Podcast appearances and mentions of princeton university's school

Andrew Strauss, Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Dayton School of Law, and a graduate of Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs discusses why setting up a global parliament, perhaps initially by a core group of 20-30 countries, would significantly strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the system that underpins our mechanisms of international cooperation. It could be a powerful antidote to the world-wide spread of ethno-nationalist-authoritarianism and be a catalyst for strengthening a “holistic planetary consciousness, sensitive to the practical urgency of human unity.”Learn more on GlobalGovernanceForum.org

See JL Cauvin and I co Headlining City Winery In Pittsburgh PA on Oct 11 Spend Money on Kevin's Honey!  Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Zach Wahls was first elected to the Iowa Senate in 2018. He was elected to his second term in 2022, representing Senate District 43, which includes Coralville, North Liberty, Solon, part of western Iowa City, and rural northeast Johnson County. Zach on Twitter  Zach on Tik Tok Zach ran for the Iowa Senate to give all Iowans a voice. Growing up in a non-traditional family, he learned early in life what it felt like to be left out, and he remembers how hard families like his had to fight to get a seat at the table. Prior to his election, Zach worked primarily as an advocate in the LGBTQ civil rights movement following his 2011 testimony before the Iowa House Judiciary Committee in defense of marriage equality and his “two mom” family. In this capacity, he wrote extensively about his family's experience, including a best-selling book, and has spoken to hundreds of audiences, including a prime-time speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.  An Eagle Scout, Zach co-founded and led Scouts for Equality, which successfully executed a national campaign to end discrimination against LGBTQ people in the Boy Scouts of America. Outside of the Legislature, Zach serves as the Vice President for Community Investment and Development at GreenState Credit Union, Iowa's largest financial cooperative. He also owns and operates a small business with his sister, selling custom-made playing cards, and he is a co-owner of his family tree farm in northeast Iowa. Zach completed his Masters in Public Affairs from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs in 2018 and his Bachelors from the University of Iowa in 2014. He married his wife, Dr. Chloe Angyal, in 2021, and they live with their dog, Zelda, in Coralville.   Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is one of the largest poverty alleviation programs in the United States and provides help to around 14% of the US population. Since 1996, the program has required able-bodied adults without dependents to work in order to receive food assistance. Proponents of work requirements say it prevents government dependency. Critics, however, argue work requirements push out the people who need food assistance the most. Today we'll talk with two economists about the impact of SNAP work requirements: University of Rochester's Elena Prager. and Adam Leive at the University of California, Berkeley. Interview Summary   You two were part of a research team that also included economists from MIT, Harvard, and the University of Maryland and recently published an analysis of the effects of SNAP work requirements in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. Adam, before we jump into the study, would you tell our listeners what SNAP work requirements are and how proponents and critics see them?   Adam -  Sure. So, SNAP's work requirements dictate that some recipients must be working, training, or volunteering to receive benefits for more than a few months. So the policy is historically applied to childless adults who are younger than 50 and don't have a disability, and as you mentioned, this group is often referred to as able-bodied adults without dependents and called by their acronym ABAWDs.   So, the work requirement stipulates that ABAWDs must be working 80 hours per month, participating in a qualifying training program or volunteering. If they don't satisfy that requirement, then they're only entitled to three months of SNAP benefits within a three-year period. Counties with high rates of unemployment may temporarily be granted exemptions from the policy by USDA's Food and Nutrition Services as well. So in terms of kind of the proponents and opponents of the policy, those in favor of work requirements are concerned that providing government benefits discourages work. These people generally believe that those recipients of government assistance should work as a condition for that help. Their argument for the policy is that by incentivizing work, people will develop a stronger attachment to the labor market. Eventually they become self-sufficient, and they can earn enough to get by without the government assistance.   By contrast, the critics see work requirements as a policy that prevents people who are economically vulnerable from receiving food assistance, and it prevents them from accessing assistance in times when they need it the most. So, the opponents argue that if the reason people are not working is something other than the economic incentives of the policy, then the work requirements are really just going to cut people's benefits without getting more people to work. It's worth noting that work requirements have long been contentious and most recently were the main issue in the debt ceiling debate. So as part of that compromise, the SNAP work requirements will gradually be applied to ABAWDs up to age 55, but additional groups will now be exempt from the requirement, including veterans, the homeless, and those who are 18 to 24 who were previously in foster care.   I really appreciate how you've brought in the changes to the rules around work requirements under the Inflation Reduction Act. This is going to be an important policy discussion as we move forward. It's interesting, particularly the exemption for individuals who are unhoused because of the work that shows up in the paper that you all have. So Elena, let's now turn to you. How did you study the effect of work requirements in this paper?   Elena - As you might imagine, studying the effect of work requirements on SNAP recipients and potential recipients is actually a little bit tricky. You have to be able to find comparable groups of people, some of whom face work requirements in SNAP and some of whom don't, but are otherwise similar enough to one another that it would make sense to compare their employment trajectories and their use of SNAP. Generally speaking, you don't just directly want to make that comparison across people to whom work requirements apply versus people to whom work requirements don't apply in SNAP because they're pretty different groups. The ones who face work requirements tend to be younger, tend to not have disabilities, and tend to not have dependents like children, especially, in the household. As you can imagine, if you look at the folks who are exempted from work requirements under typical SNAP rules, there are lots of reasons why they may be less likely to hold a job than the ones who do face work requirements. They may be older, or they may be disabled. So, you can't just attribute that difference to the work requirements themselves, which means in order to study the effect of the work requirements, you have to go looking for a context where the people who face them and don't face them are much more similar to one another than that.   What we ended up doing is looking at essentially the same set of people as work requirements policies changed over time. In fact, what you end up doing is comparing the same person before work requirements exist to the same person after work requirements exist. Now, you might say, "Okay, but work requirements have been part of SNAP for decades. Where did you find a time when they didn't exist?" The answer is that temporarily, many states suspended work requirements for a few years starting in the Great Recession when the job market was very weak and it was just considered too hard for people to find jobs even if they were trying. States were attempting not to be punitive during a very difficult job market. One of those states was Virginia, and so we got very detailed data on both SNAP use and employment and earnings from employment from the State of Virginia. Then we were able to trace what happened to SNAP recipients when that work requirements suspension expired in the fall of 2013. Virginia then put work requirements back into SNAP, which meant suddenly the same people who could use SNAP without work requirements just a month before were facing work requirements newly. We could compare how their employment responses changed to the changes of the employment responses of other groups who continued to be exempt from work requirements, for example, because they were just a little bit older than 50 when work requirements came back. We followed both of those age groups, comparing whether they were working and whether they were getting SNAP for several months and years after work requirements were reintroduced by the State of Virginia. That allowed us to both solve this problem that it's generally very hard to make comparisons across groups. In this way we were comparing sort of across groups but also within the same person.   In addition, the nice thing about designing the study this way is that we got to study not just those people who got on SNAP knowing that they would face work requirements and so thinking it was worth all the administrative hassle to get on SNAP in the first place because they expected to be able to meet the work requirements and continue to receive SNAP. But we were also able to study those people who knew at the time that they got on SNAP that they probably wouldn't be able to meet work requirements if those work requirements existed. But because work requirements were suspended at the time, that actually didn't discourage them from signing up in the first place because they knew that they were going to be able to stay on SNAP for a longer time while work requirements continued to be suspended.   Great, thank you. I realize this is a critical part of your study to be able to find the exact cohort and the fact that you were able to follow those individuals over a period of time compared to what some other studies have done, where they look at the sort of a sample of people that changes on an annual basis or that's more cross-sectional. I really appreciate the great care that you all put in to discerning who that sample should be, and that offers up really clean ways of understanding the effect of a ABAWD work requirements, so thank you for that. Adam, what did your research show about who's right about the effect of work requirements? Can you help us understand that debate a little bit more carefully given the findings of your results.   Adam - Let me begin by kind of summarizing our main results. So, we found no evidence that work requirements led more people to work. The same number of SNAP recipients worked whether work requirements were in effect or whether they were not, and the large size of the administrative data that we had access to allowed us to be very confident from a statistical perspective that any effect on employment that's positive is likely to be extremely small.   We also didn't find that earnings increased on average either. However, what we did see was a substantial drop in the number of ABAWDs enrolled in SNAP. We found that work requirements cut enrollment by more than half among ABAWDs, and this is a dramatic reduction in food assistance. This drop in SNAP enrollment was largely driven by people who were already on the program when the work requirements turned back on in 2013, as Elena was just describing, but we also found that many people who were newly enrolled exited the program sooner, and then some potential SNAP recipients did not enroll at all compared to what we would've expected in a world without work requirements. So, putting all of that evidence together, overall we found no evidence in support of the arguments that are made by those who favor work requirements.   Great, thank you. Elena, do work requirements have any other effects on potential SNAP recipients?   Elena - Well, Adam already covered the two primary study outcomes that we looked at and that policymakers usually refer to, which is are people staying on SNAP and continuing to receive benefits and are people working? But in principle separate from just getting a larger number or a larger fraction of people working, economic theory might predict that work requirements could increase income, either through the amount of work or the hourly wages among the SNAP recipients who were going to be working anyway, right? We find no effect on who's working, in other words, how many people are working. But in principle you might say, "Okay, maybe those who were going to be working anyway are now more attached to the labor force. They're working more hours or more weeks out of the year than they would've been absent the work requirements." As Adam said, we actually on average did not find evidence that work requirements increased incomes, and so we can't really say that work requirements improved labor force attachment on this dimension. We ran this analysis lots of different ways, and in the vast majority of our analysis versions, we found just no change in income. But if you were very motivated to cherry pick a couple of analyses in support of work requirements and ignore the totality of the evidence in the paper, then you can find a couple of versions where there's sort of suggestive evidence that a small fraction of potential SNAP recipients, maybe something like 10 to 15%, might have had some income increases that could be attributable to work requirements.   Now, I say that you would have to ignore the totality of evidence in the rest of the paper if you wanted to run with those results because it really only was a couple out of very many analyses, and the results even there were quite weak, especially compared to the very stark findings of no effect on whether people are working and very large negative effects on people's continued SNAP receipt.   Elena, thank you for that. Do you see any differences by subgroups? I realize that's not maybe a part of the paper as it's written, but knowing that different subgroups have greater unemployment, do you see any differences, say among racial or ethnic lines or along gender lines?   Elena - Well, we essentially couldn't find effects on whether people were working as a result of work requirements for any subgroup. We are somewhat limited in our ability to do subgroup analyses because of issues like sample size and statistical power, but to the extent that we were able to cut the data, we didn't see impacts on whether people were working for any of these subgroups, which is actually very different from what we see with people losing access to SNAP. So, we saw quite a large disproportionate impact on use of SNAP, meaning people's ability to stay on the program and continue to receive food assistance for individuals with a history of homelessness. Further, here was some suggestive evidence of disparate impacts along racial lines, but that wasn't statistically strong enough for me to feel comfortable claiming anything about it.   Adam, why do you think work requirements do not have much of an impact on work?   Adam - Our results suggest that the SNAP recipients that we studied likely face other barriers that are more important for employment than the work requirements policy itself. As Elena just mentioned, we found this disproportionate effect in terms of people who lack stable housing, and that can make it really difficult to hold down a job, and to be able to apply for jobs. People may also not have reliable or affordable transportation. So, without those things, you can see how it'd be very difficult for people to maintain gainful employment. Another possibility is that people's hours may fluctuate in ways that make them ineligible in terms of meeting the requirements of 80 hours a month, and so several of those explanations come from other studies of enrollees in different safety net programs in various states. One great thing about the data we had is that we could track people's earnings and participation in SNAP over a long period of time, but we don't see information on how many hours they worked, for example, or what their transportation options were. Those are issues, though, that many others have noted as being important in different contexts, both using quantitative studies as well as more qualitative studies. We think this is something that future research should really focus much more on - how to quantify the importance of those different barriers that ABAWDs likely face, and then trying to figure out how to best design solutions that address them.   This does make me think about another potential issue, and that's the benefits cliff. So, if someone is working and there is an increase in their wages, there actually could be a drop in their benefits that they receive from SNAP, and that could make this story a lot more complicated. Elena, I do have this question for you. How did you handle individuals who dropped out of having the ABAWD status, say if they had children or if a disability came up? Was this an important factor in evaluating that subpopulation?   Elena - For the validity of the study results, it was very important for us to keep a consistent sample throughout the time period that we were evaluating these outcomes over. This meant that if people were eligible for our sample definition at the beginning, then we kept them in the sample for the rest of the time period. That means that there were some people who dropped out of ABAWD status for various reasons, and actually, if I recall correctly, and Adam can jump in if this is not right, the most common way that people in the sample dropped out of ABAWD status is by having a newly documented disability. Our understanding is that what's happening with those folks is that many of them might have been eligible for a disability documentation that would've made them exempt from work requirements even during the time that Virginia had suspended work requirements. But there was essentially no point in their going through the hassle and their caseworkers going through the hassle of getting that documentation because the work requirements didn't apply to them anyway. So, when the work requirements came back, some at least of those folks got their disabilities officially documented so that they were, again, exempted from work requirements. This illustrates why it's important for us to keep a consistent sample before and after the work requirements come back, because we want to make sure that we're not sort of changing who's in the comparison group, right? You don't want apples to suddenly turn into oranges halfway through your study period.   Adam - Elena's description was exactly right, and in terms of the magnitudes of that response - in terms of people who were exempt for a reason other than their age - it basically doubled the proportion of people who dropped out of ABAWD status. On average, about 10% of people had some exemption besides age from ABAWD status, and then we saw that the policy increased that by 5.6 percentage points, so a pretty large relative change.   Bios   Elena Prager is an assistant professor at the University of Rochester's Simon Business School. She is an empirical economist whose research is in the industrial organization of health care markets and labor markets. Prior to joining the Simon School, Prager was at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. She earned a Ph.D. in managerial sciences and applied economics from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, and an international Bachelor of Business Administration-Economics from the Schulich School of Business at York University.   Adam Leive is an assistant professor health economist at the University of California-Berkeley who uses large administrative datasets to study policy-relevant questions about health insurance and safety net programs. His research seeks to understand consumer behavior in complicated life-cycle decisions that impact economic security, such as health insurance and retirement saving. He has also recently studied the effects of employment incentives in safety net programs on labor market outcomes and program participation. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and his B.A. from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. Prior to his doctoral studies, Leive worked at the World Bank and the IMF. 

The guest on this episode is U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral Rebecca Ore. I have benefitted from her mentorship over the years, so it was such an honor to have her on the podcast to amplify her voice and wisdom. Rebecca Ore talks to us about the phenomenon of third culture kids, her international experience, and developing her guiding principles. We talk more about the power of those guiding principles, how to foster psychological safety, attract and retain the right talent. We further explore the idea of dissecting career development from leadership development that Adam Gierlach presented on a previous episode. Rebecca illustrates powerful leadership lessons all throughout the episode and models her first guiding principle of people first with a continual focus on feedback, creating curiosity, and constant learning. She closes with emphasizing that it is important to be excellent where you are at and to be authentically yourself.  Rear Admiral Ore assumed the duties of Assistant Commandant for Intelligence (CG-2), in August 2022. As Head of Intelligence Community Element and Service Cryptologic Component Commander, she  provides strategic leadership for the Coast Guard Intelligence Program encompassing collection activities, analysis and production,  information technology and security functions for geospatial, signals and human intelligence. In her previous assignment as Commanding Officer and Captain of the Port at Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles-Long Beach, she facilitated regional partnerships and led a team of 550 active duty, reserve and civilian personnel, and a 1,200 member volunteer Auxiliary workforce. Her team was responsible for safeguarding the marine transportation system flowing through the vital ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for the Pipeline 00547 Response in October 2021, she led a team of 1,800 personnel to mitigate oil affecting northern Mexico and the counties of Orange and San Diego. Rear Admiral Ore holds a Bachelor of Science from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and a Masters of Public Administration from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. She is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a National Security Affairs Fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and a German Marshall Fund Marshall Memorial Fellow. RDML Ore is certified as a Type 1 Incident Commander in the National Incident Management System. Resources: German Marshall Fund Fellowship https://www.gmfus.org/leadership-development/fellowships Dr. Kyoung Mi Choi - Third Culture Kids: Individuals in Global Transition  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/courageously-and-boldly/202203/third-culture-kids-individuals-in-global-transition Kim Scott - Radical Candor Radical Candor [Paperback] [Jan 01, 2018] KIM SCOTT Albert O. Hirschman - Exit Voice and Loyalty  Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States  

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 740 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more 10 mins He's been murdered on CSI, interviewed 2 Beatles on separate continents in the same week, and famously once got Mitt Romney's advisor to call Governor Romney an 'etch a sketch' on CNN. Actor, comedian & broadcaster John Fugelsang hosts 'Tell Me Everything" weekdays on SiriusXM Insight #121. He recently performed in 'The Bill of Rights Concert" alongside Lewis Black & Dick Gregory which aired on AXS.   He's also appeared at Montreal's ‘Just for Laughs' Festival, HBO's U.S Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen, hosted America's Funniest Home Videos for ABC and Bill Maher called him ‘one of my favorite comedians'.   Film/TV credits include 'Price Check' opposite Parker Posey, "Becker," "Providence," "Coyote Ugly,"  the religious standup performance film "The Coexist Comedy Tour" (which won Best Documentary at the NYC Vision Fest film festival).  He appears in the upcoming features "The Girl On The Train," "Maggie Black," and he plays two roles in the romantic comedy ‘The Whole Truth' starring Elisabeth Rohm and Eric Roberts.   He's interviewed Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, Yoko Ono, Willie Nelson, Tony Bennett, Alan Rickman, Joey Ramone, Carlos Santana, James Taylor, Bo Diddley, Stevie Nicks, Robbie Robertson, Ravi Shankar, Beyonce Knowles, Olivia Harrison, Garth Brooks, William Hurt, Helen Hunt, Ashanti, John Fogerty, William Shatner, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Tom Daschle, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Ed Asner, Nile Rogers, Michael Moore, JK Simmons, Valerie Plame, Ethan Hawke, Brian Dennehy, Mavis Staples, Joel Grey, David Crosby, Graham Nash, Lily Tomlin,  Dave Matthews, Terrence McNally, Stanley Tucci, Michael Shannon, Noel Gallagher,  Jeff Daniels, Rita Moreno, & Carl Reiner.  His interview with George Harrison included JF persuading George to play several songs on acoustic guitar.  This proved to be George's final televised appearance and was broadcast as "The Last Performance."   His new film "Dream On," a road trip in search of the American Dream, was named "Best Documentary" at the NY Independent Film Festival.   Directed by 2 time Oscar nominee Roger Weisberg, the film examines the current state of the American Dream while retracing the journey Alexis de Tocqueville made while writing 'Democracy in America.'   The film features 200 interviews in 55 cities in 17 states, including Mike Huckabee, Barney Frank & Paul Krugman and premieres on PBS Election Day Eve.   46 mins  Senator Zach Wahls is a sixth-generation Iowan, a longtime resident of the senate district with deep community roots, an Eagle Scout, and an active member of the Unitarian Universalist congregation in Coralville. Wahls is Vice President of Community Investment and Development at GreenState Credit Union, Iowa's largest financial cooperative. His testimony before the Iowa House Judiciary Committee about growing up with lesbian parents was YouTube's most-watched political video of 2011. He has spoken at over 300 events all over Iowa and across America, including a primetime speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention supporting President Barack Obama's re-election. He is the author of the nationally bestselling memoir My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength and What Makes a Family. Wahls co-founded and served as Executive Director of Scouts for Equality, which successfully led the national campaign to end LGBTQ discrimination in the Boy Scouts of America. Wahls received his bachelor's degree from the University of Iowa's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and his master's degree from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. Zach lives with his wife Dr. Chloe Angyal, who is a journalist and author, and their dog Zelda, in Coralville. Pete on YouTube Check out all things Jon Carroll Follow and Support Pete Coe Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page

In this bonus episode, we are joined by a member of the NAR staff, Alexia Smokler, a staff executive to NAR's Fair Housing Policy Committee. That description does not begin to convey all the work that she does on our behalf and on behalf of the clients we serve. She has been key in developing the Bias Override class and Fairhaven.realtor. We are excited to discuss the programs she manages as well as learn what agents are doing in the marketplace, in this bonus episode!   [1:40] Monica welcomes and introduces Alexia Smokler, the Director of Fair Housing Policy and Programs for NAR.  [2:19] Alexia discusses several of the educational programs she delivers such as Fairhaven, implicit bias training, NAR's Fair Housing Champion award, and licensure reform efforts under the ACT Initiative, which NAR rolled out after the Newsday investigation in Long Island. [3:52] Monica asks Alexia for definitions of Fair Housing, DEI, and Implicit Bias. [8:18] Alexia discusses the difference between prejudice and discrimination. [8:50] It's important to distinguish that you can be engaging in discrimination without holding feelings of prejudice. This is discussed in the Implicit Bias course.  [13:06] Alexia describes the Bias Override course. The problem with mental shortcuts is when they're about people and they're based on stereotypes.  [16:57] The Bias Override course brings new terms to your mind. It helps you describe things you have felt and gives a name to it. Monica speaks of the trip she and her daughter took to Japan where there are not a lot of Westerners.  [19:02] Alexia ties Monica's Japan experience to the Bias Override course. She had the experience of being the minority and being the out-group.  [20:53] Alexia speaks of studies that show that discrimination shrinks the economy. The wealth they would have generated that would have created more jobs does not get created. [21:56] Morgan Stanley's study found that lending discrimination had kept five million people out of home ownership nationwide. [25:03] The wealth gap is not just attributable to differences in income. It's also because of the historical support of White people to become homeowners. [25:48] Alexia tells how the government involved itself in home ownership. They created the FHA which distributed loans according to redlining maps and most of the mortgages went to White people.  [26:54] Black GIs were not able to get mortgages from lenders. They didn't get to buy a house and pass that wealth down.  [28:53] Lending discrimination is a big problem and it's not just against People of Color. It's also against women and people with disabilities. Loan officers need more Fair Housing training. Monica cites the books The Sum of Us and The Color of Law. [31:30] In a couple of decades, we'll be a majority-minority country. There will be no one majority group. We need to be ready to serve different kinds of people or we will miss out. [32:56] Fairhaven.realtor is an interactive real estate simulation. You go into a fictional town and your task is to sell four homes in six months. You go through different scenarios where you encounter different kinds of discrimination taken from real Fair Housing cases or members' FAQs.  [43:09] The Fair Housing Champion Award was launched as part of the culture change around Fair Housing to celebrate people who are helping clients overcome historic barriers. Alexia discusses one applicant who stood out.  [49:28] Alexia's final word: What agents do is much more important than a transaction. It's about the wealth that's generated from a transaction that will impact generations.  [50:37] The minimum that agents can do is to keep the highest standard of compliance with the law and take training and classes. Alexia offers ideas on how to help make it better in your community. [53:04] All NAR certification and designation courses give you skills that help you level up your business so you can serve all your clients and your community better.    Tweetables:   “DEI supports Fair Housing. So, if we're inclusive, if we're diverse, and if we're open to different perspectives, then it naturally follows that we're going to treat consumers better because we have that lens on how we approach everybody.” — Alexia Smokler   “Once you start making those assumptions, you're down a dangerous road.” — Alexia Smokler   “Black folks earn 60% of the income that White people earn. But they have only about 12% of the wealth. … The average wealth of a White person [with] a high school education is higher than the wealth of a Black or Hispanic person who has a college education.” — Alexia Smokler   “Loan officers need more Fair Housing training.” — Alexia Smokler   Guest Links:   Alexia Smokler asmokler@nar.realtor Fair Housing Champions: https://www.nar.realtor/fair-housing/fair-housing-champion-award Bias Override Class: https://www.nar.realtor/fair-housing/bias-override-overcoming-barriers-to-fair-housing The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together, by Heather McGhee The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, by Richard Rothstein Long Island Divided   NAR Resource Links At Home With Diversity® Bias Override Class Fairhaven.REALTOR NAR's ACT! initiative   Additional Links:   Microcourses found at Learning.REALTOR. Use the coupon code PODCAST to obtain 15% off the price of any microcourse!   Crdpodcast.realtor Learning.REALTOR — for NAR Online Education Training4RE.com — List of Classroom Courses from NAR and its affiliates CRD.Realtor — List of all courses offered   Host Information: Monica Neubauer Speaker/Podcaster/REALTOR® Monica@MonicaNeubauer.com MonicaNeubauer.com FranklinTNBlog.com   Monica's Facebook Page Facebook.com/Monica.Neubauer Instagram Instagram.com/MonicaNeubauerSpeaks   Guest Bio   Alexia Smokler Alexia Smokler represents NAR's positions on Fair Housing to Congress and federal agencies and leads NAR's ACT! initiative, which emphasizes Accountability, Culture Change, and Training to advance fair housing in the industry. She led the development of Fairhaven: A Fair Housing Simulation, and Bias Override: Overcoming Barriers to Fair Housing. Alexia also oversees NAR's discrimination self-testing program for real estate brokerages, NAR's fair housing real estate licensure reform efforts, and other projects aimed at closing racial and ethnic homeownership gaps. Alexia serves as staff executive to NAR's Fair Housing Policy Committee and writes and speaks regularly on fair housing issues to audiences around the country. Her 2021 cover story for REALTOR® Magazine, Repairers of the Breach, won several awards for excellence in business-to-business journalism.   Before joining NAR, Alexia worked in fair housing enforcement at HUD, on the staff of Congressman John Conyers, Jr., and with nonprofit civil rights organizations. She is admitted to practice law in Maryland and holds a law degree from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law; a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs; and a bachelor's degree in government from Smith College. She lives in Alexandria, Virginia.  

In episode 40 of the Princeton Podcast, our host, Mayor Mark Freda, welcomed J. Robert Hillier, one of the leading and most highly-respected architects in the United States, known for having built one of the largest and most successful architecture firms in the world. Robert Hillier, or Bob as he prefers, is the founder of Hillier Architecture and now Principal at Studio Hillier here in Princeton. Bob has been on the core faculty of Princeton University's School of Architecture since 1992 where he teaches two graduate seminars and has served on the American Institute of Architects National Fellowship Jury and as Chair of the Selection Committee for the Dean of Princeton's School of Architecture.In addition to describing several of Mr. Hillier's more than 4000 architectural projects, many of which are here in Princeton, Bob discussed his business collaboration with his late wife, Barbara, and how in May of 2019, the New Jersey Institute of Technology renamed its College of Architecture the J. Robert and Barbara A. Hillier College of Architecture and Design. Bob Hillier is certainly one of our community's most remarkable Princetonians and it is our pleasure to have welcomed him on the Princeton Podcast.The Princeton Podcast is produced by the Podcast Production Team at HG Media, providing audio and video production services here in Princeton since 1999.If you enjoy the Princeton Podcast please share it with your friends and subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Amazon Music, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Chris Douglas wears many hats: business owner, civic leader, community advocate, and others. Chris is founding partner and managing director of C.H. Douglas and Gray Wealth Management. An eighth generation Hoosier, he earned his Bachelor's degree from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs and his Master's in Business Administration from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He was decorated for his service as an officer in the US Air Force and is fluent in Mandarin Chinese. His many business honors include the IBJ Forty Under 40 honors, and Indianapolis Monthly's Five-Star Wealth Managers honor every year for 15 consecutive years. He has been active in politics and philanthropy for many years, known as an advocate for LGBTQ rights, for public education, and for the arts. I hope you enjoy this conversation about Chris' life, his leadership experiences, and his work to make Indiana a better place for all people.

Doug Mercado has worked in the field of international humanitarian assistance and post-disaster recovery over the past 32 years on assignments with the United Nations, USAID, OAS & NGOs. He currently holds the position of visiting lecturer at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. He says, “Works of fiction have their part in helping the world to understand what's going in a land far away. They bring the reality of a humanitarian crisis to others who may not experience that situation. Fiction is a personal account of the characters.”

Welcome to the Clean Power Hour! On today's show, we are joined by Kelly Roache, Director of Policy & Community Solar at Renewable Properties. Renewable Properties is a team of solar project developers working on community solar and utility-scale solar development in the 1-20 megawatt range. Kelly Roache is the Director of Policy & Community Solar for Renewable Properties. Kelly's responsibilities include identifying, monitoring, and entering key energy markets across the US, as well as, executing and managing Renewable Properties' community solar strategy. Kelly has been in the renewable energy space for seven years and joined Renewable Properties in 2021. Prior to joining the team, she worked as the Director of Inclusion for Solstice Initiative where she led policy efforts, financial innovation, and pilot projects to increase low-to-moderate income access to community solar, in collaboration with solar developer, finance, governmental, utility, and community partners. Kelly also worked as a Research and Communications Specialist for the Energy and Policy Institute where she exposed attacks on renewable energy and countered misinformation by fossil fuel and utility interests. She earned both her Bachelor of Arts cum laude and Master in Public Affairs from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs.Today Kelly joins Tim Montague to talk about her extensive background in Clean Energy, her responsibilities at Renewable Properties, why California has struggled with Community Solar, the story around AB 2316 the new California Solar Bill, the future of community solar and how it can be improved upon and much more. Key TakeawaysKelly Roache's background in Clean Energy, position and role at Renewable PropertiesWhy California has struggled with Community SolarThe AB 2316 California Solar BillImportance of storage when it comes to community solar and solar in generalWhat makes the New York solar market different from other markets in the USThe future of community solar and how can it be improved uponRenewable PropertiesFollow Renewable Properties on LinkedInConnect with Kelly Roache Connect with Tim Clean Power Hour Clean Power Hour on YouTube Tim on Twitter Tim on LinkedIn Email tgmontague@gmail.com Review Clean Power Hour on Apple PodcastsThe Clean Power Hour is produced by the Clean Power Consulting Group and created by Tim Montague. Please subscribe on your favorite audio platform and on Youtube: bit.ly/cph-sub | www.CleanPowerHour.com | contact us by email: CleanPowerHour@gmail.com | Speeding the energy transition! Corporate sponsors who share our mission to speed the energy transition are invited to check out https://www.cleanpowerhour.com/support/Twice a week we highlight the tools, technologies, and innovators that are making the clean energy transition a reality - on Apple,

General David H. Petraeus (US Army, Ret.) joins Patrick this week to discuss a framework that leaders at every level can use to develop, refine, and improve. In addition, they discuss how to effectively develop leaders by combining academic and hands-on experiences with role models and inspiration. Patrick reflects on a time some twenty years when then Colonel Petraeus had a direct impact on a young Captain Leddin. Learn more about the leadership framework discussed in this episode at  Harvard's Belfer Center https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/david-petraeus-strategic-leadership General Petraeus Bio General Petraeus is a Partner at KKR and Chairman of the KKR Global Institute, which he established in May 2013. He is also a member of the boards of directors of Optiv and OneStream, a Strategic Advisor for Sempra, a venture investor in more than 25 startups, and engaged in a variety of academic endeavors. Prior to joining KKR, General Petraeus served over 37 years in the U.S. military, culminating his career with six consecutive commands as a general officer, five of which were in combat, including command of the Surge in Iraq, command of U.S. Central Command, and command of coalition forces in Afghanistan. Following retirement from the military and after Senate confirmation by a vote of 94-0, he served as Director of the CIA during a period of significant achievements in the global war on terror, the establishment of important Agency digital initiatives, and substantial investments in the Agency's most important asset, its human capital. General Petraeus graduated with distinction from the U.S. Military Academy and is the only person in Army history to be the top graduate of both the demanding U.S. Army Ranger School and the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College. He also earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. General Petraeus taught international relations and economics at the U.S. Military Academy in the mid-1980s, he was a Visiting Professor of Public Policy at the Honors College of the City University of New York from 2013 through 2016, and he was for 6 years a Judge Widney Professor at the University of Southern California and a Senior Fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center. He is currently a Visiting Fellow and Lecturer at Yale University's Jackson Institute, Co-Chairman of the Global Advisory Council of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Senior Vice President of the Royal United Services Institute, and a Member of the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Aspen Strategy Group, as well as a member of the boards of the Atlantic Council, the Institute for the Study of War, and over a dozen veterans service organizations. He is also (to his amazement) a LinkedIn Top Voice. Over the past 20 years, General Petraeus was named one of America's 25 Best Leaders by U.S. News and World Report, a runner-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year, the Daily Telegraph man of the year, a Time 100 selectee, Princeton University's Madison Medalist, and one of Foreign Policy magazine's top 100 public intellectuals in three different years. General Petraeus has earned numerous honors, awards, and decorations, including four Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor, two NATO Meritorious Service Medals, the Combat Action Badge, the Ranger Tab, and Master Parachutist and Air Assault Badges. He has also been decorated by 14 foreign countries and he is believed to be the only person who, while in uniform, threw out the first pitch of a World Series game and did the coin toss for a Super Bowl.

Welcome back to Season 2, Episode 160 of the Asian Hustle Network Podcast! We are very excited to have Vivian Wang on this week's show. We interview Asian entrepreneurs around the world to amplify their voices and empower Asians to pursue their dreams and goals. We believe that each person has a message and a unique story from their entrepreneurial journey that they can share with all of us. Check us out on Anchor, iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play Music, TuneIn, Spotify, and more. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave us a positive 5-star review. This is our opportunity to use the voices of the Asian community and share these incredible stories with the world. We release a new episode every Wednesday and Saturday, so stay tuned! Vivian is the Founder & CEO of LANDED (gotlanded.com). She and the LANDED team are building the fastest way for the 90M hourly workers in the US to land jobs at essential restaurants and hospitality like Panera, Cava, Chick-fil-A & more. After graduating from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs, Vivian worked in roles ranging from advising European central banks on financial markets strategy at BlackRock and launching the Asia & EMEA markets at real estate tech company, Matterport (NASDAQ: MTTR), to leading special projects for the C-suite at Gap, Inc., owner of Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Athleta, and Intermix. To stay connected within the AHN community, please join our AHN directory: bit.ly/AHNDirectory --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/asianhustlenetwork/support

Michal Shermer and Jesse Singal discuss: how social scientists determine causality • Primeworld: cognitive priming and how it works (and doesn't work) • The Malcolm Gladwell-effect (named after the 10,000-hour effect, by Anders Ericsson) • the self-esteem and self-help personal-empowerment movements • power posing and positive psychology • New Age self-help movements • Grit (stick-to-itiveness) (Darwin's “dogged as does it.”) • Persistence is task specific and context dependent • Big 5 personality as determiners: Grit = Conscientiousness • Implicit Association Test and racism, misogyny, and bigotry • the replication crisis, what caused it, and what to do about it • choice architecture and the nudging of human behavior • race, gender, class, I.Q. and other radioactive topics in group differences • free will and determinism • nature/nurture and how lives turn out • abortion • and U.S. foreign policy. Jesse Singal is a contributing writer at New York and the former editor of the magazine's Science of Us online vertical, as well as the cohost of the podcast Blocked and Reported. His work has appeared in the New York Times, The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Slate, The Daily Beast, The Boston Globe, and other publications. He is a former Robert Bosch Foundation fellow in Berlin and holds a master's degree from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs.

Professor Jody Ono is a Specially Appointed Professor at Hitotsubashi University Business School, School of International Corporate Strategy (ICS) in Tokyo. She teaches courses in Leadership Development and Leading for Sustainability for MBA students and business executives. She is a graduate of Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs (MPP '03), New York University's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (MA '93), and American University's School of International Service (BA '89). Prior to her move to Japan in 2014, she worked for 7 years in the US, at the George HW Bush School of Government, Texas A&M University and for 10 years in Sweden, at the Stockholm School of Economics.   When discussing improvements to workplace engagement, Professor Ono says engagement can be defined as how excited people get about their work, how engaged they are with their workplace, and how much they look forward to going to work. She proposes that engagement has changed from the 20th century: employees today need continuous stimulation in the workplace through interaction and exchange of ideas. Younger employees, especially, need to feel personally seen and valued in the workplace. Professor Ono says it is really very difficult to change an organization fast, and typically the largest companies struggle with maintaining high engagement. While so much is implicit in Japanese culture, she says, in order for intentional change to happen, decisions about change must be made explicitly and then communicated often and via multiple means.   Building trust takes time, Professor Ono explains, in part because individuals trust others at different speeds and levels depending on their lived experiences and related learning. For leaders to be viewed as credible, they need to be clear about standards and expectations for performance. Clarity on these points makes it much easier to have real conversations that foster mutual trust in the workplace.   Professor Ono cautions against “stylizing your facts” when coming into Japan. By this she means that individuals should be cautious to question cliched assumptions about Japan and its people. She advises newcomers to cultivate a diverse network, with people of all ages and backgrounds, to construct a holistic view. In addition, Professor Ono notes that people Japan has different leadership traditions from many western cultures. Leaders should display patience, competence, and disciplined thinking in order to build constituency for the change they desire.

The line between what is right and what is just isn't always clear.  Laura Coates is a former federal prosecutor who describes how she reconciled ideas of justice, race, the role of law enforcement in our society, and her own role in the U.S. justice system. Laura Coates is a CNN senior legal analyst, SiriusXM host and author of “Just Pursuit: A Black Prosecutor's Fight for Fairness.”  A former federal prosecutor, Coates served as Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia and a Trial Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, specializing in the enforcement of voting rights throughout the United States.  As a civil rights attorney, she traveled throughout the nation supervising local and national elections and led investigations into allegations of unconstitutional voting practices.  In private practice, Coates was an intellectual property litigator with expertise in First Amendment and media law.  She is a graduate of Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs, and the University of Minnesota Law School. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Social Innovation Podcast, Michael Waitze was joined by the esteemed Anne-Marie Brook, a co-Founder of the Human Rights Measurement Initiative. Anne-Marie is a trained economist and holds a Masters Degree in Economics from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. She spent the better part of 20 years working as an economist including almost 6 years at the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and almost a decade between the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the New Zealand Treasury. Anne-Marie knows her stuff. It was while she was in Paris working at the OECD that Anne-Marie had what she describes as her first "light-bulb moment" that led her to the founding of HRMI with Susan Randolph and K. Chad Clay. At the OECD, Anne-Marie was giving economic advice to governments across the globe and noticed that Human Rights were quite a big issue. She began looking for ways to include these Human Rights issues into her economic advice and she found that she was not able to do so because she could not find the proper data sets. As an economist, Anne-Marie notes, her recommendations have to be based on empirical data and it was this lack of data on human rights that led her and her co-Founders to begin to build HRMI. HRMI is a global collaboration between human rights academics and human rights practitioners that is producing a comprehensive human-rights-focused database. This data is used to measure how countries score on multiple human rights according to those set out by international law. The idea is to produce data that can be used both by academics to write journal articles and human rights practitioners to really understand what is happening on the ground in the countries in which they operate. You can support HRMI by participating in their crowdfunding as they continue to expand their business in East and Southeast Asia. for more general inquiries, you can contact them here.

Anne-Marie Slaughter is an optimist, and a patriot, and an advocate for both personal and national renewal. We talk about the difference between renewal and both reinvention (out with the old) and restoration (back in with the old), and what it means for our politics. We also discuss her work on women, men, families and equality, almost a decade on from her famous essay “Why Women Still Can't Have it All”; the need for more grace in both our public and private life; why we should be “calling in” in private, rather than “calling out” in public; the lessons in leadership from her role as head of the New American think-tank; the past and future of feminism; our long overdue reckoning on racial justice; how to prepare for the 250th birthday of our country; and the unique power of women after the menopause. Enjoy!    Anne-Marie Slaughter  Anne-Marie Slaughter is the CEO of New America and Bert G. Kerstetter '66 University Professor Emerita of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. From 2009–2011, she served as director of policy planning for the United States Department of State, the first woman to hold that position. Prior to her government service, Anne-Marie was the Dean of Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs (formerly the Woodrow Wilson School) from 2002–2009 and the J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School from 1994-2002.   In 2012 she published the article “Why Women Still Can't Have It All,” in the Atlantic, which quickly became the most read article in the history of the magazine and helped spawn a renewed national debate on the continued obstacles to genuine full male-female equality. Her books include Unfinished Business: Women, Men, Work, Family (2015), ​The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World (2017)​, and her latest, Renewal: From Crisis to Transformation in Our Lives, Work, and Politics (2021). Foreign Policy magazine named her to their annual list of the Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. She received a B.A. from Princeton, and M.Phil and DPhil in international relations from Oxford.   The Dialogues Team  Creator: Richard Reeves Artwork: George Vaughan Thomas Tech Support: Cameron Hauver-Reeves Music: "Remember" by Bencoolen (thanks for the permission, guys!)

For the next four weeks, SSEAC Stories will be hosting a mini-series of podcasts exploring the role that research plays in understanding and advocating for human rights in Southeast Asia. To kick off the series, Dr Thushara Dibley is joined by Human Rights Watch Australia Director Elaine Pearson to discuss the interactions and tensions between academic research and investigation of human rights abuses conducted by human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. Elaine Pearson gives an insight into some of the work conducted by Human Rights Watch across the region, highlighting the core role of research not just in understanding the problem, but in informing their advocacy approach to maximise impact. Together they reflect upon the different goals, methodological approaches, and challenges encountered by researchers, and delve into the ways that advocacy groups can break silos between academic research and real-world problems to progress human rights. About Elaine Pearson: Elaine Pearson is the Australia Director at Human Rights Watch, based in Sydney. She established Human Rights Watch's Australia office in 2013 and works to influence Australian foreign and domestic policies in order to give them a human rights dimension. Pearson writes frequently for a range of publications and her articles have appeared in the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, Foreign Policy and the Washington Post. From 2007 to 2012 she was the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division based in New York. She has conducted numerous human rights investigations in Australia and around the world. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Pearson worked for the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Kathmandu and London. She is an adjunct lecturer in law at the University of New South Wales, on the advisory committee of UNSW's Australian Human Rights Institute and on the board of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Pearson holds degrees in law and arts from Murdoch University and obtained her Master's degree in public policy at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the next four weeks, SSEAC Stories will be hosting a mini-series of podcasts exploring the role that research plays in understanding and advocating for human rights in Southeast Asia. To kick off the series, Dr Thushara Dibley is joined by Human Rights Watch Australia Director Elaine Pearson to discuss the interactions and tensions between academic research and investigation of human rights abuses conducted by human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. Elaine Pearson gives an insight into some of the work conducted by Human Rights Watch across the region, highlighting the core role of research not just in understanding the problem, but in informing their advocacy approach to maximise impact. Together they reflect upon the different goals, methodological approaches, and challenges encountered by researchers, and delve into the ways that advocacy groups can break silos between academic research and real-world problems to progress human rights. About Elaine Pearson: Elaine Pearson is the Australia Director at Human Rights Watch, based in Sydney. She established Human Rights Watch's Australia office in 2013 and works to influence Australian foreign and domestic policies in order to give them a human rights dimension. Pearson writes frequently for a range of publications and her articles have appeared in the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, Foreign Policy and the Washington Post. From 2007 to 2012 she was the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division based in New York. She has conducted numerous human rights investigations in Australia and around the world. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Pearson worked for the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Kathmandu and London. She is an adjunct lecturer in law at the University of New South Wales, on the advisory committee of UNSW's Australian Human Rights Institute and on the board of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Pearson holds degrees in law and arts from Murdoch University and obtained her Master's degree in public policy at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

For the next four weeks, SSEAC Stories will be hosting a mini-series of podcasts exploring the role that research plays in understanding and advocating for human rights in Southeast Asia. To kick off the series, Dr Thushara Dibley is joined by Human Rights Watch Australia Director Elaine Pearson to discuss the interactions and tensions between academic research and investigation of human rights abuses conducted by human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. Elaine Pearson gives an insight into some of the work conducted by Human Rights Watch across the region, highlighting the core role of research not just in understanding the problem, but in informing their advocacy approach to maximise impact. Together they reflect upon the different goals, methodological approaches, and challenges encountered by researchers, and delve into the ways that advocacy groups can break silos between academic research and real-world problems to progress human rights. About Elaine Pearson: Elaine Pearson is the Australia Director at Human Rights Watch, based in Sydney. She established Human Rights Watch's Australia office in 2013 and works to influence Australian foreign and domestic policies in order to give them a human rights dimension. Pearson writes frequently for a range of publications and her articles have appeared in the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, Foreign Policy and the Washington Post. From 2007 to 2012 she was the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division based in New York. She has conducted numerous human rights investigations in Australia and around the world. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Pearson worked for the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Kathmandu and London. She is an adjunct lecturer in law at the University of New South Wales, on the advisory committee of UNSW's Australian Human Rights Institute and on the board of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Pearson holds degrees in law and arts from Murdoch University and obtained her Master's degree in public policy at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac.

For the next four weeks, SSEAC Stories will be hosting a mini-series of podcasts exploring the role that research plays in understanding and advocating for human rights in Southeast Asia. To kick off the series, Dr Thushara Dibley is joined by Human Rights Watch Australia Director Elaine Pearson to discuss the interactions and tensions between academic research and investigation of human rights abuses conducted by human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. Elaine Pearson gives an insight into some of the work conducted by Human Rights Watch across the region, highlighting the core role of research not just in understanding the problem, but in informing their advocacy approach to maximise impact. Together they reflect upon the different goals, methodological approaches, and challenges encountered by researchers, and delve into the ways that advocacy groups can break silos between academic research and real-world problems to progress human rights. About Elaine Pearson: Elaine Pearson is the Australia Director at Human Rights Watch, based in Sydney. She established Human Rights Watch's Australia office in 2013 and works to influence Australian foreign and domestic policies in order to give them a human rights dimension. Pearson writes frequently for a range of publications and her articles have appeared in the Guardian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, Foreign Policy and the Washington Post. From 2007 to 2012 she was the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch's Asia Division based in New York. She has conducted numerous human rights investigations in Australia and around the world. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Pearson worked for the United Nations and various non-governmental organizations in Bangkok, Hong Kong, Kathmandu and London. She is an adjunct lecturer in law at the University of New South Wales, on the advisory committee of UNSW's Australian Human Rights Institute and on the board of the Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women. Pearson holds degrees in law and arts from Murdoch University and obtained her Master's degree in public policy at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode, BICOM's Samuel Nurding speaks with Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer about the Biden administration's approach to the Middle East. Ambassador Kurtzer draws on his unique experience as the US Ambassador to Israel and Egypt to discuss the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the challenges of confronting Iran and reconstruction in Gaza, and Israel's relations with its neighbours in the region. Daniel C. Kurtzer is the S. Daniel Abraham Professor of Middle East Policy Studies at Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. During a 29-year career in the U.S. Foreign Service, Ambassador Kurtzer served as the United States Ambassador to Israel and as the United States Ambassador to Egypt.

General (US Army, Ret.) David H. Petraeus is a Partner and Chairman of the KKR Global Institute, which he established in May 2013. He is also a member of the boards of directors of Optiv and FirstStream, a venture investor in more than 15 startups, and engaged in a variety of academic endeavors. Prior to joining KKR, General Petraeus served over 37 years in the U.S. military, culminating his career with six consecutive commands, five of which were in combat, including command of the Surge in Iraq, command of U.S. Central Command, and command of coalition forces in Afghanistan. Following retirement from the military and after Senate confirmation by a vote of 94-0, he served as Director of the CIA during a period of significant achievements in the global war on terror, the establishment of important Agency digital initiatives, and significant investments in the Agency's most important asset, its human capital. General Petraeus graduated with distinction from the U.S. Military Academy, and he is the only person in Army history to be the top graduate of both the demanding U.S. Army Ranger School and the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College. He also earned a Ph.D. from Princeton University's School of Public and International Affairs. General Petraeus taught international relations and economics at the U.S. Military Academy in the mid-1980s, he was a Visiting Professor of Public Policy at the Honors College of the City University of New York from 2013 through 2016, and he was for 6 years a Judge Widney Professor at the University of Southern California and a Senior Fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center. He is currently a Visiting Fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute, Co-Chairman of the Global Advisory Council of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Senior Vice President of the Royal United Services Institute, and a Member of the Trilateral Commission, as well as a member of the boards of the Atlantic Council, the Institute for the Study of War, and over a dozen veterans service organizations. Over the past 15 years, General Petraeus was named one of America's 25 Best Leaders by U.S. News and World Report, a runner-up for Time magazine's Person of the Year, the Daily Telegraph man of the year, a Time 100 selectee, Princeton University's Madison Medalist, and one of Foreign Policy magazine's top 100 public intellectuals in three different years. General Petraeus has earned numerous honors, awards, and decorations, including four Defense Distinguished Service Medals, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor, two NATO Meritorious Service Medals, the Combat Action Badge, the Ranger Tab, and Master Parachutist and Air Assault Badges. He has also been decorated by 13 foreign countries and is believed to be the only person who, while in uniform, threw out the first pitch of a World Series game and did the coin toss for a Super Bowl. On this episode, General Petraeus and I discuss how to find the right mentors, how to cultivate a great mentor/mentee relationship, how to build a highly functioning team, what he looks for in team members, and much more!