as social media speech, “cancel culture,” and religious exemptions. Smith's approach involves dissecting key concepts like censorship and freedom, exploring the crucial distinction between speech and action. Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, where she has taught since 1989. A specialist in moral, legal, and political philosophy, she is author of the books Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System (Cambridge University Press, 2015), Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (Cambridge, 2006), Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality (Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), and Moral Rights and Political Freedom (Rowman and Littlefield 1995). Smith's scholarly articles span such subjects as rights conflicts, the morality of money, everyday justice, forgiveness, friendship, pride, moral perfection, and the value of spectator sports. Shermer and Smith discuss the First Amendment, the definition of freedom, the nature of rights, and how freedoms are won or lost. The conversation explores contemporary issues such as social media censorship, hate speech, and the blurring lines between speech and action. It also delves into legal concepts like libel, slander, and compelled speech. Historical context is provided through references to influential figures like Oliver Wendell Holmes and his introduction of the clear and present danger test in First Amendment law.

In this episode we cover recent proclamations for the end of free speech by prominent members of the doomsday cult, formerly known as the Democratic Party.  This is followed by a laundry list of types of speech that are protected by the First Amendment (at least in America).  Finally, we briefly examine the historical record when it comes to violations of free speech; from John Adams and Abe Lincoln to Woodrow Wilson and Oliver Wendell Holmes; finally coming to rest in modern-day America with one of the major political parties running, what can only be described as, a censorship industrial complex. Show Notes Instagram  |  Truth Social  |  GETTR  |  Twitter  |  GAB  |  Apple |  Rumble  |  BitChute -------------------------------- Truth Quest Podcast Episode 300 - The Truth About the Supreme Court-Endorsed Take Down of the First Amendment Episode 250 - The Truth About the Twitter Files - The Third Tranche Episode 234 - The Truth About the Twitter Files - The Third Tranche Episode 228 – The Truth About the Twitter Files - The Third Tranche Episode 222 – The Truth About the Rescission of the First Amendment Episode 126 – The Truth About Big Tech Censorship Episode 99 – The Truth about Abraham Lincoln - Part I Episode 98 – The Truth about Abraham Lincoln - Part II Episode 76 – The Truth About Hate Speech Episode 16 – The Truth About the Supreme Court -------------------------------- Support the podcast by shopping at the Truth Quest Shirt Factory. Check out the shirt inspired by this episode: Free Speech includes. . . With each shirt design there is an explanation of what to expect from those inquisitive or brave enough to ask you about it. In most cases there are links to podcast episodes that will deepen your understanding of the importance of each phrase.  We hope you take the challenge of wearing these shirts in public and to family gatherings. You will be well-equipped with the rhetorical tools to engage in conversation and/or debate.  Good luck! And thanks for supporting the Truth Quest Podcast! -------------------------------- Join the conversation at The Truth Quest Facebook Fan Page Order a copy of one of my books, Pritical Thinking, The Proverbs Project, The Termite Effect. The Truth Quest Podcast Patron Page

In this explosive episode of "Connecting the Dots," I sit down with Professor Dan Kovalik to expose the harsh reality of free speech under attack in America. Dan shares his chilling story of being detained for hours at Miami Airport, interrogated simply for telling the truth on RT and other alternative news outlets. He's part of a disturbing trend—journalists in the U.S. being raided, arrested, and harassed for daring to speak out. Is free speech in America on life support? We dive into Noam Chomsky's theory of controlled debate, where public opinion is tightly managed, and how today's media manipulates what we're allowed to hear. From the prosecution of dissent to the silencing of pro-Palestine voices on college campuses, this conversation reveals the frightening erosion of our First Amendment rights. Don't miss this urgent wake-up call—are we witnessing the death of free speech in the land of the free?     Find me and the show on social media. Click the following links or search @DrWilmerLeon on X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Patreon and YouTube!   Hey everyone, Dr. Wilmer here! If you've been enjoying my deep dives into the real stories behind the headlines and appreciate the balanced perspective I bring, I'd love your support on my Patreon channel. Your contribution helps me keep "Connecting the Dots" alive, revealing the truth behind the news. Join our community, and together, let's keep uncovering the hidden truths and making sense of the world. Thank you for being a part of this journey!   Wilmer Leon (00:00): The linguist, Noam Chomsky tells us the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. Even encourage the more critical and dissident views that gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on. While all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate. That's Noam Chomsky. Let's talk about it. Stay tuned. Announcer (00:43): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge. Wilmer Leon (00:51): Welcome to the Connecting the Dots podcast with Dr. Wilmer Leon, and I am Wilmer Leon is this what American mainstream media and those in Western established press are engaging in actually the violation of the First Amendment? Let's discuss this. Here's the point. We have a tendency to view current events as though they occur in a vacuum, failing to understand the broader historic context in which these events occur. During each episode of this podcast, my guests and I, we have probing, provocative, and in-depth discussions that connect the dots between these events and the broader historic context in which they occur. This enables you to better understand and analyze the events that impact the global village in which we live. On today's episode, the issue of force is very simple. The first amendment, freedom of speech, and the US government's attack on this inalienable right, and my guest is a US labor and human rights lawyer, writer, author, and activist. His latest book is entitled The Case for Palestine, why It Matters and Why You Should Care. He has been a peace activist throughout his life. He has been deeply involved in the movement for peace and social justice in Columbia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other countries in the global south. He's also taught international human rights law at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law since 2012. He is Professor Dan lik. Dan, welcome. Dan Kovalik (02:26): Thank you. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. Wilmer. Wilmer Leon (02:30): So there are a number of events. We're going to connect a number of dots here, but let's start with the First Amendment and it reads as follows, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people to peaceably, to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Dan, we take this as Americans, we take this for granted, but as the first amendment of the first 10, this one was very important and made number one for a reason why? Dan Kovalik (03:18): Well, because the founding fathers having come from England, where there was a king who was able to prescribe speech arbitrarily, wanted to protect the right of free spree speech, the right of religion. Of course, England had a state religion, the Anglican Church, and they wanted to make sure that Americans had the right to such things as speech and religion and freedom of the press. In England. Those things were not protected even to this day. By the way, great Britain does not have a written constitution and does not protect those types of rights in the way that the United States does. Wilmer Leon (04:05): And again, we've taken this right for granted for so many years, but we have found history shows us, particularly during times of war, when the United States feels that it is being threatened, the screws tighten on free speech, hence people get charged with sedition and other types of violations. When the government feels it's being threatened, when there is a perceived threat from outside the country, then the government will tend to tighten the screws restrict speech, and then once that threat is vanquished, then the prohibitions relax. Have you found history to prove that to be true? Dan Kovalik (04:57): Yes. I mean, one of the most famous examples, of course is during World War I, people like Eugene v Debs, great socialist from Terre Haute, Indiana. He was put in jail for publicly opposing World War I and famously his persecution and those of others like him was approved by the Supreme Court in a famous case by Oliver Wendell Holmes is one of the most celebrated jurors, and he created the clear and present danger rule. And what that says is that the First Amendment is not, as they often say, the US Constitution is not a suicide pact. He said that in cases of a clear and present danger, Congress in fact could (05:59): Limit speech. He gave the example famous example of you're not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. And he compared incredibly advocating for peace during a time of war as tantamount to claiming there's a fire in a crowded theater. And that remains the law of the day. And so that law or that decision, which is now almost a hundred years old, I think sets the precedent that advocating for peace in the United States is somehow a clear and present danger. And so when we look to how speech is being regulated and limited today, what we often see it being regulated when people are clamoring for peace. Wilmer Leon (06:58): There's an interesting piece in consortium news entitled Free Speech in the Department of Political Justice, and it's written by former judge Andrew Napolitano, who was a superior court judge in New Jersey. And he writes in this piece, I don't want to spend a lot of time getting into the weeds of the First Amendment, but I think this is very germane to what we find ourselves dealing with. He writes, the framers of the Constitution, were debating this idea of free speech, and they concluded that expressive rights are natural to all persons no matter where they are born. And natural rights are, as Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence inalienable. That's why I refer to them as inalienable rights in the open stated differently. He writes, Madison and his colleagues gave us a constitution and a bill of rights that on their face recognized the prepo political existence of the freedom of speech and of the press in all persons and guaranteed that in Congress, by which they meant the government could not and would not abridge them until now. And he, in his piece, he's referencing some charges that the United States government has imposed against some Americans and some Russians, and it's not even a matter of challenging war as much as it is challenging the established government narrative. Your thoughts? Dan Kovalik (08:35): Yes. So again, this is very similar to laws and regulations that have come down before during World War I and also around the same time you had the pomades against socialists and union leaders. Of course you had the McCarthy period, which also really represented an abridgement of peace of speech and of course very, I think relevant to today because of course the McCarthy period, at least ostensibly involved the persecution of communists. Though of course a lot of people persecuted were not communists, though a lot of the people who were persecuted were communists. Most notably in my mind, the great Paul Robeson who went, he and I went to the same law school. By the way, it's a big reason I went to Columbia Law School is because Paul Robeson went there, one of my heroes. Wilmer Leon (09:31): He was a few years ahead of you though. Dan Kovalik (09:33): A few years, yeah, yeah. I know I look old, but I'm not quite old enough to cross paths with Mr. Robeson. But why is that important? Because of course that involved claims that the communists were somehow how stooges of the Soviet Union. And now of course you have people making allegations that those opposing US foreign policy are pawns of Russia and Vladimir Putin. Right. So it's the same old trope that we've been hearing for years and years, and we see this manifested in the last two weeks with the Justice Department announcing indictments against people associated with rt, formerly known as Russia Today News based in Moscow. You had Anthony Blinken statements over the weekend that RT should be considered an espionage organization that means a spy organization. And of course the implication being that those Americans that work with it are spies. And then you had Hillary Clinton chiming in, I believe yesterday, saying that people spreading propaganda, Russian propaganda should be civilly if not criminally prosecuted. And so again, welcome to McCarthyism 2.0. It's a very scary time for people who, I'll just say like me, I'll only speak for myself who want to advocate for peace, but also specifically advocate for peace with Russia who say Russia's not our enemy who go to Russia. I've been to Russia five times in the last two years. (11:26): I've been to the Donbas three times to Crimea once to the Kherson region of what was Ukraine once. And I have worked with RT proudly so, but I and others like me are now in the crosshairs of the US government. And they're not even hiding it. They're being very clear that we are enemy number one at this point. Wilmer Leon (11:51): And this is important for people to understand because as you just mentioned, they've indicted two Americans living in Russia who are Russian citizens. They work for rt. The Feds are accusing them of spreading propaganda. And what they are basically doing is they're challenging the narrative of the Biden administration. And unlike what transpired during World War I, as you talked about Eugene Debs, and also what happened during World War ii, right now, last I checked, the United States has not declared war on Russia. So we are not in a war footing or on a war footing right now. These are individuals that, and I am one who is challenging the narrative of the Biden administration as it relates to what's going on in Ukraine as it relates to what's going on with China over Taiwan, what's going on in Venezuela, what's going on in the Middle East. There are a number of areas where I believe, and I think I have historic and current evidence to support the position that the established stated narrative of the administration is flat out wrong. Dan Kovalik (13:18): Yes, absolutely. And again, Anthony Blinken was very specific about that. He said that rt, that its alleged propaganda has undermined the cause of the war in Ukraine. But as you say, while the US is defacto at war with Russia, it is not officially at war with Russia. It is not declared war on Russia. And as you know, the US rarely declares war anymore. Only Congress can declare war. And rarely does it do that. We usually go to war again, not officially unofficially with countries without declaring war. So we are not officially at war with Russia, which means that those who work with Russia or Russia related entities are not engaged in sedition of any kind. (14:12): But that is what is being claimed. Now, I mean, that is being specifically claimed that we are in fact involved in sedition. And by the way, I know people, Wilmer friends of mine that are fleeing the country. Oh, really? Oh yeah. A number of people and some to Russia, but some to other places, Canada, other places for fear, they're going to be prosecuted because of their work with rt. And no, it's very serious. I know several people, I won't name them. I think I can name one because he's already done it. So he is safe there. And that's Jackson Henkel. Wilmer Leon (14:55): Oh, okay. Dan Kovalik (14:57): But there's others in the process of doing that. Some people have urged me to do that. So we have a very serious situation, and I understand why people would make that choice, because really the government is signaling that they may go after us. So it makes some sense, Wilmer Leon (15:21): And we're going to get to that with you in just a few moments because there, there's another, there are a number of facets of this that if you look at these things individually, people may have a tendency to think, oh, well, this is just a one-off here, or a one-off there. But when you start connecting these dots, what you find out is the government is engaged in incredibly fascist behavior, and they are establishing policies. When Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State, former First Lady comes on television and starts talking about people who are spewing propaganda need to be considered for facing criminal charges. What's the difference between her saying that here in the United States and some of the incredibly repressive policies that have been and are in place by some people that she and other members of the current administration label as dictators label as strong men label as fascists? Dan Kovalik (16:37): No, I mean, of course there's no difference. I mean, and think about it. The US has voice of America, which again, openly broadcast US viewpoints around the world and in particular in countries that the US is hostile towards. Radio Liberty is a similar one in Europe, but frankly, you don't even have to point to those because now frankly, most of the US media operates like those. They're nothing but mouthpieces For the US government, I would put NPR in that category, C-N-N, M-S-N-B-C, and of course the iron. And if those stations or those broadcasting systems are jammed in other countries or people associated with those entities are arrested or persecuted, of course the US is the first one to claim foul. Right? But of course, the other irony here is that M-S-NBC, which is the station that Hillary Clinton made her statements on, and Rachel Maddow, they have been propagandists themselves in terms of pushing these lies about Russian interference. They've been pushing these lies for eight years now. And Hillary Clinton herself was one of the main origins of that lie, which has been debunked, (18:02): Almost entirely and right. So they are pushing propaganda and they're pushing war propaganda again, specifically against Russia. They themselves are guilty of war propaganda, which is by the way, a war crime under international law. But so talk about calling the kettle black, or in fact, they're calling the China, the China plates black when they're the ones that are engaged in propaganda. Wilmer Leon (18:32): In fact, there's a, I'm trying to pull it up right now. There's an NBC story from a while ago from 2022 where they admitted to using propaganda to fool American people. And in fact, the author of the story is a journalist, Ken Delan, who by the way I believe had been dismissed from the LA Times because he was clearing stories through the CIA before the stories were being submitted to his editors at the LA Times. That's history. But there was a story back from 2022 where NBC admitted that they're involved in his propaganda war with Russia and that they will lie to the American people in order to get out in front of a story before the Russians can tell the story or to mislead the Russians. And so the United States government em, it does it to the American people itself Dan Kovalik (19:41): All the time. We know this happens all the time. Another classic case was Judith Miller at the New York Times, who was doing nothing but writing CIA propaganda at the behest of the CIA, which led it helped lead us to the war in Iraq. And in fact, the CIA credited her reporting for helping pave the way to the war with Iraq. And of course one of the big lies of the war, the weapons of mass destruction was a lie that she promoted and incredibly, she's landed on her feet. She was let go or forced to resign for the New York Times because that came out. But now she works for CNN. I mean these folks, it's really not a negative mark on their career if they do this sort of thing. John Stockwell just mentioned John Stockwell, I don't know if you remember him well, I do. But he was a CIA Bureau chief at Angola. He talked about how the CIA would write stories that they would've published in the press, and he gave one example. He said, we once wrote a story about Cuban troops who were fighting US backed forces in Angola, and who by the way helped liberate Southern Africa and South Africa, as you know, Wilmer. (21:06): He said they would claim Cuban troops had raped these women in Angola. Then they'd write a story saying the Cuban troops were killed. And then he said, incredibly, they'd write another story about the same Cuban troop unit somehow revived from the dead doing something else. And yet the press printed it without question. And this happens, and Hollywood's the same way. Hollywood is very much under the sway of the ca. If I can just give one example of that famous interesting example, if you've ever seen the movie, which I like quite a bit, meet the Parents, pretty funny movie. There's a scene in which Ben Stiller, the main character, goes into Robert De Niro's layer for the first time and discovers he's with the ccia. Originally, the script had it that he found he was with the CIA because there was a CIA torture manual de Niro's desk. Well, the CIA who reviewed the script and reviews many scripts in Hollywood, you can't do that. So they ended up just having photos of De Niro with Bin Laden and Clinton and different things. So a lot of what we watch on TV in the movies and reading the newspaper, a lot of that is clear through the ccia, if not utterly based on CIA misinformation that they feed to the press. Wilmer Leon (22:42): And let me connect these dots. I found the story and here's the headline. This is from NBC News in a Break with the Past. Now that's a lie. Us is using intel to fight an info war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. It doesn't have to be solid intelligence. One US official said it's more important to get out ahead of them, the Russians Putin specifically before they do something. So this is NBC admitting that they're using less than accurate intel in stories that they're telling to the American public. They're basically lying in order to further a narrative. And we can take this back to the Iraq War with the Office of Special Plans, which was set up in the Pentagon to take intel that hadn't been vetted and spin it into stories that would support the US narrative about why the United States needed the whole idea of weapons of mass destruction. And Dick Cheney's letter about yellow cake uranium coming from Niger, okay, why are we getting into these weeds? Because the United States government is attacking American citizens, independent journalists for telling the truth about stories that are challenging the standard narrative when the United States government admits itself, it's lying to you. And this is in violation of the First Amendment, professor Dan Kalik. Is that a good summation of the issue? Dan Kovalik (24:38): It's a very good summation. You often hear, for example, someone like myself will say, oh, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Which by the way, before 2022, even a lot of the mainstream press reported on that, right? Wilmer Leon (24:55): I won't say even Barack Obama said, one of the reasons we don't want to send weapons to Ukraine is because we don't want to give weapons to the Nazis. Dan Kovalik (25:01): Yeah. Not only did Barack Obama talk about it, there was a law passed by Congress that I think Obama signed saying that the US could not fund neo-Nazis in Ukraine. Well, I don't think they passed the law just because theoretically there might be because they knew there were Nazis in Ukraine, and then in fact, that law was repealed because they later decided, oh, well, we need to support Nazis in Ukraine. Okay, so everyone admitted there's Nazis in Ukraine. Then once the special military operations of Russia began in February of 2022, all of the press all of a sudden pretended, oh, there's no Nazis there. Okay? So now after that, if someone like me who's actually been to the Don Bass, which was part of Ukraine, says, oh yeah, there's neo-Nazis in Ukraine. They're like, well, that's a Putin talking point. Well, the fact it's a Putin talking point doesn't mean it's untrue. If Putin says the world is round, it doesn't mean the world is flat. (26:00): But that's what's happening. That is really the claim leveled against people who are trying to give a more balanced picture of what's happening in Ukraine as they're being portrayed as somehow being controlled by the Kremlin, when in fact they're just saying what the truth is. Even though, yeah, it may happen to correspond with what the Kremlin is saying, which I will say, I find the Kremlin a lot more credible on many of these issues than the White House, but other people have to judge that. But again, the fact that my views may overlap with those of the Kremlin at times doesn't mean I'm under their sway. Wilmer Leon (26:47): And let me give the reference those who want to look this up for themselves. Again, the headline of the story is in a Break with the Past US, is using intel to fight an in full war with Russia, even when the intel isn't rock solid. And the story is from April 6th and 2022 written by Ken Delan and others. And again, it's important to remember that again, Ken Delan was dismissed from the LA Times for writing stories, for sending stories to the CIA, having the CIA edit the stories, not telling the editors at the LA times that this was being done. So again, this shows you the kind of work and the kind of propaganda that is being sold to you as news. Now, there's another element to this because as we talked about before, there are a number of facets of this, and that is, again, in Consortium News, pro-Palestine students and faculty Sue UC, Santa Cruz, the lawsuit seeks to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and due process against overreach by university authorities. So basically what has happened, and this story came was last week, September 11th, 2024. So if you all remember back in the spring, there were a number of protests across college campuses all over this country in support of the Palestinian efforts, and they were protesting against the genocidal action of Israel against Palestinians at the United States is supporting. And a number of students were arrested, and some students that were arrested at UC, what did I say, UC, Santa Barbara or UC, Santa Cruz (28:52): In the spring have now still been put off campus in violation of campus regulation. So they are suing the University of Santa Cruz to have that overturned. And just Tuesday, the University of Maryland now finds that care, the Council of American Islamic Relations, Palestine Legal, they are suing University of Maryland for canceling. And this is who would ever think to do something this horrific Jewish and Palestinian student groups holding an interfaith vigil? Dan Valick, the country is going to hell in a hand basket. Dan Kovalik (29:44): Yeah, absolutely. It's outrageous. I mean, what we see is violations of the First Amendment in many different ways. Not only the violation of free speech, of freedom of assembly, but of course freedom of religion because of course, the interfaith vigil would be an expression of religion. I don't see how these actions by Santa Cruz, which by the way, is part of the University of California system, that's a public school system. It means they are subject to the First Amendment. I don't see how those actions can stand if they do stand, if the courts allow them to stand, then we have entered a brave new world, my friend. I mean a very dangerous world by any precedent of the court, at least recent precedent, they should be permitted to have these types of protest in vigils. And I hope they win in the courts. They should win. Wilmer Leon (30:42): In fact, I remember saying after September 11th, as we looked at the crackdown that the United States government was imposing upon American citizens, that when a country violates its own constitution in reaction to action taken by terrorists, the terrorists have won. Dan Kovalik (31:06): Yeah, well, that's absolutely true. And of course, what we saw after nine 11 was an abomination in terms of the rights, not just of US citizens, but of others that were curtailed. The people put in Guantanamo Bay without charge. It turned out most of them had done nothing. Some died in jail, some died of torture. (31:34): It was a huge mark on American democracy. I believe there's still people there. It has not been there. I think there's a couple survivors still hanging on. It's an amazing thing. And of course then you had Barack Obama who decided he could murder American citizens with drones abroad on his own authority. And he killed one man who was claimed to have been a terrorist again, that had never been proven, that he had not been, that had not proven in a court of law. And then incredibly, they murdered his son, his 16-year-old son. And in defense, one of the White House spokespeople said, well, he chose the wrong father. Wilmer Leon (32:25): Eric Holder came out and said when he was the Attorney General, that an American president can execute American citizens anywhere in the world without judicial review. Dan Kovalik (32:37): Yeah, incredible. An incredible thing. And it's bad enough, frankly, Wilmer, that the government has done these sorts of things. But the sad part also is there's been so little resistance to this, so little criticism. And that's what allows these things to continue and not only continue, but to escalate Wilmer Leon (32:59): Quickly going back to the campus issue. So we're told that there has to be this prohibition against protesting in support of the Palestinians because we have to be mindful of the sensitivities of Jewish students, and we can't have these Jewish American students feeling threatened and feeling unsafe on the college campuses amidst these peaceful protests, ignoring the fact that a lot of the protestors are the very Jewish students who the authorities claim their rights are being protected. I believe I submit to you attorney Kovalik, that that is merely a cover or a pretext for the protection of these interests of these students is a pretext, is a cover that is being used by the government to violate our First Amendment rights the same way the Israeli government claims it has to engage in genocide of Palestinians as it attacks Hamas. Dan Kovalik (34:22): No, exactly right. Because the other issue, I mean, of course you're right that many Jews are protesting for Palestinians, but also what about the Palestinians rights? There's Palestinian students on campus, there's Arab students. What about their rights? Right? Wilmer Leon (34:37): What about my rights? I'm neither Palestinian nor Jewish, and I have this problem, and I know I'm nuts, Dan. I got a problem with genocide. I admit it. I admit America. I admit it to the world. I got a problem with genocide. Dan Kovalik (34:52): It's an incredible thing. Wilmer, what we've all been taught since World War II is that the worst crime in the world is genocide, right? It is the high crime. It is the most abominable crime. And even one of the worst things you could say about someone is they're a genocide denier, right? Wilmer Leon (35:15): Oh, yeah. Heaven forbid. Dan Kovalik (35:16): And now all of a sudden when people are protesting against genocide, they're the bad guys. And yet it's an incredible thing that is happening. It's an amazing Rubicon we've crossed, and no one can really defend it. That's the problem. And that is why there's repression. The universities, including some of the best in the world like Columbia University, which may be the main offender on this, they can't defend their actions. They can't defend the genocide. They can't defend against those saying it's a genocide. So they've decided we just have to shut the speech down because we as an institution, we have no argument. We can't ideologically defend this. We can't ideologically defend the United States. And so we're just going to say, students, you can't talk, which goes against every notion that anyone has about what the university is supposed to be, a space of free speech and free debate. And Zionists should have a right to their views. They should have a right to peacefully protest. And those are against Zionism. And the genocide should also have that right. And that is so obvious and so clear, and the fact that the universities have decided to go the other way and only repress one kind of speech, and that is pro-Palestinian and not pro-Israel. It's abominable. It just shows the corruption of our institutions from the universities all the way to the White House. Wilmer Leon (36:55): And it also, I believe, shows the power of the military industrial complex, or what Ray McGovern called the Mickey Mat, in that once you start challenging the narrative via free speech, you now threaten the defense budget. You now start threatening the billions of dollars in weapons that are being wasted in Ukraine, that are being wasted in Gaza, that are being wasted as the United States is trying to foment a Middle East war. And heaven forbid those billion dollar contracts that are going to Lockheed Martin, that are going to Boeing, that are going to ge, Raytheon, heaven forbid, people start asking questions about why is so much money being wasted on genocide? Dan Kovalik (37:53): Yeah, no, exactly. That's correct. When we look around our cities, we look around this country, we see so many problems that need fixing, and people are saying, Hey, why aren't you fixing our problems instead of sending money abroad to these wars in Ukraine and Gaza? Those are very inconvenient people to the powers that be, and not just to the military industrial complex, but apparently we know that in the case of Columbia University, that they responded to calls by millionaires in New York City who asked them to repress the protest. So we know the ruling class is very much in the tank for Israel, very much in the tank for the genocide in Gaza, and that they are influencing these universities and how they respond to this. Wilmer Leon (38:45): And let's connect another dot. And that is the trial in Tampa, Florida that just wrapped up last week in the Uru, the African People Socialist Party, also known as the Uhuru movement or the Uhuru three. There was an incredibly confusing verdict that came down in that trial. It was alleged that the defendants were doing the bidding of the Russian government by sowing discord in America's political process by promoting political views that were contrary to those of the United States government and favorable to those of the Russian government. Now, I got to reiterate, they're not talking about overthrowing the government. They're not talking about attacking the government sowing discord, their own words in America's political process by promoting political views, not military political views that are contrary to those of the United States government. So well, go ahead, Dan. You want to say something? Dan Kovalik (40:00): Yeah. Well, that's exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect, are controversial views that go against the government. I mean, right? You don't need the First Amendment to protect speech that is pro-government, right? I mean, that's kind of obvious. If the First Amendment only protected pro-government speech, it wouldn't be much of a protection at all. As people say, you have to protect inconvenience speech and dissident speech. And so it's amazing that this prosecution went forward. Apparently, I guess they were convicted of conspiracy, but not some of the other charges. And by the way, let's say a couple things about it. First of all, I'm not sure they influenced anyone. I never heard of this organization to be totally honest, until this, right, until this indictment came down. And so number one, so they don't have much influence at all. Number two, I think this was over like 500 bucks in a donation they got for some Russian 500 bucks. Meanwhile, APAC is giving over a hundred million dollars in this election cycle to people's election campaigns. APAC owned Wilmer Leon (41:15): And Corey Bush Co Bush lost because of those efforts. And Jamal Bowman in New York lost because of those efforts. So not only is APAC donating and it's a hundred million by their admission in the New York Times, they were successful in their efforts. Dan Kovalik (41:36): They claim they were successful in every effort, every person, they backed one. And this has been true for years, of course, this type of influence. In fact, John F. Kennedy tried to make APAC liable under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, which is the act that the Arru group was prosecuted. And of course, Kennedy was not able to do so, and he was actually killed shortly after. You can draw your own conclusions. APAC has been this huge elephant in the living room, a huge influencer of American politics for many, many years. And yet, who's getting prosecuted for that? No one. No one. They go after these small fish Wilmer Leon (42:28): To make a big point. Dan Kovalik (42:29): Yeah, Wilmer Leon (42:30): Small fish to make a big point. And so this was an incredibly bizarre verdict because they weren't, as you mentioned, they weren't found guilty of failing to register as agents of the Russian government. They were convicted of conspiring to fail to register as agents of the government. Dan Kovalik (42:54): Incredible. It's absolutely incredible. Wilmer Leon (42:57): So the jury said that Chairman Omali Yeshitela and the other two defendants agreed to become unregistered agents of the Russian government, but didn't actually become agents of the Russian government. Dan Kovalik (43:15): They wanted to be agents, but Russian didn't care. They didn't want them to be agents, whatever. It's absolutely bizarre. And that we could talk about this all day. I mean, again, I'm a lawyer. I study criminal law, and that sort of, to get someone on that, that becomes just a thought crime. They literally did nothing they made, Wilmer Leon (43:35): Which by the way, isn't a crime, Dan Kovalik (43:36): Right? No, you're right. I mean, again, because that would be a First Amendment violation. We were not supposed to prosecute thoughts. And the idea is, oh, I wanted to do something. Well, that's not enough to convict someone. I mean, it's completely outrageous. And I think their case is on appeal, if I'm not mistaken. If it is, I really hope they win. I mean, God bless 'em. They really are the test case here for the rest of us. I mean, I think the government went after this small group that no one heard of because they figured no one would support them. They go after them first, make some bad precedent for the rest of us, then start going after the rest of us, which means it's a very important case. Wilmer Leon (44:22): And the prosecution, the government was unable to present hardly any witnesses. They had hardly any evidence because this was 95% fiction. It was just flat fiction. And I think what also the government didn't expect was the attention that this was going to bring. The courtroom was full of supporters for the Uhuru. They've been around since about 1972, and they've done incredible work in the communities that they work in. And so now final data point, as I understand it, you Dan Kalik we're coming back into this country last week. Dan Kovalik (45:14): Yeah, Friday. Last Friday, yeah. Wilmer Leon (45:16): I'll let you tell the story. Dan Kovalik (45:19): Yeah. So I was coming back from the anti-fascist Congress in Venezuela. Wilmer Leon (45:26): Yeah, Dan Kovalik (45:27): I believe, Wilmer Leon (45:28): Oh, wait a minute. See, I knew when I saw that white jacket, when I saw that white jacket Dan Kovalik (45:32): Knew something was bad. Yeah, they used to say they were premature. I guess that's what I'm, but anyway, I came back through Bolivia. And to be, make a long story short, I was held for four hours. I was interrogated where, what airport in Miami, which is not the airport, you really do want to come back through. But I was asked about my travels, about who I meet with, about my connections, my political beliefs. They Wilmer Leon (46:07): Asked you about your political beliefs. Dan Kovalik (46:09): Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, it was all about what countries do you like? What countries do you not like and do you feel most comfortable? What countries are you most afraid of? I said, honestly, the one I'm in right now because I get treated like this. And then Wilmer Leon (46:27): What was their reaction to that answer? Dan Kovalik (46:29): Well, they were a little defensive, but tried to continue with the conversation and then, well, even before, so before they got deeply into the questioning, they searched all my bags and took my cell phone and my computer. By the end of the evening, I did get my computer back, but my phone, I did not get back. And I just got it back this morning. So that would've been about three or four days they had it. And we know, I mean, you can Google this. There's a lot of stories about it. They have the right outside New York City. We can get into the exception outside of JFK and LaGuardia. They have the right everywhere else to take your phone and copy the whole thing, copy your computer, which I imagine they've done, which is an incredible privacy violation. As you can imagine. Most people have a heart attack if that happened to 'em. And it was clear, it was motivated by my trips to Russia, Venezuela, other countries. And in fact, I've been subject to secondary interrogation, which is what it's called at the border in the airports a number of times since I first started going to Russia about two years ago, I've been stopped. That was probably my fourth or fifth time being stopped. (48:02): I was told in Chicago when I was stopped some months ago, that I have a case number with the State Department that marked me for this type of interrogation. And other people like Danny Shaw, who's a friend of mine, a colleague of mine, he also was stopped Wilmer Leon (48:21): Friend of ours. Yeah, Dan Kovalik (48:23): Stopped for three hours. His phone was taken. I mean, he's Scott Ritter. Wilmer Leon (48:27): That was in Chicago. Dan Kovalik (48:28): Danny was stopped Wilmer Leon (48:29): In Chicago. Dan Kovalik (48:29): Chicago. Scott Ritter's house in New York was raided by the FBI. They took his phone and computer. So look, the hunt is on. There's no question about that. I do want to give one caveat, I mentioned this exception in New York City. There is a judge in New York, the federal court in New York who held in her court district, in her court jurisdiction, which covers JFK and LaGuardia. They cannot take your computer and phone without a search warrant. So people out there, Wilmer, if you're doing international travel, try to come back through JFK because Wilmer Leon (49:13): Thank you. I was just going to ask you about the warrant because this seems to be another violation. You're supposed to be secure in your person and your papers. Last I checked, and I'm not a lawyer. I did go to law school and I did stay at Holiday Inn Express. So there seemed to be a number of violations beyond the First Amendment when they start to detain you and they start to seize your property without warrants. Dan Kovalik (49:50): Yes. Well, the problem we have, Wilmer is outside the jurisdiction in New York, the courts have held that customs has the right to hold you even up to 72 hours, Wilmer without a lawyer interrogate you and to take your phone computer and copy it. They have held that until you get through the customs and immigration, Wilmer Leon (50:20): You're not officially in the country. Dan Kovalik (50:22): You're not in the United States of America. The Constitution does not apply to you. That's an incredible, incredible thing. Most Americans have no idea of it, and most Americans won't experience the repercussions of that. (50:36): But what that means, until you go through passport control and get your bag and go through those double doors and push on those double doors and go into the main terminal, they really have the power of God over you. And again, most people have no idea about that. And so what the government's decided to do is, okay, we're not going to even worry about getting a warrant. We won't even send the FBI to Dan Aleks home. We don't have to do that. We wait until he leaves the country. He comes back because he travels all the time, and we'll do things to him and take things from him. We could never do without a warrant and without an attorney being present if he's interrogated, et cetera. It's an incredible violation of our rights, as you say, Wilmer. But it is totally sanctioned, at least at this moment by the courts, except for that court in New York City. Wilmer Leon (51:33): So and where did they approach you? You're coming through the jet way. You're coming off, you're deplaning, you're coming through the jet way. So when you come out of the jet way to the terminal, what happened? Dan Kovalik (51:51): Well, so just as almost every time, so only one time this happened to me in Chicago recently. They were waiting for me off the plane. Right outside the plane. In theJet. (52:05): Yeah. The only time that happened, in fact, as we were descending, they announced in the plane is we were descending. Please have your passports ready when you exit the plane. They checked everyone's passports. When they got to me, they stopped checking because they had their guy and they took me to be interrogated. Now, there was only time that happened every other time, including this time in Miami. I get off the plane, I walk all that way. Usually it's a long walk all the way to passport control. I get in the line, I get up to the passport agent, she checks my passport, had a few questions, and I'm thinking maybe I'm going to be okay this time. And then she said, please stand over there. And I knew what that meant. Wilmer Leon (53:00): Did you say, go stand in the corner Dan Kovalik (53:02): And face the wall, basically. And she put a little orange slip over my passport and another guy comes out, he takes my passport and says, come with me. And I'm brought into another room with a bunch of other people, and I sat there for probably an hour. Other people were getting processed very quickly. After an hour, a customs officer came and said, please come with me with your baggage. And she said, now she begins, I'm sorry, Wilmer. She lied. Okay. She begins to make up this story. She says, you're subject to a random drug search from Bolivia because a lot of people are bringing in drugs. So we're going to check your bags and then I'm going to ask you a few questions. We'll let you go. And this is just a random, but she checks all my bags that she does, but she doesn't have a sniffer dog and she doesn't check my prescription pill bottles, which could have drugs in them. She didn't check my coffee I brought in, which could have drugs in them. Clearly this is theater. (54:08): And she says, as part of our search, we can take your phone and your computer. We're going to do that, but we're only going to search for issues related to drugs. Whether you told someone you have drugs or you swallow drugs. But then when she takes me to another room for interrogation, there's no questions about drugs. It's all about what countries do you visit? Do you meet with government officials? Do you know government officials? Do you know presidents of other countries? Again, what countries you feel comfortable in? What countries do you not feel comfortable in? (54:45): That sort of thing, which indicates that was the real reason for me being pulled over was my travels and political beliefs, not the drug stuff. That was just a lie, I think, to get me feeling comfortable enough to talk to them. So there you go. That's what happened. Again, it took me days to get my phone back again. You can read about it. The customs now copies thousands of phones a year. They put 'em on a database. All of that information is on the database for 15 years, and all 3000 customs officials have access to it. So some guy in whatever Oklahoma's board during his lunch can go eat his sandwich and look at my data. I mean, it's an amazing thing. Wilmer again, most Americans have no idea this is happening. Wilmer Leon (55:48): Wow. The land of the free and the home of the brave. So it's also important for people to understand this is happening during a democratic administration. Dan Kovalik (56:00): Yes. And especially because it's democratic. We know from the New York Times, an article about three weeks ago, talked about the FBI, investigating people for connections with Russia and rt, and they said specifically that this was ordered by President Joe Biden. So this is not an accident. This isn't just the bureaucracy doing what they do or the deep state. This has been ordered by a democratic president to happen. Wilmer Leon (56:30): And we also know that more whistleblowers were prosecuted during the Obama administration than any other administration in history. Dan Kovalik (56:40): Indeed, indeed. Wilmer Leon (56:44): Dan Kovalik, professor Dan Kovalik. Man, thank you so much for your time. I truly, truly appreciate. First of all, I'm very sorry that you as an American went through this. I'm even more aggrieved that you as a friend went through this. Thank you. But thank you for joining me today, Dan Kovalik (57:04): Wilmer. It's always a pleasure and you are a friend, and I admire you a lot, and I look forward to the next time we talk. Wilmer Leon (57:11): Well, man, appreciate it. And folks, thank you all so much for listening to the Connecting to Dots podcast with me, Dr. Wiler Leon. Stay tuned for new episodes every week. Also, please follow and subscribe. Leave a review, share the show, follow us on social media. You can see all the links below in the show description. And remember, this is where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge, talk without analysis is just chatter. And we don't chatter here on connecting the dots. See you again next time. Until then, I'm Dr. Wilmer Leon. Have a great one. Peace. I'm out Announcer (57:51): Connecting the dots with Dr. Wilmer Leon, where the analysis of politics, culture, and history converge.    

Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded? "Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?" | Watch This Episode on YouTube {"@context":"http://schema.org/","@id":"https://straighttruth.net/can-you-be-too-heavenly-minded/#arve-youtube-oj2apgdbhcc","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Oj2apGdBHcc?iv_load_policy=3&modestbranding=1&rel=0&autohide=1&playsinline=0&autoplay=0","name":"Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?","thumbnailUrl":"https://straighttruth.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/STP-S30-EP03-STP-S30-EP03-Can-You-Be-Too-Heavenly-Minded.jpg","uploadDate":"2024-08-29","description":"Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?"} Subscribe To Our YouTube Channel Support Our Podcast Join Our Mailing List Watch Us On Rumble Related MessagesRelated sermons:Heavenly-Minded PeopleA Warning Against WorldlinessCommanded to HopeHope & HolinessThe Call to EnduranceA Mature View of the MinistryAre You Prepared? "Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded? " | Watch this episode on Vimeo {"@context":"http://schema.org/","@id":"https://straighttruth.net/can-you-be-too-heavenly-minded/#arve-vimeo-1002142574","type":"VideoObject","embedURL":"https://player.vimeo.com/video/1002142574?dnt=1&app_id=122963&transparent=0&title=1&byline=0&portrait=0&autoplay=0","name":"Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?","thumbnailUrl":"https://straighttruth.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/STP-S30-EP03-STP-S30-EP03-Can-You-Be-Too-Heavenly-Minded.jpg","uploadDate":"2024-08-29","description":"Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?"} Follow Us On Vimeo Listen to the Audio Podcast Subscribe on iPhone Subscribe on Android Subscribe on Spotify Can You Be Too Heavenly Minded?Some people are so heavenly-minded that they're no earthly good. Have you ever heard this statement or something like it? It's a catchy quote attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. in the late 1800s, and many years later, in 1977, was embodied in a popular Johnny Cash song titled “No Earthly Good". A listener to the podcast has heard this phrase over the years and has written to us seeking to better understand what it really means. Aren't Christians called to be heavenly-minded?  Is it actually possible to be so heavenly-minded that they do no earthly good? Can Christians even be too heavenly-minded? That is the topic for this week's Straight Truth Podcast with Dr. Richard Caldwell and Dr. Josh Philpot. Join us and listen to the conversation as they seek to help us gain insight and understanding into what might be meant when someone uses this now widely familiar turn of phrase.Dr. Caldwell says if we begin by defining the phrase- heavenly-minded, according to the Scriptures, then the answer is no, a Christian cannot be too heavenly-minded. But, if we try to define what some people mean by describing someone as so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good, it's possible that what they mean is the person has an over-realized eschatology. This would be someone who responds to time and eternity in a manner that God never intended.  This is a circumstance where a believer knows they are headed to eternity, knowing that Jesus could come any day, and that is all they care about and are focused on. That would be an unbiblical response to the truths that God has given us about the return of Christ and about eternity. An example of this kind of living would be someone who sort of lives their life with their head in the clouds, so to speak, where they are not taking care of the things here on the earth that God has also assigned to His people. We find a most likely example of this in 2 Thessalonians 3, where Paul writes about some believers who had stopped working. But, in terms of being heavenly-minded and living in obedience to God's Word right now where we are on earth, and in light of eternity (with it always in view), that's absolutely biblical. That is what Christians are called to do; it's a matter of Christian obedience.

“We live in a complicated world . . . We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity.” In his new book of essays, “The Center Must Hold,” Yair Zivan, Foreign Policy Advisor to Israel's Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who heads Israel's largest centrist political party, argues for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics proliferating around the globe today. The essays, by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call populism fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe.  *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Yair Zivan Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: What the Unprecedented Assassinations of Terror Leaders Means for Israel and the Middle East Aviva Klompas is Fighting the Normalization of Antisemitism on Social Media On the Ground at the Republican National Convention: What's at Stake for Israel and the Middle East? Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Interview with Yair Zivan: Manya Brachear Pashman:   Yair Zivan has served as an advisor to Israel's Foreign Minister, Prime Minister and President. Most recently, he has edited a series of essays that argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism and polarized politics we see proliferating around the globe today. The title of that book: “The Center Must Hold”. The essays by authors including Israel's former Prime Minister Yair Lapid, American political commentator Jennifer Rubin, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and philanthropist Catherine Murdoch, call out populism as fatally flawed and prescribe centrism as the solution to political ire around the globe. Yair, welcome to People of the Pod. Yair Zivan:     Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let's start with the title of this essay collection, which is a spin, your spin on the line from the Yates poem The Second Coming. And that poem was written more than a century ago, also during a time of worldwide angst after World War One and the flu pandemic and the poem's opening line is, things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Why do you argue the center must hold? Yair Zivan:     So I think that the play on words there is about a kind of a fatalism that says it can't and saying, Well, we don't really have that luxury if we believe, as I do, that the center is the answer to the polarization and the populism and the extremism that's tearing us apart, then it simply has to hold.  Now that's not to say that it will automatically or by default. It means we have to go out and fight for it, and that's what I've been trying to do with the book and with the events around it, is to make the case that the center can hold if we go out and make that happen. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So what is centrism anyway? Yair Zivan:     It's a good place to start. I'll start with what centrism isn't. Centrism is not the middle. It's not a search for some point on a map between where the left and the right happen to be at any given time. That just leaves you getting dragged around from place to place by whatever the political winds are. It's not useful as a political idea. It's also not successful as a political idea.  Centrism says, here are a set of core values that we believe should be at the center of politics. They should be the things that are at the heart of our democratic political tradition, our political instinct. And you can trace it back to the early '90s, to Clinton and to Blair and the third way movement. You can trace it back much further, Oliver Wendell Holmes is often cited as a good example of a centrist political philosophy.  But at its core, what centrism says is we live in a complicated world, and we have to manage that complexity. We have to balance those tensions, and the way that we do that is not by running away from them and looking for simplistic answers, but actually by embracing that complexity. And by saying when we find the best balance between these competing tensions, and that's not to say split the difference and find the middle. There are times when we go more one way and more another, it's to say that is the way that we can best hold within us the complexities of running a country today. And there are some very core values at the heart of that liberal patriotism, this idea that it's good to love your country. It's good to be a patriot without being a nationalist, without hating others, without having to degrade other people in order to affirm your sense of love for your own country.  We talk about equality of opportunity, the idea that the role of government is to give everybody the best possible chance to succeed. It's not to guarantee an equality of outcome at the end, but it's to say we're going to make sure that children have a good education system and that their health care system gives them a chance to succeed, and they have a hot meal every day, and then people that want to work hard and take those opportunities and be innovative will be able to succeed in society.  It talks about the politics of hope, as opposed to the politics of fear and division, so creating a national story that people can rally around, rather than one that divides us inevitably into camps and separates us, which is what I think populists and extremists try to do.  So there's a whole host of them, and I would say one of the core ones, and maybe why it's so important and so relevant now, is that centrism is the place where you defend liberal democracy. It's fashionable today to talk about the death of liberalism and why liberalism can't possibly survive, and liberal democracy is an aberration in human history, and really we're meant to be ruled by kings and autocrats. And I say no, liberal democracy is good. It's actually the best system of government we've ever had, and we should work really hard to defend it and to protect it.  And the only place you can do that is in the political center. You can't trust the political right and the political left to defend the institutions of liberal democracy, because they only do it up until the point when it's uncomfortable for them. The right has taken on itself the mantle of free speech, and the right is really great at protecting free speech right up until the point that it's speech they don't like and then they're banning books in libraries.  And the left loves talking about protecting the institutions of liberal democracy until it disagrees with them, and then it's happy to start bending around the edges. The Center is the place where we say the institutions, the ideas, the culture of liberal democracy, is something that's worth defending and worth defending passionately and strongly. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So I'm curious, are these core values universal to centrism, or are they really up to individual communities? Is it, in other words, is it up to communities, nations to decide what centrism is in their region, in their neck of the woods, if you will?  Yair Zivan:     So there is always variety in any political idea, in any political approach, where people adapt it to their own systems, but the core principles have to be the same core principles. And one of the things I set out to do in this book is to say, actually, centrism is something that works across the globe. So Malcolm Turnbull, the former Australian Prime Minister, and Andreas Velasco, a former presidential candidate in Latin America, and we have Argentinians, and we have a Japanese contributor, and the idea is to say centrism as the principles that I laid out as the core idea is the antidote to the extremism and polarization that we're seeing works everywhere, and that's actually a really important part.  Now, sure, there are different issues that you deal with in different countries. Also say the threat is different in different countries, if part of what we're doing is an alternative to extremism and polarization. Then in Latin America, people are more worried today about the rise of a populist far left, whereas in Europe, they might be more worried about the rise of a populist far right. And so the challenge is different and the response is different, but the core principles, I think, are the same and they are consistent. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So do you believe that this philosophy is eroding? I mean, it seems to be happening at the same time around the world, in various democracies, Europe, United States, Israel. But do you agree? I mean, is this eroding, or is that too strong a word? Yair Zivan:     Look, I think one of the problems with centrist is we're often not very good at talking about our successes and pretty down on ourselves, rather than actually taking pride in really good things that we've done and in places where we win and places where we do well, the test of a political idea is not if it wins every election. No one wins every election, right? That's part of politics as a pendulum. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but the more important thing is not whether you win every election. And don't get me wrong, I work in politics. I like to win. I like to get votes. I like to be in government so that we can do the things that we care about, right? That's why we're in politics. But the test of the idea is whether it can also survive, defeat, an opposition and a time when you're not in power and come back from that stronger. And I think centrism has done that, and can continue to do that. But part of the reason for the book is we haven't always been articulate enough, confident enough and coherent enough in the way that we present our case, and that's something that I hope this book will have some kind of role in changing. That is to say we need to be proud of our successes and our achievements. What happens when you have a successful centrist government, the next people in the political party that come along disavow it and move away from it. You saw it in Tony Blair's Labor Party. I would argue that new labor was an incredibly successful political project, and the thing that came next was a labor party that did everything it could to run away from that rather than embrace that legacy.  And as the Labor Party reembrace that legacy, not coincidentally, it also came to power again in the UK, and you see that across the world. I think there are places clearly where we're struggling and places where we need to do a better job, but I also think there are enough examples to show that centrism can work, and the kind of politics that we're pushing for can work and can be successful. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So where is it struggling and where is it succeeding the most?  Yair Zivan:     So look, I'll talk about something that is maybe close to our heart on this podcast, and that's the situation in Israel today, Israel is going through the most difficult time, I think, as a country that certainly in our lifetimes, if not since 1948 we October 7 was was the darkest day that any of us lived through. I'm a little reticent to talk about the political response to that, but one of the things that's interesting from a centrist perspective, is the response of the Israeli public has not been to move to the right. It's been to move to the political center. And if you look at opinion polls in Israel today, the next government, if elections were held today, would be a center center right government. And I'm confident that that will hold all the way through to whenever we have the next election. And I think that's because there is a sense in Israel that actually people want that type of governance. They want people who understand that you need to embrace compromise and moderation and pragmatism as values, rather than looking at them as kind of a political slur, as a vice, as something that we need to talk down about. And so I look at Israel as a place where, actually we lost the election.  In November '22 we elected a government that was, to my mind, very right wing. And populist and incredibly problematic. I think we've paid a very high price for that in the last 18 months or so, and now there is a move back towards the political center. Look, I think Emmanuel Macron has been an example of the success of political centrism. The fact that he struggled in the parliament in the most recent parliamentary elections is not an indictment of the fact that he managed to build a political center in France that wasn't really there before. And the test, I guess, will be whether in two years, there is a successor from his party or not. So there are plenty of places I think that I can look out for being successful and where centrism does well. I think there's been some really good examples of political centrism in the US as well, despite the popular media narrative that everything is polarized. You look at groups like the problem solvers caucus in Congress, and you say, here is a group of members of Congress who are determined to work together, who are determined to cooperate and to find solutions to complicated problems and approach it in a really centrist way. Would I like to see centrists winning more in bigger majorities everywhere? Absolutely. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you give an example of an issue, pick a country, any country, but an issue that would really benefit from that pragmatic approach, that pragmatic centrist approach, sir Yair Zivan:     Arne Duncan, who was President Obama's Secretary of Education, who writes about a willingness to take on teachers unions and a willingness to demand standards and a sense of what is the focus of education, right? Where the focus of education should be providing the best possible education to children, something we should all be able to rally around, and yet, something that we seem to have lost along the way. And I think education comes back again and again as a core centrist focus. That's one. The other one that I think is really interesting is the essay by Rachel Pritzker. Rachel writes about climate change and about environment, and in it, she makes what I think is a really compelling case that says we can't fight back against the need for energy abundance, because, particularly in the developing world, people need energy in order to improve their quality of life, and they need a lot more energy than they have now. And the idea that the solution to climate change is turning off the lights every so often for a bit longer, is just not practical. Now it comes from a perspective that says climate change is real and is a problem and it's something we need to address, but it kind of pushes away from, I think, most of the orthodoxies of much of the kind of climate change movement and the environmental protection movement, and says we need something different. And that thing is a focus on technology and on innovation that will allow people to create the energy that they need in order to raise their quality of life, rather than demanding that they use less. That is, I think, a really great centrist approach. It's not a splitting of the difference. It's clearly coming down on the side that says climate change is real and it's a problem and it's something we have to address. But it's rejecting orthodoxies and offering something I think that's different. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And this seems like such a no brainer, right? I mean, it seems like these are our values, our principles that everyone should be able to agree upon, maybe not the methodology, right? Maybe that's what's up for debate. But it seems like these are just not points of contention. Yair Zivan:     I think we're going against the grain of politics. I think today, people don't subscribe to a real full throated defense of liberal democracy, and people aren't really willing to defend free speech, including speech that they don't like. And people are taking advantage of feelings of patriotism and dragging them to a pretty ugly nationalism or rejecting patriotism altogether. And so I think a lot of the ideas are not the most natural grain of where politics is. I was on a panel a few days ago, and one of the panelists turned to me, looked at me deeply, and said, I don't think I've ever met a centrist before.  And I thought, I think you probably have, right? And if not, then, nice to meet you, hi, I'm a centrist. But the idea that actually it's going against the trend in politics is one that troubles me. Part of what I'm trying to do is to say to people, if you are a centrist, then speak up. And it's difficult when you're a centrist, you are the biggest threat today. The fight in politics today is not between left and right, it's between the center and the extremes.  And so what happens when you come out and say, I'm a centrist? This is what I believe, is you find yourself attacked by the extremes, and that's sometimes a difficult place to be. When I put the first tweet out about my book within half an hour, I was called every name under the sun. I was a communist and a Nazi all at once, depending on who was attacking me, right? You have to be able to withstand that too often. Centrists have been shy and have kind of hidden back and said, I don't really mean it, and actually, I don't want to have this fight. Or actually, let's not talk about politics now, rather than saying, here's a set of values I believe in, and I'm passionate about and I'm willing to fight for them, and you know what, I am as committed to them, I am as passionate about them, and I'm as willing to fight for them as the extremes are about theirs. And because I think the majority of people are centrist and are looking for that motivation, I think that allows us to win the political argument, because if we're proud enough, then people will line up behind us who already do agree with the principles, but maybe feel like they're alone or there aren't enough people that share their views. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, they're kind of anti confrontational. They avoid confrontation, or perhaps too many centrists don't want to sound too passionate about their values, because. As perhaps passion equates to extreme.  Yair Zivan:     You should be able to be a passionate centrist. You should be passionate about defending liberal democracy. You should be passionate about being a liberal patriot. You should be passionate about trying to give children equality of opportunity, right? Those things are things that it's good to be passionate about, and you should care about them.  I just don't recognize in the centrism that I see being successful, this perception of timidity, or this perception of being scared, but what you have, I think, is too many centrists who have taken that path, and you have kind of backed off and backed away from being passionate about those arguments, and that's where we lose.  So my call to centrists is to be loud and to be proud and to be passionate about the things that we really care about and where there are places where people might feel a little bit uncomfortable with it and not want to be confrontational, because maybe it goes with the more moderate and pragmatic mindset. Is to say we have to overcome it because the issues are too important for us not to. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Do I also want to clarify, being a centrist is not at the exclusion of the right or the left, right? It's more a conversation between both, or a consensus or a compromise of both, whatever works right, whatever works best for the greater good?  Yair Zivan:     There is an element of a rejection of the left and the right, to some extent, right, particularly of the fringes, and I'm incredibly critical of even some of the more moderate left and moderate right, because they're too willing to appease the extremes on their side. They're very good at calling out extremism and populism from the other camp, but not always good enough for calling out on their own side, which I think is where the challenge really lies. The idea is not to find a compromise.  The idea is not to split the difference between old ideas. It is about saying we should be focusing on what works. And I write a line in the book, slightly glibly, that, if it works, and if it makes people's lives better, does it really matter if it comes from Marx or from Hayek, right?  The political philosophy behind it certainly matters less than if it works the way that compromise can be a successful political tool. And I think we all compromise in our lives all the time, and suddenly when we get to politics, we see it as a sign of weakness or non-committal-ness or something like that, whereas in our everyday lives, we see it as a part of being able to function as an adult in society. I think the goal of that, the way that you do that successfully, the way you compromise successfully, is by being really clear about what your values are and what your ideals are and what you believe. And only then can you go to a compromise. If I try to compromise with people without being very firm about what I believe and what's important to me, I'll just get dragged to wherever they are because they're passionate and I'm not. They're committed and I'm not. So you have to be really clear about what your values are.  And I actually think the real test about compromise is whether you do it when you're in a position of power, not in a position of weakness. In politics, people compromise because they have to. I say you should compromise because you want to. And I'll give a kind of an example, I guess. If I had 51% of the votes in Parliament, and I could pass anything I wanted, and I had a belief, a reform that I passionately believed and wanted to get through, and I could pass it 100% the way that I wanted, or I could take it down to 80% of what I want, and take 20% from other people and increase my majority from 51% to 75% I would do that because I think it's right, because I think building consensus builds more sustainable policy, because I think it creates a healthier democracy and a healthier political culture.  Because I have enough humility to say that maybe I don't know everything, and I'm not right about everything, and the other side has something useful to contribute, even to something that I'm really passionate about. That's the test of compromise. Do you do it when you don't have to, but because you think it's the right thing to do? And again, it's dependent on knowing what your values are and dependent on knowing what you're not willing to compromise on, because if you don't have that, then you don't have the anchor from which you take your political beliefs. Manya Brachear Pashman:   In other words, kind of seeding a little bit to the other side, not because you have to, but because you need that little percentage bump to pass your legislation, but because you'll just build more of a consensus and more support on both sides of the aisle, or both sides of eight aisles, whatever, however it works. But yeah, I mean, it's really about building a consensus among lawmakers for the greater good, rather than just claiming that slim victory.  Yair Zivan:     Yeah, it creates better policy and more sustainable policy. But there's also limits to it. You very rarely in politics get 100% support for anything. And often, if you've got to the place where everyone supports it, then you've probably gone too far with the compromise, right, and you've probably watered it down too much.  There are very rare moments in politics when everybody agrees about something, and there are cases, and there are cases when we can do that, but on the really big issues, it's rare for us to get to that level of consensus, and I don't think that's necessarily desirable either. But being able to build a little bit beyond your political comfort zone, a little bit beyond your camp, I think, is a really useful thing in politics, and there are models where it works really well.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   So let me ask you more specifically. Okay, what is eroding centrism? What forces really are working against it and in the places where the center is maintaining its hold, are those forces in reverse? In other words, have they found a way to conquer those particular forces, or have they found a way to conquer what works against centrism, or has it just not reached them yet? Yair Zivan:     So I'll start by flipping the question, I don't think it's about, does centrism work when other people aren't strong enough to attack it and to take it apart? Centrism works when it's strong enough, in and of itself, and it's defining the political agenda. The goal of what I'm trying to do with the book and with the arguments that I'm making is to say, we define what is at the core of democratic politics. Now everybody else is going to have to respond to us. So that's the first thing. Is that switch in mindset away from Are we able to withstand, where the extremes are, to a place where we say, actually, we're the solid anchor, and now we are the ones that are defining the political moment and the political issues. Where is it that we do well? Is where we're confident, right?  When we're able to stand up and be proud of ourselves, and then you're more easily able to rebuff some of those forces. Where do I think centrism struggles? One of the places where it struggles, and this is my criticism of my own camp, which I think is always important to have that kind of, I think, a little bit of self awareness. We're often not good enough at really connecting with people's fears and grievances and concerns that are genuine, right? People really are worried about technological innovation and the pace of automation, and people are worried about immigration. And you can be worried about immigration without being a racist and without being a person that should be shunned or that we should criticize.  There is a genuine reason why people are worried about these things, and we have to be better at really connecting to those grievances and fears that people have to really understand them, to really empathize with them. That is the cost of entry, to be able to suggest different policies to them. If I want to convince someone that populist politics aren't going to work, I have to show that I care about them as much as the Populists do, and not seed that ground. And I don't think we're always really good enough at doing that. Where we are good at doing that, there's a huge reward.  And ultimately, I believe that on every issue, the solutions that we offer from the political center are more successful than the solutions that are offered by the populists and by the extremists, but we have to be able to convince the public of that you can't disregard people who vote for somebody you find distasteful, even if you think that the candidate they're voting for is somebody that you have real problems with, and even if the candidate they're voting for is actually a racist or is actually illiberal and undemocratic. That doesn't mean all the people voting for them are and it doesn't mean you can afford to dismiss those people. It means you need to do a better job of listening to them and connecting with them and bringing them back to our political camp. When politicians fail to get their message across because they're not doing a good enough job, it's not because of the public. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Yair, thank you so much for joining us and for giving us a little bit of a pathway to expressing these kinds of views that aren't heard of a whole lot. Yair Zivan:     Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Manya Brachear Pashman:   If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for a conversation between my colleague Julie Fishman Rayman, AJC's Managing Director of Policy and Political Affairs, and Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief at the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  

Sarah and David welcome special guest Anthony Sanders, director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, to eviscerate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Plus: David's rant on Presumed Innocent. The Agenda: —Judicial engagement —Social Darwinism and “putting to death the inadequate” —Progressive forgiveness for progressives —First Amendment —Civil rights and judicial abdications —Holmes' defense of sterilization —The difference between judicial progressives, liberals, and libertarians —Spoiler alerts for Presumed Innocent Show Notes: —Kelo v. New London —Institute of Justice's Bound by Oath podcast series —Oliver Wendell Holmes' The Common Law —Moore v. Dempsey —Buck v. Bell —Albert Alschuler's Law Without Values —Giles v. Harris —Bailey v. Alabama —Buchanan v. Warley —Skinner v. Oklahoma —Lochner v. New York —Minersville School District v. Gobitis Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The boys drink and review Pigweed's Seal Team 6 -- a homebrewed Black IPA -- then discuss eugenics. Humans have been breeding animals and plants for a very long time. Most of the foods we eat are the result of thousands of years of careful breeding by farmers, and "man's best friend" was bred from wild dogs. Why shouldn't we do the same with humans? Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin who was very influenced by The Origin of Species, proposed just such a plan and called it "eugenics." Darwinism convinced Galton that an organism's most important characteristics must be biological rather than shaped by environment or experience. The idea caught fire with the intellectual elite. John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger and Alexander Graham Bell all promoted the idea to one degree or another. The Supreme Court even weighed in. In upholding a Virginia law that permitted compulsory sterilization of individuals thought unfit to reproduce, Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Buck v. Bell, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." 38 States adopted some form of eugenics laws and more than 60,000 Americans were sterilized without their consent. Adolf Hitler read about this and thought, "gee, what a good idea." After the horrors of World War II, the west turned away from eugenics. It still stands as a reminder that fine-sounding ideas approved by intelligent people can still be horribly stupid.

====================================================SUSCRIBETEhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpffyr-7_zP1x1lS89ByaQ?sub_confirmation=1=======================================================================VIRTUOSADevoción Matutina Para Mujeres 2024Narrado por: Sirley DelgadilloDesde: Bucaramanga, Colombia===================|| www.drministries.org ||===================15 DE JULIOCOMO A TI MISMA...«¿Qué es el ser humano? ¿Por qué lo recuerdas y te preocupas por él? [...] Lo rodeaste de honor y dignidad, [...] lo pusiste por encima de todo» (Sal. 8: 4-6).Se cuenta que Oliver Wendell Holmes, juez asociado de la Corte Suprema de entre 1902 y 1932 nombrado por el presidente, asistió una vez a una reunión en la que él era el hombre más bajito. Burlándose de esto, un colega comentó: «Supongo que te sientes pequeño entre nosotros, que somos hombres tan grandes»; a lo que respondió: «Así es, me siento como una moneda de diez centavos en medio de un montón de monedas de un centavo». Como sabes, curiosamente, las monedas de diez son más pequeñas que las de un centavo. Curiosamente también, la autoestima no se basa en lo que se ve (ser más atractiva, recibir más crédito, tener más inteligencia que otros o recibir privilegios...). Cierto que todo eso puede ser fuente de satisfacción, pero la autoestima se basa en lo que no se ve.Nos cuesta desarrollar una autoestima sana: o tenemos un concepto de nosotras mismas superior al que debiéramos, o nos sentimos inseguras, inapropiadas, incompetentes e irrelevantes. Y si bien es cierto que con respecto a Dios somos apenas criaturas que no se comparan con su grandeza, también es cierto que nos rodeó de honor y dignidad, nos dio autoridad sobre sus obras, nos puso por encima de todo (Sal. 8:5-6). Si nos miramos a través de los ojos de Dios, entendemos nuestro extraordinario valor.No es equilibrado ni justo sentirnos poca cosa. Si trabajamos nuestra capacidad de aceptar el amor de Dios, estaremos trabajando nuestra autoestima.Como ves, hay dos peligros a evitar:1. El narcisismo, que genera rechazo, pues exhibe una conducta arrogante que espera ser siempre el centro de atención y se enfurece cuando no es así. Jesús mismo nos previno al respecto, diciendo: «El que a sí mismo se engrandece, será humillado» (Mat. 23:12).2. La falta de amor propio, que puede dar pie a episodios de ansiedad y momentos de depresión. Jesús también indicó: «Ama al Señor tu Dios con todo tu corazón, con toda tu alma y con toda tu mente. [...] Ama a tu prójimo como a ti mismo. En estos dos mandamientos se basan toda la ley y los profetas» (Mat. 22:37-40).Ama a Dios.Ama a tu prójimo.Sin dejar de amarte a ti misma.«Nadie puede hacerte sentir inferior sin tu consentimiento». Eleanor Roosevelt. 

Professor Venki Ramakrishnan, a Nobel laureate for his work on unraveling the structure of function of the ribosome, has written a new book WHY WE DIE which is outstanding. Among many posts and recognitions for his extraordinary work in molecular biology, Venki has been President of the Royal Society, knighted in 2012, and was made a Member of the Order of Merit in 2022. He is a group leader at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology research institute in Cambridge, UK.A brief video snippet of our conversation below. Full videos of all Ground Truths podcasts can be seen on YouTube here. The audios are available on Apple and Spotify.Transcript with links to audio and external linksEric Topol (00:06):Hello, this is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I have a really special guest today, Professor Venki Ramakrishnan from Cambridge who heads up the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, and I think as you know a Nobel laureate for his seminal work on ribosomes. So thank you, welcome.Venki Ramakrishnan (00:29):Thank you. I just want to say that I'm not the head of the lab. I'm simply a staff member here.Eric Topol (00:38):Right. No, I don't want to give you more authority than you have, so that was certainly not implied. But today we're here to talk about this amazing book, Why We Die, which is a very provocative title and it mainly gets into the biology of aging, which Venki is especially well suited to be giving us a guided tour and his interpretations and views. And I read this book with fascination, Venki. I have three pages of typed notes from your book.The Compression of MorbidityEric Topol (01:13):And we could talk obviously for hours, but this is fascinating delving into this hot area, as you know, very hot area of aging. So I thought I'd start off more towards the end of the book where you kind of get philosophical into the ethics. And there this famous concept by James Fries of compression of morbidity that's been circulating for well over two decades. That's really the big question about all this aging effort. So maybe you could give us, do you think there is evidence for compression of morbidity so that you can just extend healthy aging and then you just fall off the cliff?Venki Ramakrishnan (02:00):I think that's the goal of most of the sort of what I call the saner end of the aging research community is to improve our health span. That is the number of years we have healthy lives, not so much to extend lifespan, which is how long we live. And the idea is that you take those years that we now spend in poor health or decrepitude and compress them down to just very short time, so you're healthy almost your entire life, and then suddenly go into a rapid decline and die. Now Fries who actually coined that term compression or morbidity compares this to the One-Hoss Shay after poem by Oliver Wendell Holmes from the 19th century, which is about this horse carriage that was designed so perfectly that all its parts wore out equally. And so, a farmer was riding along in this carriage one minute, and the next minute he found himself on the ground surrounded by a heap of dust, which was the entire carriage that had disintegrated.Venki Ramakrishnan (03:09):So the question I would ask is, if you are healthy and everything about you is healthy, why would you suddenly go into decline? And it's a fair question. And every advance we've made that has kept us healthier in one respect or another. For example, tackling diabetes or tackling heart disease has also extended our lifespan. So people are not living a bigger fraction of their lives healthily now, even though we're living longer. So the result is we're spending the same or even more number of years with one or more health problems in our old age. And you can see that in the explosion of nursing homes and care homes in almost all western countries. And as you know, they were big factors in Covid deaths. So I'm not sure it can be accomplished. I think that if we push forward with health, we're also going to extend our lifespan.Venki Ramakrishnan (04:17):Now the argument against that comes from studies of these, so-called super centenarians and semi super centenarians. These are people who live to be over 105 or 110. And Tom Perls who runs the New England study of centenarians has published findings which show that these supercentenarians live extraordinarily healthy lives for most of their life and undergo rapid decline and then die. So that's almost exactly what we would want. So they have somehow accomplished compression of morbidity. Now, I would say there are two problems with that. One is, I don't know about the data sample size. The number of people who live over 110 is very, very small. The other is they may be benefiting from their own unique genetics. So they may have a particular combination of genetics against a broad genetic background that's unique to each person. So I'm not sure it's a generally translatable thing, and it also may have to do with their particular life history and lifestyle. So I don't know how much of what we learned from these centenarians is going to be applicable to the population as a whole. And otherwise, I don't even know how this would be accomplished. Although some people feel there's a natural limit to our biology, which restricts our lifespan to about 115 or 120 years. Nobody has lived more than 122. And so, as we improve our health, we may come up against that natural limit. And so, you might get a compression of morbidity. I'm skeptical. I think it's an unsolved problem.Eric Topol (06:14):I think I'm with you about this, but there's a lot of conflation of the two concepts. One is to suppress age related diseases, and the other is to actually somehow modulate control the biologic aging process. And we lump it all together as you're getting at, which is one of the things I loved about your book is you really give a balanced view. You present the contrarians and the different perspectives, the perspective about people having age limits potentially much greater than 120, even though as you say, we haven't seen anyone live past 122 since 1997, so it's quite a long time. So this, I think, conflation of what we do today as far as things that will reduce heart disease or diabetes, that's age related diseases, that's very different than controlling the biologic aging process. Now getting into that, one of the things that's particularly alluring right now, my friend here in San Diego, Juan Carlos Belmonte, who went over from Salk, which surprised me to the Altos Labs, as you pointed on in the book.Venki Ramakrishnan (07:38):I'm not surprised. I mean, you have a huge salary and all the resources you want to carry out the same kind of research. I wouldn't blame any of these guys.Rejuvenating Animals With Yamanaka FactorsEric Topol (07:50):No, I understand. I understand. It's kind of like the LIV Golf tournament versus the PGA. It's pretty wild. At any rate, he's a good friend of mine, and I visited with him recently, and as you mentioned, he has over a hundred people working on this partial epigenetic reprogramming. And just so reviewing this for the uninitiated is giving the four Yamanaka transcription factors here to the whole animal or the mouse and rejuvenating old mice, essentially at least those with progeria. And then others have, as you point out in the book, done this with just old mice. So one of the things that strikes me about this, and in talking with him recently is it's going to be pretty hard to give these Yamanaka factors to a person, an intravenous infusion. So what are your thoughts about this rejuvenation of a whole person? What do you think?Venki Ramakrishnan (08:52):If I hadn't seen some of these papers would've been even more skeptical. But the data from, well, Belmonte's work was done initially on progeria mice. These are mice that age prematurely. And then people thought, well, they may not represent natural aging, and what you're doing is simply helping with some abnormal form of aging. But he and other groups have now done it with normal mice and observed similar effects. Now, I would say reprogramming is one way. It's a very exciting and powerful way to almost try to reverse aging because you're trying to take cells back developmentally. You're taking possibly fully differentiated cells back to stem cells and then helping regenerate tissue, which one of the problems as we age is we start losing stem cells. So we have stem cell depletion, so we can no longer replace our tissues as we do when we're younger. And I think anyone who knows who's had a scrape or been hurt in a fall or something knows this because if I fall and scrape my elbow and get a big bruise and my grandson falls, we repair our tissues at very, very different rates. It takes me days or weeks to recover, and my grandson's fine in two or three days. You can hardly see he had a scrape at all. So I think that's the thing that these guys want to do.Venki Ramakrishnan (10:48):And the problem is Yamanaka factors are cancer. Two of them are oncogenic factors, right? If you give Yamanaka factors to cells, you can take them all the way back to what are called pluripotent cells, which are the cells that are capable of forming any tissue in the body. So for example, a fertilized egg or an early embryo cells from the early embryo are pluripotent. They could form anything in the body. Now, if you do that to cells with Yamanaka factors, they often form teratomas, which are these unusual forms of cancer tumors. And so, I think there's a real risk. And so, what these guys say is, well, we'll give these factors transiently, so we'll only take the cells back a little ways and not all the way back to pluripotency. And that way if you start with skin cells, you'll get the progenitor stem cells for skin cells. And the problem with that is when you do it with a population, you're getting a distribution. Some of them will go back just a little, some of them may go back much more. And I don't know how to control all this. So I think it's very exciting research. And of course, if I were one of these guys, I would certainly want to carry on doing that research. But I don't think it's anywhere near ready for primetime in terms of giving it to human beings as a sort of anti-aging therapeutic.Aging and Cancer Shared HallmarksEric Topol (12:31):Yeah. Well, I couldn't agree more on that because this is a company that's raised billions of dollars to go into clinical trials. And the question that comes up here, which is a theme in the book and a theme with the aging process to try to artificially, if you will affect it, is this risk of cancer. And as we know, the hallmarks of aging overlap considerably with the hallmarks of cancer. And this is just one example, as you mentioned, where these transcription factors could result in generating cancer. But as you also point out in the book at many places, methylation changes, DNA, repair, and telomeres.Venki Ramakrishnan (13:21):And telomeres.Venki Ramakrishnan (13:24):All of those are related to cancer as well. And this was first pointed out to me by Titia de Lange, who's a world expert on telomeres at Rockefeller, and she was pointing out to me the intimate connection between cancer and aging and many mechanisms that have evolved to prevent cancer early in life tend to cause aging later in life, including a lot of DNA damage response, which sends cells into senescence and therefore causes aging. Buildup of senescence cells is a problem later in life with aging, but it has a role which is to prevent cancer early in life. And so, I think it's going to be the same problem with stem cell therapy. I think very targeted stem cell therapy, which is involved in replacing certain tissues, the kind of regenerative medicine that stem cells have been trying to address for a very long time, and only now we're beginning to see some of the successes of that. So it's been very slow, even when the goal and target is very specific and well-defined, and there you are using that stem cell to treat a pretty bad disease or some really serious problem. I think with aging, the idea that somebody might take this so they can live an extra 10 years, it's a much higher bar in terms of safety and long-term safety and efficacy. So I don't think that this is going to happen anytime soon, but it's not to say it'll never happen. There is some serious biology underlying it.Eric Topol (15:13):Right. Well, you just touched on this, but of course the other, there's several big areas that are being explored, and one of them is trying to deal with these senescent cells and trying to get rid of them from the body because they can secrete evil humors, if you will. And the problem with that, it seems that these senescent cells are sort of protective. They stop dividing, they're not going to become cancerous, although perhaps they could contribute to that in some way. So like you say, with telomeres and so many things that are trying to be manipulated here, there's this downside risk and it seems like this is what we're going to have to confront this. We have seen Venki with the CAR-T, the T-cell engineering, there's this small risk of engendering cancer while you're trying to deal with the immune system.SenolyticsVenki Ramakrishnan (16:07):Yeah, I think with senescent cells, the early in life senescent cells have an important role in biology. They're essentially signaling to the immune system that there's a site that's subject to viral infection or wounds or things like that. So it's a signal to send other kinds of cells there to come and repair the damage. Now, of course, that evolved to help us early in life. And also many senescent cells were a response to DNA damage. And that's again, a way for the body that if your DNA is damaged, you don't want that cell to be able to divide indefinitely because it could become cancerous. And so, you send it into senescence and get it out of harm's way. So early life, we were able to get rid of these senescent cells, we were able to come to the site and then clean up the damage and eventually destroy the senescent cells themselves.Venki Ramakrishnan (17:08):But as we get older, the response mechanisms also deteriorate with age. Our immune system deteriorates with age, all the natural signaling mechanisms deteriorate with age. And so, we get this buildup of senescent cells. And there people have asked, well, these senescent cells don't just sit there, they secrete inflammatory compounds, which originally was a feature, not a bug, but then it becomes a problem later in life. And so, people have found that if you target senescent cells in older animals, those animals improve their symptoms of aging improved dramatically or significantly anyway. And so, this has led to this whole field called senolytics, which is being able to specifically target senescent cells. Now there the problem is how would you design compounds that are highly specific for senescent cells and don't damage your other cells and don't have other long-term side effects? So again, I think it's a promising area, but a lot of work needs to be done to establish long-term safety and efficacy.Eric Topol (18:23):Right. No, in fact, just today in Nature, there's a feature on killing the zombie cells, and it discusses just what you're pointing out, which is it's not so easy to tag these specifically and target them, even though as you know, there's some early trials and things like diabetic macular edema. And we'll see how that plays out. Now, one of the things that comes up is the young blood story. So in the young blood, whether it's this parabiosis or however you want to get at it, and I guess it even applies to the young microbiome of a gut, but there's this consistent report that there's something special going on there. And of course the reciprocal relationship of giving the old blood to the young mice, whatever, but no one can find the factor, whether it's platelet factor 4, GDF11, or what are your thoughts about this young blood story?Venki Ramakrishnan (19:25):I think there's no question that the experiments work because they were reproduced and they were reproduced over quite a long period, and which is that when you connect an old mouse or rat with a young equivalent, then the old mouse or old rat benefits from the young blood from the younger animal. And conversely, the younger animal suffers from the blood from the older animal. And then people were wondering whether this is simply that the young animal has better detoxification and things like that, or whether it's actually the blood. And they gave it just as transfusion without connecting the animals and showed that it really was the blood. And so, this of course then leads to the question, well, what is it about young blood that's beneficial and what is it about old blood that is bad? But the problem is blood has hundreds of factors. And so, they have to look at which factors are significantly different, and they might be in such small quantities that you might not be able to detect those differences very easily.Venki Ramakrishnan (20:40):And then once you've detected differences, then you have to establish their mechanism of action. And first of all, you have to establish that the factor really is beneficial. Then you have to figure out how it works and what its potential side effects could be. And so again, this is a promising area where there's a lot of research, but it has not prevented people from jumping the gun. So in the United States, and I should say a lot of them in your state, California somehow seems to attract all these immortality types. Well, anyway, a lot of companies set up to take blood from young donors, extract the plasma and then give it to rich old recipients for a fee for a healthy fee. And I think the FDA actually shut down one of them on the grounds that they were not following approved procedure. And then they tried to start up under a different name. And then eventually, I don't know what happened, but at one point the CEO said something I thought was very amusing. He said, well, the problem with clinical trials is that they take too long. I'm afraid that's characteristic of some portion of this sort of anti-aging therapeutics community. There's a very mainstream rigorous side to it, but there's also at the other end of the spectrum, kind of the wild west where people just sell whatever they can. And I think this exploits people's fear of getting old and being disabled or things like that and then dying. And I think the fear seems to be stronger in California where people like their lives and don't want to age.Eric Topol (22:49):You may be right about that. I like your term in the book immortality merchants, and of course we'll get into a bit, I hope the chapter on the crackpots and prophets that you called it was great. But that quote, by the way, which was precious from, I think it was Ambrosia, the name of the company and the CEO, but there's another quote in the book I want to ask you about. Most scientists working on aging agree that dietary restriction can extend both healthy life and overall life in mice and also lead to reductions in cancer, diabetes, and overall mortality in humans. Is that true? Most scientists think that you can really change these age-related diseases.Caloric Restriction and Related PathwaysVenki Ramakrishnan (23:38):I think if you had to pick one area in which there's broad agreement, it is caloric restriction. But I wouldn't say the consensus is complete. And the reason I say that is that most of the comparisons are between animals that can eat as much as they want, called ad libitum diet and mice that are calorically restricted or same with other animals even yeast. You either compared with an extremely rich medium or in a calorically restricted medium. And this is not a great comparison. And people, there's one discrepancy, and that was in monkeys where an NIH study didn't find huge differences, whereas a Wisconsin study found rather dramatic differences between the control group and the calorically restricted group. And so, what was the difference? Well, the difference was that the NIH study, the controlled group didn't have a calorically restricted diet, but still had a pretty reasonable diet.Venki Ramakrishnan (24:50):It wasn't given a unhealthy rich diet of all you can eat. And then they tried to somehow reconcile their findings in a later study. But it leads to the question of whether what you can conclude is that a rich all you can eat diet, in other words, gorging on an all you can eat buffet is definitely bad for you. So that's why you could draw that conclusion rather than saying it's actually the caloric restriction. So I think people need to do a little more careful study. There was also a study on mice which took different strains of mice and showed that in some strains, caloric restriction actually shortened lifespan didn't increase lifespan. Now, much of the aging community says, ah, that's just one study. But nobody's actually shown whether there was anything wrong with that study or even tried to reproduce it. So I think that study still stands.Venki Ramakrishnan (25:51):So I think it's not completely clear, but the fact is that there's some calorie dependence that's widely been observed across species. So between the control group and the experimental group, whatever you may, however, you may define it as there's been some effective calories intake. And the other interesting thing is that one of the pathways affected by caloric restriction is the so-called TOR pathway and one of the inhibitors of the TOR pathways is rapamycin. And rapamycin in studies has also shown some of these beneficial effects against the symptoms of aging and in lifespan. Although rapamycin has the same issue as with many other remedies, it's an immunosuppressive drug and that means it makes you more prone to infection and wound healing and many other things. I believe one of them was there's a question of whether it affects your libido, but nevertheless, that has not prevented rapamycin clinics from opening up, did I say in California? So I do think that there's often serious science, which leads to sort of promising avenues. But then there are of course people who jump the gun and want to go ahead anyway because they figure by the time trials are done, they'll be dead and they'd rather try act now.Eric Topol (27:36):Right. And you make a good, I mean the rapamycin and mTOR pathway, you really developed that quite a bit in the book. It's really quite complex. I mean, this is a pleotropic intervention, whether it's a rapalogs or rapamycin, it's just not so simple at all.Venki Ramakrishnan (27:53):Right. It's not at all simple because the TOR pathway has so many consequences. It affects so many different processes in the cell from including my own field of protein synthesis. It's one of the things it does is shut down global protein synthesis, and that's one of the effects of inhibiting TOR. So, and it turns up autophagy, which is this recycling of defective proteins and entirely defective entire organelles. So I think the TOR pathway is like a hub in a very large network. And so, when you start playing with that, you're going to have multiple consequences.Eric Topol (28:37):Yeah, no. And another thing that you develop so well is about this garbage disposal waste disposal system, which is remarkably elaborate in the cell, whether it's the proteasome for the proteins and the autophagosome for the autophagy with the lysosomes and the mitochondria mitophagy. Do you want to comment about that? Because this is something I think a lot of people don't appreciate, that waste management in the cell is just, it's a big deal.Venki Ramakrishnan (29:10):So we always think of producing things in the cell as being important, making proteins and so on. But the fact is destroying proteins is equally important because sometimes you need proteins for a short time, then they've done their job and you need to get rid of them, or proteins become dysfunctional, they stop working, or even worse, they start clumping together and causing diseases for example you could think of Alzheimer's as a disease, which involves protein tangles. Of course, the relationship between the tangles and the disease is still being worked out, but it's a characteristic of Alzheimer's that you have these protein tangles and the cell has evolved very elaborate mechanisms to constantly turn over defective proteins. Well, for example, it senses when proteins are unfolded and essentially the chain has unraveled and is now sticking to all sorts of things and causing problems. So I think in all of these cases, the cells evolved very elaborate mechanisms to recycle defective products, to have proper turnover of proteins. And in fact, recycling of entire organelles like mitochondria, when they become defective, the whole mitochondria can be recycled. So these systems also break down with aging. And so, as we age, we have more of a tendency to accumulate unfolded proteins or to accumulate defective mitochondria. And it's one of the more serious problems with aging.Eric Topol (30:59):Yeah, there's quite a few of them. Unfortunately, quite a few problems. Each of them are being addressed. So there's many different shots on goal here. And as you also aptly point out, they're interconnected. So many of these things are not just standalone strategies. I do want to get your sense about another popular thing, especially here out in California, are the clocks, epigenetic clocks in particular. And these people are paying a few hundred dollars and getting their biologic age, which what is that? And they're also thinking that I can change my future by getting clocks. Some of these companies offer every few months to get a new clock. This is actually remarkable, and I wonder what your thoughts are about it.Venki Ramakrishnan (31:48):Well, again, this is an example of some serious biology and then people jumping the gun to use it. So the serious biology comes from the fact that we age at different rates individuals. So anyone who's been to a high school reunion knows this. You'll have classmates who are unrecognizable because they've aged so much and others who've hardly changed since you knew them in high school. So of course at my age, that's getting rarer and rarer. But anyway, but you know what I mean. So the thing is that, is there a way that we can ask on an individual level how much has that individual aged? And there are markers that people have identified, some of them are markers on our DNA, which you mentioned in California. Horvath is a very famous scientist who has a clock named after him actually, which has to do with methylation of our DNA and the patterns of methylation affect the pattern of gene expression.Venki Ramakrishnan (33:01):And that pattern changes as we age. And they've shown that those patterns are a better predictor of many of the factors of aging. For example, mortality or symptoms of aging. They're a better predictor of that than chronological age. And then of course there are blood markers, for example, levels of various blood enzymes or blood factors, and there are dozens of these factors. So there are many different tests of many different kinds of markers which look at aging. Now the problem is these all work on a population level and they also work on an individual level for time comparison. That is to say, if you want to ask is some intervention working? You could ask, how fast are these markers changing in this person without the intervention and how fast are they changing with the intervention? So for these kind of carefully controlled experiments, they work, but another case is, for example, glycosylation of proteins, especially proteins of your immune system.Venki Ramakrishnan (34:15):It turns out that adding sugar groups to your immune system changes with age and causes an immune system to misfire. And that's a symptom of aging. It's called inflammaging. So people have used different markers. Now the problem is these markers are not always consistent with each other because you may be perfectly fine in many respects, but by some particular marker you may be considered old just because they're comparing you to a population average. But how would you say one person said, look, we all lose height as we age, but that doesn't mean if you take a short person, you can consider them old. So it's a difference between an individual versus a population, and it's a difference between what happens to an individual by following that individual over time versus just taking an individual and comparing it to some population average. So that's one problem.Organ ClocksVenki Ramakrishnan (35:28):The other problem is that our aging is not homogeneous. So there's a recent paper from I believe Tony Wyss-Coray group, which talks about the age of different organs in the same person. And it turns out that our organs, and this is not just one paper, there are other papers as well. Our organs don't necessarily age at the same rate. So giving a single person, giving a person a single number saying, this is your biological age, it's not clear what that means. And I would say, alright, even if you do it, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it knowing your biological, the so-called number of a biological age. So I'm not a big fan. I'm a big fan of using these markers as a tool in research to understand what interventions work because otherwise it would take too long. You'd have to wait 20 years to see some large scale symptoms. And certainly, if you want to look at mortality, you'd have to wait possibly even longer. But if you were to be able to follow track these interventions and see that these markers slowed down with intervention, then you could say, well, your interventions having an effect on something related to aging. So I would say these are very useful research tools, but they're not meant to be used at $500 a pop in your age.Venki Ramakrishnan (37:02):But of course that hasn't stopped lots of companies from doing it.Eric Topol (37:07):No, it's just amazing actually. And by the way, we interviewed Tony Wyss-Coray about the organ clock, the paper. I thought it really was quite a great contribution, again, on a research level.Venki Ramakrishnan (37:19):He's a very serious scientist. He actually spoke here at the LMB as well. He gave a very nice talk here.Is Aging A Disease?Eric Topol (37:26):He's the real deal. And I think that's going to help us to have that organ specific type of tracking is another edge here to understand the effects. Well, before we wrap up, I want to ask you a question that you asked in the book. Is aging a disease?Venki Ramakrishnan (37:49):That's again, a controversial subject. So the WHO, and I believe the FDA decided that aging was not a disease on the grounds that it's inevitable and ubiquitous. It happens to everybody and it's inevitable. So how could something that happens to everybody and inevitable be considered a disease? A disease is an abnormal situation. This is a normal situation, but the anti-aging researchers and especially the anti-aging therapeutics people don't like that because if it's not a disease, how can they run a clinical trial? So they want aging to be considered a disease. And their argument is that if you look at almost every condition of old age, every disease of old age like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, dementia, the biggest risk factor in all of these diseases is age. That's the strongest risk factor. And so, they say, well, actually, you could think of these diseases as secondary diseases, the primary disease being age, and then that results in these other diseases.Venki Ramakrishnan (39:07):I am a little skeptical of that idea. I tend to agree with the WHO and the FDA, but I can see both sides of the argument. And as you know, I've laid them both out. My view is that it should be possible to do trials that help with aging regardless of whether you consider aging a disease or not. But that will require the community to agree on what set of markers to use to characterize success. And that's people, for example, Tony Wyss-Coray has his proteome, blood proteome markers, Horvath has his DNA methylation clock. There are a whole bunch of these. And then there are people with glycation or glycosylation of various proteins as markers. These people need to all come together. Maybe we need to organize a nice conference for them in some place like Southern California or Hawaii or somewhere, put them together in a locked room for a week so that they can thrash out a common set of markers and at least agree on what experiments they need to do to even come to that agreement and then use that to evaluate anti-aging therapies. I think that would be a way forward.Eric Topol (40:35):Yeah, I think you're bringing up a really valuable point because at the moment, they're kind of competing with one another, whether it's the glycosylated proteins or the transcriptomics or the epigenetics. And we don't know whether these are additive or what they're really measuring.Venki Ramakrishnan (40:53):Some of them may be highly correlated, and that's okay, but I think they need to know that. And they also need to come up with some criteria of how do we define age in an individual. It's not one number, just like we have many things that characterize our health. Cholesterol is one, blood pressures another, various other lipids. They're all blood enzymes, liver enzymes. All these things are factors in defining our so-called biological health. So I don't think there's some single number that's going to say this is your age. Just like there isn't one single thing that says you're healthy, you're not healthy.DNA RepairEric Topol (41:38):Right, that's well put. Last topic on aging is on about DNA repair, which is an area that you know very well. And one of the quotes in your book, I think is important for people to take in. “Nevertheless, they will make an error once every million or so letters in a genome with a few billion letters. That means several thousand mistakes occur each time a cell divides. So the DNA repair enzyme, as you point out the sentinels of our genome, the better we repair, the better we age.” Can we fix the DNA repair problem?Venki Ramakrishnan (42:20):I think maybe, again, I'm not sure what the consequences would be and how much it would take. There's one curious fact, and that is that there was a paradox called Peto's paradox after the scientist who discovered it, which is why don't big animals get cancer much more frequently than say a mouse? In fact, a mouse gets cancer far more readily than an elephant does, and in reality, the elephant should actually get cancer more because it has many orders of magnitude more cells, and all it takes is for one cell to become cancerous for the animal to get cancer and die. So the chances that one cell would become cancer would be larger if there are many, many more cells. And it turns out that elephants have many copies of DNA repair proteins or DNA damage response proteins, not so much DNA repair, but the response to DNA damage and in particular, a protein called p53. And so, this leads to the question that if you had very good DNA repair or very good DNA damage response, would you then live longer or solve this problem? I'm not entirely sure because it may have other consequences because for example, you don't want to send cells into senescence too easily. So I think these things are all carefully balanced, evolutionarily, depending on what's optimized to optimize fitness for each species.Venki Ramakrishnan (44:13):For a mouse, the equation's different than for a large animal because a mouse can get eaten by predators and so on. So there, it doesn't pay for evolution to spend too much select for too much spending of resources in maintenance and repair, for larger animals the equation is different. So I just don't know enough about what the consequences would be.Eric Topol (44:40):No, it's really interesting to speculate because as you point out in the book, the elephant has 20 copies of p53, and we have two as humans. And the question is that protection from cancer is very intriguing, especially with the concerns that we've been talking about.Venki Ramakrishnan (44:57):And it was also true, I believe they did some analysis of genomics of these whales that live very long, and they found sorts of genes that are probably involved in DNA repair or DNA damage response.Eric Topol (45:14):Well, this is a masterful book. Congratulations, Venki. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It's very stimulating. I know a lot of the people that will listen or read the transcript will be grabbed by it.Crackpots and ProphetsVenki Ramakrishnan (45:28):I think what I've tried to do is give the general reader a real understanding of the biology of aging so that even a complete non-scientist can get an understanding of the processes, which in turn empowers them to take action to do the sort of things that will actually really help. And also it'll guard them against excessive hype, of which there's a lot in this business. And so, I think that was the goal, and to try and present a balanced view of the field. I'm merely trying to be a realist. I'm not being a pessimist about it, but I also think this excessively optimistic hype is actually bad for the field and bad for science and bad for the public as well.Eric Topol (46:16):Well, and you actually were very kind in the chapter you have on crackpots and prophets. You could have been even tougher on some of these guys. You were very relatively diplomatic and gentle, I thought, I don't know if you were holding back.Venki Ramakrishnan (46:28):I had two lawyers looked at it, so.Eric Topol (46:33):I believe it. And now one thing, apart from what we've been talking about because of your extraordinary contribution on the structural delineation of the ribosome back in the early 2000s and 2009 Nobel Prize. Now, the world of AI now with AlphaFold 3 and all these other large language models, would that have changed your efforts? Would that have accelerated things or is it not really?Venki Ramakrishnan (47:09):Well, it would've helped, but you would still need the experimental data to solve something like the ribosome, a large complex like the ribosome. And the other thing that would really change well has changed our world is the advent of cryo-electron microscopy of which Scripps is one of the leading places for it. And that has really changed it so that now nobody would bother to crystallize a ribosome and try to get an X-ray structure out of it. You would just throw it into an EM grid, collect your data and be off to the races. So new ribosome structures are being solved all the time at a fraction, a tiny fraction of the time it took to solve the first one.Eric Topol (48:02):Wow, that's fascinating. This has been a real joy for Venki to discuss your book and your work, and thanks so much for what you're doing to enlighten us and keep the balance. And it may not be as popular as the immortality merchants, but it's really important stuff.Venki Ramakrishnan (48:19):Yeah, no, I hope actually, I found that many of the public want to read about the biology of aging. They're curious. Humans have been curious ever since we knew about mortality, about why some species live so short lives and other species live such a long time and why we actually have to age and die. So there's natural curiosity and then it also empowers the public once they understand the basis of aging, to take action, to live healthy lives and do that. It's an empowering book rather than a recipe book.Venki Ramakrishnan (49:01):I think a lot of the public actually does appreciate that. And of course, scientists will like the sort of more balanced and tone.Eric Topol (49:13):Well, you do it so well. All throughout you have metaphors to help people really understand and the concepts, and I really applaud you for doing this. In fact, a couple of people who we both know, Max and John Brockman, apparently were influential for you to get to do it. So I think it's great that you took it on and all the power to you. So thank you, and I hope that we'll get a chance to visit further as we go forward.******************Headshot photo credits by Kate Joyce and Santa Fe InstituteThe Ground Truths newsletters and podcasts are all free, open-access, without ads.Please share this post/podcast with your friends and network if you found it informativeVoluntary paid subscriptions all go to support Scripps Research. Many thanks for that—they greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for 2023 and 2024.Thanks to my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff tor audio and video support at Scripps Research.Note: you can select preferences to receive emails about newsletters, podcasts, or all I don't want to bother you with an email for content that you're not interested in.A Poll on Anti-Aging Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Recorded March 27, 2024 - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was the most popular and successful poet of his day. Living in Cambridge, Massachusetts he was a member of the literati that made Boston the literary hub of the country; Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Russell Lowell, and John Greenleaf Whittier were all Longfellow friends or associates. But 20 miles west of Boston was a small town filled with its own poets, writers and philosophers. Concord, Massachusetts was home to not only Ralph Waldo Emerson, but Henry David Thoreau, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and the Alcott family; they too all had a deep friendship or close association with Longfellow. Concord public historian Richard Smith explored the friendships between Longfellow and the Concord writers in this talk, sharing his opinions about their lives and writings.

In this episode, Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks with C-SPAN's Peter Slen about the life and career of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The conversation is part of C-SPAN's Books That Shaped America series, which explores key works from American history that have had a major impact on society. This discussion features Holmes' The Common Law, written in 1881. You can find all segments from the C-SPAN series at c-span.org/booksthatshapedamerica.   Resources: Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Common Law,” (1881)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

In this episode, Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into his newly released and highly anticipated volumes from the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. Post explores the history of the Taft Court and the contrasting constitutional approaches among its justices, including Chief Justice Taft, Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and the infamous James McReynolds. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live as part of our America's Town Hall series on December 11, 2023.   Resources:  Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)  Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Ind. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923)  Whitney v. California (1927)  Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)  Gitlow v. New York (1925)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.     Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Robert Post, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale Law School, delves into the highly anticipated volumes from the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, The Taft Court Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930. Post explores the history of the Taft Court and the contrasting constitutional approaches among its justices, including Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., among others. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Robert Post, The Taft Court: Making Law for a Divided Nation, 1921–1930 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) Chas. Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Ind. Relations, 262 U.S. 522 (1923) Whitney v. California (1927) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) Gitlow v. New York (1925) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera, Christian Sobrino entrevista al Hon. Carlos G. Salgado Schwarz, juez del Tribunal de Apelaciones y presidente de la Asociación Puertorriqueña de la Judicatura. En la conversación hablan de las controversias recientes acerca el aumento de sueldos para los jueces, las expresiones del Secretario de Hacienda sobre la falta de pericia en la judicatura, las posibles lagunas en derecho en la judicatura, la transmisión por televisión de las vistas judiciales, el rol de los jueces en la sociedad y mucho más. Este episodio es presentado a ustedes por Vitola Caribe, auspiciadora del movimiento #ViernesGuayabera y donde pueden comprar guayaberas finas y elegante hechas con telas de alta calidad. Las guayaberas de Vitola Caribe son perfectas para portar el estandarte de la elegancia y potencia caribeña.Por favor suscribirse a La Trinchera con Christian Sobrino en su plataforma favorita de podcasts y compartan este episodio con sus amistades.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovichThreads: @zobrinovichYouTube: @PodcastLaTrinchera"¿Qué principio rector ha guiado sus decisiones judiciales? He pasado setenta años descubriendo que no soy Dios." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

EPISODE 1805: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Peter Slen, Executive Producer of the CSPAN series BOOKS THAT SHAPED AMERICA, about Oliver Wendell Holmes' classic text "Common Law", the 1881 book about the law that has most shaped AmericaPeter Slen is the senior executive producer and a host at C-SPAN, a television and radio network known for its unbiased coverage of government proceedings.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

Our guest this week is historian Stephen Budianksy, who shares his insights into the late Justice's life and work. After serving in the Civil War, during which he was wounded, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. became a scholar and jurist, eventually rising to the U.S. Supreme Court after being nominated by President Theodore Roosevelt. While practicing law in Boston, Holmes summarized a series of lectures he had delivered and had them published in 1881 as a book titled The Common Law. Holmes is known for the maxim, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience," and that the law develops according to the "felt necessities of the time." He served on the high court for nearly 30 years, retiring at age 90, and has been of the most frequently cited justices. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Secretary of State Antony Blinken was back in Israel today after visiting six Arab countries over the past four days… He reaffirmed US support for Israel to Defense Minister Yoav Gallant…We'll hear what both of them had to say coming up. The House is back in session today at 6 pm Eastern before a possible vote for Speaker at noon tomorrow. And at 6:30 eastern tonight. House Republicans are expected to hold another conference meeting to build support for Jim Jordan to be the next Speaker. He became the nominee on Friday, but the latest count shows him short of the 217 votes needed to take the gave.                                                                                   And we'll get a preview of episode five of Books That Shaped America. Tonight's program looks at "The Common Law" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. He wrote the book based a series of lectures he had given on criminal and civil law two decades before he would become a Supreme Court Justice. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our guest this week is historian Stephen Budianksy, who shares his insights into the late Justice's life and work. After serving in the Civil War, during which he was wounded, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. became a scholar and jurist, eventually rising to the U.S. Supreme Court after being nominated by President Theodore Roosevelt. While practicing law in Boston, Holmes summarized a series of lectures he had delivered and had them published in 1881 as a book titled The Common Law. Holmes is known for the maxim, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience," and that the law develops according to the "felt necessities of the time." He served on the high court for nearly 30 years, retiring at age 90, and has been of the most frequently cited justices. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

C-SPAN and Library of Congress Announce New Primetime Book Series for Fall 2023 "Books that Shaped America" C-Span.org C-SPAN and the Library of Congress today announced a joint original feature production for fall 2023: "Books That Shaped America." The 10-part series – which C-SPAN will air LIVE on Mondays, starting September 18 at 9 p.m. ET – will be a literary journey, tracing America's history by exploring masterpieces in literature that have had, and still have today, a major impact on society. The 10-week series will mark the various eras of American history and feature a diverse mix of stories and authors. The 10 featured books have: Provoked thought. Been best sellers. Led to significant cultural and policy changes. "Books That Shaped America" Series schedule – all LIVE on C-SPAN at 9 p.m. ET: Monday, Sept. 18 - “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine (1776) Monday, Sept. 25 - “The Federalist” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay (1788) Monday, Oct. 2 – “History of the Expedition Under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark” (1814) Monday, Oct. 9 - “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” by Frederick Douglass (1845) Monday, Oct. 16 - “The Common Law” by Oliver Wendell Holmes (1881) Monday, Oct. 23 - “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain (1884) Monday, Oct. 30 – “My Antonia” by Willa Cather (1918) Monday, Nov. 6 – “Their Eyes Were Watching God” by Zora Neal Hurston (1937) Monday, Nov. 13 – “Free to Choose: A Personal Statement” by Milton & Rose Friedman (1980) Monday, Nov. 20 – “The Words of Cesar Chavez” by Cesar Chavez (2002) The new series was inspired by a list of 100 “Books that Shaped America” and an exhibition curated at the Library of Congress 10 years ago based on the results of a public survey about books that provoked thought, controversy and change throughout American history. Viewers of the series this fall will be able to weigh in with their own thoughts about books that had an impact on the nation. As the world's largest library, the Library of Congress holds millions of books and other collections that offer a rich portrait of life in America. In partnering with the library, C-SPAN will be able to utilize these resources to help tell the stories behind the books featured in the series. The audience will see first-edition copies of famous works authored by Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglass, Mark Twain, Zora Neale Hurston and others, plus rare photos, maps, correspondence, and other items that highlight these books and the times during which they were written. “Over the course of 10 weeks this fall, ‘Books that Shaped America' will shine a light on a diverse group of books and authors whose skill with the written word and powerful storytelling left a lasting impression on our nation,” said Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. “These 10 books are just a start. Throughout the series, we will invite Americans to join the conversation and share their perspectives about more books that shaped America.” Audience calls will be incorporated into each program. Longtime C-SPAN executive producer of BookTV Peter Slen will host each episode of the series. Paul Orgel is coordinating producer for the series and Jen Garrott is producer/video journalist. Series Resources: A dedicated webpage for the series, which will be populated with video and supplementary material: https://www.c-span.org/booksthatshapedamerica A series trailer: https://youtu.be/fzJ8vQ4Y2Tg A companion podcast series produced by C-SPAN Radio About the Library of Congress: The Library of Congress is the world's largest library, offering access to the creative record of the United States — and extensive materials from around the world — both on-site and online. It is the main research arm of the U.S.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – In the early 1900s, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was the first Supreme Court Justice to encourage a departure from Natural Law being immutable and steadfast in the tradition of Blackstone. Rather, he suggested that the law should be ever-expanding with societal expansions. He subscribed to the idea of case precedent, which allowed the court to make subtle changes to the law based upon...

  Thank you for tuning in to Episode 259 of the Down Cellar Studio Podcast. This week's segments included:   Off the Needles, Hook or Bobbins On the Needles, Hook or Bobbins From the Armchair Some Years Later Crafty Adventures KAL News Events Life in Focus Ask Me Anything On a Happy Note Quote of the Week   Thank you to this episode's sponsors: Enchanted Etchings   Off the Needles, Hook or Bobbins   Shock Star Hat Yarn: Spun Right Round Squish DK in the Shock Star colorway Needles: US 5 (3.75 mm) & US 7 (4.5 mm) Pattern: none Ravelry Project Page About the yarn: cream base with small bits of neons + black. 92 sts 130.5 meters for Stash Dash   Watermelon cozies Pattern: Ball Band (free pattern on Ravelry & LoveCrafts) & Ball Band with a Twist ($2 crochet pattern on Ravelry & LoveCrafts)  by Jennifer Lassonde Yarns: Loops & Threads Capri Eco Cotton in Colorway: Cranberry. Loops & Threads Everyday Cotton in Jade. Leftover scrubby yarn for lighter green Hooks: 3.75 mm (F) & 4.25 mm (G) Ravelry Project Page Inspiration- Ali (starryeyesali) posted a watermelon bowl she made with leftover yarn on Instagram Small Jar cozy (16 oz wide mouth Mason jars). All sc (like the original ball band pattern). 7 rounds of Jade, 2 rounds of light green, 9 rounds of red. Black "seeds" sewn in later. Large Jar cozy (24 oz wide mouth Mason jars)- following Ball Band with a Twist instructions. 6 rounds of bottom section in Jade. 2 rounds of light green and the rest in Red. Black "seeds" sewn in later. Large Jar cozy #2  (24 oz wide mouth Mason jars)-  rounds of Jade, 2 rounds of light green,  rest was done in red. Black "seeds" sewn in later. 156.4 meters for Stash Dash   Woolens and Nosh Socks Yarn: Woolens & Nosh Targee Socks- 2022 Advent Calendar Pattern: OMG Heel by Megan Williams ($5 Knitting Pattern available on Ravelry) Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page 20g mini in dark purple; used for cuff and heel. 285.8 meters for Stash Dash   Zebra Stripes Socks   Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry ) Yarn: Patons Kroy in the Zebra Stripes Colorway Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page 273.6 meters for Stash Dash   Children of Time Spinning Fiber: Into the Whirled Cheviot (4 oz) in the Children of Time colorway Twist direction: singles = Z plied = S This means when I'm spinning, my wheel is spinning clockwise and when plying my wheel is moving counter-clockwise. Ravelry Project Page 1 ply of Wool of the Andes in 2 colors of blue + 2 plies of Into the Whirled Skein 1= 94g. 116.91 yards or 106.9 meters Skein 2= 82g  120.3 yards, 110 meters Total meters of yarn 216.9 For Stash Dash= 4 x 216.9 = 867.6 meters   Purple Spring Spin Fiber: Fluffypuf #130 Hand Dyed Roving Batt Purple/Pink. 1.4 ounces. 50% BFL, 40% merino, 10% Tussah Silk. Twist direction: singles = Z plied = S This means when I'm spinning, my wheel is spinning clockwise and when plying my wheel is moving counter-clockwise. Ravelry Project Page 2 skeins of finished yarn with Fluffypuf & Kingdom Fleece & Fiber Works Skein 1- 66g. 80.97 yards or 74.04 meters Skein 2= 66g. 79.44 yards or 72.64 meters Total Meters= 146.68 I still had singles left of the Kingdom Fleece & Fiberworks fiber, so I plied that with some mystery purple singles. Skein 3: 28g. 54.44 yards or 49.78 meters Meters for Stash Dash- 49.78 x 4= 199.12 Total Meters for Stash Dash for all 3 skeins = 795.84   Note: Some links are listed as Amazon Affiliate Links. If you click those, please know that I am an Amazon Associate and I earn money from qualifying purchases.   On the Needles, Hook or Bobbins   Mini Skein Hexagon Blanket Pattern: Basic Crochet Hexagon Pattern & Tips from Make Do and Crew Website & YouTube Tutorial Hook: F (3.75 mm) Yarn: Mini skeins from 2022 agirlandherwool Advent Calendar, 24 Days of Cheer Swap minis + other scraps/swap yarn Ravelry Project Page I've been closing the end of each hexagon with this join- link to Instagram post 4 rounds per hexagon. 3.75 inches each. Likely need over 300 Twin sized blanket is 60x80 inches. 17x22 hexis- 374. Learned double magic circle from this YouTube video. The trick is to know how to pull both loops to tighten the loop. As of 7/25/23- 51' wide by 58" long. (13 x 17 hexis)   Silver Spoon Socks Yarn: A Whimsical Wood Yarn Company Pixie Toes Socks in the Silver Spoon Up My A$$ colorway Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry ) Ravelry Project Page Progress: on the foot of the first sock.   3 Christmas Stockings   Pattern: Christmas Stockings to Knit and Crochet from Family Circle Magazine. Available in this web archive link. I've also saved it to my podcast Gmail Google Drive in case it disappears! web.archive.org-Christmas Stockings to Knit and Crochet from Our Archives.pdf Yarn: Red Heart Super Saver in Cherry Red, Hunter Green and White Hook: G (4.0 mm) Ravelry Project Page Progress: I have 3 of the 4 front/back panels I need for the frist 2 done. The forth is onto the leg. I am going to crochet up 2 more and then iron them, and start seaming them.   Rainbow Crochet Crop Pattern: 100% improvised. Yarn: Lion Brand Re-up. Colors: Ecru, Red, Orange, Sunflower, Lime, Aqua, Lilac and Raspberry Hook: E (3.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page Wide, oversized crochet top that I completely improvised on the go. Thought I'd do all granny squares but didn't think I'd have enough yarn. Originally finished in June 2022, but it was too short and I only wore it once. Had hdc rows in rainbow colors at the bottom. Ripped all of that back and instead of doing 1 round of each color, I did 2. Extending beyond blue to include purple and pink.   My Little Unicorn Socks Yarn: Andre Sue Knits Sock Blank in the My Little Unicorn colorway Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry ) Ravelry Project Page Gray background with white and pink unicorns that look like My Little Pony. My inner 80's child loved this one.   From the Armchair The Dead Romantics by Ashley Poston. Bookshop Affiliate Link. Amazon Affiliate Link. Local Woman Missing by Mary Kubica. Bookshop Affiliate Link. Amazon Affiliate Link. Recommended by Dan's cousin Melissa Just the Nicest Couple by Mary Kubica. Bookshop Affiliate Link. Amazon Affiliate Link.   Note: Some links are listed as Amazon Affiliate Links. If you click those, please know that I am an Amazon Associate and I earn money from qualifying purchases.   Some Years Later Mom sent 2 socks to be repaired. Her Knit Picks Felici Zen Socks had a hole in the foot. It was easy to repair with a bit of yarn. I washed them and they're ready to give back. I only finished these in May 2022, right before Mother's Day so these haven't held up very well. Click here for my Ravelry Project Page. I also did a blanket repair on a knitted blanket a friend's mother asked me to fix. I was assuming it was crochet, so the fact that it was knitted was a surprise. The section that was torn was part of a very long strip of knitting that was knit on the bias, so it was a little tricky but it was in garter stitch and I did a good job of pulling the stitches back up. Its not 100% invisible, but I'm happy with it. I have it washed and ready to return.   Crafty Adventures   Resin adventures with Gayle & Meagan for their Bucket List with a Twist. They made us aprons to wear while working that Bucket List with a Twist!   KAL News   Splash Pad Party 23: May 26-July 31, 2023 Sign up using this Google Form. To confirm you're signed up, check the Stats/Registration Spreadsheet here. Click here for the full list of Sponsors with all the links you need to their websites & social media. Many of our Sponsors are offering coupon codes. Find them here- Google Doc or Ravelry Thread. Tune in to hear if you won a participation prize. End of the event winners will be announced in Episode 260   Events   Stash Dash, hosted by Leslie & Laura of the Knit Girllls Video Podcast starts May 26th and runs through August 31, 2023. Check out details in the knit girllls discord My total as of this episode: 8,140 meters You can check out my Stash Dash 2023 Progress on this Google Sheet. Legacy Fiber Artz Knit Your Stash MAL- check out the details on the Treehouse Fiber Arts website Runs May 29- September 4, 2023 #legacyfiberartzknityourstashMal and #flashyourstash Crafty Bingo- Craft Cook Read Repeat Podcast May 26-September 4, 2023 Grab the Bingo card over on their Instagram feed The Grocery Girls are hosting Hot Granny Square Summer MAL. Check out details in their Ravelry Group & in Episode 183 on their YouTube Channel. Summer Sock Camp hosted in the Crazy Sock Lady Ravelry Group 5/26- 8/31/2023 Vermont Sheep & Wool: Sept 30 & Oct 1 at the Tunbridge Fairgrounds Check out some West Coast (US) Events on the Seattle Knitters Guild site (thanks Kristen- kips206)   Life in Focus After 3+ years I got Covid. Mom's July MRI & CT Scans show that the cancer has not grown/changed! Great news!   Ask Me Anything Tune in to hear my answers to these questions: AnnahB wants to know how many UFOs I have. (12 somewhat active + hibernations) MaysMomNH- How your Mom is doing. Elisa.Knits- How you pick yarn for sweaters and cardis please. Nali_Knits- what motivates you to keep knitting/podcasting after so many years? KGZKnits- Can we watch instead? Red-Christina- trying to knit men's cardigan for my grandpa- any suggestions? Classic Cardigan by Tin Can Knits. $8 knitting pattern on Ravelry or Tin Can Knits website. Slade by Michelle Wang (for Brooklyn Tweed). $10 pattern available on Ravelry; $9 on Brooklyn Tweed Website. Reading Cardigan by Jared Flood. $16 knitting pattern available on Ravelry & for $15 on Brooklyn Tweed website) DogMomKnits- Fall Knitting Plans- Pigskin Party (if there will be one) info? There will be a Pigskin Party. I'll be planning it very soon!   On a Happy Note After a day of resin crafts and pool time, Mom, Dad, Gayle, Meagan, Liz and I headed out for ice cream and then back for 2 round Tock match (Meagan & I won one, Gayle & Liz won one). I went to Minute Clinic to confirm I had Covid, but mostly to see if I also had strep throat, and was treated by my childhood bestie, Maribeth! Grateful for my own craft room with a comfy chair in a cool part of the house. Perfect for isolating and making sure Dan didn't get sick. I did go outside a bit on the weekend days. Dan brought up my wheel. I still spent a lot of time lying down between projects but it was nice to get out. I missed our nephew's 16th birthday pool party, though, so that was a bummer. Jeff was able to get an extra ticket for me to join he and Riley to see Lainey Wilson at the Mohegan Sun casino on Friday night! We had dinner, loved the show, got a cool Watermelon Moonshine Stanley Tumbler, and then I slept over at their house. Hung out with Riley & Millie in the morning, singing Hamilton as Riley made us homemade waffles.   Quote of the Week   The great thing in this world is not so much where we stand as in what direction we are moving. –OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, SR ------   Thank you for tuning in!   Contact Information: Check out the Down Cellar Studio Patreon! Ravelry: BostonJen & Down Cellar Studio Podcast Ravelry Group Instagram: BostonJen1 YouTube: Down Cellar Studio Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/downcellarstudio Sign up for my email newsletter to get the latest on everything happening in the Down Cellar Studio Check out my Down Cellar Studio YouTube Channel Knit Picks Affiliate Link Bookshop Affiliate Link Yarnable Subscription Box Affiliate Link Music -"Soft Orange Glow" by Josh Woodward. Free download: http://joshwoodward.com/ Note: Some links are listed as Amazon Affiliate Links. If you click those, please know that I am an Amazon Associate and I earn money from qualifying purchases.  

K.I.S.S., Keep It Simple Stupid.  It's a catchy phrase, but what does it mean?  What does simple mean.  Does it mean to make complex topics understandable, or not to make a simple communication overly complex, or not to oversimplify complex topics?  Oliver Wendell Holmes explained oversimplification this way,  “For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn't give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.”  How do our emotions play into creating simplicity that's harmful financially?A podcast that blends the nuts and bolts of financial advice with the emotions that drive making them.Rick Kahler, CFP®, CFT-I™, has helped people make better money decisions by integrating financial planning. He blends the nuts and bolts of financial advice with the emotions that drive making them and shares them on his financial therapy podcast.

Listennnn, let's be careful how we take on unbiblical sayings. Put everything up against the plumbline of God's Word. I wanted to know more about this quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (at least the thought is that he is the one who coined the phrase), "Some people are so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good." Let's talk about it. Philippians 4:6-7; Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1-2; Hebrews 11:16; Roman's 12:2. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robin-boone/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robin-boone/support



"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea or sensation, and never shrinks back to its former dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes / good qualities are measured by the character of Lord Rama / Hanuman speaks of the consciousness that facilitates perception of Lord Rama / material “happiness” is the cause of distress SB 5.19.1-5



"Every now and then a man's mind is stretched by a new idea or sensation, and never shrinks back to its former dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes / good qualities are measured by the character of Lord Rama / Hanuman speaks of the consciousness that facilitates perception of Lord Rama / material “happiness” is the cause of distress SB 5.19.1-5

Welcome to Courtside, Episode I. The podcast begins each week with a short, humorous discussion of the week's legal news (because we all need humor to get through it). And then it turns to talking about a landmark case that's been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. I've argued 50 cases at the Supreme Court, and served as the federal government's top lawyer.  But I want the Court to come alive for you. Each week, I'm going to discuss a single Supreme Court case with one guest, someone who's not a lawyer and who can translate the case into plain English. So instead of talking about the law with some fusty lawyer named something like Oliver Wendell Holmes, we're gonna do it with celebrities like John Mulaney and John Legend and Katie Couric. The Supreme Court is increasingly intruding into every aspect of our lives, and the goal here is to unpack that a bit this Summer, and we'll run through the Summer.  In September, the Court comes back and I've gotta go back to my day jobs, but if this podcast works out, we'll do it again next summer.Oh, by the way, in subsequent episodes, I'll be releasing bonus material to subscribers from each interview. Given the fabulous guests we are going to have, I don't want to squander the opportunity to talk to each of them about creativity, resilience, improvisation, and performance.You'll see I don't have any ads on the podcast, that is because substack is pioneering a new model for podcasts, one that is entirely listener supported. For Episode I, I'm making everything available to non-subscribers, so what you see here is the kind of thing you'll get if you pay for a subscription. I'm donating every dollar I receive from the podcast to charity.Episode I begins with the Trump arraignment in Florida, and then quickly turns to the Supreme Court. We discuss NYT v. Sullivan, a groundbreaking 1964 case about freedom of the press and speech. This is the key decision that allows the media to operate without getting sued (well, unless you are Fox News). It's about as major a decision about speech as any the Court has ever decided.While Courtside is going to avoid lawyers as guests, I couldn't resist the opportunity to break that rule for this specific episode and invite Ari Melber to the show.  Ari has a unique perspective, he was a lawyer at a top law firm practicing First Amendment law, but now he's on the other side of that, as one of the most brilliant anchors on MSNBC, where he's had to think about freedom of the press and the threats posed by libel suits, akin to that with Fox and Dominion. Ari is also my partner in crime on MSNBC, where we work together each week on The Beat.In fact, Ari came to the Supreme Court recently to watch me give my 50th Supreme Court argument. This is us after the argument (I am definitely not someone you want to see photographed before the argument.)And, as some of you know, I do a series every Monday called Opening Arguments with Ari on his show The Beat.Thank you for reading Courtside! I'd appreciate it if you would share this post with anyone in your life who is interested in the Supreme Court.Anyway, for our discussion with Ari, I put together some materials to help guide you through the case. For Episode 1, all the materials are available to nonpaying subscribers. In later weeks, subscribers will be able to access all the case materials. Each week, I'll provide a short 3 or 4 pager description of the case, along with a longer (roughly 20 pp) excerpted version of the Supreme Court case. I'll also throw in the full case too, so interested readers can read that.Stop by my Substack to find those those documents and images: nealkatyal.substack.com This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nealkatyal.substack.com/subscribe

Today David explains how America transitioned from the biblical conception of law espoused by Bracton and Blackstone from the 13th through the 18th centuries to Jeremy Bentham’s positivistic, utilitarian conception of law embraced by Oliver Wendell Holmes who changed the conception of law held today by most Christian lawyers. The applicability in our day of quotes from Holmes over a century ago will be eye-opening. To paraphrase Dorothy’s comment to Toto, you don’t live in a Christian cosmos anymore.

Today David explains how America transitioned from the biblical conception of law espoused by Bracton and Blackstone from the 13th through the 18th centuries to Jeremy Bentham's positivistic, utilitarian conception of law embraced by Oliver Wendell Holmes who changed the conception of law held today by most Christian lawyers. The applicability in our day of quotes from Holmes over a century ago will be eye-opening. To paraphrase Dorothy's comment to Toto, you don't live in a Christian cosmos anymore.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

[Announcement: The Austin/Central Texas meetup will be 5:30-8 (or so) on June 1, 2023 at Better Half Coffee and Cocktails, 406 Walsh St., Austin, Texas. Email or DM if you can make it so I know how many tables to grab!] On May 30 – Memorial Day -- 1895, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Harvard man and then a justice on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, delivered an address to the graduating class of 1895 in Cambridge.  The speech, known as “The Soldier's Faith,” is in and of itself fascinating substantively and also for its indirect effects. Regarding those, Theodore Roosevelt, another Harvard man, read the speech some seven years later and determined to appoint Holmes to the Supreme Court on account of it.  Beyond that, the speech is incredibly prescient, in certain respects, and eloquent, even poetic, on the question of personal courage and purpose to a degree that will seem alien to most Americans today, at least those of us who have never served. In this special episode for Memorial Day, we read (almost all of) "The Soldier's Faith" with annotations and digressions, which we hope you find fun and interesting! Twitter: @TheHistoryOfTh2 Facebook: The History of the Americans Podcast Selected references for this episode Stephen Budiansky, Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, and Ideas "The Soldier's Faith" John Pettegrew, "'The Soldier's Faith': Turn-of-the-Century Memory of the Civil War and the Emergence of Modern American Nationalism," Journal of Contemporary History, January 1996. George Root, "Just Before the Battle Mother" (YouTube)

What's good, ParaPower Mappers? It's another installment of “The Secret History of MasSUSchusetts” & the return to our “Historical Materia Ultima” miniseries, as we draw the story of John Winthrop the Younger's Rosicrucian alchemical plantation project to a close.  Many thanks to @MKstorie (Twitter) for the very chill, glyph-y episode artwork! Give 'em a follow, y'all. Can you spy the Monas Hieroglyphica? Songs: | Franz Liszt - "Hungarian Rhapsody #2" |  | X - "Nausea" |  | The Cowboy Junkies - "Sir Francis Bacon at the Net" |  This episode includes:  A comprehensive list of the various alchemists & occultists who were part of the collegium that orbited Winthrop Jr.; more colonial prospecting for precious minerals (this time the Brewsters & Endecotts); alchemical economic development schemes, like Winthrop's saltpeter manufacturing plant; the alchemist Johann Glauber's sodium nitrate propagandizing & claim that it is the “universal menstruum”; copies of Agrippa's Occult Philosophy making the rounds in NE; the fact that French's translation was dedicated to Robert Child; the Paracelsian prophecy of the alchemical messiah Elias Arista; Winthrop's involvement in the founding of Yale; Brewster's alchemical secrets; Winthrop the Younger's alchemedical cures, including Rubila, which his descendants marketed the shit out of; an Oliver Wendell Holmes sighting; the miserableness of frontier medical practices, which primarily involved purging (puke & shit); humoral theory and its correspondences w/ the Aristotelian elements; the hype for pansophia highlighting the Enlightenment view of the world as interlocking systems; pansophia & alchemy's impact on the emergence of capitalism; alchemical secrecy = profit motive; other metallurgical cures; a personal favorite—the “weapon salve”, Sir Kenelm Digby's sympathetic magickal remedy which was supposed to heal wounds over distance thru the application of salves to the weapon that caused the wound (plus the obligatory masturbation jokes LOL); the connection between healing ability, status, & power… …a lot of lists in this one, one being a rundown of known alchemists in colonial New England—Mathers, Bulkeley, Stoughton, Danforth, Ezra Stiles, Hoar, Stiles, Child, Winthrops, etc.—powerful men who were ministers, college presidents, doctors, governors, & magistrates (a couple even sitting on the Court of Oyer & Terminer during the Salem trials); the story of alchemist Samuel Danforth Sr.'s “execution sermon” (supposedly the first ever), which was delivered at the execution of the teenager Benjamin Goad who had been found guilty of bestiality & which Danforth later published as a tract (slimey)... …Winthrop the Younger's status as first colonial member of the Royal Society; the ascent of Charles II; Winthrop's trip to London around the time of his coronation; the coincident charters for the Royal Society, Board of Trade, Council for Plantations, & Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; the Royal Society's empire-building & intelligence-gathering purpose; Winthrop's relationship w/ Benjamin Worsley (former surveyor general of Ireland & alchemist), Lord Brereton, Robert Boyle, Sir Robert Moray, Elias Ashmole, the Hartlib Circle, etc., further explicating the closeness of Rosicrucianism, Freemasonry, & the R.S.; the intersection of espionage, magic, & science in the Society; Boyle's emphasis on the dual exploitation of information for divine knowledge & profit; a new charter for Connecticut; the Royal Society's investment in the Royal African Company (John Locke, F.R.S. a managing member) & the East India Co., showing the Society's role in the triangular trade; the Royal Society's conceptual origins in the Fama Fraternitatis & Francis Bacon's New Atlantis (specifically the symbol of Solomon's House); a note about Society members' interest in technology (evoking John Dee); & lastly, a wonderment about science-fiction-as-magickal-rewriting-of-reality & its connection to R.S.

Phrasal verbs are vital! Without them, you might only understand half of what's being said!

Everybody has a conception of law. So, what is the Christian’s conception of law today? Does it align with a biblical conception of law? What might be a sign that we do or don’t have a biblical conception of law? To answer these questions over the next few weeks, David begins with a short primer on what common law is and the modern conception of it invented by Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Everybody has a conception of law. So, what is the Christian's conception of law today? Does it align with a biblical conception of law? What might be a sign that we do or don't have a biblical conception of law? To answer these questions over the next few weeks, David begins with a short primer on what common law is and the modern conception of it invented by Oliver Wendell Holmes.Support the show: https://www.factennessee.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Medical Essays, 1842-1882

A Mortal Antipathy

Over the Teacups

The Guardian Angel

Elsie Venner

Tim and Jen discuss a beloved epic whose time has come, the Peter Weir masterpiece Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World!The GQ article mentioned appears to be yet more proof of the widespread affection for this film. The doctor who pioneered sanitary practices in medicine was Ignatz Semmelweiss, although these ideas didn't take hold until the time of Joseph Lister. Additionally, other medical men (like Oliver Wendell Holmes, for one) arrived at similar notions independent of Semmelweiss. The latter, in fact, refused to publish anything about hand washing because he believed these practices to be “self-evident.”If you want to read about Grover Cleveland getting surgery at sea and see some icky-yet-illumunating photos, the New York Academy of Medicine has a good blog post about it. If you want more, the book Jen mentioned is called The President is a Sick Man, and author Matthew Algeo answered questions about it in this C-SPAN presentation. Have You Seen This? BONUS episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A mind is sort of like a balloon. At first it's stiff and impossible to blow up (parents with little kids know what I'm talking about) but with a little extra it stretches and grows, never to return back to its tiny, out-of-the-package, shape. A mind stretched by new ideas, new experiences and new perspectives will never go back to its original dimensions. In this episode I share my experiences about feeling stale and stuck, how stretching my mind with new experiences is the antidote to that, and several easy ways you can keep growing and evolving.  Tamara's Everyday Innovator style is Risk Taker Experiential. What's yours? Sticky Inspiration: A streched mind is forever changed Lesson & Action: Small actions that stretch your mind can add up to big changes. Get lost, try a new restaurant, talk to a new person, travel, explore, and seek out differing opinions.  Connect with me on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn Join our global Everyday Innovators community on Facebook     Raw Podcast Transcripts: Hey. Hey, Everyday Innovators across the globe. Tamara here, your host, creator of the Innovation Quotient Edge Assessment, author of the books. Innovation is Everybody's Business and Think Sideways. I'm a risk taker, experiential, everyday innovator, and a lover of nehi socks. Welcome to the show. Today we are gonna be talking about your brain. I know. Is there anything sexier than that? No, I don't think so. Actually, the thing specifically that I wanna talk about today is how when you stretch your mind, it never goes back to what it was. In fact, there's this great quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. That says exactly that. It says, A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimens. Isn't that cool? So think about that for a second in your work and life and about being an everyday innovator. If we wanna keep growing and evolving and having those innovative ideas and being able to communicate innovation in a way that moves us forward, we need to keep growing and stretching our mind. I think sometimes when we feel stale or stuck, , it's because we haven't stretched ourselves in a while. I know for me personally, that is very, very true. I tend to not do as well when I get stuck in routines and habits without any, anything new or any variables, any surprises coming in. Now, here's the thing with habits, routines, and repetition. I think they can be really good for you. They make us efficient. I think they give us a sense of security, of knowing. I think without that we have too much uncertainty in our world. So we need a little, a baseline of habits and routines and repetition so that we're not always thinking about how to do the things we know how to do or, or how to schedule our day in a way that's gonna work for us. We got that covered and that's good, but it can also be. Bad. I think it's what ends up leaving us lacking or is stuck in the mundane or maybe even feeling listless. So we wanna keep stretching and growing our brains like Oliver Wendell Holmes said, so that it doesn't go back to its old dimensions, so that we keep learning and growing and evolving and changing as life around us changes. I think of it a little bit like a rubber band. Our brains are a little bit like rubber bands. Here's how, so, you know, when you pull a rubber band out, um, to go first use it and it's really stiff and it's got like a certain size to it, but then you stretch it a little bit and you stretch it a little bit, and over time it becomes really loose and it never goes back to that original resistance, that original size or I guess strength. I don't know what the language is, but you know what I mean. Well, I think our brains are like that too, right? We stretch it and we stretch it like a rubber band, and over time, right, it, it gets stretched out and it never goes back to what it was. Here's another funny analogy that I just thought of. I don't know if this works go with me, but it's like blowing up a balloon. if you have kids, you know what I'm talking about and how annoying it is. And that first, like you go to blow it up and that first blow, you're like, huh. And it's so tight and the balloon is so small and you're like, this is never gonna work. And then with a little more effort and a little more effort, the, you know, balloon starts to stretch and grow. And it never goes back to that original, annoying, frustrating size than it was when you pulled it out of the bag. All right, I'm done with analogies now I think. I'm not sure how all those worked, but you get the point. , a mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimension. So we've gotta keep stretching and we've gotta keep growing. And what I have found, what I think is really exciting about that, is when we stretch our minds, when we make a an intentional effort to grow in one area, it impacts everything else as. So you may grow and evolve in one part of your life, but that's gonna impact everything else. So maybe you grow and evolve through travel, and that's awesome. But travel, as you know, anyone who's traveled, knows, travel, doesn't just stay with travel, travel goes with you. And in fact, there's another great, great quote that I love that I wanna pull up. I'm full of quotes today by F Scott Fitzgerald. This is one of my favorites. It says, . It's a funny thing coming home. Nothing changes. Everything looks the same, feels the same, even smells the same. You realize what's changed is you. I think that's so true. I love that quote. Our minds need to stretch and evolve and grow, or we get stuck. We get stale, we get trapped in mundane. If you're feeling that way, it could simply.  that you've got a little too much repetition and a little too much routine in your life and it's time to break free a little bit and get some new experiences. So recently, um, my man and I decided that we were just going to, we were gonna go do like a little mini road trip for 24 hours. Nothing fancy, nothing big, but we found this super cool container like shipping container. They turned into an Airbnb in Taos, New Mexico, and that's not far from where we live. So we decided to go there for the night. , what a cool new experience. We're being stretched by going to this new contain experience in this place that I hadn't really explored before. I'd spent a lot of time in Taos before in this container, so that's a whole new way to be in. It's, I gotta tell you, if you go to my Instagram account, you'll see some photos from it. It was so cool. But the other thing that we did, which was so much fun, is we decided to sign up for an. Photography class, so great class, and if I can find the link to it, I'll put it in the show notes. I, I get nothing for it. I'm not a sponsor. I just, it had a lot of great video lessons. Some of it were technical, some of it weren't more about angles and lighting, and it was just, Super cool. So we decided we would take this class, this iPhone photography class. So we, we got to the air and b, Airbnb and we watched some videos. Then we went out and took some photos, we watched some more videos. We went out and took more photos, right? And the next day we kind of rinse and repeat. We did the same. And it was so much fun to learn a new thing. Now, are either of us gonna be iPhone photography experts or get paid to be photographers? No, that's not in our wheelhouse. It's not what we. , but that whole experience of traveling, of staying in this kind of funky little place, this contain shipping container that they turned into a little apartment of taking this iPhone class. It just stretched our minds. It just so much, you can probably hear it in my voice. I absolutely loved, loved the experience and, but that came back with.  and it just, it gave me some new ideas. It gave me some new insights. It gave me a renewed sense of energy because I was growing and I was evolving, and it wasn't even something specific that I took away and thought, oh, I learned this in my iPhone class. Now I'm gonna apply this over here in my podcast. It wasn't even that specific. It was just the energy and the growth that I felt from doing that translated into everything. It's actually why I love TikTok, and I know, right? I shouldn't be on here talking about go spend hours on social media, wasting your time away. But you know what? Sometimes when I scroll through TikTok, I find things that I just would've never known about before, that I would've never considered before. And I love it. Now I gotta manage myself. What TikTok, cuz. I could go down a rabbit hole or two on TikTok, but sometimes I just find things that surprise me and delight me and then I take that knowledge and I apply it somewhere else. So I think there's a lot out there that we can explore and experience to help us continue to, to stretch our minds because a stretched mine is always growing a stretched mine is never. , it's never in the same place. It's never bored because it's always growing and stretching. And in fact, here's where kind of we, let's move into from the sticky inspiration. That's what all that was. You'll see the little sticky note going out with this podcast due with my drawing on it. But let's move that over to the lesson and the activity. So here's the interesting thing. Um, neuroscience shows that our. Have something called neuroplasticity. And what that means is our brains have the ability to grow and evolve. So while our brains aren't technically a muscle in this way, it actually acts like one. So the more we exercise it, the more we stretch it, right? The stronger it gets, the less the weaker it gets. . And I think we can correlate that back to what I was saying earlier about, you know, when you stretch your mind, you're not stale, you're not stuck, you're not mundane or listless. Both cuz your brain's growing and evolving and making new connections and learning new things. And you know, when I'm continually stretching, I am more inspired, I'm more innovative. Everything seems to flow more.  when I'm stuck, when I'm not leveraging that neuroplasticity that my brain has, I feel it. Do you feel it? I definitely feel it. Now, here's the thing, we can't always travel the world, and maybe it's not in our budget or time. Maybe we have kids. Maybe we have a demanding job and we certainly don't wanna spend all our time. Watching other people travel the world on Instagram now, great. You get some great ideas from it, but that's not the only place you wanna do it. But there's a million ways that you can stretch and grow and evolve without having to leave your backyard or maybe traveling a few steps out. So let's talk about those so that we can continually be those stretched minds, be those everyday innovator. Okay, so number one is get lost. So have you ever noticed when you are in a new city, let's say you've rented a car, you're traveling somewhere, maybe it's for work and you don't know where you are, and your brain goes into create a problem solving mode, it's like, okay, there's that gas station over there, the sun is sitting over there. That means that's west and the highway numbers are going up, so that means I'm going in the right direction. Right? Our brains actually kick into kind of a more creative problem solving gear, getting lost.  is like a lot of little new experiences in your brain. So take a new path to work. Um, walk the dog in a different direction and see new things and notice new things in your neighborhood that you didn't notice before. Go in a different direction. Getting lost actually helps us stretch and grow. The other thing we can do is try a new restaurant or a new recipe. . I totally get stuck in ruts when it comes to restaurants because you know what? I find my favorites and then I just keep going to them. So a little tradition isn't bad, but venture out every now and again. Try a new restaurant, try a new dish at the restaurant you love. Try a new recipe. Anything that gets us, again, stretching our brains and experiencing new things. Do a little close in travel. , do an Airbnb for a night somewhere else. Go to a hotel down the street, go take a road trip, whatever it is. But there's a lot of places in where most of us live. I'd say I actually, I'd venture to say all of us have little mini road trips that we could do that would be really energizing and inspiring, even if it's just for one night. Learn a new skill, learning a new skill. It can be really powerful in stretching the brain and never going back. And here's the thing, you gotta learn the new skill for the experience of the learning, not because you're gonna become an expert at it. So my two right now are, as the one I mentioned, iPhone photography. I happen to love taking pictures, so there's a little bit pardon of me that wants to be good at that, but I'm loving the experience of trying it out, of going out and taking photos and seeing what worked and what didn't work. It's so much fun to put that skill into motion. And then the second one I've picked up is mixed media art. You know, where you use like paint, but also you cut out things from pictures and put 'em together. It's just like a lot of different materials. I'm not good . I'm not gonna pretend that I'm mildly good, but I love the experience of it and it makes my brain work in a totally different way. I mean, most of the time. I'm talking or I'm writing, I'm not creating in that way. So this stretches me in whole different ways I hadn't experienced before. So find a skill, find something that you can do. You can pull up stuff on YouTube, on Pinterest, on TikTok. I mean, there is, there is no shortage.  of things for you to learn for how to, so just type in how to be a bird watcher, right? Um, how to make cheese, how to create a mixed media art, how to learn iPhone, photography, um, how to make coffee. I mean, everything is out there, but that learning, that new skill, if I could say, do one thing right now, it would be that because you don't need a lot of time, you don't even need money. Most of the time you don't even need new materials, but it'll stretch, stretch your brain in a whole different. The other thing you know that you could do too is, I was just thinking about this, is you could ask questions you've never asked. So you know, I'm a big believer in questions and is answers out. So how about instead ask different questions. If you ask different questions, you'll get different thinking, different conversations, different ideas, and you'll be stretched by that. One of my favorite things to do is to talk to people I know about their opinions or things that they. , let me back up and explain this one. I find often that we have people in our lives that we think we know well or that are continual parts of our lives, but we've never actually spent the time to ask them a lot of questions and dig under the surface of who they are. We just kind of wait for them to tell us, and oftentimes people don't, and I find my brain is so stretched by.  instead of even responding to people, just asking questions of who they are, what they love, why they believe, what they believe, and I don't have to agree or disagree. It's not even about that. It's just listening to someone with a different opinion or perspective or experience. Share it from their view. Your mind is stretched. You can't help it. It's such a powerful thing to do. So this is something you could do with your spouse, with your kids. With colleagues that you work with all the time, with aunts and uncles, with, um, your clients. I mean, anyone in your life you can do this with. , but that'll stretch your brain talking to someone you know about something different. And if you wanna stretch, you really wanna stretch, talk to somebody different that you don't know, you can do that as well. So there's a lot of different ways that you can stretch and grow your brain and be that rubber band that just expands and expands. And I think it's really magical actually, because it is an instant relief to boredom, to the drudgery, to the mundane. It's just getting out there. Gathering new experiences because as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr said, A mind that is stretched by new experience can never go back to its old dimensions. I think that's pretty powerful. It is so easy to be an Everyday Innovator and to see those opportunities and find the solutions that make your life easier and better to put those things out there that really work and get you moving forward.  when you are constantly stretching and growing. So avoid getting stuck in the rut. Be that mind that is forever stretching and never going back with that. Tamara out.

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, President Biden has unleashed a war on American energy independence and the leftwing alliance for electricity (disguised as climate change activism) is ideological and insane. The country doesn't have enough electricity to go around, especially since it takes fossil fuels to create electricity in the first place. Biden's horrific policies on energy have driven Saudi Arabia into an alliance with Russia and will drive up the cost of fuel in the United States. This will seriously damage the lifestyles of Americans on fixed incomes and Biden will simply blame the oil companies and gas station owners for his man-made disaster. Then, American voters must be diligent in defeating the Democrat power structure. We're either going to vote them out or they're going to take our power. Democrats are focused on strengthening the power of the state by destroying the relationship between parents and children, dismantling law and order, and our economic system. Later, Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson claims the founders approached the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments in a race-conscious way, but in fact, they approached it from the perspective of equal justice under the law. Brown-Jackson's legal reasoning is going to make Justice Sotomayor's opinions look like Oliver Wendell Holmes's. Sadly, the civil rights movement has adopted the leftist Marxist agenda and if you don't embrace it, you're a racist. Afterward, US Sen. Mike Lee joins the show to discuss his re-election race and how it's never been more important for Republicans to have a majority.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Book highlights of Medical Essays, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.