Podcasts about professor bell

Audio FileGround Truths can also be found on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and YouTube.The UK is the world leader in human genomics, and laid the foundation for advancing medicine with the UK Biobank, Genomes England and now Our Future Health (w/ 5 million participants). Sir John Bell is a major force in driving and advising these and many other initiatives. After 22 years as the Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford he left in 2024 to be President of the Ellison Institute of Technology. Professor Bell has been duly recognized in the UK: knighted in 2015 and appointed Companion of Honor in 2023. In our conversation, you will get a sense for how EIT will be transformational for using A.I. and life science for promoting human health.Transcript with audio links Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, this is Eric Topol from Ground Truths. And I'm really delighted to welcome today, Sir John Bell who had an extraordinary career as a geneticist, immunologist, we'll talk about several initiatives he's been involved with during his long tenure at University of Oxford, recently became head of the Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT) in the UK. So welcome, John.Sir John Bell (00:30):Thanks, Eric. Thanks very much for having me.Eric Topol (00:34):Well, I think it's just extraordinary the contributions that you have made and continue to make to advance medicine, and I thought what we could do is get into that. I mean, what's interesting, you have had some notable migrations over your career, I think starting in Canada, at Stanford, then over as Rhodes Scholar in Oxford. And then you of course had a couple of decades in a very prestigious position, which as I understand was started in 1546 by King Henry VII, and served as the Regius Professor of Medicine at the University of Oxford. Do I have that right?Sir John Bell (01:11):It was actually Henry VIII, but you were close.Eric Topol (01:14):Henry VIII, that's great. Yeah. Okay, good. Well, that's a pretty notable professorship. And then of course in recent times you left to head up this pretty formidable new institute, which is something that's a big trend going on around the world, particularly in the US and we'll talk about. So maybe we can start with the new thing. Tell us more about the Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT), if you will.Sir John Bell (01:47):Yeah. So as you know, Larry Ellison has been one of the great tech entrepreneurs focused really on developing terrific databases over his career and through Oracle, which is the company that he founded. And Larry is really keen to try and give back something substantial to the world, which is based on science and technology. So he and I did quite a bit together over the Covid pandemic. He and I talked a lot about what we're doing and so on. He came to visit afterwards and he had, I think he decided that the right way to make his contributions would be to set up an institute that would be using the state-of-the-art science and technology with a lot of AI and machine learning, but also some of the other modern tools to address the major problems in healthcare, in food security, in green energy and climate change and in global governance.Sir John Bell (02:49):So anyway, he launched this about 18 months ago. He approached me to ask whether I would run it. He wanted to set it up outside Oxford, and he wanted to do something which is a bit different than others. And that is his view was that we needed to try and create solutions to these problems which are commercially viable and not all the solutions are going to be commercially viable, but where you can create those, you make them sustainable. So the idea is to make sure that we create solutions that people want to buy, and then if they buy them, you can create a sustainable solution to those issues. So we are actually a company, but we are addressing many of the same problems that the big foundations are addressing. And the big issues that you and I talk about in health, for example, are all on our list. So we're kind of optimistic as to where this will go and Larry's supporting the project and we're going to build out an institute here which will have about 5,000 people in it, and we'll be, I think a pretty exciting new addition to the science and technology ecosystem globally.Eric Topol (04:02):Well, I know the reverberations and the excitement is palpable and some of the colleagues I've spoken to, not just in England, but of course all over the world. So congratulations on that. It was a big move for you to leave the hardcore academics. And the other thing I wanted to ask you, John, is you had distinguished your career in immunology, in genetics, type 1 diabetes and other conditions, autoimmune conditions, and now you've really diversified, as you described with these different areas of emphasis at the new institute. Is that more fun to do it or do you have deputies that you can assign to things like climate change in other areas?Sir John Bell (04:50):Trust me, Eric, I'm not making any definitive decisions about areas I know nothing about, but part of this is about how do you set up leadership, run a team, get the right people in. And I have to say one of the really interesting things about the institute is we've been able to recruit some outstanding people across all those domains. And as you know, success is almost all dependent on people. So we're really pretty optimistic we're going to have a significant impact. And of course, we also want to take risks because not a lot of point in us doing stuff that everybody else is doing. So we're going to be doing some things that are pretty way out there and some of them will fail, so we are just going to get used to trying to make sure we get a few of them across the finish line. But the other thing is that, and you've experienced this too, you never get too old to learn. I mean, I'm sucking up stuff that I never thought I would ever learn about, which is fun actually, and really marvel.Eric Topol (05:55):It's fantastic. I mean, you've really broadened and it's great that you have the runway to get these people on board and I think you're having a big building that's under construction?Sir John Bell (06:07):Yeah, we've got the original building that Larry committed to is about 330,000 square feet of space. I mean, this is completely amazing, but we are of course to accommodate up to 5,000 people, we're going to need more than that. So we are looking at a much wider campus here that'll involve more than just that building. I think we'll end up with several million square feet of space by the time we're finished. So mean, it's a really big project, but we've already made progress in some domains to try and get projects and the beginnings of companies on the road to try and solve some of the big problems. So we're quite excited about it.Eric Topol (06:49):Now you, I assume it's pretty close to Oxford, and will you have some kind of inter interactions that are substantial?Sir John Bell (06:58):Yeah, so the university's been terrific about this actually, because of course most universities would say, well, why don't you do it inside the university and just give us the money and it'll all be fine. So of course Larry. Larry wasn't born yesterday, so I said, well, thank you very much, but I think we'll probably do this nearby. But the university also realized this is a really exciting opportunity for them and we've got a really good relationship with them. We've signed an agreement with them as to who will work where. We've agreed not to steal a lot of their staff. We're going to be bringing new people into the ecosystem. Some of the university people will spend some time with us and sometime in the university, so that will help. But we're also bringing quite a few new people into the setting. So the university has been really positive. And I think one of the things that's attractive to the university, and you'll be familiar with this problem in the UK, is that we're quite good. The discovery science here is pretty good.Sir John Bell (08:06):And we do startups now at scale. So Oxford does lots of little startup companies in the biotech space and all the rest of it, but we never scale any of these companies because there isn't the depth of capital for scaling capital to get these things scaled. And so, in a way what we're trying to do here at Ellison actually avoids that problem because Larry knows how to scale companies, and we've got the financial support now. If we have things that are really successful, we can build the full stack solution to some of these problems. So I think the university is really intrigued as to how we might do that. We're going to have to bring some people in that know how to do that and build billion dollar companies, but it's sufficiently attractive. We've already started to recruit some really outstanding people. So as a way to change the UK system broadly, it's actually quite a good disruptive influence on the way the thing works to try and fix some of the fundamental problems.Eric Topol (09:07):I love that model and the ability that you can go from small startups to really transformative companies have any impact. It fits in well with the overall objectives, I can see that. The thing that also is intriguing regarding this whole effort is that in parallel we've learned your influence. The UK is a genomics world leader without any question and no coincidence that that's been your area of emphasis in your career. So we've watched these three initiatives that I think you were involved in the UK Biobank, which has had more impact than any cohort ever assembled. Every day there's another paper using that data that's coming out. There's Genomes England, and then now Our Future Health, which a lot of people don't know about here, which is well into the 5 million people enrollment. Can you tell us about, this is now 15 years ago plus when these were started, and of course now with a new one that's the biggest ever. What was your thinking and involvement and how you built the UK to be a world leader in this space?Sir John Bell (10:26):So if you turn the clock back 20 years, or actually slightly more than 25 years ago, it was clear that genomics was going to have a play. And I think many of us believed that there was going to be a genetic element to most of the major common disease turn out to be true. But at the time, there were a few skeptics, but it seemed to us that there was going to be a genetic story that underpinned an awful lot of human disease and medicine. And we were fortunate because in Oxford as you know, one of my predecessors in the Regius job was Richard Doll, and he built up this fantastic epidemiology capability in Oxford around Richard Peto, Rory Collins, and those folks, and they really knew how to do large scale epidemiology. And one of the things that they'd observed, which is it turns out to be true with genetics as well, is a lot of the effects are relatively small, but they're still quite significant. So you do need large scale cohorts to understand what you're doing. And it was really Richard that pioneered the whole thinking behind that. So when we had another element in the formula, which was the ability to detect genetic variation and put that into the formula, it seemed to me that we could move into an era where you could set up, again, large cohorts, but build into the ability to have DNA, interrogate the DNA, and also ultimately interrogate things like proteomics and metabolomics, which were just in their infancy at that stage.Sir John Bell (12:04):Very early on I got together because I was at that stage at the Nuffield Chair of Medicine, and I got together, Rory and Richard and a couple of others, and we talked a little bit about what it would look like, and we agreed that a half a million people late to middle age, 45 and above would probably over time when you did the power calculations, give you a pretty good insight in most of the major diseases. And then it was really a question of collecting them and storing the samples. So in order to get it funded at the time I was on the council of the MRC and George Radda, who you may remember, was quite a distinguished NMR physiologist here. He was the chief executive of the MRC. So I approached him and I said, look, George, this would be a great thing for us to do in the UK because we have all the clinical records of these people going back for a decade, and will continue to do that.Sir John Bell (13:01):Of course, we immediately sent it out to a peer review committee in the MRC who completely trashed the idea and said, you got to be joking. So I thought, okay, that's how that lasted. And I did say to George, I said, that must mean this is a really good idea because if it had gone straight through peer review, you would've known you were toast. So anyway, I think we had one more swing at peer review and decided in the end that wasn't going to work. In the end, George to his credit, took it to MRC council and we pitched it and everybody thought, what a great idea, let's just get on and do it. And then the Wellcome came in. Mark Walport was at the Wellcome at the time, great guy, and did a really good job at bringing the Wellcome on board.Sir John Bell (13:45):And people forget the quantum of money we had to do this at the time was about 60 million pounds. I mean, it wasn't astonishly small. And then of course we had a couple of wise people who came in to give us advice, and the first thing they said, well, if you ever thought you were really going to be able to do genetics on 500,000 people, forget it. That'll never work. So I thought, okay, I'll just mark that one out. And then they said, and by the way, you shouldn't assume you can get any data from the health service because you'll never be able to collect clinical data on any of these people. So I said, yeah, yeah, okay, I get it. Just give us the money and let us get on. So anyway, it's quite an interesting story. It does show how conservative the community actually is for new ideas.Sir John Bell (14:39):Then I chaired the first science committee, and we decided about a year into it that we really needed the chief executive. So we got Rory Collins to lead it and done it. I sat on the board then for the next 10 years, but well look, it was a great success. And as you say, it is kind of the paradigm for now, large genetic epidemiology cohorts. So then, as you know, I advise government for many years, and David Cameron had just been elected as Prime Minister. This was in about 2010. And at the time I'd been tracking because we had quite a strong genomics program in the Wellcome Trust center, which I'd set up in the university, and we were really interested in the genetics of common disease. It became clear that the price of sequencing and Illumina was now the clear leader in the sequencing space.Sir John Bell (15:39):But it was also clear that Illumina was making significant advances in the price of sequencing because as you remember, the days when it cost $5,000 to do a genome. Anyway, it became clear that they actually had technology that gets you down to a much more sensible price, something like $500 a genome. So I approached David and I said, we are now pretty sure that for many of the rare diseases that you see in clinical practice, there is a genetic answer that can be detected if you sequenced a whole genome. So why don't we set something up in the NHS to provide what was essentially the beginnings of a clinical service to help the parents of kids with various disabilities work out what's going on, what's wrong with their children. And David had had a child with Ohtahara syndrome, which as you know is again, and so David was very, he said, oh God, I'll tell you the story about how awful it was for me and for my wife Samantha.Sir John Bell (16:41):And nobody could tell us anything about what was going on, and we weren't looking for a cure, but it would've really helped if somebody said, we know what it is, we know what the cause is, we'll chip away and maybe there will be something we can do, but at least you know the answer. So anyway, he gave us very strong support and said to the NHS, can you please get on and do it? Again massive resistance, Eric as you can imagine, all the clinical geneticists said, oh my God, what are they doing? It's complete disaster, dah, dah, dah. So anyway, we put on our tin hats and went out and got the thing going. And again, they did a really good job. They got to, their idea was to get a hundred thousand genomes done in a reasonable timeframe. I think five years we set ourselves and the technology advance, people often underestimate the parallel development of technology, which is always going on. And so, that really enabled us to get that done, and it still continues. They're doing a big neonatal program at the moment, which is really exciting. And then I was asked by Theresa May to build a life science strategy because the UK, we do this stuff not as big and broad as America, but for a small country we do life sciences pretty well.Eric Topol (18:02):That's an understatement, by the way. A big understatement.Sir John Bell (18:04):Anyway, so I wrote the strategies in 2017 for Theresa about what we would do as a nation to support life sciences. And it was interesting because I brought a group of pharma companies together to say, look, this is for you guys, so tell us what you want done. We had a series of meetings and what became clear is that they were really interested in where healthcare was going to end up in the next 20 years. And they said, you guys should try and get ahead of that wave. And so, we agreed that one of the domains that really hadn't been explored properly, it was the whole concept of prevention.Sir John Bell (18:45):Early diagnosis and prevention, which they were smart enough to realize that the kind of current paradigm of treating everybody in the last six months of life, you can make money doing that, there's no doubt, but it doesn't really fix the problem. And so, they said, look, we would love it if you created a cohort from the age of 18 that was big enough that we could actually track the trajectories of people with these diseases, identify them at a presymptomatic stage, intervene with preventative therapies, diagnose diseases earlier, and see if we could fundamentally change the whole approach to public health. So we anyway, went back and did the numbers because of course at much wider age group, a lot of people don't get at all sick, but we thought if we collected 5 million people, we would probably have enough. That's 10% of the UK adult population.Sir John Bell (19:37):So anyway, amazingly the government said, off you go. We then had Covid, which as you know, kept you and I busy for a few years before we could get back to it. But then we got at it, and we hired a great guy who had done a bit of this in the UAE, and he came across and we set up a population health recruitment structure, which was community-based. And we rapidly started to recruit people. So we've now got 2.9 million people registered, 2.3 million people consented, and we've got blood in the bank and all the necessary data including questionnaire data for 1.5 million people growing up. So we will get to 5 million and it's amazing.Eric Topol (20:29):It is. It really is, and I'm just blown away by the progress you've made. And what was interesting too, besides you all weren't complacent about, oh, we got this UK Biobank and you just kept forging ahead. And by the way, I really share this importance of finally what has been a fantasy of primary prevention, which never really achieved. It's always, oh, after a heart attack. But that's what I wrote about in the Super Agers book, and I'll get you a copy.Sir John Bell (21:02):No, I know you're a passionate believer in this and we need to do a lot of things. So we need to work out what's the trial protocol for primary prevention. We need to get the regulators on board. We've got to get them to understand that we need diagnostics that define risk, not disease, because that's going to be a key bit of what we're going to try and do. And we need to understand that for a lot of these diseases, you have to intervene quite early to flatten that morbidity curve.Eric Topol (21:32):Yeah, absolutely. What we've learned, for example, from the UK Biobank is not just, of course the genomics that you touched on, but the proteomics, the organ clocks and all these other layers of data. So that gets me to my next topic, which I know you're all over it, which is AI.Eric Topol (21:51):So when I did the NHS review back in 2018, 2019, the group of people which were amazing that I had to work with no doubt why the UK punches well beyond its weight. I had about 50 people, and they just said, you know what? Yeah, we are the world leaders in genomics. We want to be the world leader in AI. Now these days you only hear about US and China, which is ridiculous. And you have perhaps one of the, I would say most formidable groups there with Demis and Google DeepMind, it's just extraordinary. So all the things that the main foci of the Ellison Institute intersect with AI.Sir John Bell (22:36):They do. And we, we've got two underpinning platforms, well actually three underpinning platforms that go across all those domains. Larry was really keen that we became a real leader in AI. So he's funded that with a massive compute capacity. And remember, most universities these days have a hard time competing on compute because it's expensive.Eric Topol (22:57):Oh yeah.Sir John Bell (22:58):So that is a real advantage to us. He's also funded a great team. We've recruited some people from Demis's shop who are obviously outstanding, but also others from around Europe. So we really, we've recruited now about 15 really outstanding machine learning and AI people. And of course, we're now thinking about the other asset that the UK has got, and particularly in the healthcare space is data. So we do have some really unique data sets because those are the three bits of this that you need if you're going to make this work. So we're pretty excited about that as an underpinning bit of the whole Ellison Institute strategy is to fundamentally underpin it with very strong AI. Then the second platform is generative biology or synthetic biology, because this is a field which is sort of, I hesitate to say limped along, but it's lacked a real focus.Sir John Bell (23:59):But we've been able to recruit Jason Chin from the LMB in Cambridge, and he is one of the real dramatic innovators in that space. And we see there's a real opportunity now to synthesize large bits of DNA, introduce them into cells, microbes, use it for a whole variety of different purposes, try and transform plants at a level that people haven't done before. So with AI and synthetic biology, we think we can feed all the main domains above us, and that's another exciting concept to what we're trying to do. But your report on AI was a bit of a turning point for the UK because you did point out to us that we did have a massive opportunity if we got our skates, and we do have talent, but you can't just do it with talent these days, you need compute, and you need data. So we're trying to assemble those things. So we think we'll be a big addition to that globally, hopefully.Eric Topol (25:00):Yeah. Well that's another reason why I am so excited to talk to you and know more about this Ellison Institute just because it's unique. I mean, there are other institutes as like Chan Zuckerberg, the Arc Institute. This is kind of a worldwide trend that we're seeing where great philanthropy investments are being seen outside of government, but none have the computing resources that are being made available nor the ability to recruit the AI scientists that'll help drive this forward. Now, the last topic I want to get into with you today is one that is where you're really grounded in, and that's the immune response.Eric Topol (25:43):So it's pretty darn clear now that, well, in medicine we have nothing. We have the white cell neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, what a joke. And then on the other hand, we can do T and B cell sequencing repertoires, and we can do all this stuff, autoantibody screens, and the list goes on and on. How are we ever going to make a big dent in health where we know the immune system is such a vital part of this without the ability to check one's immune status at any point in time in a comprehensive way? What are your thoughts about that?Sir John Bell (26:21):Yeah, so you seem to be reading my mind there. We need to recruit you over here because I mean, this is exactly, this is one of our big projects that we've got that we're leaning into, and that is that, and we all experienced in Covid the ins and outs of vaccines, what works, what doesn't work. But what very clear is that we don't really know anything about vaccines. We basically, you put something together and you hope the trial works, you've got no intermediate steps. So we're building a really substantial immunophenotyping capability that will start to interrogate the different arms of the immune response at a molecular level so that we can use a combination of human challenge models. So we've got a big human challenge model facility here, use human challenge models with pathogens and with associated vaccines to try and interrogate which bits of the immune response are responsible for protection or therapy of particular immunologically mediated diseases or infectious diseases.Sir John Bell (27:30):And a crucial bit to that. And one of the reasons people have tried this before, but first of all, the depth at which you can interrogate the immune system has changed a lot recently, you can get a lot more data. But secondly, this is again, where the AI becomes important because it isn't going to be a simple, oh, it's the T-cell, it's going to be, well, it's a bit of the T cells, but it's also a bit of the innate immune response and don't forget mate cells and don't forget a bit of this and that. So we think that if we can assemble the right data set from these structured environments, we can start to predict and anticipate which type of immune response you need to stimulate both for therapy and for protection against disease. And hopefully that will actually create a whole scientific foundation for vaccine development, but also other kinds of immune therapy and things like cancer and potentially autoimmune disease as well. So that's a big push for us. We're just busy. The lab isn't set up. We've got somebody to run the lab now. We've got the human challenge model set up with Andy Pollard and colleagues. So we're building that out. And within six months, I think we'll be starting to collect data. So I'm just kind of hoping we can get the immune system in a bit more structured, because you're absolutely right. It's a bit pin the tail on the donkey at the moment. You have no idea what's actually causing what.Eric Topol (29:02):Yeah. Well, I didn't know about your efforts there, and I applaud that because it seems to me the big miss, the hole and the whole story about how we're going to advanced human health and with the recent breakthroughs in lupus and these various autoimmune diseases by just targeting CD19 B cells and resetting like a Ctrl-Alt-Delete of their immune system.Sir John Bell (29:27):No, it's amazing. And you wouldn't have predicted a lot of this stuff. I think that means that we haven't really got under the skin of the mechanistic events here, and we need to do more to try and get there, but there's steady advance in this field. So I'm pretty optimistic we'll make some headway in this space over the course of the next few years. So we're really excited about that. It's an important piece of the puzzle.Eric Topol (29:53):Yeah. Well, I am really impressed that you got all the bases covered here, and what a really exhilarating chance to kind of peek at what you're doing there. And we're going to be following it. I know I'm going to be following it very closely because I know all the other things that you've been involved with in your colleagues, big impact stuff. You don't take the little swings here. The last thing, maybe to get your comment, we're in a state of profound disruption here where science is getting gutted by a madman and his henchmen, whatever you want to call it, which is really obviously a very serious state. I'm hoping this is a short term hit, but worried that this will have a long, perhaps profound. Any words of encouragement that we're going to get through this from the other side of the pond?Sir John Bell (30:52):Well, I think regardless of the tariffs, the scientific community are a global community. And I think we need to remember that because our mission is a global mission, and we need to lean into that together. First of all, America is such a powerhouse of everything that's been done scientifically in the human health domain. But not only that, but across all the other domains that we work in, we can't really make the kind of progress that we need to without America being part of the agenda. So first of all, a lot of sympathy for you and your colleagues. I know it must be massively destabilizing for you, not be confident that the things that work are there to help you. But I'm pretty confident that this will settle down. Most of the science is for, well, all the science is really for public good, and I think the public recognizes it and they'll notice if it's not being prosecuted in the way that it has to be. And the global science community cannot survive without you. So we're all leaning in behind you, and I hope it will settle. One of my worries is that these things take years to set up and literally hours or minutes to destroy. So we can't afford to take years to set them back up again. So we do need to be a bit careful about that, but I still have huge confidence in what you guys can achieve and we're all behind you.Eric Topol (32:37):Well, that's really helpful getting some words of wisdom from you there, John. So this has been terrific. Thanks so much for joining, getting your perspective on what you're doing, what's important is so essential. And we'll stay tuned for sure.Sir John Bell (32:59):And come and visit us at the EIT, Eric. We'd be glad to see you.*******************************Some of the topics that John and I discussed—immunology, A.I., genomics, and prevention—are emphasized in my new book SUPER AGERS. A quick update: It will have a new cover after making the New York Times Bestseller list and is currently ranked #25 for all books on Amazon. Thanks to so many of you for supporting the book!Here are a few recent podcasts:Dax Shepard: Dr. Mike Sanjay Gupta ***********************Thanks for reading and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.All content on Ground Truths— newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Recorded on Thursday, November 21, 2024, in the wake of the announcement by the International Criminal Court that arrest warrants have been issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, I sought out the insights and expertise of renowned legal scholar Professor Avi Bell, in order to gain his insights into this dreadful development, and to bring his conclusion to you by way of this conversation. Professor Avi Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar Ilan University and the University of San Diego School of Law. His fields of academic research include property and intellectual property law, international law, the laws of war, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professor Bell is considered one of the leading researchers in Israel in the field of economic analysis of law, and he is a member of the Israeli Law & Economics Association as well as the American Law & Economics Association. His papers have been published in leading law journals including Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review and Columbia Law Review. Bell received his BA and JD from the University of Chicago and his doctorate from Harvard University. He was director of the Global Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs from 2008-2009.I hope you get as much out of this conversation as I did and I encourage you to spread this discussion far and wide. Purchase your ticket to The MirYam Institute Annual Regional Briefing, 2024 in NYC, here.Support the showThe MirYam Institute. Israel's Future in Israel's Hands.Subscribe to our podcast: https://podfollow.com/1493910771Follow The MirYam Institute X: https://bit.ly/3jkeUyxFollow Benjamin Anthony X: https://bit.ly/3hZeOe9Like Benjamin Anthony Facebook: https://bit.ly/333Ct93Like The MirYam Institute Facebook: https://bit.ly/2SarHI3Follow Benjamin Anthony Instagram: https://bit.ly/30m6uPGFollow The MirYam Institute Instagram: https://bit.ly/3l5fvED

Today, Lee is talking with Professor Daniel Bell, most recently the author of Dean of Shandong, but also the author of the famous China Model. Professor Bell and Lee chat about his book and about his wider experience of Chinese culture and philosophy while serving as the first foreign dean of a university in the PRC. 

On this episode of the Clean Energy Pod, we discuss whether the UK Government's clean power mission by 2030 is possible. We are joined by Professor Keith Bell, Holder of the ScottishPower Chair in Future Power Systems at the University of Strathclyde, a co-Director of the UK Energy Research Centre and a member of the UK Government's Climate Change Committee. We're making progress, but are we moving fast enough to meet our 2030 climate change targets? Professor Bell shares with us whether he thinks the Government's target is achievable, and what the UK would need to do to deliver clean power by 2030.The Clean Energy Pod, powered by SSE, is your guide to the people and technologies delivering the clean energy transition.SSE, plc website: sse.com SSE careers: careers.sse.com/homepage LinkedIn: linkedin.com/company/12481 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/SSE Instagram: instagram.com/sseplcYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvIYX7HvZJqODMRynAPf6aw

In this Saturday School, Professor Bell explains the where cheat meals came from and why cheating on your diet may be a bad idea. Official Power Project Website: https://powerproject.live Join The Power Project Discord: https://discord.gg/yYzthQX5qN Subscribe to the Power Project Clips Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC5Df31rlDXm0EJAcKsq1SUw Special perks for our listeners below!

In this Saturday School, Professor Bell talks about fasting - and how to implement it to get ridiculously shredded. Official Power Project Website: https://powerproject.live Join The Power Project Discord: https://discord.gg/yYzthQX5qN Subscribe to the Power Project Clips Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC5Df31rlDXm0EJAcKsq1SUw Special perks for our listeners below!

In this Saturday School, Professor Bell talks about fasting - and how to implement it to get ridiculously shredded.   Official Power Project Website: https://powerproject.live Join The Power Project Discord: https://discord.gg/yYzthQX5qN Subscribe to the Power Project Clips Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC5Df31rlDXm0EJAcKsq1SUw   Special perks for our listeners below!  

JANET DEWART BELL is a communications strategist and management consultant with a multimedia background, as well as experience in policy advocacy, strategic planning, fund development, media training, and education. She is a social justice advocate, activist, executive coach, and motivational speaker, with a doctorate in Leadership and Change from Antioch University. She is the author of Carving Out a Humanity: Race, Rights, and Redemption. Among her accomplishments are an Emmy® for outstanding individual achievement (CBS-TV affiliate in Washington, DC) and programming for National Public Radio honored with a Peabody award, considered the highest award in broadcasting. She has been a key strategist and senior executive at a number of national organizations, including The Opportunity Agenda, PolicyLink, the National Urban League, the National Committee on Household Employment, and National Public Radio (NPR). She was Director of Communications and Public Relations for District Council 37, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), in New York City. As a Visiting Research Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, she developed and taught a course on Effective Advocacy and co-taught a constitutional law course with her husband Professor Derrick Bell. She developed and managed The Opportunity Agenda's acclaimed Communications Institute, a four-day, intensive multi-media training for social justice advocates. As Director of Communications at PolicyLink, Bell was instrumental in developing the organization's collaborative approach to advocacy and communications and developed the trademark “Lifting up what works.”® As Director of Communications at the National Urban League, she was the League's chief communications strategist and editor of The State of Black America. As part of AFL-CIO delegations, she has taught trade unionists in Morocco and Tunisia. She was the Chairperson of the District of Columbia Commission for Women and represented the District at the International Conference of Women in Nairobi, Kenya. Bell established the Derrick Bell Lecture Series on Race in American Society at the New York University School of Law, now in its twenty-sixth year. Along with other lead donors, she helped establish in 2012 the Derrick Bell Fund for Excellence at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Professor Bell's alma mater, to honor his memory and legacy.

 Napoleon Bonaparte was not only a brilliant military strategist but also a master of propaganda. Join me in this conversation with Professor David A Bell from Princeton University.  He is an author of several books to include  Napoleon: A Concise Biography (Oxford University Press, 2015) is a short study written for Oxford's "Very Short Introductions" series.You can find more information about Professor Bell at https://history.princeton.edu/people/david-bellTo my listeners who have been so patient!  Thanks for encouraging me back to podcasting.  It's a joy to be back to talk all things books!!    

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. 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

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press.

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am not now nor at any time have ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Yet I serve as dean of a large faculty of political science in a Chinese university that trains students and provincial cadres to serve the country as Communist Party officials: It's typically a post reserved for members of the CCP, given the political sensitivity of the work. That's part of the surprise. The other part is that I'm a Canadian citizen, born and bred in Montreal, without any Chinese ancestry. – Daniel A. Bell, The Dean of Shandong: Confessions of a Minor Bureaucrat in China (2023) On January 1, 2017, Daniel Bell was appointed dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University―the first foreign dean of a political science faculty in mainland China's history. In The Dean of Shandong, Bell chronicles his experiences as what he calls “a minor bureaucrat,” offering an inside account of the workings of Chinese academia and what they reveal about China's political system. It wasn't all smooth sailing―Bell wryly recounts sporadic bungles and misunderstandings―but Bell's post as dean provides a unique vantage point on China today. Bell, neither a Chinese citizen nor a member of the Chinese Communist Party, was appointed as dean because of his scholarly work on Confucianism―but soon found himself coping with a variety of issues having little to do with scholarship or Confucius. These include the importance of hair color and the prevalence of hair-dyeing among university administrators, both male and female; Shandong's drinking culture, with endless toasts at every shared meal; and some unintended consequences of an intensely competitive academic meritocracy. As dean, he also confronts weightier matters: the role at the university of the Party secretary, the national anticorruption campaign and its effect on academia (Bell asks provocatively, “What's wrong with corruption?”), and formal and informal modes of censorship. Considering both the revival of Confucianism in China over the last three decades and what he calls “the Communist comeback” since 2008, Bell predicts that China's political future is likely to be determined by both Confucianism and Communism. Professor Bell's other writings mentioned in this episode include: Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford, 1993) China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society (Princeton, 2008) The Spirit of Cities: Why the Identity of a City Matters in the Global Age (coauthored Princeton 2011) Ancient Chinese Thought - Modern Chinese Power (Trans. series: Xuetong; co-edited Princeton 2013) The China Model: Political Meritocracy and Limits of Democracy (Princeton, 2015) In this interview two book reviews were discussed: 1) "Confessions of a Sinophile" by James Crabtree in the Financial Times, and 2) "Confessions of a China Apologist" by Gordon G. Chang in The New Criterion. Professor Bell graciously responded to a question about them and adds this post-interview thought for The New Criterion reviewer: ‘since my book is banned in China I wish Mr. Chang would inform the relevant authorities that I'm an apologist for China – it might help to unban the book!' Professor Daniel A. Bell is a Canadian political theorist and currently Chair of Political Theory at the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was previously Dean of the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Shandong University and professor at Tsinghua University (Schwarzman College and Department of Philosophy). He has authored eight books and edited and/or coedited as many while serving as a series editor for Princeton University Press. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Rachel and Alice talk to Professor John Bell, Regius professor of Medicine at Oxford University. His first memory, he says, was looking up and seeing “a load of guys with white coats around me”. He'd contracted polio and his father, had also caught the disease and was critically ill in the same hospital. “People forget about polio,” he says, but Professor Bell never did, always concerned that another disease may sweep across the world. Now, more than 70 years later, he is known for helping secure a covid vaccine and advising the government on how to lead Britain out of the pandemic. His research teams are also on the brink of major breakthroughs in the fight against cancer. Links for additional support (also on Past Imperfect podcast pages)Polio information and support Polio - Eradication, Vaccination, & Access | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Polio Survivors Network – Lives lived with healthcare lessons for the futureCancer Supporthttps://www.cancerresearchuk.org/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us for a special presentation by Dr. Charles Bell titled "Exploring Students' and Parents' Perceptions of School Punishment and its Impact on Families."Charles Bell is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University and the author of Suspended: Punishment, Violence, and the Failure of School Safety. His research explores students', parents', and teachers' perceptions of out-of-school suspension, seclusion, restraint, and school safety measures. Professor Bell works with local and state politicians to improve school discipline transparency and establish laws that protect families from harmful disciplinary practices.Support the show

Trailblazing feminist author, critic and activist bell hooks has died at 69.

In today’s first Patreon-fueled shout-out:With the summer heat in full swing, your local energy nonprofit, LEAP, wants you and yours to keep cool. LEAP offers FREE home weatherization to income- and age-qualifying residents. If you’re age 60 or older, or have an annual household income of less than $74,950, you may qualify for a free energy assessment and home energy improvements such as insulation and air sealing. Sign up today to lower your energy bills, increase comfort, and reduce energy waste at home!On today’s show:The executive director of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center talks about the sudden acquisition of a statue A look at upcoming county fairs in the areaAnd a look at upcoming meetings to talk about transit in Albemarle and CharlottesvilleVirginia posts a record surplus for FY2021When the pandemic forced the shutdown of many sectors of the economy in the spring of 2020, many predicted tough times for government budgets. However, the Commonwealth of Virginia closed fiscal year 2021 with a $2.6 billion surplus, the highest in history. Even with the slowdown, budget officials expected revenues to be about 2.7 percent over fiscal year 2020,  but total revenue collections were 14.5 percent over that year. The details will be released on August 18 at a meeting of the General Assembly’s Joint Money Committee, but preliminary information is available in this release. Though slightly outside of our area, the Fauquier County Fair began yesterday in Warrenton. The event is being held for the first time since 2018, having been canceled by the pandemic last year and by construction in 2019. The fair takes place through Sunday on grounds off of Old Auburn Road in Warrenton. There’s a rodeo on Friday night! Learn more in an article on Fauquier Now or take a look at the Fauquier County Fair website. The Madison County Fair also kicked off yesterday through Sunday. We’ve missed the donkey races but the LumberJack show of Champions is on Friday night. The Louisa County Agricultural Fair begins on July 29. The Augusta County Fair begins on July 27.  The Albemarle County Fair is a stripped-down event this year that begins on July 30 at James Monroe’s Highland. “This year the 2021 Albemarle County Fair will focus solely on the exhibition and sale of livestock,” reads a notice on the fair’s website. A group of medical professionals at the University of Virginia’s hospital for youth is opening a food pantry this month at the Battle Building on West Main Street. According to a release from what’s now known as UVA Children’s, the pantry builds on a partnership last November with the Local Food Hub’s Fresh Farmacy program that provided produce to pediatric patients and their families. An internal team put together a program to start the pantry and secured a three-year grant from Molina Healthcare as well as donations from Kroger. Here’s a link to the fundraising site if you want to contribute. The Battle Building will now have a food pantry for qualifying participants. Donate to the cause if you would like to do so. This Friday, riders of Charlottesville Area Transit will get the first of two chances to weigh in on proposed route changes that are intended to help boost ridership. A community meeting begins at noon to hear from representatives of CAT and the consultants Kimley-Horn and the Connectics Group to give public feedback on the new routes, which will extend bus service to Mill Creek. A second meeting will be held next Wednesday (Friday meeting info)But what about people in parts of Albemarle that don’t have bus service? The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has hired consultants to study ways to expand routes into urban sections of Albemarle, particularly on U.S. 29 north of Charlottesville, Pantops, and to Monticello. Two virtual meetings are scheduled later this month to get feedback from people with a focus on U.S. 29 north on July 26 and a focus on Pantops on July 28. These are being held through Microsoft Teams. (July 26 meeting) (July 28 meeting) (Read a StoryMap on the concept)Technically, click here for the above information. On Saturday, July 10, 2021, crews hired by the city of Charlottesville swiftly removed two statues honoring two Confederate generals from two City Parks. A few days before, Council had authorized spending up to $1 million for their removal, but a provision in the resolution cleared the way for some of that money to be used for the removal of the Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue that stood at the intersection of West Main Street and Ridge Street since 1919. The expedition west began in 1803 shortly after the Louisiana Purchase by President Thomas Jefferson. Just after 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, the city’s communications office put out a notice that Council would meet in an emergency session at noon. Here’s Charlottesville Mayor Nikuyah Walker.“Thank you all for coming on short notice,” Walker said. “We are trying to just maximize the opportunity that we have with the crew being in town and taking care of just the legal issue of being able to move the statue on Main Street.”To do so, Council had to adopt a motion waiving a requirement that at least five hours notice has to be given before an emergency meeting. (read the applicable City Code provision)City Manager Chip Boyles said there had been no plan to remove the Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea statue, but there was “an unforeseen opportunity” to proceed because the Confederate sculptures were removed quicker than anticipated.“The tremendous work by the city staff, the construction crews, and by our community support, has given the city an opportunity to finalize the interest that was provided by Council on November 15 of 2019 and then funded on Council on July 7, 2021,” Boyles said. “Council has been clear in their interest to relocate the Sacagawea, Lewis, and Clark statue to another location that’s either owned or co-owned by the city.”Such a location is at Darden-Towe Park, which is co-owned by Albemarle and Charlottesville. Along the banks of the Rivanna River is the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, which is run by executive director Alexandria Searls, who was contacted shortly before the emergency meeting. The item on the agenda was simply to relocate the statue, and not to transfer ownership. That will have to happen at a later date. Searls said the center would not take the statue without provisions. “It would be my hope that to eventually if you decided to give us ownership of the statue to actually have provisions agreed to first about the type of interpretation because under my leadership, interpretation agreed with the Native Americans of Virginia and the Shoshone is highly important and I would want to ensure that for the future regardless of whether I’m there or not,” Searls said. Searls said she would want to work with the Native American Student Union at the University of Virginia on interpretation efforts, as well as interpretations from others, particularly from Sacagawea’s own tribe. “The Shoshone, the way that they would like the statue to be interpreted is of paramount importance,” Searls said. “Indigenous women are going missing to an alarming extent. Faces and people are disappearing. So one of the things that the statue in a way interprets is moving beyond sort of the white person fixation on Sacagawea and the way they contextualize her to a larger view of people who are living today and how they are represented.”Rose Abrahamson is the great, great, great-niece of Sacagawea and she offered to Council her support to the statue’s transition to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. She had the chance to speak before the vote.“Mayor, Councilors, city, I would like to say that we have come a long way,” Abrahamson said. “We have come a long way to become the human tribe that we should be and come together in unity and come together to educate our young and our future generations.”Abrahamson said the statue’s new location at the Lewis and Clark Center would not be offensive, and a depiction of her ancestor that she personally finds offensive can be used to address a contemporary crisis.“It can educate the public to the missing, murdered Indigenous Women, the plight of women in our society, the Native women,” Abrahamson said. Crews lift bronze representations of Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea into the air with the Lewis and Clark building in the backgroundWithin two hours of the vote, the city shut down the intersection of West Main, Ridge and McIntire by driving public works trucks into strategic positions. That allowed the same crew to come in to remove the bronze sculpture from its granite plinth.At 2:31 p.m. a crane lifted the sculpture into the air eliciting cheers from the assembled crowd. The sculpture was placed on a flatbed trucks and taken straight to Darden Towe Park where Alexandria Searls was waiting to let them the crew in to drop off the sculpture. It has been placed temporarily on a square of wooden beams behind a orange mesh fence. In February, the city had sent out a request for information for groups interested in receiving the statue, and the Lewis and Clark was just one of groups that fulfilled that request. I spoke to Searls inside the Lewis and Clark Center on Monday about the process that got the statue there, and what comes next. Searls:We were founded right before the Bicentennial and we teach the skills of exploration as well as the local and national history of the Lewis and Clark expedition.Tubbs:Can you just describe where we’re sitting?Searls:We are sitting along the banks of the Rivanna River and we are right underneath the Southwest Mountains as well as near the birthplace of George Rogers Clark. The land that we’re on was once very important to the Monacan nation as part of a whole interconnected group of villages along the Rivanna, or what we call the Rivanna. We don’t know their name for the river. Later this was owned by Jonathan Clark who was the grandfather of William Clark. Tubbs: Now it’s been almost a year and a half since the City Council decided to vote to remove the statue. At that time, was there any interest of it coming over here?Searls:There was interest in it coming over but we didn’t want to lobby for a certain outcome because we felt that it was owned by the community and we wanted to value what the community decision was. So we made it clear that we were open to receiving it if that ended up being the decision. I sent a letter to Council at that point saying that if you move it, we are open to receiving it. Tubbs:Well, let’s go back to that because it seems a bit intractable. I think it was last year when the Council said yet again ‘we’d like to see proposals.’ Can you just talk a little about… obviously it’s here now but before it was here, can you give a sense of what are some of the planning things you need to just to anticipate the possibility of it coming here? Searls:That’s an interesting question because it wouldn’t be here right now if I had not done more work than the [Request for Information] asked for. The county of Albemarle has been a wonderful partner to us. And the park people here are amazing. This park is run so well. And when we answered the call for the RFI, I was taking it very seriously. I wanted to make sure I wasn’t promising something that the county wasn’t going to like and I wanted to research and do everything from how we were going to afford somebody to move it to what the site plan requirements are and I got started on this and I was writing a proposal. I talked to the engineer who prepared At the Ready to be moved. I had the figures. Turned out they didn’t even want to know the figures. So when I said I’m getting the permission of the Board of Supervisors to do this, I was told ‘this RFI is not supposed to be detailed. You’re supposed to write a one page proposal and if we like it we’ll ask you to make a long one. I’m really glad I didn’t listen to that because I basically said ‘Albemarle County is my partner and I’m not going to put in an idea for a proposal without them.’ I had before the day of the emergency meeting approached City Hall, not the Councilors, but the City Hall, to be an option for that because with so little money that we have, I knew that this might be the only opportunity to have it here at least for a while. And we used it today in an educational program for the first time so that was exciting.On the other hand, I also started researching the statue and through a genealogist I located the grandchildren of the sculptor.Tubbs:Who was the sculptor?Searls:The sculptor was Charles Keck. He also did the Jackson that was removed. He did both of those. And I was preparing if we were to receive the statue to do a complete evaluation of what the interpretation would be. So I also consulted art historians, I talked to Indigenous historians, I have begun to read books written about Lewis and Clark in the early 1900’s to get an idea of the mindsets of the time when it was created.Tubbs:And when was it created? Was it created for a specific purpose?Searls:That’s an interesting story because it was created as a commission but they only commissioned Lewis and Clark. They did not commission Sacagawea so basically the sculptor decided to add her and that is significant from what I found out from the family because he was a sculptor that took any commission that went his way because he had lost an amazing amount of money in one of the crashes. He owed his best friend who bailed him out about $100,000 and that’s a lot now but it was even more then. So he wasn’t in a position to be discriminate and could no longer do the sculptures that he wanted to do. So basically she was the only sculpture that he did that he wanted to do. And I haven’t sorted that through completely but it was just one aspect of what I wanted to know about the situation.Tubbs:So one of the critiques of the statue for many years has been that Sacagawea is cowering. Others say that she’s searching. I don’t know the statue that well, but isn’t that part of the interpretation process?Searls:Yes, and I’ve got to say here that I’m not finished coming up with my own reactions to this statue. But let me back up by saying that there’s an interesting phenomenon going on and that’s the phenomenon that when something is up, that means its endorsed. And that is not part of my belief at all. I think a statue whose original intent — and I’m not really talking about specifically about Lewis and Clark, I’m talking all statues —  was one thing, like to glorify a hero that might not be deserving of glory or to reveal the power of the ruler, ruling class. Just because you leave it up doesn’t mean you agree with it. For example, when I look at that Lewis and Clark statue, even though its meant to glorify them as heroes, I do not think that they were flawless heroes. In fact, a lot of what we do here is examine their failings actually. What do you think?Tubbs:Well, I’m still just trying to figure it out because its interesting. If you look at the three statues that were taken down on Saturday, two of them are in an undisclosed location and may never ever see the light of day. We don’t know yet. But at least with this one, it will have a new life, potentially here, especially if you can get some funding to do the proper interpretation and to install it in some way that maybe you haven’t figured out yet. But at least there’s a sense of ‘well, at we’re going to melt it down as one of the descendants said on Saturday.Searls: One phrase that I think of a lot, not just on these issues but in general is that: In war, treat your victories like a funeral. And to me that means if you’re in a war, someone is dying and even if you win you shouldn’t rejoice because it’s better not to demonize your opponent. It’s better to look at them with some empathy of their dead or of their situation. It’s better not to immediately assume that someone who wants to melt down a statue resembles the Taliban. Maybe they don’t. Or it’s better not to think that someone who wants the statues to stay in place is a racist because maybe they aren’t. I get reasons and viewpoints. I receive emails, calls. I’ve listened. And I think that it’s dangerous on so many levels to rejoice in the face of the people who are crying, because any victory anybody somebody is crying. So my effort here is to find a way of compromising even if that might not be possible but at least a way to respect different viewpoints and to let people come to new viewpoints.It’s important to realize that when you have your dead that other people have theirs. For example, if somebody looks at that statue and only sees a heroic Lewis and Clark and doesn’t see the Trail of Tears that followed soon afterwards, that’s celebrating something without crying for the other side. You’re reading to Charlottesville Community Engagement and an interview with Alexandria Searls of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. We’ll be back to that in just a moment. In today’s second Patreon-fueled shout-out: The Rivanna Conservation Alliance is looking for a few good volunteers to help out on Clean Stream Tuesdays, a mile and a half paddle and clean-up to remove trash and debris from popular stretches of the Rivanna River. Trash bags, trash pickers, gloves, and hand sanitizer/wipes will be provided, though volunteers will need to transport themselves to and from the end points. Kayaks for the purpose can be rented from the Rivanna River Company. Visit the Rivanna Conservation Alliance's volunteer page to learn more about upcoming dates.The two male figures continue to look west from their temporary locationThe Lewis, Clark and Sacagawea statue is now on the grounds of the Center inside of Darden Towe Park, which is jointly owned by Albemarle and Charlottesville. Searls said the statue is very different close-up than from where it stood for 102 years and there’s a bit of a mystery. Searls:You know, I still haven’t decided if it’s three people or four people in the statue. I can see the fourth person perhaps now that I can get close to it. When the Shoshone were here, we talked about the terrible plight of missing Indigenous women and since Sacagawea is somewhat missing in terms of when you look at that composition, she’s like down there, and there’s taking up space with their guns. The ultimate sort of disappearing is actually disappearing and never being seen again. And that’s what’s happening to young women today.In terms of white Americans revering Sacagawea at different points because she helped them or she was seen as friendly to white explorers, but really what I would like to see in terms of Indigenous people is really seeing the people of today. And one of the women who came, Dustina Abrahamson, had suggested the statue could be used as some sort of a starting point for people making new art and making people see the people who are disappearing. And I’ve been following her Facebook page since they visited in 2019 and I’ve seen a relative of hers go missing and I’ve seen other challenges that happen in Indigenous communities so I think we need to move beyond these handful of icons that we’ve put up and move into the thousands of native people who are actually here.Tubbs:What can this Center do? Obviously, the whole point is to draw awareness of this past but yet not to say ‘it was this way’ or ‘it was that way.’ People who visit here, what do you want them to takeaway? Do you need the statue to do this?Searls:My staff and I were talking about this today. I don’t think we need anything except the woods, the river, and a place to rest in between. Our programs are very oral. We get all this knowledge and we study and we interpret it and we talk to people basically. You don’t see any signs here telling you what to think about anything. I arrived in Charlottesville on the Greyhound bus or Trailways or whatever it was back then with my duffel bag to be a first year at UVA. I came out of that door with my duffel and there were taxis and there was that statue. I went to high school in New York City and I wasn’t impressed with the statue. All I saw were a bunch of guns and it’s hard for me to imagine that it would become part of my life. And I didn’t even see her. I just saw two men. I didn’t know what it was whatsoever. Let’s go back to what I said about are there three people or four in that sculpture? At first I only thought there were only two when I first arrived in Charlottesville so one of the preeminent art historians, Malcolm Bell from UVA, said that there four people in that sculpture and that she was holding a baby and there’s a cradle-board and the baby’s in there. I didn’t see it. And even though he’s famous with books, I was willing to think he wasn’t right. Then when I encountered the sculpture over there, I saw that he’s very possibly right. And it puts a new spin on it because when you get close you can see that William Clark’s hand and hers are touching along a piece of wood. And they’re both holding it up. You can see a sack in there and you can see more of an extension of something in there in the back. She’s sitting on some rocks and he’s helping her carry that as she’s leaning forward and they’re meant to be on the cliffs looking at the Pacific and so she’s looking down at the ocean and William Clark is looking just ahead and then Meriwether Lewis on top is looking at the far distance and that’s definitely a hierarchy. I mean, it’s Lewis preeminent, William Clark, and then the woman in the way that she is.But it does matter to me whether she’s holding a baby or not and he’s helping her hold whatever it is. So, I haven’t asked Professor Bell what the documentation of this is because I know the sculptor did not take notes of any extent. Now, he did have a collection of books so I think the answer is in what he would have read about Lewis and Clark back then and I read a book written in 1905 about Sacagawea and she never let her baby out of her sight. She was always carrying that baby. So I’m of the opinion now that there are four people in that statue. I’m not 100 percent sure, but I say this to say I’m not exactly sure what’s going on with that statue. I know he wanted to honor her. I know he wasn’t trying to degrade her.And that is important to me. If I felt like he had tried, I would not have wanted that here. And there are people I’m sure who do think that was his goal.Tubbs:So it’s only been here for two days as we’re talking. Now it’s here. You still have the interpretive work. You’re not finished with the work that you thought you were going to have to do to get it here. Suddenly it’s here. How do you feel?Searls: I feel excited. I mean, it is pretty amazing to see these huge faces being pulled up the hill. I was waiting at the gate. I let them in at the gate. It took hours. They told me it would be 20 minutes but I was there for hours. So I opened up the gate and then the cortege comes through.  A flatbed. A trailer. A crane. And about 30 cars with lights. To see them all go up the hill and to see those faces going towards the Center was pretty amazing. I wasn’t at the removal of the Confederate statues but they seemed to be moving backwards with their rears so it was sort of more like they were riding out of town whereas this felt like they were arriving and it was pretty amazing.A close-up of the base of the statueTubbs:You said you were excited about this. What are some of the possibilities now?Searls: I think that some of the possibilities [are] that if you’re showing something that is painful to some other people, it requires some work together. And I do think that out of this will come more partnerships with Native Americans about Indigenous representation and I think that we’ll all be more aware. And the park guy said that a woman this morning came and put up a sign up by the statue briefly that this is Native land and she took a picture of the statue with it and then left. But we teach that this is Native land. We teach about the Monacans. We regularly every two years are invited by to different tribes out west as part of being in a Lewis and Clark group. I think that the focus will be even more on that and I am certainly learning much more. I’m reading Jeff Hantmann’s book Monacan Millennium right now, and I’m reading more about Sacagawea and the attitudes that have been about her throughout the decades. So I think it will make those realities more of the story. Not less. Tubbs:You said that you used it today in the camp. How so?Searls:So, when the kids came, they’re 8 to 11, we all walked over there. And actually I invited their parents too because it is a camp that’s about history and it is about exploration and it is actually historic when a 100-year-old monument moves so I wanted them to be part of that history and the first group.And I basically said: Is there a baby there? This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

Talking Feds host Harry Litman, University of Illinois College of Law Professor Suja Thomas and West Virginia University Professor James Nolan discuss key questions in the aftermath of the Derek Chauvin verdict.  Chicago 22nd Ward Ald. Michael Rodriguez and Northwestern Clinical Professor of Law Sheila Bedi discuss the Adam Toledo shooting.  Indiana University Law Professor Jeannine […]

HUMAN+ presents 'The New Cybernetics? Making sense of the 21st century' a lecture by Professor Genevieve Bell, Director of the 3A Institute, Florence Violet McKenzie Chair, and a Distinguished Professor at the Australian National University. Organised by Human+ project in partnership with the Trinity Long Room Hub and ADAPT, the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Digital Content Innovation at Trinity College Dublin. Professor Bell who is described as an anthropologist, technologist and futurist, is best known for her work at the intersection of cultural practice and technology development. She has spent over 15 years at Intel where she was promoted to Vice President for Strategy and was also elected as a senior fellow, the first female to achieve such a prestigious position in the company. She now heads up a new institute at the Australian National University called the Autonomy, Agency and Assurance (3A) Institute, launched in September 2017 focusing on “building a new applied science around the management of artificial intelligence, data, technology and their impact on humanity''. About HUMAN+ HUMAN+ is an international and interdisciplinary fellowship programme led by the Trinity Long Room Hub Arts and Humanities Research Institute and ADAPT, the Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Digital Content Innovation at Trinity College Dublin, and supported by the prestigious European Commission (EC) Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie COFUND Action. Find out more about Human+ here

Professor Michael Bell, Professor of Ports and Maritime Logistics, University of Sydney, joins Luke Grant regarding the ‘Ever Given’ supertanker that was wedged in the Suez Canal.   In the early hours of March 23, the Ever Given was blown off course by high winds on its way through the Suez Canal.  At 400 metres long, the ship is longer than the canal is wide, and the ship became wedged firmly in both banks, completely blocking traffic.   With estimates of up to $12bn worth of goods being stuck in the jam and coming on top of the COVID-19 pandemic, the event highlights the fragility of global supply chains and is likely to accelerate changes in the world economy, says Professor Bell.   ‘About 10% of the world’s maritime trade passes through the canal, which allows ships to shorten the trip between Europe or the American east coast and Asia by thousands of kilometres, saving a week or more of travel time’, he writes.   ‘Around 50 ships a day pass through the canal under normal circumstances, split almost equally between dry bulk carriers, container carriers (like the Ever Given) and tankers.’   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We talk with Richard Bell about his prizewinning book, "Stolen: Five Free Boys Kidnapped Into Slavery and Their Astonishing Odyssey Home." It explains how five boys in Philadelphia were abducted by slave smugglers and taken to the Deep South, away from their families, and forced into slavery. Bell writes not only about their horrific journey, but about how they were the lucky few who ever made it back to freedom. Their families and their community never stopped thinking about and fighting for them, while their case became a flashpoint for further division in America's violent and heartbreaking path to the Civil War. Professor Bell teaches at the University of Maryland.His website is richard-bell.comHe is available on Twitter at twitter.com/r_j_bellSupport our show at patreon.com/axelbankhistory**A portion of every contribution will be given to a charity for children's literacy**"Axelbank Reports History and Today" can be found on social media at www.twitter.com/axelbankhistorywww.instagram.com/axelbankhistorywww.facebook.com/axelbankhistory

What happens when there is no more water? On this episode of The Future City podcast, we speak with Professor Sarah Bell. Sarah is a Chartered Engineer, Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management and Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers who has worked across a number of cities on their water issues. Sarah speaks with us about our complex yet simple relationship to water, why engineers need to roll-up their sleeves and get involved with water users when designing water systems and how we can no longer just turn on the tap.  Professor Sarah Bell is the City of Melbourne Chair in Urban Resilience and Innovation at University of Melbourne. Prior to this, Professor Bell was the Steering Committee member, and Co-Director of the University College London's Urban Laboratory as well as Director of the UCL Engineering Exchange.

In 1995, legal scholar Derrick Bell spoke to the Institute about Racial Libel as American Ritual. Professor Bell was one of the founders of critical race studies. He taught at Harvard Law School until 1990, when he left to protest the school's lack of female African American faculty. He taught at NYU Law School until his death in 2011. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Founders of the United States came up with a system of government that was revolutionary… for 1776. Borrowing from the free cities and republics of Europe as well as the Native American Iroquois Confederacy, they tried to approximate the consent of the governed as best they could – splitting powers among the branches of government, across the states, and between those states and the federal government. Today, with power increasingly concentrated in Washington DC, many Americans are feeling the loss of their consent. What do you do when neither presidential pick represents your beliefs, and there is no credible third party to turn to for help?Is there a third way?This Sunday, I was joined by two leading experts on “competitive governance” – a truly revolutionary idea that promises to renew freedom of choice and consent of the governed. Joe Quirk, President of The Seasteading Institute, and open source legal theorist and Chapman University law professor Tom W. Bell will make the intellectual case for the most viable alternatives to the winner-takes-all election result. The Seasteading Institute notes that 34% of registered voters chose not to vote in 2016. Their Vote to Float campaign aims to break dissatisfied voters out of the “Coke vs. Pepsi” mindset, and see the opportunities for choosing your own government once the seasteading concept becomes a reality. If you're not familiar with seasteading, go back and listen to my archived shows with Joe Quirk and Patri Friedman (see below).If you have been following the project, you'll still want to listen for an update on the seasteading movement. We will also go into greater depth on the theoretical underpinnings behind private governance, as explored in Professor Bell's 2018 book Your Next Government? From the Nation State to Stateless Nations (Cambridge University Press 2018). Bell will also fill us in on the latest developments in the world of land-based start-up societies, free ports, SEZs and other examples of competitive governance.Finally, we discussed the nature of consent in government in the 21st century, and how technologies like the internet, seasteads, and arbitration, enable possibilities that the Founders never imagined.

In Episode 11 Professor Jason Bell from San Francisco State University joins the podcast. Professor Bell teaches Criminal Justice, Sociology, and is the Director of Program Development for Project Rebound CSU Consortium. Professor Bell shares his experiences from being formerly incarcerated to now teaching and opening doors for others with records in higher education through Project Rebound. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/no-warning-shots962/support

Today Seamus speaks with Distinguished Professor Genevieve Bell AO. She's a cultural anthropologist who spent two decades at Intel and is known as one of the most important thinkers on technology and culture. She returned to Australia in recent years to create an entirely new school of research at ANU, named 3Ai.We explore the aims of the new school, why it matters, and what the big issues are for technology in society today. And like any conversation with Professor Bell we get anecdotes from the past to help us understand that where we're going next isn't all that new... if only we can learn from the history lessons that can help pave the way...Find out more about 3Ai: https://3ainstitute.cecs.anu.edu.au/[This episode originally aired on Byteside's Uplink podcast] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Thanks so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show – celebrating over eight years broadcasting on the internet! On Wednesday's show, we discuss the question, “Has the Supreme Court Subverted the Constitution?” with Constitutional scholar and Chairman of the Cato Institute, Bob Levy. “Josephus of Oz” author and Mercy College Professor Andrew Joppa and I discuss last night's yesterday's Presidential primary contests, and we assess new factors in the 2020 Presidential race that could have surprising influence on the outcome. We also visit with Endowed Professor at the University of Houston Larry Bell about his new book, “Cyberwarfare: Targeting America, Our Infrastructure, and Our Future.” We also discuss Professor Bell's first-hand experience in the Soviet Union and the perils of socialism. Please join us tomorrow morning with special guests including Florida Citizens Alliance co-founder Keith Flaugh, our State Representative Byron Donalds, the Founder and President of Less Government Seton Motley, and Naples Mayor Bill Barnett. Please join us live a little before 7 a.m. or in archives at your convenience. www.bobharden.com

As the youth sports industry continues to rapidly grow throughout the US, Professor Bell warns us of some problems with the athletics pipeline. He discusses: 1. What should parents and youth coaches know about sport? 2. What are the impacts of physical activity in youth and young adulthood years? There are widespread physical and social effects. 3. Why are more and more kids dropping out of sports at younger ages? 4. What is the definition of youth sport specialization? What does “highly specialized” mean? How is this different from just being a “single sport” athlete? 5. What does puberty have to do with specialization? What should parents know? 6. Why are there higher rates of specialization among young female athletes? 7. The importance of the triad between coach, parent, and athlete in creating a healthy sporting experience. 8. Recommendations: delaying specialization as long as possible; play on one team at a time; don't play a single sport more than eight months per year – especially before puberty; play a sport no more hours per week than your age; and take two days off per week. 9. What can college-level coaches and leaders do to help foster a healthy pipeline? 10. Previous injury predicts future risk.

Get the recap of what Astrid Ferguson thought of Everything is Figureoutable book signing ( https://everythingisfigureoutable.com ) with Marie Folio and an intimate interview with Bradley Harper who releases the follow-up to his Edgar Award Finalist A KNIFE IN THE FOG on September 17th. QUEEN'S GAMBIT (Seventh Street Books) transports readers back to 1897 London when Margaret Harkness receives a letter from her old friend Professor Bell, the real-life inspiration for Sherlock Holmes and her old comrade in the hunt for Jack the Ripper.  Inspired by The Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsyth, the author envisioned a similar story concerning Queen Victoria — who in real-life survived several assassination attempts — but puts his own twist on the killer that makes for quite the unexpected reveal. Harper is a retired US Army Pathologist with over thirty-seven years of worldwide military and medical experience. During his Army career, he performed some two hundred autopsies, twenty of which were forensic.  Find out more about Bradley Harper https://bharperauthor.com Visit the site https://www.astridferguson.com/podcast Follow us on instagram https://www.instagram.com/imcwd.podcast Subscribe and never miss a show! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/astrid-ferguson/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/astrid-ferguson/support

Distinguished Professor Genevieve Bell paints a picture of innovation and how it changes lives through the stories of six people. Professor Bell is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering and was speaking at the Academy's Innovation and Awards Excellence event in Sydney on 13 June 2019.

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

Tom W. Bell earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Chicago in 1993, then practiced law in Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. before serving as a policy director at the Cato Institute. In 1998, he joined the faculty of Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, where he teaches all of the first-year common law courses and electives in high-tech and intellectual property law. Professor Bell has published papers on copyright, Internet law, polycentric law, prediction markets, and the Third Amendment (the one about quartering troops). His books include "Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good" (Mercatus 2014) and "Your Next Government? From the Nation State to Stateless Associations" (Cambridge University Press 2017). Through Archimediate LLC, Tom designs, installs, and supports legal systems for special jurisdictions. Most recently, that work has taken him to French Polynesia, where he helped forge a memorandum of understanding to allow seasteading in that island paradise. Check out the show notes page at www.economicrockstar.com/tomwbell Support the podcast for as little as $1 per month over at www.patreon.com/economicrockstar

A public lecture by Professor Genevieve Bell, Director of the 3A Institute, Florence Violet McKenzieChair, and a Distinguished Professor at the Australian National University. Professor Bell who is described as an anthropologist, technologist and futurist, is best known for her work at the intersection of cultural practice and technology development. She has spent over 15 years at Intel where she was promoted to Vice President for Strategy and was also elected as a senior fellow, the first female to achieve such a prestigious position in the company. She now heads up a new institute at the Australian National University called the Autonomy, Agency and Assurance (3A) Institute, launched in September 2017 focusing on “building a new applied science around the management of artificial intelligence, data, technology and their impact on humanity''. This is the inaugural talk of a new public lecture series ‘What does it mean to be Human?' organised by the Trinity Long Room Hub and Trinity Research and Innovation. In this high-profile lecture series, experts from enterprise and education will reflect on what it means to be human at the turn of the 21st century with the growing influence of technology on the way we live, work and communicate.

Governments across the globe have begun evolving from lumbering bureaucracies into smaller, more agile special jurisdictions. Private providers increasingly deliver services that political authorities formerly monopolized, inspiring greater competition and efficiency. In Your Next Government?: From the Nation State to Stateless Nations, Tom W. Bell, professor at Chapman University’s Dale E. Fowler School of Law, shows how these trends suggest that new networks of special jurisdictions will soon surpass nation-states in the same way that networked computers replaced mainframes. This quiet revolution is transforming governments from the bottom up, inside out, worldwide, with the potential to bring more freedom, peace, and prosperity to people everywhere.Join us for a conversation with author Professor Bell, hosted by Aaron Powell and Trevor Burrus of Libertarianism.org’s Free Thoughts podcast. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

David Bell, Professor of Marketing at Wharton sits down to discuss the basics of marketing from an extremely high-level. After discovering a bit of his background, we go through a number of industries with similarities to cannabis to discuss what can be learned from folks that have been through a few half lives. Professor Bell takes us through his best advice to cannabis companies new and experienced. But Kelsey Osborne first joins us to share her experience. Facing her seizing child, she provided her daughter with cannabis. As we’ve interviewed many parents like Heather Jackson from Realm of Caring and Paige Figi regarding Charlotte- this wouldn’t be a big deal- but it happened in Idaho. So Kelsey is now headed to court.

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

One of the most influential thinkers and writers on civil rights discourse, Professor Derrick Bell addresses the racial and social justice issues at the 13th Dr. Donald H. Smith Distinguished Lecture. Professor Bell is a noted legal scholar and visiting professor of law at New York University. Among Professor Bell's books on race, the constitution and the law are Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the Permanence of Racism, Race, Racism and American Law and And We are Not Saved: the Elusive Quest for Social Justice. Professor Bell is introduced by Dr. Dr. Stanton Biddle. After the Processor Bell's speech, Professor Bobbie Pollard introduces the lecture's honorary namesake Donald H. Smith, former president of the National Alliance of Black School Educators (NABSE), and former Associate Provost at Baruch College. Dr. Smith makes the remarks at the event. A Question & Answer session follows. The event is moderated by Master of Ceremonies, Dr. Authur Lewin. This event takes place on December 4, 2008, at the Newman Conference Center, Room 750. [Part I -- 97 min.] [Part II -- 82 min.]

Professor Christine Bell presents "Constitutional Futures and Political Imagination"Professor Bell's inaugural lecture examines how societies with deep and violent divisions try to find ways of transcending conflict through constitutional innovation.Listen to podcast

Jeanne Hoffman talks with Tom Bell, professor of law at Chapman University School of Law. Professor Bell specializes in high tech legal issues, and has written a variety of papers on intellectual property and Internet law, and has taught at several IHS Summer Seminars.

Doug welcomes NYU Visiting Professor of Law Derrick Bell. Professor Bell is a highly respected constitutional law professor and civil rights activist. He shares his views on some of the racial issues that are prominent in the media today.