Podcasts about Postmaster General

The Trump administration has actually impaneled a grand jury to investigate Letisha James for that real estate deal we talked about a couple weeks ago. Trump fired the FEMA Chief.The Postal Board appointed a new Postmaster General.A federal judge ruled AGAINST Trump's January 6th pardons covering unrelated crimes.Pete Hegseth had another super bad week.The Mayor of Newark was arrested outside an ICE facility.Plus, we have some Giuliani news.Thank you, CBDistillery! Use promo code CLEANUP at  CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.comHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

AP's Lisa Dwyer reports that a Fed Ex board member has been picked to be the next postmaster general.

National Association of Active and Retired Employees (NARFE) Vice President for Policy and Programs Vice President John Hatton joins Bob to discuss the recent budget attacks on the postal and federal employee community, and effective strategies to protect the benefits. John and Bob talk about the "budget reconciliation process" and legislation the House Oversight and Accountability Committee approved at its April 30 meeting, which advances $50.1 billion in federal benefit cuts. In addition, Bob references the imminent announcement of a new Postmaster General.

A year ago, the great American historian Adam Hochschild came on KEEN ON AMERICA to discuss American Midnight, his best selling account of the crisis of American democracy after World War One. A year later, is history really repeating itself in today's crisis of American democracy? For Hochschild, there are certainly parallels between the current political situation in the US and post WW1 America. Describing how wartime hysteria and fear of communism led to unprecedented government repression, including mass imprisonment for political speech, vigilante violence, and press censorship. Hochschild notes eery similarities to today's Trump's administration. He expresses concern about today's threats to democratic institutions while suggesting the importance of understanding Trump supporters' grievances and finding ways to bridge political divides. Five Key Takeaways* The period of 1917-1921 in America saw extreme government repression, including imprisoning people for speech, vigilante violence, and widespread censorship—what Hochschild calls America's "Trumpiest" era before Trump.* American history shows recurring patterns of nativism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and scapegoating that politicians exploit during times of economic or social stress.* The current political climate shows concerning parallels to this earlier period, including intimidation of opposition, attacks on institutions, and the widespread acceptance of authoritarian tendencies.* Hochschild emphasizes the importance of understanding the grievances and suffering that lead people to support authoritarian figures rather than dismissing their concerns.* Despite current divisions, Hochschild believes reconciliation is possible and necessary, pointing to historical examples like President Harding pardoning Eugene Debs after Wilson imprisoned him. Full Transcript Andrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We recently celebrated our 2500th edition of Keen On. Some people suggest I'm mad. I think I probably am to do so many shows. Just over a little more than a year ago, we celebrated our 2000th show featuring one of America's most distinguished historians, Adam Hochschild. I'm thrilled that Adam is joining us again a year later. He's the author of "American Midnight, The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis." This was his last book. He's the author of many other books. He is now working on a book on the Great Depression. He's joining us from his home in Berkeley, California. Adam, to borrow a famous phrase or remix a famous phrase, a year is a long time in American history.Adam Hochschild: That's true, Andrew. I think this past year, or actually this past 100 days or so has been a very long and very difficult time in American history that we all saw coming to some degree, but I don't think we realized it would be as extreme and as rapid as it has been.Andrew Keen: Your book, Adam, "American Midnight, A Great War of Violent Peace and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis," is perhaps the most prescient warning. When you researched that you were saying before we went live that your books usually take you between four and five years, so you couldn't really have planned for this, although I guess you began writing and researching American Midnight during the Trump 1.0 regime. Did you write it as a warning to something like is happening today in America?Adam Hochschild: Well, I did start writing it and did most of the work on it during Trump's first term in office. So I was very struck by the parallels. And they're in plain sight for everybody to see. There are various dark currents that run through this country of ours. Nativism, threats to deport troublemakers. Politicians stirring up violent feelings against immigrants, vigilante violence, all those things have been with us for a long time. I've always been fascinated by that period, 1917 to 21, when they surged to the surface in a very nasty way. That was the subject of the book. Naturally, I hoped we wouldn't have to go through anything like that again, but here we are definitely going through it again.Andrew Keen: You wrote a lovely piece earlier this month for the Washington Post. "America was at its Trumpiest a hundred years ago. Here's how to prevent the worst." What did you mean by Trumpiest, Adam? I'm not sure if you came up with that title, but I know you like the term. You begin the essay. What was the Trumpiest period in American life before Donald Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I didn't invent the word, but I certainly did use it in the piece. What I meant by that is that when you look at this period just over 100 years ago, 1917 to 1921, Woodrow Wilson's second term in office, two things happened in 1917 that kicked off a kind of hysteria in this country. One was that Wilson asked the American Congress to declare war on Germany, which it promptly did, and when a country enters a major war, especially a world war, it sets off a kind of hysteria. And then that was redoubled some months later when the country received news of the Russian Revolution, and many people in the establishment in America were afraid the Russian Revolution might come to the United States.So, a number of things happened. One was that there was a total hysteria against all things German. There were bonfires of German books all around the country. People would take German books out of libraries, schools, college and university libraries and burn them in the street. 19 such bonfires in Ohio alone. You can see pictures of it on the internet. There was hysteria about the German language. I heard about this from my father as I was growing up because his father was a Jewish immigrant from Germany. They lived in New York City. They spoke German around the family dinner table, but they were terrified of doing so on the street because you could get beaten up for that. Several states passed laws against speaking German in public or speaking German on the telephone. Eminent professors declared that German was a barbaric language. So there was that kind of hysteria.Then as soon as the United States declared war, Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress, this draconian law, which essentially gave the government the right to lock up anybody who said something that was taken to be against the war. And they used this law in a devastating way. During those four years, roughly a thousand Americans spent a year or more in jail and a much larger number, shorter periods in jail solely for things that they wrote or said. These were people who were political prisoners sent to jail simply for something they wrote or said, the most famous of them was Eugene Debs, many times the socialist candidate for president. He'd gotten 6% of the popular vote in 1912 and in 1918. For giving an anti-war speech from a park bandstand in Ohio, he was sent to prison for 10 years. And he was still in prison two years after the war ended in November, 1920, when he pulled more than 900,000 votes for president from his jail cell in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta.So that was one phase of the repression, political prisoners. Another was vigilante violence. The government itself, the Department of Justice, chartered a vigilante group, something called the American Protective League, which went around roughing up people that it thought were evading the draft, beating up people at anti-war rallies, arresting people with citizens arrest whom they didn't have their proper draft papers on them, holding them for hours or sometimes for days until they could produce the right paperwork.Andrew Keen: I remember, Adam, you have a very graphic description of some of this violence in American Midnight. There was a story, was it a union leader?Adam Hochschild: Well, there is so much violence that happened during that time. I begin the book with a graphic description of vigilantes raiding an office of the Wobblies, the Industrial Workers of the World, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, taking a bunch of wobblies out into the prairie at night, stripping them, whipping them, flogging them fiercely, and then tarring and feathering them, and firing shotguns over their heads so they would run off into the Prairie at Night. And they did. Those guys were lucky because they survive. Other people were killed by this vigilante violence.And the final thing about that period which I would mention is the press censorship. The Espionage Act gave the Postmaster General the power to declare any publication in the United States unmailable. And for a newspaper or a magazine that was trying to reach a national audience, the only way you could do so was through the US mail because there was no internet then. No radio, no TV, no other way of getting your publication to somebody. And this put some 75 newspapers and magazines that the government didn't like out of business. It in addition censored three or four hundred specific issues of other publications as well.So that's why I feel this is all a very dark period of American life. Ironically, that press censorship operation, because it was run by the postmaster general, who by the way loved being chief censor, it was ran out of the building that was then the post office headquarters in Washington, which a hundred years later became the Trump International Hotel. And for $4,000 a night, you could stay in the Postmaster General's suite.Andrew Keen: You, Adam, the First World War is a subject you're very familiar with. In addition to American Midnight, you wrote "To End All Wars, a story of loyalty and rebellion, 1914 to 18," which was another very successful of your historical recreations. Many countries around the world experience this turbulence, the violence. Of course, we had fascism in the 20s in Europe. And later in the 30s as well. America has a long history of violence. You talk about the violence after the First World War or after the declaration. But I was just in Montgomery, Alabama, went to the lynching museum there, which is considerably troubling. I'm sure you've been there. You're not necessarily a comparative political scientist, Adam. How does America, in its paranoia during the war and its clampdown on press freedom, on its violence, on its attempt to create an authoritarian political system, how does it compare to other democracies? Is some of this stuff uniquely American or is it a similar development around the world?Adam Hochschild: You see similar pressures almost any time that a major country is involved in a major war. Wars are never good for civil liberties. The First World War, to stick with that period of comparison, was a time that saw strong anti-war movements in all of the warring countries, in Germany and Britain and Russia. There were people who understood at the time that this war was going to remake the world for the worse in every way, which indeed it did, and who refused to fight. There were 800 conscientious objectors jailed in Russia, and Russia did not have much freedom of expression to begin with. In Germany, many distinguished people on the left, like Rosa Luxemburg, were sent to jail for most of the war.Britain was an interesting case because I think they had a much longer established tradition of free speech than did the countries on the continent. It goes way back and it's a distinguished and wonderful tradition. They were also worried for the first two and a half, three years of the war before the United States entered, that if they crack down too hard on their anti-war movement, it would upset people in the United States, which they were desperate to draw into the war on their side. Nonetheless, there were 6,000 conscientious objectors who were sent to jail in England. There was intermittent censorship of anti-war publications, although some were able to publish some of the time. There were many distinguished Britons, such as Bertrand Russell, the philosopher who later won a Nobel Prize, sent to jails for six months for his opposition to the war. So some of this happened all over.But I think in the United States, especially with these vigilante groups, it took a more violent form because remember the country at that time was only a few decades away from these frontier wars with the Indians. And the westward expansion of the United States during the 19th century, the western expansion of white settlement was an enormously bloody business that was almost genocidal for the Native Americans. Many people had participated in that. Many people saw that violence as integral to what the country was. So there was a pretty well-established tradition of settling differences violently.Andrew Keen: I'm sure you're familiar with Stephen Hahn's book, "A Liberal America." He teaches at NYU, a book which in some ways is very similar to yours, but covers all of American history. Hahn was recently on the Ezra Klein show, talking like you, like we're talking today, Adam, about the very American roots of Trumpism. Hahn, it's an interesting book, traces much of this back to Jackson and the wars of the frontier against Indians. Do you share his thesis on that front? Are there strong similarities between Jackson, Wilson, and perhaps even Trump?Adam Hochschild: Well, I regret to say I'm not familiar with Hahn's book, but I certainly do feel that that legacy of constant war for most of the 19th century against the Native Americans ran very deep in this country. And we must never forget how appealing it is to young men to take part in war. Unfortunately, all through history, there have been people very tempted by this. And I think when you have wars of conquest, such as happen in the American West, against people who are more poorly armed, or colonial wars such as Europe fought in Africa and Asia against much more poorly-armed opponents, these are especially appealing to young people. And in both the United States and in the European colonization of Africa, which I know something about. For young men joining in these colonizing or conquering adventures, there was a chance not just to get martial glory, but to also get rich in the process.Andrew Keen: You're all too familiar with colonial history, Adam. Another of your books was about King Leopold's Congo and the brutality there. Where was the most coherent opposition morally and politically to what was happening? My sense in Trump's America is perhaps the most persuasive and moral critique comes from the old Republican Center from people like David Brooks, Peter Wayno has been on the show many times, Jonathan Rausch. Where were people like Teddy Roosevelt in this narrative? Were there critics from the right as well as from the left?Adam Hochschild: Good question. I first of all would give a shout out to those Republican centrists who've spoken out against Trump, the McCain Republicans. There are some good people there - Romney, of course as well. They've been very forceful. There wasn't really an equivalent to that, a direct equivalent to that in the Wilson era. Teddy Roosevelt whom you mentioned was a far more ferocious drum beater than Wilson himself and was pushing Wilson to declare war long before Wilson did. Roosevelt really believed that war was good for the soul. He desperately tried to get Wilson to appoint him to lead a volunteer force, came up with an elaborate plan for this would be a volunteer army staffed by descendants of both Union and Confederate generals and by French officers as well and homage to the Marquis de Lafayette. Wilson refused to allow Roosevelt to do this, and plus Roosevelt was, I think, 58 years old at the time. But all four of Roosevelt's sons enlisted and joined in the war, and one of them was killed. And his father was absolutely devastated by this.So there was not really that equivalent to the McCain Republicans who are resisting Trump, so to speak. In fact, what resistance there was in the U.S. came mostly from the left, and it was mostly ruthlessly silenced, all these people who went to jail. It was silenced also because this is another important part of what happened, which is different from today. When the federal government passed the Espionage Act that gave it these draconian powers, state governments, many of them passed copycat laws. In fact, a federal justice department agent actually helped draft the law in New Hampshire. Montana locked up people serving more than 60 years cumulatively of hard labor for opposing the war. California had 70 people in prison. Even my hometown of Berkeley, California passed a copycat law. So, this martial spirit really spread throughout the country at that time.Andrew Keen: So you've mentioned that Debs was the great critic and was imprisoned and got a considerable number of votes in the election. You're writing a book now about the Great Depression and FDR's involvement in it. FDR, of course, was a distant cousin of Teddy Roosevelt. At this point, he was an aspiring Democratic politician. Where was the critique within the mainstream Democratic party? Were people like FDR, who had a position in the Wilson administration, wasn't he naval secretary?Adam Hochschild: He was assistant secretary of the Navy. And he went to Europe during the war. For an aspiring politician, it's always very important to say I've been at the front. And so he went to Europe and certainly made no sign of resistance. And then in 1920, he was the democratic candidate for vice president. That ticket lost of course.Andrew Keen: And just to remind ourselves, this was before he became disabled through polio, is that correct?Adam Hochschild: That's right. That happened in the early 20s and it completely changed his life and I think quite deepened him as a person. He was a very ambitious social climbing young politician before then but I think he became something deeper. Also the political parties at the time were divided each party between right and left wings or war mongering and pacifist wings. And when the Congress voted on the war, there were six senators who voted against going to war and 50 members of the House of Representatives. And those senators and representatives came from both parties. We think of the Republican Party as being more conservative, but it had some staunch liberals in it. The most outspoken voice against the war in the Senate was Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, who was a Republican.Andrew Keen: I know you write about La Follette in American Midnight, but couldn't one, Adam, couldn't won before the war and against domestic repression. You wrote an interesting piece recently for the New York Review of Books about the Scopes trial. William Jennings Bryan, of course, was involved in that. He was the defeated Democratic candidate, what in about three or four presidential elections in the past. In the early 20th century. What was Bryan's position on this? He had been against the war, is that correct? But I'm guessing he would have been quite critical of some of the domestic repression.Adam Hochschild: You know, I should know the answer to that, Andrew, but I don't. He certainly was against going to war. He had started out in Wilson's first term as Wilson's secretary of state and then resigned in protest against the military buildup and what he saw as a drift to war, and I give him great credit for that. I don't recall his speaking out against the repression after it began, once the US entered the war, but I could be wrong on that. It was not something that I researched. There were just so few voices speaking out. I think I would remember if he had been one of them.Andrew Keen: Adam, again, I'm thinking out loud here, so please correct me if this is a dumb question. What would it be fair to say that one of the things that distinguished the United States from the European powers during the First World War in this period it remained an incredibly insular provincial place barely involved in international politics with a population many of them were migrants themselves would come from Europe but nonetheless cut off from the world. And much of that accounted for the anti-immigrant, anti-foreign hysteria. That exists in many countries, but perhaps it was a little bit more pronounced in the America of the early 20th century, and perhaps in some ways in the early 21st century.Adam Hochschild: Well, we remain a pretty insular place in many ways. A few years ago, I remember seeing the statistic in the New York Times, I have not checked to see whether it's still the case, but I suspect it is that half the members of the United States Congress do not have passports. And we are more cut off from the world than people living in most of the countries of Europe, for example. And I think that does account for some of the tremendous feeling against immigrants and refugees. Although, of course, this is something that is common, not just in Europe, but in many countries all over the world. And I fear it's going to get all the stronger as climate change generates more and more refugees from the center of the earth going to places farther north or farther south where they can get away from parts of the world that have become almost unlivable because of climate change.Andrew Keen: I wonder Democratic Congress people perhaps aren't leaving the country because they fear they won't be let back in. What were the concrete consequences of all this? You write in your book about a young lawyer, J. Edgar Hoover, of course, who made his name in this period. He was very much involved in the Palmer Raids. He worked, I think his first job was for Palmer. How do you see this structurally? Of course, many historians, biographers of Hoover have seen this as the beginning of some sort of American security state. Is that over-reading it, exaggerating what happened in this period?Adam Hochschild: Well, security state may be too dignified a word for the hysteria that reigned in the country at that time. One of the things we've long had in the United States is a hysteria, paranoia directed at immigrants who are coming from what seems to be a new and threatening part of the world. In the mid-19th century, for example, we had the Know-Nothing Party, as it was called, who were violently opposed to Catholic immigrants coming from Ireland. Now, they were people of Anglo-Saxon descent, pretty much, who felt that these Irish Catholics were a tremendous threat to the America that they knew. There was much violence. There were people killed in riots against Catholic immigrants. There were Catholic merchants who had their stores burned and so on.Then it began to shift. The Irish sort of became acceptable, but by the end of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century the immigrants coming from Europe were now coming primarily from southern and eastern Europe. In other words, Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and Jews. And they became the target of the anti-immigrant crusaders with much hysteria directed against them. It was further inflamed at that time by the Eugenics movement, which was something very strong, where people believed that there was a Nordic race that was somehow superior to everybody else, that the Mediterraneans were inferior people, and that the Africans were so far down the scale, barely worth talking about. And this culminated in 1924 with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act that year, which basically slammed the door completely on immigrants coming from Asia and slowed to an absolute trickle those coming from Europe for the next 40 years or so.Andrew Keen: It wasn't until the mid-60s that immigration changed, which is often overlooked. Some people, even on the left, suggest that it was a mistake to radically reform the Immigration Act because we would have inevitably found ourselves back in this situation. What do you think about that, Adam?Adam Hochschild: Well, I think a country has the right to regulate to some degree its immigration, but there always will be immigration in this world. I mean, my ancestors all came from other countries. The Jewish side of my family, I'm half Jewish, were lucky to get out of Europe in plenty of time. Some relatives who stayed there were not lucky and perished in the Holocaust. So who am I to say that somebody fleeing a repressive regime in El Salvador or somewhere else doesn't have the right to come here? I think we should be pretty tolerant, especially if people fleeing countries where they really risk death for one reason or another. But there is always gonna be this strong anti-immigrant feeling because unscrupulous politicians like Donald Trump, and he has many predecessors in this country, can point to immigrants and blame them for the economic misfortunes that many Americans are experiencing for reasons that don't have anything to do with immigration.Andrew Keen: Fast forward Adam to today. You were involved in an interesting conversation on the Nation about the role of universities in the resistance. What do you make of this first hundred days, I was going to say hundred years that would be a Freudian error, a hundred days of the Trump regime, the role, of big law, big universities, newspapers, media outlets? In this emerging opposition, are you chilled or encouraged?Adam Hochschild: Well, I hope it's a hundred days and not a hundred years. I am moderately encouraged. I was certainly deeply disappointed at the outset to see all of those tech titans go to Washington, kiss the ring, contribute to Trump's inauguration festivities, be there in the front row. Very depressing spectacle, which kind of reminds one of how all the big German industrialists fell into line so quickly behind Hitler. And I'm particularly depressed to see the changes in the media, both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post becoming much more tame when it came to endorsing.Andrew Keen: One of the reasons for that, Adam, of course, is that you're a long-time professor at the journalism school at UC Berkeley, so you've been on the front lines.Adam Hochschild: So I really care about a lively press that has free expression. And we also have a huge part of the media like Fox News and One American Network and other outlets that are just pouring forth a constant fire hose of lies and falsehood.Andrew Keen: And you're being kind of calling it a fire hose. I think we could come up with other terms for it. Anyway, a sewage pipe, but that's another issue.Adam Hochschild: But I'm encouraged when I see media organizations that take a stand. There are places like the New York Times, like CNN, like MSNBC, like the major TV networks, which you can read or watch and really find an honest picture of what's going on. And I think that's a tremendously important thing for a country to have. And that you look at the countries that Donald Trump admires, like Putin's Russia, for example, they don't have this. So I value that. I want to keep it. I think that's tremendously important.I was sorry, of course, that so many of those big law firms immediately cave to these ridiculous and unprecedented demands that he made, contributing pro bono work to his causes in return for not getting banned from government buildings. Nothing like that has happened in American history before, and the people in those firms that made those decisions should really be ashamed of themselves. I was glad to see Harvard University, which happens to be my alma mater, be defiant after caving in a little bit on a couple of issues. They finally put their foot down and said no. And I must say, feeling Harvard patriotism is a very rare emotion for me. But this is the first time in 50 years that I've felt some of it.Andrew Keen: You may even give a donation, Adam.Adam Hochschild: And I hope other universities are going to follow its lead, and it looks like they will. But this is pretty unprecedented, a president coming after universities with this determined of ferocity. And he's going after nonprofit organizations as well. There will be many fights there as well, I'm sure we're just waiting to hear about the next wave of attacks which will be on places like the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation and other big nonprofits. So hold on and wait for that and I hope they are as defiant as possible too.Andrew Keen: It's a little bit jarring to hear a wise historian like yourself use the word unprecedented. Is there much else of this given that we're talking historically and the similarities with the period after the first world war, is there anything else unprecedented about Trumpism?Adam Hochschild: I think in a way, we have often had, or not often, but certainly sometimes had presidents in this country who wanted to assume almost dictatorial powers. Richard Nixon certainly is the most recent case before Trump. And he was eventually stopped and forced to leave office. Had that not happened, I think he would have very happily turned himself into a dictator. So we know that there are temptations that come with the desire for absolute power everywhere. But Trump has gotten farther along on this process and has shown less willingness to do things like abide by court orders. The way that he puts pressure on Republican members of Congress.To me, one of the most startling, disappointing, remarkable, and shocking things about these first hundred days is how very few Republican members to the House or Senate have dared to defy Trump on anything. At most, these ridiculous set of appointees that he muscled through the Senate. At most, they got three Republican votes against them. They couldn't muster the fourth necessary vote. And in the House, only one or two Republicans have voted against Trump on anything. And of course, he has threatened to have Elon Musk fund primaries against any member of Congress who does defy him. And I can't help but think that these folks must also be afraid of physical violence because Trump has let all the January 6th people out of jail and the way vigilantes like that operate is they first go after the traitors on their own side then they come for the rest of us just as in the first real burst of violence in Hitler's Germany was the night of the long knives against another faction of the Nazi Party. Then they started coming for the Jews.Andrew Keen: Finally, Adam, your wife, Arlie, is another very distinguished writer.Adam Hochschild: I've got a better picture of her than that one though.Andrew Keen: Well, I got some very nice photos. This one is perhaps a little, well she's thinking Adam. Everyone knows Arlie from her hugely successful work, "Strangers in their Own Land." She has a new book out, "Stolen Pride, Lost Shame and the Rise of the Right." I don't want to put words into Arlie's mouth and she certainly wouldn't let me do that, Adam, but would it be fair to say that her reading, certainly of recent American history, is trying to bring people back together. She talks about the lessons she learned from her therapist brother. And in some ways, I see her as a kind of marriage counselor in America. Given what's happening today in America with Trump, is this still an opportunity? This thing is going to end and it will end in some ways rather badly and perhaps bloodily one way or the other. But is this still a way to bring people, to bring Americans back together? Can America be reunited? What can we learn from American Midnight? I mean, one of the more encouraging stories I remember, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it Coolidge or Harding who invited Debs when he left prison to the White House? So American history might be in some ways violent, but it's also made up of chapters of forgiveness.Adam Hochschild: That's true. I mean, that Debs-Harding example is a wonderful one. Here is Debs sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for a 10-year term. And Debs, by the way, had been in jail before for his leadership of a railway strike when he was a railway workers union organizer. Labor organizing was a very dangerous profession in those days. But Debs was a fairly gentle man, deeply committed to nonviolence. About a year into, a little less than a year into his term, Warren Harding, Woodrow Wilson's successor, pardoned Debs, let him out of prison, invited him to visit the White House on his way home. And they had a half hour's chat. And when he left the building, Debs told reporters, "I've run for the White house five times, but this is the first time I've actually gotten here." Harding privately told a friend. This was revealed only after his death, that he said, "Debs was right about that war. We never should have gotten involved in it."So yeah, there can be reconciliation. There can be talk across these great differences that we have, and I think there are a number of organizations that are working on that specific project, getting people—Andrew Keen: We've done many of those shows. I'm sure you're familiar with the organization Braver Angels, which seems to be a very good group.Adam Hochschild: So I think it can be done. I really think it could be done and it has to be done and it's important for those of us who are deeply worried about Trump, as you and I are, to understand the grievances and the losses and the suffering that has made Trump's backers feel that here is somebody who can get them out of the pickle that they're in. We have to understand that, and the Democratic Party has to come up with promising alternatives for them, which it really has not done. It didn't really offer one in this last election. And the party itself is in complete disarray right now, I fear.Andrew Keen: I think perhaps Arlie should run for president. She would certainly do a better job than Kamala Harris in explaining it. And of course they're both from Berkeley. Finally, Adam, you're very familiar with the history of Africa, Southern Africa, your family I think was originally from there. Might we need after all this, when hopefully the smoke clears, might we need a Mandela style truth and reconciliation committee to make sense of what's happening?Adam Hochschild: My family's actually not from there, but they were in business there.Andrew Keen: Right, they were in the mining business, weren't they?Adam Hochschild: That's right. Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Well, I don't think it would be on quite the same model as South Africa's. But I certainly think we need to find some way of talking across the differences that we have. Coming from the left side of that divide I just feel all too often when I'm talking to people who feel as I do about the world that there is a kind of contempt or disinterest in Trump's backers. These are people that I want to understand, that we need to understand. We need to understand them in order to hear what their real grievances are and to develop alternative policies that are going to give them a real alternative to vote for. Unless we can do that, we're going to have Trump and his like for a long time, I fear.Andrew Keen: Wise words, Adam. I hope in the next 500 episodes of this show, things will improve. We'll get you back on the show, keep doing your important work, and I'm very excited to learn more about your new project, which we'll come to in the next few months or certainly years. Thank you so much.Adam Hochschild: OK, thank you, Andrew. Good being with you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Planes turning around for what?... Bayer / Monsanto loses cancer case... Email: ChewingTheFat@theblaze.com Postmaster General resigns... Conan accepts Mark Twain Award... Nikki Glaser worried about detainment?... Noose on office desk not racism?... Who Died Today: Bill Mercer 99 / Jonas Allen? 1 car crash into river... 23andMe files for bankruptcy... www.blazetv.com/jeffy Promo code: Jeffy… Gerard Depardieu on trial... Military info sent on chat to civilian?... Joke of The Day... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Postmaster General is stepping down. The AP's Jennifer King reports.

The Postmaster General resigns after DOGE bean auditing the USPS. Goldberg the hack. Leftists are sharks when it comes to scandals but silent when it comes to corruption on their side of the isle. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The impossible is what we do best—it's what inspires us! Here's what we've been up to!Laura and Jean met at their doctor's office and did their best to turn the waiting room into a party. We love meeting new people and striking up conversations—especially in grocery store lines! How often do you chat with strangers?And there's more…Heaven Can Wait – Jean tries to be a Church Lady. Laura's Colonoscopy Adventure – A martini glass makes the prep almost fun.Calamity Corner – Surprise! Another kitchen disaster!Delivery Drama – Laura's misdelivered package saga continues. Is a call from the Postmaster General in order?Oscar Night– Will Laura throw an Oscar party?We discuss top movies and predictions!Follow us on Instagram, X, and Facebook, @OKBoomerPod & OKBoomerpod.com, & any podcast app. Check out SpeakupTalkRadio.com- the perfect site for authors & podcasters.

Senate Democrats fail to stop the confirmation of Kash Patel as FBI director. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has decided to call it quits … in two years. Civics lesson for members of the White House press. Update on ending the income tax. DOGE dividend checks coming? DEI is withering on the vine … or is it? Update on the asteroid's chances of hitting Earth. Hamas celebrates the deaths of innocent Israelis while releasing remains of hostages. Vice President JD Vance discusses his faith and tries to encourage young people in America. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) says we don't need a refund check from the government. Democrats are in disarray. President Trump wants to inspect Fort Knox to see if there's any gold in there. KFC moving to Texas! 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED 01:55 4 Nations Hockey Game 07:25 BYU Basketball 09:14 Ross Perot is DEAD?! 10:35 Kash Patel Confirmed 12:06 Adam Schiff is Terrified of Kash Patel 20:30 Stephen Miller Teaches Civics to the Press 23:04 Tariffs to Replace Income Tax? 26:25 DEI is DEAD in the Corporate World 34:01 Fat Five 52:03 Hamas Parade 59:41 JD Vance Attends CPAC 1:00:29 JD Vance's Message to Young Americans 1:03:43 JD Vance Shares the Gospel 1:09:19 JD Vance's Fashion Faux Pas 1:16:52 Jasmine Crockett Doesn't Want American's to Get DOGE Savings 1:19:36 James Carville's Special Message for Stephen A. Smith 1:26:14 Jeffy for Postmaster General? 1:30:03 Trump to Inspect Fort Knox 1:33:28 No More Funding for Gaza 1:34:34 Trump Announces No More Federal Funding for Maine 1:36:36 KFC Moves to Plano, Texas Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's UNCOVERED Ron and Anthony discuss Trump's latest moves on Ukraine, blaming Ukraine for starting the war in Ukraine. Plus, the Postmaster General resigns, Musk isn't running DOGE, Trump doesn't know what DOGE is doing and Elon's latest baby mama breaks her silence. Homan is after AOC and apparently Mayor Adams was innocent all along? All that and much more! PolicyGenius: Head to https://policygenius.com/UNCOVERED or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. VIIA: Try VIIA at https://VIIA.co/uncovered and use code: UNCOVERED Mack Weldon: Go to https://MackWeldon.com and get 25% off your first order of $125 or more, with promo code UNCOVERED Former Federal Prosecutor Ron Filipkowski and British journalist Anthony Davis expose the epidemic of false propaganda pushing Republican politics to the extreme far-right. A new episode every Wednesday. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meida... Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-p... The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-i... Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-c... The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-w... Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-... Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/major... Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/polit... On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-de... Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-... Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the Thursday, Feb. 20 edition of Georgia Today: Georgia Democrats sound the alarm over possible cuts to Medicaid; lawmakers advance a measure that may make child care slightly more affordable; And as Postmaster Louis DeJoy prepares to step down, Sen. Jon Ossoff looks to the future of the post office. 

Over the years, elite institutions shifted from fostering open debate to enforcing ideological conformity. But as guest Ilya Shapiro puts it, “the pendulum is swinging back.” He shares his firsthand experience with cancel culture and how the American Bar Association's policies influence legal education. Shapiro also opines on major free speech cases before the Supreme Court, including the TikTok ownership battle and Texas' age verification law for adult content. Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. He previously (and briefly) served as executive director and senior lecturer at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and as a vice president at the Cato Institute. His latest book, “Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites,” is out now. Enjoy listening to our podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Read the transcript. Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:58 Shapiro's Georgetown controversy 15:07 Free speech on campus 26:51 Law schools' decline 40:47 Legal profession challenges 42:33 The “vibe shift” away from cancel culture 56:02 TikTok and age verification at the Supreme Court 01:03:37 Anti-Semitism on campus 01:09:36 Outro Show notes: - “The illiberal takeover of law schools” City Journal (2022) - “Poll finds sharp partisan divisions on the impact of a Black woman justice.” ABC News (2022) - “Why I quit Georgetown.” Ilya Shapiro, The Wall Street Journal (2022) - “Georgetown's investigation of a single tweet taking longer than 12 round-trips to the moon.” FIRE (2022) - Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) - Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) - TikTok Inc v. Garland (2025) - Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2024) - Ginsberg v. New York (1968) - International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (last updated 2025)

12/20/24 - Hour 3 Colorado head coach Deion Sanders tells Rich that's NFL teams who don't plan to play Travis Hunter on both offense AND defense shouldn't draft the Heisman Trophy winner, how he responds to speculation that he and son Shedeur Sanders could be a package deal for some NFL team, his advice for Bill Belichick as he embarks on his college coaching career at North Carolina, and more. Writer/comedian Spike Feresten joins Rich in-studio to discuss his ‘Spike's Car Radio' YouTube show, reveals what he said to Jerry Seinfeld the first time they met that he worried would end his career, tells the origin stories behind some of the classic ‘Seinfeld' episodes he wrote including  ‘The Soup Nazi,' Elaine's dancing, muffin tops only, and the ‘Junk Mail' episode featuring Wilford Brimley as the Postmaster General. Rich ranks to the top 5 NFL and CFP games this weekend. Please check out other RES productions: Overreaction Monday: http://apple.co/overreactionmonday  What the Football with Suzy Shuster and Amy Trask: http://apple.co/whatthefootball The Jim Jackson Show: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-jim-jackson-show/id1770609432 No-Contest Wrestling with O'Shea Jackson Jr. and TJ Jefferson: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/no-contest-wrestling/id1771450708 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Is this a podcast about birds and the United States Postal Service or about the 2010 made-for-TV rom-com Christmas Mail? Slap on a red clip-on tie and judge for yourself! HDTGM all-star Jessica St. Clair (The Deep Dive) brings her Big Crone Energy and Postmaster General family experience to help break down this new holiday classic. The gang discusses the sprinkles fight scene, if Santa Claus f%$ks, the poster of the underwater mail truck, if Matt has male menopause, all the fedoras, and so much more. Plus, we learn truly everything there is to know about the USPS AND new Paul childhood trauma drops. Listen now or the Ragman will get ya! Tix for our Spring 2025 tour in Austin, Denver, Seattle, Boise, San Fran, Portland, & Los Angeles are on sale now at hdtgm.com.Order Paul's book about his childhood: Joyful Recollections of TraumaFor extra content on Matinee Monday movies, visit Paul's YouTube page: youtube.com/paulscheerTalk bad movies on the HDTGM Discord: discord.gg/hdtgmPaul's Discord: discord.gg/paulscheerFollow Paul's movie recs on Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/paulscheer/Check out new HDTGM movie merch over at teepublic.com/stores/hdtgmPaul and Rob Huebel stream live on Twitch every Thursday 8-10pm EST: www.twitch.tv/friendzoneLike good movies too? Subscribe to Unspooled with Paul and Amy Nicholson: listen.earwolf.com/unspooledSubscribe to The Deep Dive with Jessica St. Clair and June Diane Raphael: www.thedeepdiveacademy.com/podcastWhere to find Paul, June, & Jason:@PaulScheer on Instagram & Twitter@Junediane on IG and @MsJuneDiane on TwitterJason is not on social mediaGet access to all the podcasts you love, music channels and radio shows with the SiriusXM App! Get 3 months free using the link: siriusxm.com/hdtgm.

In this episode, host Nate Thurston goes solo as he covers various topics, including the controversial sale of border wall sections, the heated debate surrounding Tulsi Gabbard's potential leadership position, and the acquittal of Daniel Penny in the Jordan Neely case. Nate also dives into discussions about the high costs of healthcare, the USPS, and Trump's stance on automation. He touches on the controversial OnlyFans star Lily Phillips and New York Governor Kathy Hochul's idea to combat inflation. Tune in for an in-depth, critical analysis of these pressing issues. (03:42) Biden Administration's Border Wall Auction (09:22) Tulsi Gabbard and National Security Concerns (13:51) Daniel Penny and Jordan Neely Case (31:53) Healthcare Profits Debate (39:51) The Dark Side of Health Insurance (41:39) The Benefits of Health Insurance (45:46) Elizabeth Warren on CEO Shooter (47:53) The Primal Prescription and Healthcare Costs (49:53) Luigi Maggione's Manifesto (50:47) Postmaster General's Controversial Hearing (53:37) Ohio Flag Planting Controversy (56:23) Lily Phillips and Exploitation Debate (01:01:17) Kathy Hochul's Inflation Solution (01:03:12) Trump on Automation and Unions (01:08:32) Kyle Kalinske on Homelessness (01:16:32) Dumb Bleep of the Week Voting   Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   Watch GML  on Youtube:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Join the private discord & chat during the show!   joingml.com   Get FACTOR Today! FECTORMEALS.com/gml50  

Recorded at the National Press Club, Federal News Network Reporter Jory Heckman and Bob Levi review the Postmaster General's recent interaction with the House and Senate at recent congressional hearings, as well as the Postal Regulatory Commission's ongoing assessment of the Delivering for America plan. Jory and Bob also discuss how Trump Administration and changes in Congress may impact the Postal Service. In addition, they talk about the just-uncovered unmet contract goals for the deployment of electric USPS delivery vehicles. 

The The truth about the United States Postal Service (USPS) is multifaceted, depending on what aspect you're exploring—its history, operations, challenges, or controversies. Here's an overview:1. Historical Significance • The USPS was established in 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, with Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General. • It was crucial in fostering communication and commerce across the growing United States.2. Operations and Role Today • The USPS is an independent establishment of the executive branch, serving as the only delivery service obligated to deliver to every address in the U.S., including rural and remote areas. • It handles billions of pieces of mail annually, including first-class mail, packages, and ballots.3. Funding and Financial Struggles • Unlike private companies, the USPS operates without taxpayer funding for day-to-day expenses, relying on revenue from postage and services. • A significant financial burden comes from a 2006 law requiring the USPS to pre-fund retiree health benefits for 75 years --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/barber-near-me/support

Thank you to Democracy Defender-supporter Melissa for the question that produced this week's Q&A Bonus show! Be sure to subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit to submit your questions, get all shows ad free, and hear the full bonus episode! Why is DeJoy still in charge? Well, it all comes down to numbers—specifically, the ones the Democrats don't have yet. The USPS Board of Governors is still short of the votes needed to remove Louis DeJoy. There's a glimmer of hope on the horizon with Biden's nominations of former Florida Rep. Val Demings and former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, but they need to get through Senate confirmation first. Even if that happens, the entire Democratic bloc on the board has to agree to boot DeJoy. And here's the kicker: they'll also need an Independent to back them. Now, about that Independent, Amber McReynolds: she was appointed by Biden. But, plot twist—this Biden appointee has gone on record saying the USPS is doing just fine. So yeah, not exactly a slam dunk for Team “Fire DeJoy.” This is how corruption is allowed to fester—DeJoy stays, he enriches his family through shady deals, and the USPS, along with its overworked staff, remains on the chopping block. It's the Reaganomics playbook: shrink government services, weaken unions, and let privatization sweep in to pick at the bones. All while the people who depend on these services are left with empty mailboxes and a dysfunctional system. Welcome to DeJoy's America! This week's bonus show includes a fiery continuation of Gaslit Nation's interview with Elie Mystal, Justice Correspondent for The Nation and author of the bestselling book Allow Me to Retort A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution. We discuss one of the most dangerous men in America: Merrick Garland. To listen to the full episode, be sure to subscribe at the Truth-teller ($5/month) level or higher, and to submit a question for our next Q&A bonus show, subscribe at the Democracy Defender ($10/month) level or higher. Discounted annual memberships available. Thank you to everyone who supports our independent journalism, especially during these tough times. We could not make Gaslit Nation without you!  Look out for our special workshop How to Make a Podcast publishing October 24th for our supporters at the Democracy Defender level and higher, unless you grabbed the early bird special in September and signed up at the Truth-teller level and higher!  Join our live-taping about the psychology of Trump and his MAGA cult with Dr. Bandy Lee, author of The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Danger to American Democracy and All Humankind, October 29 at 12pm ET!  Subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit to join our community of listeners, get bonus shows and all episodes ad free, invites to exclusive events, submit questions to our regular Q&As, and more! Discounted annual memberships available!    Show Notes:   To Restore Abortion Rights, Democrats Must Win the Senate. If Democrats manage to win the White House but lose the Senate, then people in GOP-controlled states will continue to be forced to bring pregnancies to term against their will. https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/to-restore-abortion-rights-democrats-must-win-the-senate/   DeJoy maintains financial ties to former company as USPS awards it new $120 million contract. XPO Logistics pays DeJoy and family businesses at least $2.1 million annually to lease four office buildings in North Carolina https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/08/06/usps-dejoy-xpo-logistics/   Joe Biden Passes 'Essential Stop' in Bid to Save Mail-in Ballots - Attorney https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-joe-biden-mail-ballots-2024-election-postal-service-1932369   Senators call on postal board to abandon DeJoy's USPS reforms. The overhaul is harming the Postal Service, Democrats say, though postal leadership says it just needs more time. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/04/senators-call-postal-board-abandon-dejoys-usps-reforms/396048/   Can Biden fire US Postmaster General Louis DeJoy? https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/2022/08/24/can-biden-fire-us-postmaster-general-louis-dejoy/   If You Can Keep It: Voting By Mail (1A) https://the1a.org/guests/amber-mcreynolds/   82 House Democrats Urge Biden to Name Postal Board Nominees to “Protect and Expand” a Public USPS on letter endorsed by 36 public-interest groups https://takeonwallst.com/2024/02/82-democratic-members-of-congress-urge-biden-to-name-postal-board-nominees-to-protect-and-expand-a-public-usps-endorsed-by-36-public-interest-groups/   Watch Live: Postmaster General Louis DeJoy grilled at Senate hearing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba0pak1UOCo   Musk buying votes in swing states https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna176075   See you this Wednesday for our phone bank party with Sister District at 6pm ET – we're calling into must-win Arizona! RSVP here to join us: https://www.mobilize.us/sisterdistrictnyc/event/642096/

Inequality reporter Stephanie Convery returns on a trip with Liz and Ben into the world of banking, high finance and monetary theory in Terry Pratchett's thirty-sixth Discworld novel, 2007's Making Money. The Ankh-Morpork Post Office is running very smoothly - which has left Moist von Lipwig, reformed con-man and Postmaster General, at a loose end. But he resists the Patrician's offer of a new job revitalising the Royal Mint and Royal Bank of Ankh-Morpork. The bank's current owner is a Mark 1 Feisty Old Lady who knows her rich family are out to get her - and her little dog, too. But despite Moist's best attempts to not get involved, both dog and bank wind up in his care - putting him in the sights of the Lavish family, and especially Vetinari-obsessed Cosmo Lavish. Meanwhile, manager of the Golem Trust (and Moist's fiancée) Adora Belle Dearheart is digging up something ancient out on the desert. And Moist's past is about to catch up with him... Just a few novels after debuting in Going Postal, Moist von Lipwig is back! Making Money is about the nature of money, but also about the thrill of the chase, grappling with one's inner nature, and obsession. Aside from Gladys the Golem, Moist and Adora Belle bring few of their previous supporting cast along for the ride; instead we meet a new cast including Mr Bent, the Lavishes, another Igor, the Post-Mortem Communications Department of Unseen University, and the very good boy Mr Fusspot. Does this live up to the promise of Going Postal? Could Moist be in other Discworld books in disguise - and if so, as who? Did you guess Mr Bent's secret? And if you had a Glooper, what would you use it to change in the world of money? No purchase necessary to join the conversation for this episode; just email us or use the hashtag #Pratchat80 on social media. Stephanie Convery (she/her) is is a writer and author. Previously the Deputy Culture Editor for The Guardian Australia, she's now their dedicated inequality reporter. Stephanie's first book, After the Count: The Death of Davey Browne, was published in March 2020 by Penguin Books. (We suspect it won't be her last.) You can follow Stephanie on Twitter at @gingerandhoney, and find her work at Guardian Australia. Her previous appearances on Pratchat were for #Pratchat2, “Murdering a Curry” (about Mort), and #Pratchat42, “Truth, the Printing Press, and Every -ing” (about The Truth). You'll find full notes and errata for this episode on our website...though not just yet. Watch out for it soon! In the meantime, the newly recovered story in A Stroke of the Pen is “Arnold, the Bominable Snowman” (we've not yet found it online). Also, here's the free Quickstart for the Discworld: Adventures in Ankh-Morpork roleplaying game; it's also available via DriveThruRPG. The Kickstarter launches on 15 October. Those three upcoming Discworld plays in Australia are The Fifth Elephant from Brisbane Arts Theatre from 19 October; Maskerade by Sporadic Productions in Adelaide from 30 October; and Guards! Guards! from Roleystone Theatre in Perth from 22 November. Next episode we're continuing our Moist streak (sorry) with the (so far) latest Discworld board game: Clacks! If you have questions about this game recreating the race between Moist and the Grand Trunk company, get them in to us by mid-October 2024 by tagging us or using the hashtag #Pratchat81 on social media, or emailing us at chat@pratchatpodcast.com.

Postmaster General: trust us with your mail in ballots! How about pictures of all the abandoned ballots? Or the postal workers union endorsing Kamala Harris? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In honor of Independence Day, NAPS Chat continues its tradition of exploring our consequential postal past. Newly appointed US Postal Service Historian Steve Kochersperger joins Bob to discuss one of our more compelling postmaster generals, John "AJ" Creswell. Creswell, who served as PMG during post-Civil War Reconstruction, began to integrate the postal workforce, improved postal performance, reduced expenses, took on Congress, and introduced new postal products and innovations.  

The United States Postal Service is one of the most derided institutions in the country. Also, it's one of the most highly regarded according to every poll conducted on government agencies. This episode digs into our complicated relationship with the Postal Service and examines the historical challenges facing this institution. We cover the controversy surrounding Louis DeJoy, the current Postmaster General and his ten-year plan to modernize the agency. And we finish with a recommendation for how it should ultimately be run that honors its original mandate. Chapters Intro: 00:00:48 Chapter One: Ye Olde Post Office. 00:01:41 Chapter Two: The Post Office Gets a Makeover. 00:06:11 Chapter Three: Ode to DeJoy. 00:13:20 Bring it home, Max. 00:18:37 Post Show Musings: 00:27:14 Outro: 00:34:47 Resources Pew Research Center: Public Holds Broadly Favorable Views of Many Federal Agencies, Including CDC and HHS USPS: Postal Facts Congress.gov: ArtI.S8.C7.1 Historical Background on Postal Power Brookings: How is the U.S. Postal Service governed and funded? The Guardian: There was only one loser in this Royal Mail privatisation: the taxpayer Wikipedia: Bandwidth throttling United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General: Postal Retirement Funds in Perspective: Historical Evolution and Ongoing Challenges Congressional Research Service: FY2024 U.S. Postal Service Appropriations Vox: Trump thinks Amazon's destroying the post office. Here's what's really happening. Katie Porter gets DeJoy to make embarrassing admission at USPS hearing USPS: Delivering for America The Guardian: ‘It's going to delay the mail': the fight over Louis DeJoy's USPS plan GovExec: Biden taps former cabinet secretary for USPS board GovExec: Senators call on postal board to abandon DeJoy's USPS reforms Common Dreams: 'DeJoy Has to Go Right Now': Fury Over Postal Service Failure to Electrify Truck Fleet Time: Louis DeJoy's Surprising Second Act CNN: Biden signs US Postal Service reform bill into law Hey Arnold: I Hate The Snow -- If you like the pod version of #UNFTR, make sure to check out the video version on YouTube where Max shows his beautiful face! www.youtube.com/@UNFTR Please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Join the Unf*cker-run Facebook group: facebook.com/groups/2051537518349565 Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee® at shop.unftr.com. Subscribe to Unf*cking The Republic® at unftr.com/blog to get the essays these episode are framed around sent to your inbox every week. Check out the UNFTR Pod Love playlist on Spotify: spoti.fi/3yzIlUP. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility. Unf*cking the Republic® is produced by 99 and engineered by Manny Faces Media (mannyfacesmedia.com). Original music is by Tom McGovern (tommcgovern.com) and Hold Fast (holdfastband.com). The show is written and hosted by Max and distributed by 99. Podcast art description: Image of the US Constitution ripped in the middle revealing white text on a blue background that says, "Unf*cking the Republic®."Support the show: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/unftrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A mailman in Roy is being considered for a PostMaster General's Hero Award ... after he helped a lady who had fallen and couldn't get up. 

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

Hoo boy… DeJoy! Woe is us (the American people) for having our jewel of a national Postal Service saddled with a corporate-minded Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy. Formerly CEO of a private shipping contractor, DeJoy’s chief qualification for running this invaluable public service is that he’s been a major donor to Republican politicians – including Donald Trump, who appointed him to the post.

On this day in 1840, the introduction of the Penny Black postage stamp revolutionized the British postal system. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week we talk about Huawei, DJI, and ByteDance.We also discuss 5G infrastructure, black-box algorithms, and Congressional bundles.Recommended Book: The Spare Man by Mary Robinette KowalNote: my new book, How To Turn 39, is now available as an ebook, audiobook, and paperback wherever you get your books :)TranscriptIn January of 2024, Chinese tech giant Huawei brought an end to its years-long US lobbying effort, meant to help mend fences with western politicians.In mid-2019, then US President Trump had blacklisted the company using an executive order that, in practice, prevented Chinese telecommunications companies from selling specialized equipment in the US, as part of a larger effort to clamp-down on the sale of Chinese 5g and similar infrastructure throughout the US.Around the same time, a Huawei executive was jailed in Canada for allegedly violating sanctions on Iran, and several other western nations were making noises about their own bans, worrying—as Trump's administration said they were worried—that Huawei and similar Chinese tech companies would sell their goods at a loss or at cost, significantly undercutting their foreign competition, and as a consequence would both lock down the burgeoning 5g market, including all the infrastructure that was in the process of being invested in and deployed, while also giving the Chinese government a tool that could allow them to tap all the communications running through this hardware, and potentially even allow them to shut it all down, if they wanted, at some point in the future—if China invaded Taiwan and wanted to keep the West from getting involved, for instance.So while part of this ban on Huawei—for which the President made use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and declared a national emergency—was undoubtedly political (part of the trade war Trump started as part of the "China is the enemy" platform he was running on leading up to the 2020 election), there were also real-deal concern about China insinuating itself into the world's infrastructure, beginning with the rollout of the next phase of communications technologies; making themselves indispensable, disallowing foreign competition, and yes, possibly even creating a bunch of backdoors they could use at some point in the future to tip the scales in their favor during a conflict.This ban also ensured that Huawei's then quite popular line of smartphones wouldn't be available in the US, or many other Western countries. The company sold off its Honor brand of phones in a scramble to try to protect that line of products from these new blocks on its offerings, which among other things disallowed them from accessing the chips necessary to make competitive smartphone products, but the legislation just kept coming after that initial salvo, the US Federal Communications Commission banning the sale or import of anything made by Huawei in late-2022, and a bunch of fundamental US allies, especially those with which the US collaborates on military and intelligence matters, have likewise banned Huawei products on their shelves and in their communications networks; the idea being that even one Huawei transmitter or modem could tap into the whole of these networks—at least in theory—which is considered a big enough security concern to justify that blanket ban.Huawei has managed to survive, though it didn't scale the way its owners seemed to think it would back before all these bans.Now it exists as a primarily regional outfit, still making billions in revenue each year, though down to about half the revenue it was earning before 2019.Another popular Chinese tech company, DJI, is now scrambling to deploy its lobbyists and circle the wagons, as there's word that it's on a shortlist of potential Chinese security threats, in this case because the company makes very popular consumer and professional grade drones, which have successfully outcompeted many western brands of the same, and which have thus started to dominate aspects of the drone market.These drones tend to be of the six or eight mini-propeller variety, the kind that people fly for fun, or use to shoot aerial photos, but the success of drones, even of this kind of drone, in Ukraine, reworked to spy on enemy fortifications or to carry explosives, has had the US Defense Department thinking it might not be the best idea to allow a Chinese company to own a substantial chunk of the US and international drone market—for many of the same reasons that Huawei was considered to be a threat; because that would allow China to continue to take out international rivals, allegedly by stealing their competitor's tech back in the day, and by continuing to back their companies with government support and funding, which makes fair and level competition a bit of an impossibility.These companies are doing well for many reasons, then, and some of those reasons are not replicable outside the tight relationship the Chinese government has with its corporate entities.If DJI is ultimately targeted in this way, it would likely be via a similar mechanism as the ban that was slapped on Huawei: new drones made by DJI would be unable to use the US's communications infrastructure, which would make their continued functionality in the country all but impossible.This wouldn't ban DJI drones that are already owned by folks in the US, and it's anyone's guess as to how likely this will be to pass, as a bill to this end is currently working its way through the House, but DJI is lobbying heavily, is more common and popular in the US than Huawei was, and there's a chance that it simply won't be worth the potential political consequences for those who vote to ban it, if the bill works its way further through the process.What I'd like to talk about today is another potential ban of a popular Chinese product, TikTok, and how such a ban might play out.—Back in 2020, the Trump administration announced that it was looking into banning TikTok, a popular vertical video-focused social network that operates a bit like a cross between Instagram and YouTube, and which was becoming especially influential with young people, so-called Gen Zers.TikTok is owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance, and ByteDance has a version of the same app in other countries, including China, which there is called Douyin.That same year, TikTok hit back against the Trump administration with a legal challenge that said, in essence, the President was just trying to score political points by passing protectionist laws in the lead-up to the election, and that it might have also been revenge because there were young people on the platform posting videos about a prank they instigated at a Trump rally, which seemed to irk the former President.Around this same time, TikTok higher ups began working on what became known as Project Texas, which was meant to help address one of the government's concerns and complaints, that data and media shared on TikTok was sent to Chinese servers, which suggested all that information could be more easily siphoned off and used by the Chinese government.This project resulted in a re-working of how data on the platform is handled, bringing in US tech company Oracle to keep tabs on everything, ensuring that this data is safely managed and not sent somewhere the Chinese government can easily get it.A former employee of TikTok alleged in early 2023 that this Project didn't do what it was supposed to do, and TikTok's leadership said that this employee left before it was fully implemented; other involved people have spoken about their own takes on the matter since then, some of them saying the company is locked down tight because of all the oversight it's receiving, while others have said it makes big security claims, but is still not locked down the way it needs to be.This concern is the result of a law in China that says, basically, if the government tells you to hand something over, you do, or you can be stripped of all your wealth, can be put in prison, can even be killed.So ByteDance's leadership's claims that they have not handed this sort of data over to the Chinese government, and wouldn't do so if they were asked, can't be trusted, according to arguments against their claims, because they would of course lie about this if they had handed it over, and may not even be legally allowed to admit to so doing, but they also wouldn't really have a choice if they were asked—they would legally, in China, have to do so.That's the big argument and concern on the US security side of things: the Chinese system works different than the system in many other countries, and because of how integrated and entwined their government is with their market, every single Chinese company, like ByteDance, like Huawei, like DJI, should be considered a wing of the Chinese military, because in practice, they are.Thus, as soon as these concerns about TikTok started to hit the mainstream consciousness, we started to see those federal efforts to do something about it—most of which were initially unsuccessful, except for that Project Texas effort, about which no one seems to be able to say with any certainty whether it was successful or not.At the state level, we also saw a bunch of bans on having the TikTok app on corporate and government devices, and in some places, like Florida and Montana and Indiana, we've also see bans on Chinese individuals and Chinese companies acquiring land, working on some types of research, setting up factories, and other such things.All of which sets the stage for a piece of legislation that was passed by the US Congress earlier this month, and then signed by President Biden, saying that ByteDance needs to divest itself of TikTok, and soon, otherwise TikTok will be banned in the US.The specifics are important here: first is that this legislation was passed as part of a bundle with legislation that also provided funding for Ukraine, Israel and Palestinians, and Taiwan—so this is generally being seen as a sweetener to some further-right Republicans who otherwise would have opposed those funding efforts, and it may not have been passed if it hadn't been thus bundled.Second is that this isn't a TikTok ban, in the sense that Biden signed it and now TikTok is banned in the US. Instead, it says, basically, TikTok can keep operating in the US, but it can't be owned by a Chinese company, which again, if the Chinese government asks them to do spy or military stuff on their behalf, they would legally have to do. So the idea is that TikTok itself isn't the problem, it's those ties to the Chinese government and intelligence and military apparatus.Third is that the company now has nine months to figure out a deal to sell the whole or part of TikTok to some more acceptable—which in this case means non-Chinese-government-entangled—owner, and the President has the option of extending that to a full year, if it looks like a deal is about to be done, but needs a little more time.That's up from a previously proposed six months, and is considered to be more realistic, given the scope and scale of the company in question.And that scope and scale is point number four: TikTok is huge. It's an absolutely behemoth company, with about 170 million users in the US, alone, and about $16 billion in revenue each year.That's still nowhere near Meta's $134.9 billion of annual revenue, but it's still a colossal company that's generally considered to be worth more than $100 billion, again, for the US assets alone—though if the company were to sell everything but the algorithm it uses to decide what videos to show its users, it's though that price could drop to closer to $20 billion; which is still substantial enough that there wouldn't be many people or entities capable of affording it, and some of the big, well-moneyed US tech players, like Meta and Google, would be unlikely to even try, as their offer would probably be held up by antitrust concerns within the current, fairly hardcore regulatory environment.So ByteDance is being told to sell their US assets within a year, max, and they may have to find a buyer willing to spend tens of billions of dollars for it, and that buyer would have to be acceptable to the same US government that is telling the existing owner it has to sell or be banned in the country.Analysts are mixed on whether this is a bluff or not, but at the moment, ByteDance's leadership is saying, in essence, no—we're not going to play this game, we would rather shut down the US version of TikTok than sell those assets.Part of the rationale here might be that the Chinese government is telling ByteDance's owners that they're not allowed to sell these assets; it could be a requirement they're dressing up as staunch resilience to save face, basically.It could also be that they did the math and realized that their US offerings, despite being worth billions, are nowhere near their most profitable assets—those are in China—and they'd rather double-down on that larger market and other foreign markets than sell off something valuable in the US, which could then be used to challenge them in some of those remaining markets.It could also be that they're holding out for a good deal, or delaying, hoping that denying even the possibility of a sale will help their case in court.And they do, by some estimations at least, have a pretty solid case to lean on.Some legal experts are saying their First Amendment rights are being violated, and in a 1965 Supreme Court case, Lamont v. Postmaster General, the court ruled that foreign-produced propaganda—in that case communist propaganda—could still be distributed through the postal service because Americans have a first amendment right to receive it, even if they didn't specifically request it.This is considered to be relevant, here, because one of the arguments against TikTok by the US government is that the Chinese government could adjust what they show people, favoring content that supports positions and views of the world they like, over time adjusting the opinions and facts or pseudo-facts young people in particular are working from—which over time could also influence what they believe, how they vote, and so on. There have already been claims that TikTok favors pro-Palestinian content over pro-Israeli content, for instance, and it has long suppressed work that talks about the Tiananmen Square massacre and other things the Chinese government doesn't like; it doesn't generally fully disappear this stuff from the platform, but the algorithms show that sort of content to few people, which has a similar effect to deleting it on an app where people primarily discover things based on what they're shown by that algorithm.Of course, Facebook and Twitter and other networks have been accused of the same, in Meta's case downplaying news and political content, and in Twitter's, recently, post transition to X, favoring more conservative posts over more liberal ones—though in both cases, and in TikTok's, too, it's difficult to prove this sort of thing, and the algorithms are often black boxes rather than open code we can look at and judge objectively; so some such claims may be based on anecdote and the complainer's own bias.And it's worth mentioning here that although the Chinese government, TikTok's leadership, and a slew of free speech rights groups have come down on TikTok's side, citing the US's First Amendment and the support it would seemingly have for the popular app and those who want to use it to exercise their speech—and for the company to exercise its own, as well, sharing stuff those people watch—China has regularly banned US social networks from its highly controlled and censored portion of the internet, clamping down on those that survive so hard that they don't have much control, their data highly secured and allegedly tapped within China.So China is saying the US is in the wrong for doing something similar to what it does back home, though on a much smaller and more focused scale, and one of the counterarguments being made by some folks in the US, including some who are typically free speech proponents, is—well, tit-for-tat. Countries that remain open for US social networks will have their networks welcomed in the US in the same way, but those who don't? Their futures are less clear, because why should the US allow that kind of potential security and influence risk when the other side refuses to do the same?There's a question here, then, of what the modern, splintered internet is and how it should be treated—perhaps especially in free speech-favoring, democratic societies—now that we've moved past the veneer of free and open online activity everywhere.That's never been the case in China, and in many other countries around the world, so the idea that the US and Europe and similar nations need to behave as if it's equally open and free everywhere seems a little outmoded, and some such entities, like the EU, have been regulating based on that reality, while the US has been slow to do the same; this could mark a moment in which the US starts thinking along these same terms, or it could be another instance of maintaining the previous paradigm, because that tends to be easier, and because the relevant laws haven't been updated, yet.There's also the question of how expansive this particular bill will end up being.Does it apply to ByteDance's other apps, as well, including the popular CapCut video editing app, and its existing Instagram-dupe Lemon8, and potential future Instagram-clone TikTok Notes?Further, does it apply to other Chinese-owned apps, and other apps owned by companies in, for instance, Russia and other current and future antagonistic states?Also, to what degree will the law allow friendly nation states, like Japan and European nations, to scoop up these sorts of assets and operate them in the States, in a way China would no longer be allowed, when there's the chance that some of them—Hungary, for instance—might not always be so friendly? How does the friendly or unfriendly judgement get made, and what sort of process is involved in changing a nation's label from one to the other?Right now, the framing of all this is mostly whether we prioritize free speech or national security, and it's arguably the government's responsibility to make that argument, or face the electoral consequences of seemingly behaving in anti-speech ways without any real purpose, beyond potentially empowering US-based social platforms over foreign versions of the same.And lacking a stronger argument and more public evidence, there's a decent change a lot of people, especially young people will be irked at a TikTok ban, or even the possibility of one, despite the supposed security threat it poses.All of which suggests this will be an interesting year, as the clock ticks downward on those 9 months, plus another 3, possibly, that ByteDance has to sell its US assets, during which several companies will probably arise, stating their case for scooping up the most popular social platform, with young people at least, in the country, and during which ByteDance's lawyers will be filing cases on their employers' behalf.And this will all go down as the country winds its way toward the November election, which features two presidents that have spoken out against the app, while also having used it for their own political gains, to try to reach the youths of the country, who will play a major role in this upcoming election, but also a lot of elections after that, well into the future.Show Noteshttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/301/https://www.wsj.com/politics/states-take-on-china-in-the-name-of-national-security-7ed05257https://apnews.com/article/us-china-blinken-wang-yi-8c1c453df3afbd6ec87ced0c8d618064https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/24/24139036/biden-signs-tiktok-ban-bill-divest-foreign-aid-packagehttps://www.dw.com/en/eu-sets-tiktok-ultimatum-over-addictive-new-app-feature/a-68891902https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/business/tiktok-india-ban.htmlhttps://apnews.com/article/tiktok-divestment-ban-what-you-need-to-know-5e1ff786e89da10a1b799241ae025406https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-bytedance-lawsuit-biden-386e6d81e2eef61a756bcdea96cd0aefhttps://www.axios.com/2024/03/16/tiktok-ban-divest-ownership-chinahttps://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five-observations-on-the-tiktok-bill-and-the-first-amendmenthttps://archive.ph/7Fiknhttps://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-bytedance-lawsuit-biden-386e6d81e2eef61a756bcdea96cd0aefhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/25/tiktok-legal-battle-is-certain/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/18/business/media/tiktok-ban-american-culture.htmlhttps://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/02/22/how-u-s-adults-use-tiktok/https://www.ypulse.com/article/2023/06/05/gen-z-is-officially-using-tiktok-more-than-any-other-social-media-platform/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/technology/bytedance-tiktok-ban-bill.htmlhttps://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/tech/who-could-buy-tiktok/index.htmlhttps://www.nbcnews.com/business/tiktok-ban-bill-why-congress-when-takes-effect-rcna148981https://www.wsj.com/tech/bytedance-says-it-wont-sell-u-s-tiktok-business-61f43079https://www.wsj.com/tech/why-china-is-holding-its-fire-as-u-s-moves-to-ban-tiktok-38a63cddhttps://www.theverge.com/2024/4/11/24127579/tiktok-ai-virtual-influencers-advertisinghttps://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/project-texas-the-details-of-tiktok-s-plan-to-remain-operational-in-the-united-stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok#Project_Texashttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/business/china-tiktok-douyin.htmlhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c289n8m4j19ohttps://techcrunch.com/2024/04/27/will-a-tiktok-ban-impact-creator-economy-startups-not-really-founders-say/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/25/tiktok-ban-bill-us-communities/https://www.wsj.com/tech/how-tiktok-lost-the-war-in-washington-bbc419cchttps://archive.ph/pnMEGhttps://www.theverge.com/24141539/tiktok-ban-bytedance-china-dc-circuit-supreme-courthttps://www.axios.com/2024/04/23/tiktok-ban-bytedance-apps-capcut-lemon8https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/us/politics/us-china-drones-dji.htmlhttps://www.theregister.com/2024/01/05/huawei_ditches_us_lobbying_team/https://engadget.com/huawei-honor-sold-024435704.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaweihttps://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/15/trump-ban-huawei-us-1042046 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

During a meeting with members of Virginia's Congressional delegation April 29, U.S. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy acknowledged mail delivery problems in the Richmond region and pledged to improve the performance of the United States Postal Service's Richmond Regional Processing and Distribution Center in Sandston. The delegation included U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, as well as both U.S. representatives whose districts include portions of Henrico: Rob Wittman (R-1st District) and Jennifer McClellan (D-4th District). The group previously had voiced concerns about the mail delays. "It was encouraging to hear the postmaster accept responsibility for the problems, share data about...Article LinkSupport the Show.

The U.S. Postal Service has experienced delays in mail delivery around the country, including Missouri and Kansas. As Missouri Congressman Sam Graves pushes for federal legislation to protect citizens, he says it is time to bring in a new postmaster general.

Today on the show: Scott Slade joins us live. Ossoff goes-off on The Postmaster General. Erik Larson from Bloomberg News on jury selection in the Trump trial. Are we in Cold War II? The latest on Iran/Israel. Plus, bracing for the cicadas! 9am-noon on 95.5 WSB.

On the Tuesday April 16th edition of Georgia Today: Postmaster General Louis Dejoy faces tough questions about mail delivery delays before the U.S. Senate; Atlanta works to finish part of a trail connecting the city to the Chattahoochee River; And Savannah attempts to cut down on noise created by tour operators in the city's historical district.

Goergia's controversial 2021 voting law overhaul, SB 202, is in court this week; The Postmaster General is defending changes by the U.S. Postal Service that have led to delayed and missing mail in Georgia; On this week's On Leadership with Atlanta Business Chronicle, host Crystal Edmonson talks with Christine Whitaker, president of Comcast's Central DivisionSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

James Bovard discusses his new book on the death of liberty in America. The U.S. government has become an oppressive force which steals upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars annually from its citizens through civil asset forfeiture, silences Americans through its Orwellian Ministry of Truth, and imposes burdensome security theater (e.g. TSA) among many other forms of tyranny. He describes the attempts to take guns away and whether he thinks they will succeed, this idea of a second civil war, and how people were stampeded into submission on Covid. There is no substitute for courage and self-reliance is part of that. The death of liberty in America is not foreordained. Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · James Bovard: The Death of Liberty in America is Not Foreordained #418 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.comDonate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donationsConsult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopoliticseasyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.comEscape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopoliticsPassVult https://passvult.comSociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.comWise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites James Bovard Website https://www.jimbovard.com X https://twitter.com/JimBovard Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty https://www.amazon.com/Last-Rights-Death-American-Liberty/dp/B0CP9VCNDH About James Bovard James Bovard is the author of Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty (2023) Public Policy Hooligan (2012), Attention Deficit Democracy (2006), and eight other books. He is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, a frequent contributor to the New York Post, and has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Playboy, and the Washington Post, and is a fellow with the Libertarian Institute. His books have been translated into Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean. The Wall Street Journal called Bovard 'the roving inspector general of the modern state,' and Washington Post columnist George Will called him a 'one-man truth squad.' His 1994 book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty received the Free Press Association's Mencken Award as Book of the Year. His book Terrorism and Tyranny won the Lysander Spooner Award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. He received the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the Freedom Fund Award from the National Rifle Association. His writings have been been publicly denounced by the chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Postmaster General, and the chiefs of the Transportation Security Administration, U.S. International Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In 2015, the Justice Department sought to suppress his articles in USA Today. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

(1/12/24) - In today's Federal Newscast: Postmaster General DeJoy rejoices over new package-business customers. The National Treasury Employees Union sounds the alarm over a potential government shutdown. And with a partial government shutdown a week away, the Senate considers a short-term continuing resolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

(1/12/24) - In today's Federal Newscast: Postmaster General DeJoy rejoices over new package-business customers. The National Treasury Employees Union sounds the alarm over a potential government shutdown. And with a partial government shutdown a week away, the Senate considers a short-term continuing resolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do you get when you combine a gentle woodsman and a con artist mailman? A modern holiday movie is what! For our Christmas episode, we're exploring that very plot with Klaus (2019). Banished by his Postmaster General father to a remote island where he must prove himself as a postman, spoiled Jesper can't imagine how he'll get its violent and hateful residents to begin mailing letters. That is until he meets Klaus: a kind recluse who secretly loves making toys for the island's kids and wants to receive their letters. Children unlock the spirit of the season with their desire to believe in the magic of Klaus, igniting peace and a new culture for everyone on the island. So is this animated feature what we'd call a modern classic? Or was the entire story totally predictable? Let's find out together!

Townhall Review – July 8, 2023 Hugh Hewitt turns to Kristen Waggoner, CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, to discuss the pivotal 303 Creative v. Elenis case involving Lori Smith. They examine the court's decision, its wide-ranging impact on free speech rights, and Lori Smith's personal journey, emphasizing the case's profound significance for individual freedom of expression in America. Seth Leibsohn welcomes Carol Platt Liebau, President of the Yankee Institute, to talk about the Supreme Court's landmark decision in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case, marking a significant step towards true individual merit-based consideration over race-based affirmative action. Charlie Kirk talks with Kelly Shackleford, CEO of First Liberty, about the monumental 9-0 victory in the Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General case, reinstating religious freedom in the workplace and setting a new precedent for future religious discrimination cases. Dan Proft and Randy Barnett, Professor of Law at Georgetown, dive into the critical shift in Supreme Court dynamics with six conservative justices, underlining its significance in key policy decisions. Hugh Hewitt is joined by Judge Amul Thapar, Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, for an in-depth exploration of Justice Thomas's originalist approach to the Constitution. They examine his significant opinions and dissents as presented in Thapar's new book, 'The People's Justice: Clarence Thomas and the Constitutional Stories that Define Him.'See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sometimes we get nerdy. Sometimes we get very nerdy. This episode is one of those where media meets politics meets history - and we're giving you all the nit-picking details, because if we don't, who will?! We only pass this way once... ...And by 'this way', I mean April 16th-24th 1923. On our previous episode, the five-month-old BBC was almost on its last legs, facing battles from the press (the Express) and the government (a feisty Postmaster General who doesn't feel generous with the licence fee). Now episode 71 sees the BBC discussed in the House of Commons, as two debates introduce the Sykes Inquiry, and see MPs debate, debase, defend and potentially defund the BBC. (A reminder: this was 1923, not 2023.)  To bring this to life, we've revisited the Hansard parliamentary record of precisely what was said, and reunited (or recruited) our Podcast Parliamentary Players. So you'll hear: Neil Jackson - Mr Ammon Alexander Perkins - Lt Col Moore-Brabazon Lou Sutcliffe, David Monteath, Paul Hayes, Fay Roberts, Tom Chivers - Postmaster General Sir William Joynson-Hicks (aka Jix) Shaun Jacques - Sir William Bull, Mr Pringle Gordon Bathgate - Ramsay Macdonald, Sir Douglas Newton Steve Smallwood - Captain Benn Jamie Medhurst - Captain Berkeley Carol Carman - Mr Jones Andrew Barker - Mystery Speaker Wayne Clarke - Mr Speaker, J.H. Whitley ...and apologies if I've missed anyone out! It's quite possible.   If you'd like to follow along (why would you?), the text of the two debates are here: April 19th 1923: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1923-04-19/debates/8b3a8bd2-60c2-4c76-9e51-27c86098693f/BroadcastingLicences?highlight=experimental#contribution-276dc9d5-9f73-4623-867f-57e71dd74a1e   April 24th 1923: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1923-04-24/debates/9eb32788-f7a5-4f00-b2e5-a3207e5713bf/WirelessBroadcasting?highlight=experimental#contribution-7d5744c5-1c76-49d8-848e-858b0f275df7   OTHER LINKS: The text of Peter Eckersley's on-air engineering talk (thanks to Andrew Barker): https://www.facebook.com/groups/bbcentury/posts/624629565774834/ (Join our Facebook group!) This episode contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v.3.0 Oh and we're nothing to do with the BBC. We're talking about the old BBCompany, and not made by the present-day BBCorporation. Apologies we were going to feature Dr Martin Cooper - but the debates over-ran! Soon, Martin, with apologies. Meanwhile, buy his book: https://amzn.to/44eSXIM Music by Will Farmer Support us on Patreon.com/paulkerensa Rate/review us where you found this podcast? Paul's tour on old radio: Paulkerensa.com/tour      Thanks for listening, if you do. This one's a bit heavy! NEXT TIME: The first radio dramatist - The Truth about Phyllis Twigg paulkerensa.com/oldradio

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera regresa  el Lcdo. José Javier Lamas para una sesión de nerdeo jurídico y análisis profundo sobre cuatro decisiones controvertidas del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos publicadas el 29 y 30 de junio de 2023 y listadas abajo. Consideradas en conjunto, las decisiones pueden representar un revolución jurídica en lo que ha sido el ordenamiento federal desde la época de los 1960.- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis donde se decide que una diseñadora de páginas web para bodas tiene el derecho, bajo la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución, de negarse a crear páginas web para bodas de parejas del mismo sexo por estar en desacuerdo con las mismas y el estado de Colorado no puede sancionar a la diseñadora bajo la ley estatal prohibiendo discrimen por orientación sexual. - Groff v. Postmaster General donde se decide que bajo el Título VII del “Civil Rights Act of 1964”, un patrono que rechace proveer un acomodo razonable por las prácticas religiosas de un empleado tiene el peso de la prueba para demostrar que el acomodo fue rechazado porque resultaría en un incremento sustancial de costos en conexión con la conducta empresarial particular del patrono.- Student for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard University donde se decide que políticas de acción afirmativa raciales en la admisión de estudiante universitarios están prohibidas bajo la Cláusula de Igual Protección de las Leyes de la Decimocuarta Enmienda de la Constitución. - Biden v. Nebraska donde se decide que el Secretario de Educación no tenía autoridad legal para condonar en el 2022 un total de $430 mil millones de préstamos estudiantiles bajo el “HEROES Act of 2003” en conexión con la pandemia COVID-19 cuando la misma estaba próxima a concluirse y el Congreso nunca le delegó tal poder al Presidente o el Secretario.El Lcdo. Lamas es un litigante con experiencia y pericia en litigios complejos y temas de seguro y derecho civil. Es miembro de las directivas de varios cuerpos del Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico y activista en el Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana. Sobrino y Lamas componen el Panel de Guayaberas en el programa Sin Tapujos con Jonathan Lebrón-Ayala todos los viernes (más o menos) a las 7:30am por WIAC 740AM.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovichThreads: @zobrinovich"Los cambios de los años de la década del 1960, con los derechos civiles como su enfoque, no eran simplemente un gran elemento nuevo en la Constitución. Sino que constituían una constitución rival contra la cuál la constitución original era frecuentemente incompatible [...] Mucho de lo que hemos llamado polarización o falta de civismo en años recientes es algo mucho más grave - es una falta de consenso sobre cuál de las dos constituciones prevalecerá..." - Christopher Caldwell

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 13:11) ‘The Way to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race is to Stop Discriminating on the Basis of Race': SCOTUS Strikes Down Affirmative Action in 6-3 DecisionStudents For Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College by Supreme Court of the United StatesPart II (13:11 - 17:50) Two Moral Worlds Respond to SCOTUS's Affirmative Action Decision: Dueling Definitions of Justice Argue Over the Judgement of the CourtPart III (17:50 - 20:11) Unprecedented Personal Comments in the Affirmative Action Opinions by Justices: Justices Thomas and Jackson Speak Their MindsPart IV (20:11 - 26:19) Can an Evangelical Postal Employee Be Forced to Make Deliveries on Sundays?: SCOTUS Rules Unanimously That Reasonable Accommodations Must Be Made Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General by Supreme Court of the United StatesSign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Episode 70 is a biggie. In April 1923, the five-month-old BBC faced a two-pronged attack. The Daily Express ran an anti-BBC campaign, with front page stories questioning its existence, and even offering to take over broadcasting themselves. Over the course of one week, the Express applied to the government for a broadcast licence (and were turned down). Meanwhile the Postmaster General's chance encounter with Reith in the street brought to a head 'the licence problem'. Reith wanted more £ for the BBC; the govt wanted more £ for themselves. It's a hundred years' war that's still raging, so it's the ideal episode to bring in Prof Patrick Barwise and Peter York, authors of The War Against the BBC: How an Unprecedented Combination of Hostile Forces is Destroying Britain's Greatest Cultural Institution... And Why You Should Care. Their insight in 2023's BBC battles tell us of right-wing press ('SMET': Sun, Mail, Express, Telegraph), now joined by GB News and Talk TV, plus think tanks galore doing down Auntie Beeb. This is all coupled with cuts in funding that is starting to affect output, from local radio to orchestras to the merged news channel. April 5th-15th 1923 is perhaps just the beginning then... Buy Patrick Barwise and Peter's York book The War Against the BBC: https://amzn.to/3qX6bLB Read their article for Prospect Magazine: 'We have bad news for the right-wing BBC haters: most of the public just don't agree with you.' https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/60479/attention-bbc-haters-the-public-arent-behind-you See Paul Kerensa on tour with 'An Evening of (Very) Old Radio': www.paulkerensa.com/tour More info on Paul's forthcoming novel Auntie and Uncles: www.paulkerensa.com/book Original music is by Will Farmer. Broadcasts more than 50 years old are generally out of copyright. Any BBC content is used with kind permission, BBC copyright content reproduced courtesy of the British Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved. Thanks for supporting on www.patreon.com/paulkerensa if you do - videos and writings await you there. Or one-off tips are much appreciated too! www.ko-fi.com/paulkerensa. Do rate and review us - 5 stars would be lovely, thanks! We're here to inform, educate and entertain - though as ever we are nothing to do with the present-day BBC. We're just talking about them, not made by them. Next time... Episode 71 - Today in Parliament: The BBC Debates of April 1923, plus Dr Martin Cooper on radio in popular culture. www.paulkerensa.com/oldradio  

We'll be joined by Lianna Wilbert at 5:30 and Russell Jay-Gould at 6pm EST.  Lianna is much more knowledgeable about Russell's work than we, so we invited her on to ask some questions.  Let's just say this interview didn't go as planned, if we were to ever have a plan... which we don't, as we don't script anything and have little to no communication with our guests- or with each other!- regarding topics prior to going live. You don't want to miss this one!   Check out our featured sponsor Dr. Kirk Elliott and turn your fiat dollars into physical silver at www.defiantsilver.life Welcome back to the Patriot Party Podcast!  We are now live streaming from 6:00 to 8:15pm EST Monday - Friday, 2pm Saturday for Freedom Gardens and 2pm Sunday for Truspiracy.  Tune in on Rumble, Pilled.net, DLive, RedPills.tv, Odysee, Telegram or CloutHub every day.  If you miss the livestream, no worries, we will always put the podcast out. Check out our new website and merchandise at www.patriotpartypod.com and save 20% off your first order with promo code DEFIANT. We miss our brother Justin Andersch from Cannabis and Combat every day; every show we do is dedicated to his memory.  Justin was most passionate about saving the children, so we have set up a GiveSendGo in his memory, with all proceeds going to a child sex trafficking prevention organization he worked with, Shepard's Watch.  Please honor Justin's memory by donating at www.givesendgo.com/blueberryduckfarts Help us get Bees!  The next goal on our homestead is to incorporate bees as pollinators and eventually for honey.  Donate towards our goal at www.givesendgo.com/freedombees or pray for us! If you'd like to support the podcast, check out our sponsors!  We've found some amazing Patriot sponsors that will help you prepare for what's to come and provide you with value for your money. Fluoride dumbs you down, and does anyone really like the dentist?  Avoid both with fluoride free, nano colloidal silver toothpaste at www.freshmouth.life    Heal your body and change your life with Cardio Miracle! Get yours at www.defiantmiracle.com The fiat dollar loses value every day as inflation skyrockets and the stock market plummets.  Protect your money with gold and silver so you'll still have some when this is all over!  Go to www.defiantsilver.life or call 720-605-3900 and to reach Dr. Kirk Elliott's team; tell them the Patriot Party Podcast sent you! Food shortages are coming, and no one wants to go hungry.  Make sure your family is fed with long term storable food at MyPatriotSupply and get free shipping with every order over $100.  www.defiantprep.life Grow your own food!  Save 10% on all the seeds you need to survive with promo code DEFIANT at www.survival-essentials.com Use the promo code DEFIANT at mypillow.com and mystore.com to save up to 66% on some of the best products around, and support a great Patriot at the same time! Or you can call 1-800-377-9724 to place your order directly.   https://www.mypillow.com/defiant   Covid may never go away; if you need IVM or HCQ, check out Dr. Stella Immanuel's website at www.drstellamd.com and save 5% off her book, vitamins, and tele-health with the promo code DEFIANT. Sign up for Dr. Sherwood's free ebook at www.Sherwood.TV/patriotparty  Check out his campaign website at www.Sherwood2022.com  Check out our new sponsor: COL1972, a women's clothing line, made in the USA, that uses their proceeds to fight for life.  Visit their website and use the promo code PATRIOTPARTY or click this link to check out their website: https://www.col1972.com/?aff=528  If you've got extra $$ burning a hole in your pocket and want to share, you can show us some extra love by becoming a paid subscriber to our Substack: https://patriotpartypod.substack.com Like what you hear?  Like, share and subscribe, and rate us!  Don't appreciate us?  Keep listening, we may grow on you. Fair warning:  we are labeled explicit for good reason.  We use all the words in the English language that everyone understands, but you probably don't want your children to repeat. All music was purchased from the Deep State devils, copy write to the same Pedos we all know and hate.  We all know how corrupt it all is, and this why we fight.  So keep it up Patriots, we are with you; WWG1WGA!  You can find evidence to back up our discussion on Telegram at: https://t.me.qvlynnqplan  Join our Telegram chat channel https://t.me/patriotpartypodchat  Listen to the audio podcast: https://thepatriotparty.podbean.com/  Watch the livestream and join the chat on Pilled!  https://share-link.pilled.net/profile/169214 Subscribe to our Rumble Channel- ThePatriotPartyPodcast! https://rumble.com/c/c-994185 Watch us on CloutHub: https://clouthub.com/c/6spkRe4m We've joined the Redpill Project!  You can soon find all our content there, plus the episodes we co-host on the Daily Dose and a lot more! https://www.redpillpodcasts.com/micandvlynn Follow us on Twitter and now on Truth Social! @vlynnQ

Ep 161 is loose! And it's time to tackle one of the most famous heists in British history - the 1963 robbery of one very wealthy Royal Mail train. Who was behind the heist of all heists? How did the gang getaway? And where was the Postmaster General during all of this?!The secret ingredient is...Monopoly!Tell us what you think, and send in Qs or stories about this for Part 2 next week!Get cocktails and historic true crime tales every week with The Poisoners' Cabinet. Listen to the Podcast on iTunes, Spotify and find us on Acast: https://shows.acast.com/thepoisonerscabinet Join us Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepoisonerscabinet Find us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thepoisonerscabinet Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepoisonerscabinet/ Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ThePoisonersCabinet Talk on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepoisonerscab Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the two and a half years that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has been in that role, he's rankled members of Congress, the public and industry groups with his operational changes. But, he presses on, telling GovExec that he's going to make mistakes, but ultimately learn from them. Senior Correspondent Eric Katz spoked to DeJoy recently for a story headlined headlined "USPS Prepares for a ‘Year of Implementation,' and the Shaping of Louis DeJoy's Legacy." He joined the podcast to talk about DeJoy's plans and the construction of his legacy as Postmaster General. *** Eric's story on DeJoy: https://www.govexec.com/management/2022/12/usps-prepares-year-implementation-and-making-louis-dejoys-legacy/381307/ *** Follow GovExec on Twitter! https://twitter.com/govexec

This week on Mailin' It, we welcome back Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, to talk about this upcoming holiday season and all the preparation the Postal Service has done for it. Join us as we'll learn more about the improvements made to delivery services, peak season staffing, and more. We'll also get an update from Louis on the 10-year Delivering for America plan, and where the organization is headed in the future.

Last time we spoke the first time the British and French armada attacked the Taku forts it was a literal cake walk. Reminscent of the first opium war, the Qing cannons proved inept at hitting the European ships. Elgin's coalition made their way to Tianjin where they were met by the Emperors emissaries who began the same old tired procrastination strategy. Elgin was simply fed up and left the job to his brother Bruce who thought he got the deal won and done, but little did they all know the Qing had no intention of following through with the new treaty. A rebellion broke out at Canton and now Bruce was left with a new coalition force to fight yet again to get to Beijing to force the Qing to heed the treaty. However this time the Taku Forts were led by Prince Seng and he served the Europeans a truly nasty defeat. The tides of war were turning in favor of the Qing dynasty.    Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. #22 This episode is Part 4 of the Second Opium War: The March to Beijing   When news came back to Britain about the loss, Lord Derby's government fell on June 10th 1859. Lord Palmerston returned to power at the age of 75 and wrote to the foreign office  “We must in some way or other make the Chinese repent of the outrage. We might send a military-naval force to attack and occupy Peking.” Elgin sat in on a cabinet meeting as Palmerston had appointed him Postmaster-General in the new Whig government. Elgin proscribed a moderate response, fearing that if Britain toppled the Manchu government the new masters of China would become the Taiping who lets just say were not great friends to capitalism and especially not towards the opium trade. For those MP's who still sought diplomacy, a recent event had hurt their cause. American ambassador John Ward made an attempt at diplomacy, agreeing to go to Beitang around 160 miles north of Beijing before heading to the capital. Yet instead of traveling in a sedan chair like any respectable Qing official, Ward accepted the humiliating Chinese offer to use a wooden cart without springs or a cushioned seat. The Chinese it turns out slyly told Ward this was the preferred method of transport the Russians took when in reality it was the typical transport for tribute bearers. Apparently the trip was so bumpy and painful, Ward chose to walk the last few miles. The Qing were delighted at the sight of the western representative entering Beijing on July 27th on foot like a common peasant. Ward like so many before him, ran into the kowtow situation. Ward said he was willing to bow but “I am accustomed to kneel only to God and women” to which some Qing court official said “but the emperor is God'. Another absolutely ridiculous war about the logistics of Kowtowing emerged. Ward was unwilling to do the full blown deal and kept trying to cut corners. The Qing officials asked if he could touch the floor with his fingertips instead of his head, he said no. They then asked if he could hide his legs behind a curtain so the emperor thought he was kneeling when in fact he wouldnt be. Many letters went back and forth trying to find a way to accommodate Ward's kowtow, but at the last moment Emperor Xianfeng came out of an opium stupor and upon receiving the recent news about the grand victory at the Taku Forts demanded Ward do the full blown kowtow. The Emperor added, since the Americans decided to break neutrality at the Taku Forts it was the least Ward could do, ouch. If you can believe it, the kowtow argument went on for 14 days. The Emperor eventually ordered Ward and his entourage to be expelled from Beijing. Though this all looked horrible on the surface, in truth Ward went to Beitang without interference from the Emperor and signed a treaty with the Qing officials on August 15th of 1859. Wards success was due to the fact, unlike his British and French counterparts, America was not insistent on signing the treaty within the capital. The American experience made Bruce look bad and Palmerston was fed up with the Qing protocols, kowtowing and such. The British newspapers were calling for blood after hearing news about the Taku fort disaster. Yet the situation was delicate. 10% of Britains tax revenue came from the opium trade in China. As Elgin put it in a letter to a colleague “If you humiliate the Emperor beyond measure, if you seriously impair his influence over his own subjects, you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. [You] throw the country into confusion and imperil the most lucrative trade you have in the world. I know that these opinions are not popular. The general notion is that if we use the bludgeon freely enough we can do anything in China. I hold the opposite view so strongly that I must give expression to it at whatever cost to myself.” Then some international actions stirred things into motion. Italy suddenly seized the Austrian controlled territory of Lombardy. Rumors began to spread that France was mustering 12,000 infantry, two squadrons of cavalry, 6 batteries of artillery and 20 gunboats most likely to hit Beijing….or perhaps Britain. It does seem to all be hysteria, but one thing was for sure, the British needed to take action to secure their interests in China. The Foreign Secretary on October 29th ordered Bruce to demand an apology for the lives lost at the Taku forts, for unspecified reparations and an agreement to respect the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin. The Qing would be given 30 days to respond, no more tactical delays allowed, if they failed to meet the deadline Bruce would block the Bei He River. Bruce received the orders in January of 1860, but there were problems. The idea was to starve out Beijing, its been an idea tossed around a few times at this point. However blockading the Bei He river would result in just rice crop not getting north, those living in Beijing could simply sustain themselves on the other crops found abundantly at the time in the north, corn and beans for example. On top of this Admiral Hope needed to furnish the warships and it would take until April, thus Elgin began to showcase the issues and it was agreed to extend the deadline until March.  The Qing responded surprisingly quickly to Bruce's ultimatum on April 5th with a no. Instead the Qing officials invited Bruce to negotiate with some imperial commissioners, not the Emperor and at Beitang. It seems the Qing remained ever emboldened by their victory at the Taku Forts, they also ended the response off by telling Bruce the barbarian representatives in the future should be more respectful, ompf. Bruce was out of his depth and many officials in Britain knew it. Instead of replacing Bruce outright they simply superseded him with another British emissary…his brother Elgin, double ompf. Thus Bruce was to remain in China to help his brother. Elgin had spent his entire time in Britain trying to stop the escalation to war and was extremely reluctant to take the diplomatic role again. None the less he felt he had to defend the treaty he had built and was being stamped upon. En route back to China, Elgin stopped in Paris at the Tuileries to speak the Napoleon III to ask what Frances territorial ambitions were in China. Napoleon III said the major drive was for Indo-China and that France was more than happy to leave Britain the pesky nation of China to deal with. If anything, weakening China would just help France more so in Indo-China, une gagnon-gagnon.  Baron Gros caught up to Elgin en route to China and both steamed out of Sri Lanka aboard the Malabar. The pair were in for a real fun time, as a brutal storm hit their ship and it sunk taking with it Baron Gros's uninsured plate and Elgin's top secret instructions from Britain. Eglin and Gros were delayed 2 more weeks to retrieve their lost stuff, those documents Elgin had lost by the way held some brand new demands of China such as the annexation of Kowloon, something that might have distressed the French. Again, a rumor had been spread to London that Napoleon III sought to seize Kowloon. This prompted some panicky British officials such as our old friend Harry Parkes to negotiate a permanent lease over Kowloon with the Chinese Viceroy of Canton. In a bizarre fashion while the British forces were mustering for an expedition, this was occurring indifferently and the viceroy of Canton accused because he was bankrupt.  The international force sent to China was staggering, 18,000 men, 7000 being French. Because of Kowloon easily going over to Britain, this allowed Sikh cavalry to perform military exercises on their large arabian horses terrifying the locals. The Sikhs and British brought with them a terrifying new toy, the 25 pound Armstrong fieldgun. It held the accuracy of a rifle with the destructive power of a cannon. It was designed to scatter large armies by firing a shell that burst into 49 angular fragments, making it one of the most brutal antipersonnel weapon in existence. I can't state it enough here, this one piece of military technology is what will destroy the Qing forces, it performed tremendously. The French were armed with an outdated Napoleon gun for their own artillery. 2500 Chinese coolies were hired by the British at 9$ a month + rations and 2 uniforms. Ironically crime in Hong Kong declined dramatically after the British left with these men, seems they got all the criminals on the island haha. General Sir James Hope Grant led the British forces and commanded a special loyalty from the Sikhs as they served under his fair leadership during the Indian revolt. Grant got the job, not because he was particularly gifted, just merely the closest General in the east. An allied force of 2000 British and 500 French were sent to seize Chusan island allowing them to assert dominance over the Yangtze and its critical use as a supply road to Beijing. The residents of Chusan were so traumatized from the last invasion they gave up without a fight. 50 miles north of Chusan was Shanghai whom welcomed the allies also without a fight because the mayor desperately needed help fighting off the Taiping rebels. The Taiping had recently seized Fuzhou and were on their way to claim the grand prize of Shanghai. The mayor of Shanghai pleaded with the Europeans to help despite the fact they literally were going to war with other parts of the Qing dynasty. The mayor offered to secretly report the ongoings of Beijing to the Europeans. The French counterpart to Grant, General Cousin de Montauban hated the chinese in general but really hated the Taiping rebels particularly because they were protestant. The French general wanted to annihilate the Taiping menace once and for all, but the British held the mans bloodlust back agreeing to use forces just to defend Shanghai against any Taiping invasion. Even Baron Gros went against his General agreeing with the British. At Shanghai the Europeans helped augment the outdated Chinese cannons that could not aim properly to be placed as swivel cannons on the walls, which could fire outward and inward, a notably helpful feature against residents who might lend their support to the Taiping. They sold some pieces of artillery to the delight of the mayor of Shanghai. As Elgin approached Shanghai he was falling further into a spiral of depression, he had this to write in his diary “If I had been anything but the greatest fool that the world ever saw I should never have been where I now am. I deserve to suffer for it, and no doubt I shall do so.” Meanwhile the guy was getting letters from the Whig government saying if he did not conclude the China mission by the next meeting of parliament, their government would most likely fall and it would be his fault. Rumors had spread in London that Elgin's overly appeasement of the Chinese was dragging the conflict on. On July 26th, 150 British ships steamed up the northern coast to land near Beitang, just 8 miles north of the Taku Forts on the gulf of Zhili. The French fleet soon joined them and for 5 days they began to unload troops from more than 200 warships, if I was the Qing dynasty, already facing the Taiping horde I would be peeing my pants. None of the wall guns in Beitang fired upon the Europeans as they approached and as they opened the gates they soon figured out why, the garrison literally had run away. They also found out a lot of the wall mounted artillery turned out to be fakes made out of wood, and I just know theres a great embezzlement story for that one. The 20,000 residents of the city welcomed the invaders like liberators and even began to point out where the forces of the infamous Prince Seng had buried mines inside and outside the city. A lot of those kind residents were rewarded with rape and looting by the troops. It is alleged many of the women of Beitang escaped the rape by poisoning themselves with opium, strangaltion or drowning, my god. Many residents sought refuge fleeing to a fetid marsh outside the city. General Grant blamed the hired coolies who he said “were for the most part atrocious villains…the robberies and crimes they committed in the town were fearful”. But it is most certain all the groups present took part in the orgy of plunder and rape, war never changes. British Provost-Marshal Captain Con ordered 30 soldiers flogged for looting and military discipline was restored the next week. The march from Beitang to Tianjin was a mud filled nightmare, an advance company of 1000 British and 1000 French eventually crawled along a stone causeway for 4 miles until they finally spotted Tianjin in the distance and a large horde of Prince Seng's cavalry blocking the way. As the Europeans drew closer, hundreds of Manchus, Han and Mongol cavalry became visible. Their sheer numbers were intimidating at first until the Europeans saw their weaponry. Most were utilizing bows and arrows, spears, some 18th century flintlocks and of course Gingalls. The allies lacked enough cavalry to fight even such an under equipped force and pulled back for the time being. A Qing commander upon seeing the Europeans peel back away sent a letter immediately to Beijing proclaiming a grand victory had already been won. Then on August the 12th of 1860, Grant assembled 800 cavalry to march around the Qing blockading the causeway and to take them from the rear. The main allied forced would hit the Qing head on using 3 Armstrong guns. When the frontal units were within a mile of the Qing horde they open fire with the Armstrongs. The Armstrong shells exploded and tore to piece the Qing cavalry, but the defenders were truly fearless, even as their comrades at either side were literally blown to pieces, they charged at the invaders. The Qing forces got within 450 yards when the effectiveness of the invaders guns simply halted them in their tracks, creating 25 minutes of terror. The suicidal valor of the Qing impressed many of their opponents, Major General Sir Robert Napier commanding the second division under Grant wrote “they bore unflinchingly for a considerable time such a fire as would have tried any troops in the world”. The Sikh riflemen gunned down the Qing with enfields and pistols while they were met mostly bow arrows. Lt Col G Wolseley recalled “never saw men come on so pluckily”. The better armed but widely outnumbered Sikhs managed to force the Qing to break and flee. The Punjab cavalry would have caused an even larger bloodbath pursuing the fleeing Qing, but the mud trapped their horses. Many of the Qing fled all the way to the safety of the Taku forts.  At the same time Grant had launched an attack on the Qing cavalry guarding the causeway leading to Tianjin when quite an unfortunate event unfolded. A drunk Irish sergeant who had recently took too much rum that he was literally ordered to delivery to the troops and got lost and stumbled into what he thought was a pack of friendly Sikh cavalry, it turns out they were Manchu. The Manchu cavalrymen seized the man and a few unfortunate souls who were following him. The Manchu ordered the Europeans to kowtow and they all did except for a Scottish private named Moyse who was beheaded on the spot. The Irish sergeant and other survivors were allowed to make their way back to camp to tell the others what had happened and they got back safely a week later. Their story made it into The Times which published a poem about the man, though it got his nationality wrong, typical English “Let dusky Indians whine and kneel,/An English lad must die./And thus with eyes that would not shrink,/With knee to man unbent,/Unfaltering on its dreadful brink,/To his red grave he went.” Two days after the kowtow incident the Europeans made their way up the causeway coming to a village called Sin-ho where they found the defenders had recently fled from. Further past the village was a large outpost called Danggu and unlike Sin-ho this was defended by Qing forces. Prince Seng had abandoned Danggu leaving behind Green standard troops. General de Montauban wanted to attack immediately, but Grant cautioned that the men needed rest. In a typical French-British rivalry fashion, de Montauban decided to attack without the British, but they found themselves quickly overwhelmed by the mud-walled fortification's 45 wall cannons. This setback humiliated the French general who had personally led the assault, but it did not lessen up his pursuit for glory. De Montauban came up with a wild plan to attack all 4 of the Dagu forts at the same time. Grant insisted on singling out the most northern fort as it was the most vulnerable. De Montauban made a mention of the situation in his diary on August 20th “I shall nevertheless send a French land force to work conjointly with our allies. The object of my observations is, above all, to free myself from military responsibility with reference to my own government.” On August 14th, the British and French took Danggu using 36 guns and two rocket batteries before the infantry swept in. As one British Lt said to his commander “the Armstrong gun is a great success”. By taking Danggu, the Europeans were now in a great position to attack the northern most Dagu Fort that Grant had singled out, it was just a mile from Danggu across the Bei He River. There was a 6 day delay at this point as the Europeans were bringing the rest of their supplies and equipment along the causeway and the French garrison in Shanghai had a nasty situation leading them to burn some of the city's suburbs in an effort to drive out Taiping rebels. On August 20th the Europeans set up 6 artillery batteries within half a mile of the northernmost Taku Fort and called in for 8 gunboats to attack it from the south. Just before sunrise of August 21st the Taku Fort opened fire on their position. The Europeans responded by performing a rolling forward bombardment all the way up to 500 yards from the Forts walls. The European Armstrongs, 8 inch mortars, 24 pound howitzers and French 12 inch cannons rayes absolutely smashed the forts wall cannons until the Qing were only left with Gingalls to operate. At 6:30am a powder magazine blew up inside the fort causing a massive explosion, but the defenders kept the fight on. Once the Europeans were 30 yards from the fort, a French force led by General Collineau began to scale the walls, but there was a moat in the way. The French General forced a detachment of coolies to stand in the moat up to their necks while supporting the scaling ladders on their shoulders for the French to climb up and my god is that a heinous act. Apparently Grant felt so terrible upon seeing what happened to the coolies that he gave them all an extra months salary as bonus. Once the French got atop the walls they launched bayonet charges that scattered the remaining defenders while the British blew a small hole in the forts wall allowing their own troops to charge single file through. The Qing commander of the fort showed more bravery than many of his men. When he was cornered he refused to surrender until an agitated Captain named Prynne of the royal marines pulled out his revolver and shot the man dead. Prynne then took the commanders peacock feather cap as a trophy of war. It took a few hours for the fort to be secured. The casualties were quite heavy, the British and French reported losing about 200 men, the Chinese were said to have over 1000 dead and another 1500 had fled the scene. 9000 surrendered to General Collineau, kneeling at his feet. The inside of the fort was a horror story. Thomas Bowlby described the devastation caused by the Armstrong guns to the defenders inside the fort “a mass of brains and blood smelling most foully”. Grant awarded 6 Victoria Crosses to celebrate the taking of the first Taku Fort. The taking of the northern most fort meant the other Taku forts were now uselessly outflanked, they had all been built to withstand attacks only from the river and were open from behind. The psychological effect was very apparent as within 5 hours, two emissaries from Heng Fu and the Viceroy of Zhili province turned up to negotiate. They were met by the ever xenophobic Harry Parkes who at this point was quite famous to the Chinese for being so xenophobic. Heng Fu's emissaries offered to remove the booms blocking the Bei He River and to allow the European ships safe passage to Tianjin where peace negotiations could resume. Parkes proceeded to crumple heng fu's letter and threw it right in the face of one of his emissaries, a man named Wang who happened to be an anglophile and fluent in English. Parkes he personally knew the guy, what an asshole. Parkes then began screaming that if the other 3 Taku Forts did not surrender within the next two hours they would suffer the same fate as the northern one. One European present at this parley described Parkes to be “harsh and unnecessarily violent towards Wang. This was not customary among European nations and the envoys should be treaty with the courtesy common to civilization”. Long before Parkes two hour screamfest had elapsed, white flags were already waving amongst the 3 other Taku forts without a single shot being fired.  The path to Tianjin was now open and as of August 23rd, Grant took the armada unchallenged up to the riverway with the infantry as the cavalry made its way overland on the twin banks of the river. By August 27th the Europeans had an encampment just outside Tianjin and the ambassadors prepared to negotiate yet again. This time the Qing court sent the senior official Guilian who had previously negotiated the treaty of Tianjin, but this time he carried plenipotentiary powers. Elgin and Gros were notified of his authority beforehand and discussed amongst another the best strategy going forward. Both men presented new demands much harsher than the previous ones. The Qing were asked to make a formal apology for the casualties caused by the first battle of the Taku Forts in 1859; to pay double the original amount in reparations of 4 million taels of silver; the right to station ambassadors in the capital and to confirm the treaty of Tianjin. The Europeans would occupy Tianjin, which controlled the flow of food to Beijing, giving them the power to starve out the capital if the Qing did not agree. The Taku Forts would also be occupied and they demanded admission to Tongzhou, a suburb only 15 miles away from Beijing. Now Guiliang did indeed have carte blanche from Emperor Xianfeng, but he found the new terms so unacceptable he resorted to the classic Chinese ruse that he did not in fact have plenipotentiary which completely contradicted his original claims. Elgin recognized the classic Chinese stalling tactic because it had occurred so many times at this point. Elgin wrote in his diary “The blockheads have gone on negotiating with me just long enough to enable [Hope] Grant to bring all his army up to this point. Here we are with our base established in the heart of the country, in a capital climate, with abundance [food] around us, our army in excellent health, and these stupid people give me a snub which obliges me to break with them,” Elgin at the same time wrote to his wife “I am at war again! My idiotical Chinamen have taken to playing tricks, which give me an excellent excuse for carrying the army on to Pekin.” Thus Elgin and Gros both agreed the time had finally come to simply march on Beijing. After the fall of Beitang and the Taku forts came so easily, Prince Seng was prepared to commit suicide. However he was ordered to retreat north to the city of Tongzhou just outside Beijing. Tongzhou stood on the road between Tianjin and Beijing and it was there he would prepare a last stand. He had sent 10,000 of his infantry and 700 Cavalry from Danggu and 40,000 Mongolian troops towards Tongzhou where he was amassing an army of 60,000. His instructions were not to attack, but to simply ensure peace while protecting the capital. As the Europeans marched, the Emperor dispatched more envoys and countless letters to Elgin and Gros to delay them. They kept saying that Guiliang had been confused and that in fact the Emperor had accepted all the terms if the Europeans would just stop their advance they could ratify the treaty. It seemed the closer the European force got to Beijing the high the frequency of letters and envoys became. But Elgin was fed up with the Chinese delaying tactics and told them all they would not stop until they reached the  suburb of Beijing, Tongzhou. Many of the frantic envoys made a counteroffer asking the Europeans to go to Hesewu which was between Tianjin and Beijing. Grant liked the offer because in truth, the military force was having a hard time keeping up their logistics. In a kind of humorous way, when Grant began to press Elgin about the logistical issue, Elgin began to blame the troops for quote “the difficulty of getting our army along is incredible; our men are so pampered that they do nothing for themselves and their necessities so great that we are almost immovable. I was disgusted to find out the troops refuse to drink their daily ration of grog unless it is iced.” I love the 19th century its so wild.  On September 14th Elgin sent Harry Parkes and Thomas Wade to negotiate with two new emissaries the Emperor sent to Tongzhou. Their names were Zaiyuan and Muyin, Zaiyuan was also the emperor cousin and both men held real authority. On the very first day of negotiation at Tongzhou, after 8 hours of discussion which is light speed it seems for the Chinese, they accepted all terms. They also agreed to a protocol for ratification, the European forces would be allowed to advance to a place known as Zhengjiawan, just 6 miles from Tongzhou. From there Elgin would leave behind the majority of the forces and proceed to Tongzhou with an escort of 1000 men to sign the treaty. After that Elgin and his escort could continue to Beijing to meet Emperor Xianfeng for a formal ceremony of the treaty ratification. Harry Parkes traveled back to Elgin to report the great news and by September 17th he came back to Tongzhou to tell the Qing emissaries Elgin was preparing his arrival. However by the time Parkes got back, the Emperor had secretly instructed Prince Seng to destroy Elgins party when he came to sign the treaty. The Qing forces at Tongzhou were all hard at work preparing artillery batteries and surprise attack launching points such as millet coverings to conceal units. When Parkes began talking to the emissaries they suddenly began an argument about Elgin needing to Kowtow, it was all a ruse to delay. Prince Seng meanwhile counseled his Emperor to save face by going on a “hunting expedition” near the northern border. Seng did not want the Europeans to take the Emperor hostage, though there were many who believed it was actually a secret ploy to grab the dragon throne himself. Emperor Xianfangs concubine turned consort, Cixi urged him to remain in Beijing. The Emperor proposed to march out of the capital at the head of a huge army, make a feint attack at the European force and then flee to the safety of his hunting lodge at Rehe over 100 miles away near the Great Wall. The European military officials told Elgin and Gros to go to Tongzhou with such a small escort was suicide and they believed it to all be a trap. On september 18th as Parkes was riding back to Tianjin to report to Elgin, he noticed Prince Seng's cavalry massing behind these rows of millets. The cavalry were beginning to occupy Zhengjiawan and now Parkes suspected it was all a trap. Parkes dispatched Henry Loch, Lord Elgin's private secretary post-haste to rush back to Elgin and report all of this. Meanwhile Parkes alongside two Sikh's returned to Tongzhou to confront Zaiyuan and Muyin. When Loch got to Elgin it turns out his warning was unnecessary, Grant had sent scouts who had spotted the force at Zhengjiawan. Loch showing true courage quickly rode back to Tongzhou to report back to Parkes with only a single body guard. Both men were captured by Qing cavalry units and they alongside Parkes were offered safe conduct to meet with Prince Seng too which they agreed, I mean they had no real choice. Once they reached Seng they were both arrested alongside 19 Sikh, Thomas Bowlby and 3 British officers.  Parkes remained fearless as he confronted what he described to be “a acne plagued, short, fat Prince Seng”. Despite being in no position to reject such an order, Seng ordered Parkes to kowtow. Parkes refused and was met with his head being smashed into the marble floor multiple times. Qing soldiers pinned Parkes down as Seng screamed  “You have gained two victories to our one. Twice you have dared to take the [Dagu] forts. Why does not that content you? I know your name, and that you instigate all the evil that your people commit. It is time that foreigners should be taught respect.” Parkes managed to free his head to look up at Seng and screamed “we came to you under the flag of truce and you promised safe conduct”. Seng laughed and had his men slam Parkes head back to the floor before he responded “write to your people and tell them to stop the attack”. Parkes replied “I cannot control or influence military movement in any way. I will not deceive your highness”. Suddenly European artillery could be heard and Seng ordered Parkes and the rest of the prisoners to be tossed into wooden carts and sent to Beijing. Parkes and Loch were shackled and incarcerated in the board of Punishments awaiting an execution. The prisoners hands were secured with leather straps that were moistened so they would shrink and cut into the victims wrists. Some of the POW's were sent to the Summer palace for private inspection and public humiliation by the Emperor. It was Prince Seng's intention to showcase these prisoners as such so the Qing who witnessed them would see they were not invincible and stop believing the Chinese could not win the war. The prisoners were forced to kneel in the palace courtyard, bound without food or water for 3 days. Their hands swelled and many became gangrenous. Disease and dehydration led to deaths. Parkes and Loch at the board of punishments were placed in separate cells and interrogated and tortured. After days of this they were demanded to write back to Elgin to plead for better terms. Meanwhile Prince Seng had his men continue to dig in and for the first time the Qing forces held a lot of firepower, 70 guns in all. Seng had a 3 mile wide force of cavalry at Zhangjiawan serving as a road block between the Europeans and Beijing. Seng had over 20,000 troops and. approaching them was a force of 1000 French and 2500 British. Yet again the Qing were relying upon bow and arrows for the mounted cavalry and antiquated firelock muskets and gingalls for the, versus the British Enfield rifle, French Minie gun and the deadly Armstrong guns. Seng was using a strategy of encirclement before going in for the kill, something more akin to medieval tactics that had the serious flaw of stretching Seng's lines out making them easier for enemy penetration.  The smaller European force fought its way forward to meet head on with the bulk of Sings army just outside Tongzhou on september 21. The swift Mongolian cavalry charged in a broad wave at the left flank of the approaching European force which was moving in three columns, cavalry to the left, artillery in the center and infantry to the right. The British and French cavalry quickly split and pulled aside as the artillery in the center wheeled their guns around to fire upon the incoming Mongolians. The Armstrong guns poured salvo after salvo deep into the ranks of the charging cavalry to terrifying effect. The Mongolians pulled up in confusion then the British cavalry of Sikh and Spahi being led by De Montauban smashed into Seng's left flank, breaking through the lines and scattering them into a chaotic retreat. Then the true slaughter came as one British officer put it “Our artillery opened fire upon the retreating forces with good effect. Firing slowly, every Armstrong shell bursting amongst them and bringing down the enemy in clumps”. A Qing eye witness had this to say about the same event “Our cavalry went out in front, but they were Mongolian horsemen who had never seen battle before. As soon as they heard the sounds of the foreign cannons, they turned back. The foot soldiers behind them scattered ranks, and then everyone trampled one another.” French infantry assaulted the town of Zhangjiawan as Seng's Mongolian cavalry's ponies were being crushed by the larger Sikh and Spahi horses using their more advanced rifles. As De Montauban's cavalry penetrated the Qing lines, they retaliated as best they could with gingalls and firelock rifles all the while Armstrongs kept blasting. When the Qing cavalry began to rout and flee the Sikh and Spahi chased them down bayoneting stragglers. Despite the absolute carnage of the artillery and bayonets, Seng lost only 1500 men during the battle, but the Europeans reported only losing 35, a staggering difference. By the end of the day the Qing forces were broken and their remnants were in a full retreat to Beijing. Elgin worried about the consequences of their victory writing in his diary “I rode out very early this morning, to see my General before he started, and to give him a hint about the looting which has been very bad here. He disapproves of it as much as I do”. General Grant had allowed the troops to sack Zhangjiawan, he considered it reparations rather than vengeance and thievery. Many of the women at Zhangjiawan feared rape, and many of the looting europeans were shocked to find countless women and children committing suicide by opium overdose. One man named Swinhoe recalled ‘the more conscious of them, beating their breasts, condemned the opium for its slow work, crying out, ‘let us die; we do not wish to live'”. Some British army surgeons began pumping the victims stomachs with such success only one of the victims still alive when the army got there died. Baron Gros shared Elgin's disgust over the looting, he wrote in a communique to the French foreign minister  “J'ai le coeur serré par les actes de vandalisme que j'ai vu commis par nos soldats, comme par nos alliés, charmés de pouvoir rejeter mutuellement les uns sur les autres les actes abominable dont ils se rendaient coupables.” (I was heartbroken by the acts of vandalism that I saw committed by our soldiers as well as by those of our allies, each delighted at the chance of heaping upon the other the blame for abominable deeds for which all deserved punishment.)” After the looting was done the force began to march towards Tongzhou. While the Europeans were marching over at Baliqao where 2 large bridge went over the Bei He River towards Beijing a Qing army was forming. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me.  The coalition forces served Pring Seng a bunch of nasty defeats and it seems it was impossible to stop them from marching upon Beijing. All that was left in their path was the great bridges at Baliqao where Pring Seng would make his last stand.

Aughie and Nia explore the position of Postmaster General from 1753 to modern times in this episode of the Cabinet departments. Aughie explains how the Postmaster General went from running a large patronage system to running a large corporation that funds its own retirement system separately from the rest of the federal government under the reorganization into the United States Postal Service in 1971. 

Software hacking expert, Dan O'Dowd, founder of “The Dawn Project” joins us to critique Tesla's Fully Self-Driving cars where they found they made a critical error every eight minutes. Then Ralph welcomes Steve Hutkins, the founder and editor of “Save the Post Office,” to ask why Trump's Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy, still has a job.

Welcome to July 31st, 2022 on the National Day Calendar. Today we celebrate the extraordinary deeds of an ordinary breed and a mighty fruit.  No one is really sure how the scruffy little dog named Owney came to be at a post office in Albany, NY. He just showed up one day and became a part of the team. People speculate that Owney was attracted to the smell of the leather mail bags, which he even followed onto trucks and trains! Soon he was escorting mail carriers all around the state and the country. At each new location, the workers would add a tag to his collar, marking his travels. Owney collected so many tags that the Postmaster General ordered him a custom harness to wear instead of the collar. The little mutt was given his own special memorial in the Smithsonian Institution for his service to the U.S. Postal Service. On National Mutt Day, celebrate the ordinary breeds that find a special place in our hearts. While the Aztecs knew the power of the mighty green avocado, it took a modern company to put this fruit on the map. Model Meals founded National Avocado Day in 2017 and since then we have discovered lots of reasons to celebrate. For one, avocados target insulin resistance with heart healthy fats. They also fight Alzheimers with their Omega 3 fatty acids. Another avocado superpower is preventing and repairing damage with its source of Vitamins C, E and K. Best of all avocados taste great in guacamole, sliced over a salad and topping off a burger or chicken sandwich. And if you're not a huge fan, you can still celebrate National Avocado Day by slipping some into a smoothie. I'm Anna Devere and I'm John McClain filling in for Marlo Anderson. Thanks for joining us as we Celebrate Every Day. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices