Podcasts about proponents

Anyone hoping to nail a fall race, like Michelle, will appreciate all the night-before and morning-of advice from seasoned racers/hosts Sarah and Dimity. Proponents of the run-walk method, like Emily, will breathe a sigh of relief at Coach Dimity's answer to, “Do I need more cardio?” And parents like Peter will be grateful for the advice—and empathy—about getting your teens to stick with running.    The host-duo share smile-inducing sports anecdotes from recent memorial services they each attended before jump into Q&As at about 6:00. Please call 470-BADASS1 (470-223-2771) to record your question, and find the off-season triathlon training programs here.   When you shop our sponsors, you help AMR. We appreciate your—and their—support!   Feel the Currex difference: Get 15% off with code AMR15 at Currex.com   Calm your racing mind: Save 25% at CBDistillery.com with code AMR Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

listener comments? Feedback? Shoot us a text!Proponents of the nepohualtzintzin hail it as a marvel of ancient Mesoamerica. Elevated as a symbol of mathematical sophistication, the device has captured the imagination of scholars and enthusiasts since the 1970s. However, a close examination of the available evidence raises questions about the nature and origin of the nepohualtzintzin. In this episode we dive into the bizarre history of the alleged "Aztec computer." Support the showYour Hosts:Kurly Tlapoyawa is an archaeologist, ethnohistorian, and filmmaker. His research covers Mesoamerica, the American Southwest, and the historical connections between the two regions. He is the author of numerous books and has presented lectures at the University of New Mexico, Harvard University, Yale University, San Diego State University, and numerous others. He most recently released his documentary short film "Guardians of the Purple Kingdom," and is a cultural consultant for Nickelodeon Animation Studios.@kurlytlapoyawaRuben Arellano Tlakatekatl is a scholar, activist, and professor of history. His research explores Chicana/Chicano indigeneity, Mexican indigenist nationalism, and Coahuiltecan identity resurgence. Other areas of research include Aztlan (US Southwest), Anawak (Mesoamerica), and Native North America. He has presented and published widely on these topics and has taught courses at various institutions. He currently teaches history at Dallas College – Mountain View Campus. Find us: Bluesky Instagram Merch: Shop Aztlantis Book: The Four Disagreements: Letting Go of Magical Thinking

Today on the show: Breaking News! We are opening the show with our initial thoughts and discussion around what seems like an assassination of Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organization and joining me is Camilo Perez Bustillo. Also, as we speak, The senate education committee will decide on California Bill AB715. Proponents of the Bill say it fights antisemitism in schools, opponents say it includes stifling of teachers, students and curriculum mentioning Palestine. And we will close the show with Part 1 of a segment about Women Searchers in Mexico. Taking searches into their own hands, literally excavating public and private lands for bodies or personal affects of their loved ones. We talk with a member of The Hasta Encontrarte Collective and of Amnesty International Mexico. The post The Assassination of Right Wing Commentator, Charlie Kirk appeared first on KPFA.

The Trump administration announced that it will withhold $5 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already allocated. The “pocket rescission” is Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought's latest move to give the executive branch control over America's spending. House Democrats call it an unlawful attack on Congress' power of the purse. The Trump administration has also imposed tariffs and selected U.S. attorneys without congressional approval. How can Congress take back its power? Will Democrats and Republicans work together to prevent a shutdown before federal funding runs out at the end of the month? The Johnson Amendment (1954) allowed the IRS to remove tax-exempt status from charitable organizations and churches if they endorsed political candidates. Although some outspoken faith leaders disregarded the rule and received no retribution from the IRS, the Trump administration has now created an official carve-out for churches to endorse candidates and keep their tax-exempt status. Proponents of the Johnson Amendment, like including the 1,000 nonprofits that signed a community letter supporting nonpartisanship, believe that the law prevented churches from becoming political agents manipulated by anonymous donors' tax-free gifts. Others, like the National Religious Broadcasters, say the Johnson Amendment infringed on their First Amendment rights. Will this new leeway degrade the role of churches as nonpartisan centers of community? Third Way, a left-wing think tank, released a memo urging Democrats to leave behind language they believe repels voters. The list includes words such as “privilege,” “systems of oppression,” “birthing person,” and “Latinx.”  The right has expressed disdain with “wokeness” and language policing. Progressives adopted these terms to be more inclusive and empathetic, but are they having the opposite effect?

Project 2025 is not just another policy blueprint; it is a sweeping, meticulously detailed playbook designed to overhaul how the federal government operates, reshape the civil service, and realign American governance along sharply conservative lines. Crafted by the Heritage Foundation with contributions from over 100 coalition partners and released in April 2023, the 927-page document, titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines concrete steps a newly elected Republican president could take starting from day one in office.Proponents of Project 2025 describe it as a plan to “destroy the Administrative State,” targeting what they argue is an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by liberal interests. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it bluntly: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” The vision centralizes control of the entire executive branch, grounding itself in an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory. According to the project's documentation, independence for agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and others would be eliminated. Leadership at these institutions would be swept clean and staffed by presidential loyalists, many of whom could be installed in “acting” roles that bypass Senate confirmation.A key mechanism enabling this transformation is Schedule F, a controversial classification devised to move large numbers of nonpartisan civil servants into at-will positions. Without traditional civil service protections, these employees could be easily removed and replaced with political appointees. Heritage Foundation writers stress that this is essential to secure rapid, loyal implementation of the president's agenda. Critics, however, warn that the move exposes federal government positions to unchecked political influence and undermines the longstanding principle of impartial public service.Listeners may recognize some of these ambitions from earlier efforts under President Trump. This time, Project 2025 comes armed with a detailed 180-day playbook and ready-to-sign executive orders designed to implement change with unprecedented speed. As reported by Government Executive, the plan's first phase has already resulted in the abrupt dissolution of agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, accompanied by mass firings spanning across more than two dozen agencies. Challengers, including federal employee unions like the NTEU, have launched lawsuits, arguing these actions violate long-standing legal protections for government workers.Project 2025 reaches well beyond administrative restructuring. In criminal justice, for example, the document spells out proposals directing the Department of Justice to directly intervene in cases where local prosecutors are viewed as too lenient—potentially removing them from office. The Brennan Center points out that such measures could limit prosecutorial discretion and pressure local officials to abandon reform agendas, particularly in drug or low-level offenses.In the education sphere, the blueprint calls for significant expansion of voucher programs, the empowerment of charter schools, and even the closure of public schools deemed noncompliant with conservative values. Curriculum “censorship” is highlighted as a tool to ensure ideological conformity, and efforts to diminish the role of public education are explicitly connected to broader goals of limiting federal influence at the state and local levels.Reproductive rights are a prominent battleground as well. The project supports creating a national registry to track abortions and calls for nationwide restrictions that leverage statutes like the Comstock Act and reverse FDA approvals of abortion medication.Expert commentary ranges widely on the likely impacts of these reforms. Advocates assert Project 2025 will bring accountability and restore order, claiming decades of bureaucratic drift must be corrected by strong executive leadership. Detractors warn of an “authoritarian presidency,” as noted by the Brennan Center and the ACLU, pointing to risks for democratic norms, the separation of powers, and civil liberties.As the nation watches, key milestones approach. Should a Republican administration prevail in the next election, listeners can expect swift, far-reaching executive actions, many of which are already being tested on a smaller scale in various states. The months ahead promise critical court battles, legislative showdowns, and profound debates about the future of American government.Thank you for tuning in to today's narrative exploration of Project 2025. Join us again next week for more in-depth analysis and vital updates on the changing landscape of American policy and governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 has emerged as one of the most ambitious and controversial blueprints for American governance in recent memory. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations, the project's stated mission is to radically restructure the federal government and centralize executive power, promising what supporters call a return to accountability and efficiency. Critics, meanwhile, warn of its sweeping threats to democratic norms, federal checks and balances, and the livelihoods of millions.Unveiled in the form of a 900-page manifesto titled “Mandate for Leadership,” Project 2025 provides granular directions, agency by agency, for an incoming administration determined to overhaul how Washington operates. According to the Heritage Foundation, the “heart of the project” is dismantling what they label as an unaccountable bureaucracy that has “drifted too far from the people's will.” Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, bluntly declared, “All federal employees should answer to the president.” This vision is animated by an expansive concept known as the unitary executive theory, essentially arguing that the president should have direct control over all executive branch agencies, shedding their current independence.For listeners wondering about concrete changes, consider the plan for the Department of State. Project 2025 advocates for the wholesale removal of agency leadership officials before Inauguration Day, replacing them with individuals hand-picked for strict ideological alignment. Kiron Skinner, who penned the State Department chapter, envisioned a department led exclusively by loyalists, aiming to “remove those not aligned with the president's priorities.” This move is designed not just to hasten the implementation of foreign policy goals, but to prevent bureaucratic resistance—a key grievance among the plan's authors.Just as striking is Project 2025's approach to the federal workforce. Its architects call for the resurrection and expansion of “Schedule F,” a controversial employment status for federal employees. Schedule F would classify hundreds of thousands—if not more—career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of longstanding job protections. The stated goal is a government “purged of entrenched opposition” so that “key decisions reflect the president's will on day one.” Critics like the National Federation of Federal Employees describe this as a “scheme to purge career professionals,” warning it would turn public administration into a partisan machine vulnerable to corruption.The plan doesn't stop at restructuring government jobs. Project 2025 lays out a 180-day playbook, which includes ready-to-sign executive orders to immediately strip environmental regulations, curb civil rights protections, and overhaul social welfare programs. According to the Center for Progressive Reform, executive actions under this strategy have already targeted the rollback of climate rules, weakened worker safety standards, and eliminated agencies altogether. The swift elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Board and US Agency for International Development, as documented by Government Executive, was meant to signal a new era of “government efficiency” but resulted in “widespread layoffs and institutional chaos.”Project 2025's policy ambitions also extend to social issues. In its blueprint, it calls for curtailing access to abortion, undoing LGBTQ protections, and limiting federal action on racial equity. The ACLU describes these proposals as “an unprecedented rollback of civil rights and liberties,” comparing their scope to a rewriting of American society's basic fabric.Proponents lay claim to a mandate from voters frustrated by government gridlock and what they see as bureaucratic overreach. Opponents counter that this is not reform but a consolidation of power. Legal experts from across the spectrum worry that such an agenda could collapse the traditional American barrier between politics and administration, risking both the appearance and the reality of authoritarian rule.Several milestones now lie ahead. With ongoing lawsuits from labor unions and scrutiny by watchdog groups, the coming months promise court battles and congressional hearings over Project 2025's legality and impact. Congressional Republicans and administration officials are preparing for rapid implementation, while a coalition of civil rights organizations and some lawmakers are vowing organized resistance.The stakes for American governance have rarely been higher. Whether Project 2025 becomes a historical footnote or a defining blueprint for the future will depend on political will, legal battles, and the choices made in the next critical year.Thanks for tuning in to this week's deep dive. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is reshaping the conversation about the role and reach of the federal government in ways that feel both sweeping and personal. Born from the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” this 900-plus-page policy blueprint divides nearly every federal agency and department into zones of targeted reform, all aimed at what its architects call “destroying the administrative state.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts summed up the mood behind it simply, declaring that “every federal employee should answer to the president.” That principle, experts say, guides the project's plans to consolidate power at the top and move swiftly on a series of executive moves from day one.The scale of intended change is hard to overstate. Project 2025 outlines an operational playbook for the first 180 days of a new Republican administration. Its centerpiece is Schedule F—a government job classification that would allow the new president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as at-will political appointees. That means federal workers, who traditionally hold their positions regardless of party, could be replaced without cause by loyalists. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, suggested clearing out senior career officials before January 20 and quickly installing appointees who share the president's views, bypassing regular Senate confirmation requirements. Skinner argues such moves are necessary to ensure ideological alignment, though when pressed by CNN's Peter Bergen, she couldn't cite a specific past obstruction by career diplomats.Concrete actions have followed rhetoric. When President Trump took office on January 20, he and Elon Musk's newly minted Department of Government Efficiency hit the ground running. According to Government Executive and other outlets, entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID were targeted for elimination through “legally questionable means,” with the stated goal of cutting $1 trillion in spending. Executive orders soon followed, including one mandating that federal agencies may only hire one worker for every four who leave, and requiring return-to-office mandates for a federal workforce that had grown accustomed to remote work during the pandemic.Faced with the threat of losing job protections, over a quarter-million federal workers and contractors were facing layoffs by spring 2025, with forty-seven years of collective bargaining law challenged as unions raced to court. NTEU President Doreen Greenwald put it bluntly, calling it “an attack on the law, and on public service.” Opposition isn't limited to labor groups. The ACLU has charged that Project 2025 is a “roadmap to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals,” warning that the proposals could undermine legal norms, civil rights, and protections for marginalized groups. Legal scholars from both political parties have raised flags about weakening the separation of powers, endangering environmental and public health safeguards, and risking consolidated, unchecked executive authority.Proponents are equally resolute. They argue that Project 2025 is a necessary corrective to what they view as a bloated, left-leaning bureaucracy unaccountable to the people. Heritage Foundation materials frame the federal government as too large, too costly, and resistant to the priorities of conservative Americans. They cite the sheer scale—over 2.4 million civilian federal employees—and the proliferation of agencies as drivers for dramatic consolidation and workforce reductions.Specific policy proposals go beyond personnel. The project seeks to reset environmental rules, roll back climate policies, and overhaul protections related to health, education, and civil rights. Critics, including groups like the Center for Progressive Reform, warn that these policies will lead to significant negative effects for ordinary Americans—from loss of workplace and environmental protections to sharp changes in immigration enforcement and reproductive rights.As the summer of 2025 progresses, listeners should watch several key milestones. Court cases brought by federal employee unions and advocacy groups could set vital precedents for the separation of powers. Agency heads are evaluating which departments could be merged or eliminated entirely in accordance with new directives. Congress, too, will play an uncertain but pivotal role as many Project 2025 reforms require new legislation or appropriations. Meanwhile, a country already polarized by election-year tensions is bracing for the long-term consequences of this radical experiment in federal power.Thank you for tuning in to this week's deep dive into Project 2025's ambitions and realities. Be sure to come back next week for more crucial stories shaping the nation.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Greg Bishop shares some of the debate around President Donald Trump's executive order ending federal tax funds for cashless bail policies like Illinois' and the push back from proponents of the state's Pretrial Fairness Act.

Real Ice, a UK based start-up, has been on the forefront of exploring the viability of this new technology. Aqua Freezing involves drilling holes through sea ice to pump out the sea water below and refreeze it on the surface. Once the water freezes, it thickens existing ice to the surface. Adding snow insulation in late winter is expected to help ice persist through summer melts, thereby reducing the risk of a "Blue Ocean Event." This solution targets climate change by maintaining Arctic ice cover, which can stabilize local ecosystems and moderate global climate impacts. If the project is successful, it is projected to postpone the loss of ice caps by approximately 17 years for each year this is completed. For every four feet of water pumped onto the surface, it is projected that the ice will cover around 3 feet. The Decline of Arctic Sea IceAs climate change heightens temperatures and alters climatic conditions, summer sea ice in the Arctic is melting rapidly. By the mid 2030s, it is predicted that a “Blue Ocean Event” (or BOE) will occur, meaning that the Arctic Ocean is expected to have less than one million square kilometers of sea ice. This equates to just 15% of the Arctic's seasonal minimum ice cover of the late 1970s. As ice continues to melt, more of the ocean will be exposed to the sun's rays, thus absorbing more heat and accelerating warming. The Arctic has warmed four times faster than the rest of the world since 1979, largely due to this positive feedback loop known as Arctic amplification. Since the 1980s, the amount of Arctic sea ice has declined by approximately 13% each decade. As the BOE unfolds, it will trigger significant impacts, including droughts, heatwaves, accelerated thawing of terrestrial permafrost (releasing emissions in the process), and sea level rise. The Arctic plays a critical role in climate stabilization by acting as a large reflective surface, helping to cool the planet and maintain a stable global temperature. The BOE is thus a major climatic tipping point with catastrophic global consequences. A new methodology has been proposed to protect and restore Arctic sea ice known as Aqua Freezing. This approach uses renewable energy-powered pumps to distribute seawater on existing Arctic ice, allowing it to refreeze and thicken, helping to maintain climatic stability.The plan aims to target over 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice, an area larger than California. The process of refreezing already shows promise in field tests conducted over the past two years in Alaska and Canada. Proponents of refreezing Arctic sea ice believe that this technique would buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb the impacts of climate change. Refreezing ice would also preserve the albedo effect, which reflects sunlight back into space, preventing warming. Although AquaFreezing offers a potential solution to combat Arctic melting, scientists and policymakers doubt whether sea ice can be grown over a long enough period to make a true difference in the climate crisis. Further, the project is quite costly, equating to over 5 trillion dollars and demanding more steel than the US produces in a single year. The project would require 10 million pumps; however, this would only cover 10% of the Arctic Ocean's roughly 4 million square mile size. To cover the entire area would require 100 million pumps and roughly 100 million tons of steel each year. The US currently produces around 80 to 90 million tons of steel a year, so covering just 10% of Arctic ice would require 13% of US steel production. The production required for the project could lead to immense environmental degradation and added emissions in the process.  About Our GuestSimon Woods, co-founder and Executive Chairperson of Real Ice, is hopeful that this solution will buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb climate change. Real Ice believes this innovative solution can preserve sea ice and thus work to combat climate change. ResourcesArctic News, Blue Ocean EventCNN, A controversial plan to refreeze the Arctic is seeing promising results. But scientists warn of big risksRealIce, Introducing AquaFreezing: Encouraging the natural process of Arctic sea ice generation.Smithsonian Magazine, Arctic Could Be Sea Ice-Free in the Summer by the 2030sSustainability Times, Controversial Arctic Refreezing Plan Shows Promise, but Risks RemainWarp Notes, They are developing a technology to restore sea ice in the ArcticFurther ReadingYoutube, Scientists' Crazy Plan To Refreeze The ArcticFor a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/real-ice-with-simon-woods/.

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.Featuring:Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

"It opened up something in me that needed to be opened and needed to heal," says Elizabeth Russell, a teacher and librarian from the US state of Connecticut. She was going through a rough patch in life when she found bibliotherapy. Bibliotherapy is the use of literature to support people with mental health and wellbeing issues. The benefits of non-fiction, self-help books are well documented – results from 'A meta‐analysis of bibliotherapy studies' suggest this type of bibliotherapy can help with conditions such as anxiety and depression – but what about fiction?“它打开了我内心的东西，需要打开并需要康复，”美国康涅狄格州的老师和图书馆员伊丽莎白·罗素说。 当她发现书目疗法时，她正在经历一段艰难的生活。 书目疗法是使用文献来支持患有心理健康和福祉问题的人。 非小说类，自助书籍的好处是有充分记录的 - “书目疗法研究的荟萃分析”的结果表明，这种类型的书目疗法可以帮助焦虑和抑郁等疾病 - 但是小说呢？'Creative bibliotherapy' may have similar advantages. Ella Berthoud, well-known bibliotherapist and author of The Novel Cure calls it 'the art of prescribing fiction for life's ailments'. But how does it work? If you were to go to Ella for help, she'd start with a consultation. Then, she says, "I will guide you to books that put a finger on feelings you may often have had, but perhaps never clearly understood before." Proponents of creative bibliotherapy say that immersing oneself in a good book can help readers process emotions, discover coping strategies or even just provide some escapism from life's stresses.“创意书目”可能具有类似的优势。 著名的书本治疗师，小说《治愈》的作者埃拉·伯特德（Ella Berthoud）称其为“为生命疾病开出小说的艺术”。 但是它如何工作？ 如果您要去Ella寻求帮助，她将从咨询开始。 然后，她说：“我将指导您的书籍，这些书对您可能经常有过的感受，但也许以前从未清楚地理解过。” 富有创造力的书目疗法的支持者说，沉浸在一本好书中可以帮助读者处理情感，发现应对策略，甚至只是从生活压力中提供了一些逃避现实。But some experts worry the benefits of creative bibliotherapy are overhyped. Studies suggest reading may improve things such as empathy and self-confidence, but in terms of treating specific mental health conditions, the evidence is weak. Some stories may even cause harm, particularly if they trigger or reinforce the negative feelings someone wants to escape. It seems bibliotherapy is best used in conjunction with other therapies, rather than as a substitute.但是有些专家担心创意书目疗法的好处被夸大了。 研究表明，阅读可能会改善诸如同理心和自信之类的事情，但是在治疗特定的心理健康状况方面，证据很弱。 有些故事甚至可能造成伤害，特别是如果它们触发或增强人们想要逃脱的负面情绪。 似乎最好的疗法与其他疗法结合使用，而不是替代品。In the UK, the Reading Agency's Reading Well programme helps people manage their health and wellbeing with books. The books are recommended by health experts and people with lived experience of the topics covered. But, the organisation's head of health and wellbeing, Gemma Jolly, understands that it's "not a one size fits all." She says, "It's about having an additional tool that might work for some people." Will you give bibliotherapy a go?在英国，阅读机构的阅读井计划可帮助人们通过书籍来管理自己的健康和福祉。 这些书是由健康专家和具有涵盖主题经验的人们推荐的。 但是，该组织的健康和福祉负责人，杰玛·乔利（Gemma Jolly）知道，这“不适合所有人”。 她说：“这是关于拥有可能对某些人有用的额外工具。” 您会尝试一下书目疗法吗？

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p 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

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p

With Saudi recognition of Israel off the table, pro-Israeli and Israeli pundits and far-right and conservative pro-Israel groups in the United States are pushing the kingdom to become an aggressive regional player in Israel's mould. The pundits and groups want Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to abandon his de-escalation policy, including the kingdom's fragile freezing of its differences with Iran, and to reignite his ill-fated 2015 military campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen that sparked one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Proponents of a Saudi Arabia, that like Israel would impose its will with military force, believe that a more assertive kingdom would allow Israel to outsource its fight with the Houthis, revive the notion of an Israeli-Gulf anti-Iran and anti-Turkey alliance, help Saudi Arabia resolve differences with the United Arab Emirates, Israel's best Arab friend, and potentially give the possibility of Saudi recognition of Israel and a key role in post-war Gaza a new lease on life. To garner support among US administration hawks and President Donald J. Trump's isolationist Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base, the pundits and conservative think tanks argue that Saudi Arabia's de-escalation policy and informal ceasefire with the Houthis have enabled rebel missile attacks against Israel and US naval vessels and commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Welcome to the Grace in Focus podcast. Today, Bob Wilkin and David Renfro are answering a suggestion that perhaps free grace proponents use John 20:31 to prove that John is the only evangelistic book inthe Bible. How is proof texting used correctly and/or erroneously? What part does intent and context play in determining meaning? Thanks

Twenty-four states allow community and technical colleges to issue bachelors degrees. Proponents argue that these programs are tightly aligned to workforce needs, more affordable, and meet the needs of people who live far or otherwise can't attend a university. Critics are concerned about the quality of education, financing these programs, and competing for enrollment with nearby universities. Guests Dr. Debra Bragg, Jim Reed, and Sunaina Virendra talk through these issue and discuss recent efforts to launch new community college baccalaureate programs.

Proponents of offal-eating point out that it's just polite to use every part of a beast we've killed .... it's really the least we can doIt's cheap, it's nutritious, it's full of protein - so why are we still steering away from eating every part of the animal, including offalOne of Hannah Miller Childs' go-to bar snacks is chicken hearts."A bit of mustard, you can eat it with a toothpick," she says.You could also chop it up, add it into mince and make it a full nutritious meal.Adding offal to mince in government school lunches last week hit the headlines because parents hadn't been warned it was coming…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Canada's chief science adviser is recommending that the federal government start tracking information about bizarre sightings in the sky, whether they're Chinese balloons or even UFOs. Proponents, such as researcher Chris Rutkowski, believe that keeping track will allow us to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the upper atmosphere.

Proponents of Artificial Intelligence assure us that everything in life is about to change: Work, education, healthcare, art, and even how we remember our loved ones. But what role can AI actually play in alleviating psychological and emotional suffering, especially when a parent loses a child? Welcome to the mind of author Jayson Greene, who penned the celebrated memoir Once More We Saw Stars back in 2019 after the tragic loss of his daughter Greta, and who's very familiar with how opportunistic companies position AI technology as a solution to avoid feeling the pain of grief and loss. On this episode of Paternal, Greene discusses the AI themes in his debut sci-fi novel UnWorld,  how he's faring 10 years after the death of his daughter, what he's learned about how men connect over grief, and what it's like to receive DMs from strangers who have lost their child. He also examines how he and his wife Stacy dealt with grief differently in the wake of Greta's death, and why he often wonders what kind of person he has become after losing her. Greene previously appeared on Episode No. 38 of Paternal back in 2020.

Project 2025 represents a seismic attempt to reshape the machinery of American governance, guided by a philosophy that seeks to place virtually all executive power directly under presidential control. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and an alliance of over a hundred conservative organizations, its centerpiece is the “Mandate for Leadership,” a massive policy playbook published in 2023 designed to act as the transition manual for a potential new administration following the 2024 election.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to “destroy the Administrative State,” meaning it aims to strip federal agencies of much of their independence and dismantle what its authors claim are layers of unaccountable and biased bureaucracy. Proponents, such as Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, argue that “all federal employees should answer to the president,” encapsulating the project's vision of a centralized, powerful executive branch. To achieve this, Project 2025 recommends the widespread dismissal of current senior officials across agencies like the Department of State—and their immediate replacement with individuals selected for their loyalty and ideological alignment, bypassing traditional Senate confirmation hurdles.One of the most controversial levers in the playbook is the resurrection of Schedule F, a proposed employment classification that would allow the president to convert career civil servants into at-will employees, stripping them of long-standing job protections. This maneuver would, according to its critics, allow the White House to purge thousands of nonpartisan officials and replace them with political loyalists—an approach described in detail by advocacy outlets and union leaders as a recipe for “political overreach or abuse of power."The document's scope spans 30 federal departments, each with a dedicated chapter and specific 180-day action plans—right down to pre-drafted executive orders waiting for a president's signature on inauguration day. Concrete proposals include eliminating entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID, mass layoffs affecting hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and strict mandates requiring employees to return to office buildings, often ignoring remote work policies established during the pandemic. Since January 2025, the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has acted on this blueprint with remarkable speed, eliminating agencies and laying off more than 280,000 federal employees and contractors across 27 agencies in just a few months.In terms of social policy, Project 2025 is unmistakably ambitious. The playbook calls for aggressive curbs on abortion rights, restrictions on LGBTQ protections, and a reversal of progress regarding racial and immigrant rights. Critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union warn that these measures, if implemented, could erode civil liberties and tip the balance of American governance toward an “imperial presidency.” Legal scholars, as referenced by Wikipedia, raise alarms that this model risks undermining the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the independence of key regulatory and law enforcement bodies.Supporters, however, frame these moves as an overdue correction. Kiron Skinner, author of the State Department chapter, claims the agency is overrun by left-leaning officials and needs a leadership overhaul favoring those loyal to a conservative president, though she famously could not cite specific examples of deliberate obstruction during her tenure when pressed in a 2024 interview.The latest developments underscore both the swiftness and controversy with which Project 2025 is moving forward. President Trump's administration is already well underway in executing its most dramatic provisions, facing a slew of lawsuits from federal employee unions and advocacy groups. The legal and partisan battles that loom will determine whether this vision of governance—marked by centralization, sweeping personnel changes, and redefined federal agency missions—becomes a new American reality or stalls amid constitutional challenges and public resistance.Listeners, thank you for tuning in to this deep dive into Project 2025. Stay with us next week for more analysis and updates on the future of American governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025, championed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative organizations, has become one of the most ambitious and controversial policy blueprints in contemporary American politics. Its authors envision a sweeping reconstruction of federal power, “placing the federal government's entire executive branch under direct presidential control,” as Heritage president Kevin Roberts has openly declared. The plan's backbone is a robust endorsement of the unitary executive theory, which grants unprecedented authority to the president, superseding the traditional independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, FBI, and the Federal Communications Commission. Roberts insists, “All federal employees should answer to the president,” reflecting a philosophy that would uproot decades of precedent regarding agency autonomy.The heart of Project 2025 lies in its plan to replace thousands of federal officials with ideologically vetted loyalists. It recommends dismissing nearly all senior State Department employees prior to Inauguration Day and filling those roles with temporary leaders who, notably, do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who contributed to the project's State Department chapter, has been candid in critiquing existing personnel as “too left-wing,” advocating for a transformation in which “those more loyal to a conservative president” would fill the ranks.This push for centralized authority is not just theoretical. Since January 20, under the Trump administration and the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, Project 2025's playbook has begun to reshape the bureaucracy. Entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID, have been eliminated or gutted through unprecedented executive actions. Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. reports that approximately 280,253 federal workers and contractors have either been laid off or face imminent dismissal. This seismic reduction affects at least 27 agencies and is touted as part of an effort to save $1 trillion.Specific policy objectives underscore the project's breadth. In criminal justice, the blueprint advises that the Department of Justice intervene aggressively in local prosecutions deemed insufficiently tough, even seeking to remove elected district attorneys who decline to prosecute certain crimes. The document urges that “the DOJ should remove local DAs who ‘deny American citizens the ‘equal protection of the laws' by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions.'” This would deter local prosecutors from pursuing alternative justice models, such as drug treatment instead of incarceration, under threat of federal override. Additionally, Project 2025 advocates expanding federal law enforcement's reach into local affairs, particularly in areas where local policy diverges from its agenda.Environmental and labor policies are equally targeted. The Center for Progressive Reform notes that Project 2025 is tracking executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that the rapid rollout of these initiatives is already producing “devastating consequences for workers, the environment, public health, and the rights of millions of Americans.” The real-time rollback of environmental and public safety regulations has become a flashpoint in states nationwide, as advocates sound alarms over declining protections and oversight.The implications of Project 2025 ripple far beyond administrative reshuffling. Critics argue that the project's zeal for efficiency and loyalty risks hollowing out institutional expertise, weakening checks and balances, and unsettling the rule of law. Proponents, however, see it as a necessary correction—streamlining government, empowering the president, and ensuring a coherent, values-driven administration.As these reforms surge forward, the coming months and years will test both the legal and cultural boundaries of executive power. With tens of thousands of jobs on the line, agency missions in flux, and contentious legal battles unfolding, one thing is certain: Project 2025 has set the stage for a fundamental clash over the future of American governance.Thank you for tuning in. Please come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Today, Sun outdoors reporter Jason Blevins reviews the myriad of policy changes and proposals coming out of D.C. that focus on public lands and how advocates across the outdoor industry are uniting to fight back. Read more: https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/24/gop-plan-to-sell-more-than-3200-square-miles-of-federal-lands-is-found-to-violate-senate-rules/ https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/23/roadless-rule-reversal-colorado-federal-lands/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sources:Salon: Deliberative democracy: Sounds boring — but it just might save usStanford: Could deliberative democracy depolarize America? Stanford scholars think so"Pedagogy or Programming? The Moral Case for Managed Consensus"Let's imagine a generous reading of the deliberative democracy project—the one where Fishkin, Diamond, and maybe even Sommer Gentry aren't scheming puppetmasters in a Stanford-branded lab, but earnest physicians treating a sick body politic.Under this view, deliberative democracy isn't a tool for reeducation—it's triage. It's not an escape room for the politically deficient—it's a refuge from the algorithmic inferno we've all been sleepwalking through. In an age where outrage is currency, and consensus is suspect, maybe creating a safe, structured space for pluralism isn't authoritarian. Maybe it's necessary.You could say: the experiment is the antidote.Yes, it smells paternalistic. Yes, it looks like programming. But look around—everything is programming now. TikTok. YouTube. Fox. MSNBC. Ragebait thumbnails and weaponized empathy loops. If every click already reshapes the public, maybe deliberative democracy is just counter-programming. If Stanford's behavioral nudges are a velvet cage, then Twitter is a behavioral meat grinder.So what if we flip the script?What if nudging isn't coercion but a moral obligation—when the civic arena is already saturated with weaponized behavioral design? What if using color revolution tactics on ourselves is a kind of inoculation, a way to protect a pluralistic republic from its own digital autoimmune disorders?In this reading, the voter is not a rat. They're a patient.Deliberative polling becomes a kind of democratic dialysis—filtering out toxins, restoring cognitive function, creating political coherence where before there was only tribal signal boosting and reactive posturing. The empathy isn't manufactured—it's restored. The shift in views isn't coerced—it's coaxed, slowly, gently, through conversation, not confrontation.Critics call this infantilizing. Proponents might say: it's an ethical reframing of political adulthood. Because maybe treating everyone like sovereign, fully autonomous agents in a weaponized information ecosystem is like sending 5th graders into a casino full of con men and propaganda booths.What if we do need a little civic scaffolding? What if treating voters as “electoral minors” is only condescending if you ignore the asymmetry of information warfare they're up against?After all, behavioral economics already reshaped how we shop, save, eat, and vote. What Fishkin offers is a version of that power used openly, accountably, and (in theory) neutrally.And then there's the global precedent. Europe runs citizens' assemblies. Mongolia runs constitutional deliberation weekends. Ireland used civic panels to move toward marriage equality. Even China, in places like Zeguo Township, has invited deliberative budgeting into its opaque governance layers. If managed consensus is such a dangerous tool, it's strange that even authoritarian-adjacent regimes deploy it to stabilize and legitimize policy, not to eradicate dissent.Of course, the danger isn't in deliberation—it's in believing deliberation immunizes you from power's corruptions. Paternalism always thinks it's helping. But in moments of fracture, triage can feel tyrannical to those who didn't choose the treatment.Still, if we believe democracy is more than mere arithmetic—if it is, in fact, a moral and epistemic project—then maybe we owe it to ourselves to create rituals of reason, however artificial they may initially seem.Deliberative democracy might not be perfect. But it could be the only operating table we have left before the patient flatlines.

Saturday, 21 June 2025   and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Matthew 11:3   “...they said to Him, ‘You, You are ‘the coming,' or do another we anticipate?” (CG).   In the previous verse, it noted that John the Baptist had heard about Jesus' works in prison and sent two of his disciples. Now, it notes that “they said to Him, “You, You are ‘the Coming?'”   One can see the emphatic nature of his question, directly speaking to Jesus with the pronoun su, You, followed by the verb which repeats the thought, You are. John's question about “the Coming” suggests nothing other than the anticipated Messiah. However, it is debated what he is referring to. Several general suggestions are –   * His faith is failing, and he is wondering if his original thoughts concerning Jesus were incorrect. * He has heard of the works of Jesus and is not sure if this is the same Person he baptized. * His disciples need to know that He is the Messiah, and so he sent them to confirm to them that this is the One. * He is trying to spur Jesus to make his proclamation that He is, in fact, the Messiah.   Proponents of these, and various other scenarios, state their reasons for their view. As for John's words, they continue with, “or do another we anticipate?”   The word prosdokaó, to anticipate, is introduced. This anticipation can be in thought, in waiting, in hope, in fear, etc. It is derived from pros, to or toward, and dokeuo, to watch. It is as if someone is leaning forward intently, watching for their anticipation to arrive or materialize. What John asks about concerning this anticipation is “another.”   Here he uses the word héteros, another, but of a distinct kind. The word állos, another of the same kind, is not used. John has heard of the works of the Christ. Hearing of them, he is now confused. The works of Jesus have been clearly presented to him, something Jesus will confirm in His response to John. Jesus' response will imply that He knows John is already aware of those things.   Therefore, John is not questioning his faith in Jesus. He would know full well that this is the same Person he baptized. His disciples also already know He is the proclaimed Messiah. John could have saved them the effort and just reminded them of this.   This is especially so because John 1 records that two of John's disciples heard his words and followed Jesus. The fact was already known and established. There is no reason to assume that John is trying to spur Jesus to proclaim that He is the Messiah. If that were so, Jesus would have responded as He did with His mother, saying that His hour had not yet come.   The use of “the Christ” in the previous verse could have been substituted with “Jesus.” If that were the case, one could assume John was questioning Jesus as the Christ. The use of the word heteros, another of a different kind, is telling us that John is thinking of another Person who will come to do other types of things for Israel, including securing his release from prison as Isaiah prophesied.   John is turning inward just as Elijah and Jeremiah did. He has temporarily misunderstood that God's plans may not include his personal comfort or happiness, and he is wondering if someone else would be coming to fulfill the prophecies that Jesus is clearly leaving unfulfilled. Jesus' response to his petition will confirm this.   Life application: How often do we hear of people prophesying healing, financial breakthrough, the date of the rapture, and so forth? These utterances are complete fabrications without any biblical support for their words. And yet, these are the most popular types of promises, and those who make them generally will have many followers.   Even when their words don't come true, they will just make up more promises and keep stringing people along. Why does this happen? The answer is that people want to be reassured that their suffering will end. They want to be reassured that their financial woes will be remedied. They want release from the pains, trials, and demands of this life and so they listen to rapture predictors who will give them words of exit into eternal bliss.   This is the human condition. It is not limited to Christianity. This is why there are astrologists, horoscope teachers, palm readers, and ear ticklers in any religion around the world. People want something to meet their expectations, and so they will go to any length to obtain words that will provide an acceptable answer to what they seek.   The Bible does not tell us when the rapture will happen. The Bible does not tell us that we can be healed of afflictions by a call from the pulpit. If you want to get out of your financial woes and alleviate your hunger, the Bible tells you to be industrious and work for it (see 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and spend time in the Proverbs).   God does not promise you a life of ease while here on earth. In fact, we can expect the opposite (John 16:33, etc.). God promises us forgiveness of sins and eternal fellowship with Him when we call on Jesus. Until we are brought to Him at the resurrection/rapture, everything else may be good or it may be bad. We have to accept this and press on in the hope of His future promises. Be sure to have this attitude. When you do, you will avoid many mental pitfalls.   Lord God, help us to keep our focus on Jesus as we walk through this difficult and trial-filled world. May we remember to thank You for each blessing we receive, and may we be faithful to not charge You with wrong when difficult times come. Help us to have this attitude until that great Day when we are finally brought to You when Jesus calls. Amen.  

It was the morning after the recent British Sauna Summit in London. Stig Arild Pettersen Secretary General of the Norwegian Sauna Association and I meet up at London's Hackney Baths, which is a perfect backdrop for us to discuss the “Badstu Boom” taking place in Norway and the US. As part of his Secretary General role, Stig heads up the Norweigen version of Sauna Talk – Badstuprat, a title gently borrowed from yours truly and this program. From Britain and beyond Britain, having their own “brilliant” bathing renaissance, drew both Stig from the East and me from the West for the Sauna Summit. Our Sauna Talk podcast on the bench dives into the comparing and contrasting of sauna culture in each of our countries. And within hours of this recording, I flung my backpack over my shoulder to fly from London to Oslo to experience the Badstu boom myself. And, there's something wonderful about talking about a countries sauna boom, then touching down within hours and hitting the bench with some fellow sauna nuts in their native land. Stig and I are kindred spirits on several levels. Proponents of good heat, and positive vibrations of a culture reinventing and rediscovering itself. As example, there are pockets in North America where sauna has been woven into the tapestry for generations – places like the Upper Peninsula Michigan, Northern Minnesota, Thunder Bay Ontario – all places where “the big three” 1. ethnic migration, four distinct seasons, natural cold water elements abound. Norwegian Sauna Association But back to Norway. Stig and I discuss how sauna, badstu is in the DNA of all Norweigens. Like in Finland, a hop skip and jump over Sweden to the East, sauna action can be anthropologically documented back thousands of years. One look at the photos of Norweigen Sauna Association board members – young smiling healthy faces – and you get a flavor of who is helping bolster the Badstu boom. And for me, these are the kind of people I am very comfortable with sharing the sauna bench, and beyond. Lasse Eriksen, with a full page sauna resume and two time guest to Sauna Talk, Ragna Marie Fjeld, Secretary General Oslo Sauna Association, Knut Lerhol – if beers weren't $12 a piece in Norway, and a rental car the equivalent of a monthly salary, well, Norway would be a place to spend a month between 180f. and cold water fjord cold plunges. The Sauna Talk Global series continues.. Good heat knows no borders. And on the bench from London, let's welcome Stig from Norway, special guest hello with Mark from Great Britain, and yours truly from the United States.

207: DO YOU KNOW THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF AN ALKALINE DIET? Proponents claim it can help with a variety of health conditions, so today we are going over what those are, what foods to eat on an alkaline diet, and what foods to avoid. As always, if you have any questions for the show please email us at digestthispod@gmail.com.  And if you like this show, please share it, rate it, review it and subscribe to it on your favorite podcast app.  Sponsored By: Fatty15 | For 15% off the starter kit go to fatty15.com/digest BIOptimizers | Go to bioptimizers.com/digest and use code: DIGEST for 10% off Check Out Bethany: Bethany's Instagram: @lilsipper YouTube Bethany's Website Discounts & My Favorite Products My Digestive Support Protein Powder Gut Reset Book  Get my Newsletters (Friday Finds)

This lecture explores the role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. constitutional system, focusing primarily on the concept of judicial review, which allows the Court to invalidate laws and actions that conflict with the Constitution. It traces the development of this power, notably through the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, and discusses the limitations on the Court's authority, such as case or controversy jurisdiction and specific doctrines like standing and ripeness. The lecture also examines various methods of constitutional interpretation, including originalism and living constitutionalism, highlights key Supreme Court decisions, and analyzes the Court's relationship with other branches of government. Finally, it touches upon ongoing debates surrounding the judiciary, such as judicial activism versus restraint and the politicization of appointments, and mentions some proposed reforms.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of judicial review in the U.S., emphasizing its foundational role in constitutional law. It explores the historical context, landmark cases, and the interplay between the Supreme Court and other branches of government. The discussion also delves into ongoing debates about the court's role, including judicial activism versus restraint, and potential reforms to the judicial system.TakeawaysJudicial review is the authority of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts and executive actions and to invalidate them if they conflict with the Constitution. This power maintains the Constitution's supremacy.In Marbury versus Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that it is the duty of the judicial department to interpret the law, and when a law conflicts with the Constitution, the courts must uphold the Constitution as the superior law.Case or controversy jurisdiction requires the Supreme Court to only decide actual disputes between adverse parties. It prevents the Court from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on hypothetical questions.The standing doctrine requires that a party bringing a case have a concrete, particularized injury directly caused by the defendant's conduct and redressable by the court. It prevents courts from hearing generalized grievances.Originalism focuses on interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning at the time it was adopted. Proponents believe this constrains judicial discretion and preserves the text's fixed meaning.Living constitutionalism views the Constitution as a dynamic document that evolves to reflect changing societal values and conditions, ensuring it remains relevant to modern challenges. Originalism, in contrast, emphasizes historical meaning.Martin versus Hunter's Lessee established the Supreme Court's appellate authority over state court decisions involving federal law, ensuring uniform interpretation of federal law across the states.Cooper versus Aaron declared that state officials are bound by the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations and cannot defy its decisions, underscoring the supremacy of federal constitutional law.United States versus Nixon affirmed that the judiciary has the authority to resolve constitutional disputes involving the executive branch and ordered President Nixon to comply with a subpoena, demonstrating that no one, including the President, is above the law.The Supreme Court lacks the power of the purse or sword and relies on the political branches and the public to comply with its rulings. Public acceptance and institutional legitimacy are crucial for its effectiveness and ability to enforce its decisions.Understanding the Supreme Court and judicial review is essential for constitutional law.Judicial review allows courts to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution.Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review.The power of judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.Federal courts can only hear actual cases or

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.  They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions.  Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation.  The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions.  However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement.  The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government's behavior toward non-parties.Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country.  Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s.  Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand.  Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making.  These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class.The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship.  Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies.  He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Social justice activist Celedon files paperwork for 2026 Assembly run Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Social justice activist Celedon files paperwork for 2026 Assembly run Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ’s Afternoon Drive Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram --- Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of. The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.”  Watch this episode https://www.youtube.com/live/sww0QMst_SY-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/ http://tstradio.info/https://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.com EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of.  The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.” *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/https://x.com/TST___Radio https://www.facebook.com/thesecretteachingshttps://www.youtube.com/@TSTRadioOfficialhttp://tstradio.infohttps://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives: Reality TV's Effect on Public Perception of LDS WomenWith the return of 'The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives' for its second season on Disney Plus, the series continues to be a lightning rod for discussions about the portrayal of Mormon women in the media. The show, which follows the lives of several affluent women in Utah, blends elements of reality TV drama with explorations of cultural and religious themes. This combination has proven both captivating and contentious, as audiences grapple with the implications of such portrayals for the wider perception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Proponents of the series suggest that it offers a rare glimpse into a unique cultural milieu, shedding light on the complexities and contradictions that characterize the lives of its protagonists. However, critics caution that the show's focus on sensationalized storylines and exaggerated personas risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes and overshadowing the genuine contributions of Mormon women to their communities and beyond. As viewers tune in to witness the unfolding narratives, they are also prompted to reflect on the broader societal forces at play in the construction and consumption of media representations. Through its blend of entertainment and cultural commentary, 'The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives' challenges audiences to consider the ways in which media shapes our understanding of faith, identity, and the diverse tapestry of human experience.⏱️⏱️VIDEO CHAPTERS⏱️⏱️:00:00:00 - Introduction to 'The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives'00:02:06 - Reactions to the New Season Trailer00:03:54 - Reality TV and Its Impact on Perception00:05:50 - Criticism of Stereotypes in Media00:07:41 - Exploring the Show's Portrayal of Women00:09:32 - Cultural Representation in Reality Shows00:11:26 - Hollywood's Exploitation of Mormon Culture00:13:28 - Positive Aspects of Church Community Work00:15:21 - Empowerment Through Church Initiatives00:17:17 - Drama and Conflict in Reality TV00:19:17 - Soda Shops and Utah's Unique Culture00:21:10 - Behind the Scenes of 'Mormon Wives'00:23:07 - Public Reactions and Cultural Commentary00:25:03 - Personal Reflections on Fame and Privacy00:26:57 - Final Thoughts and Future Expectations

"The future can be seen" was the tagline of 2002 dystopian cop thriller Minority Report, in which Tom Cruise prevented crimes yet to take place with the help of a snazzy screen and three psychics floating in a tank. Now Gardaí want to use AI technology to do the same - well, kind of the same. Proponents of the technology say it will help avert criminality driven by online disinformation, like the 2023 Dublin riot. The new capability raises questions about civil liberties and the limits of AI surveillance in the hands of State authorities. Conor Gallagher explains why Gardaí want this tool and how it might be used. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Discover a bold, widely debated proposal under Trump's administration offering eligible undocumented residents a free flight and $1,000 one-time payment to voluntarily return to their home countries. Proponents claim this cost-effective, humane approach eases detention burdens, reduces enforcement expenses, and balances toughness with compassion in crafting complex national immigration policy.

Proponents of vaccines have contended with waves of skepticism and controversy in recent years, and even if you're first in line for your booster, the doses have stacked up in a way that inspire questions. Today, Dr. Sanjay Gupta sets the record straight on whether you can ever be too vaccinated. He also answers a question related to menopause and the supplement, creatine.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Larry Burkett often said that capitalism must be tempered by Christian love, compassion, and stewardship.Proponents of capitalism and free markets don't often express that concern, just as believers in social welfare rarely count the cost. Jim Jones joins us today to talk about a new way of looking at those ideas.Jim Jones is a Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA®) and Certified Kingdom Advisor® (CKA®). He is also the author of Utopia Reimagined: An Allegory of Capital and Conscience.A Unique Approach to Biblical EconomicsUnlike typical finance books, Utopia Reimagined is a novel—a work of fiction designed to explore serious biblical and economic themes through story.Why fiction? Jesus often used storytelling to challenge people's assumptions and invite deeper reflection. From the Good Samaritan to the Prodigal Son, stories have the power to stick with us in ways data and arguments often can't. As G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “Novels are more true than science textbooks. Life is sometimes like a science textbook, but life is always a story.”The Journey of Alexander and PaulineThe novel follows two siblings—Alexander and Pauline—on a journey through contrasting societies, each representing different economic and political ideologies.Alexander, a gifted but oppressed peasant in 18th-century France, escapes a feudal system to explore new societal models. His journey takes him through a magical cave into Santosa—a society with socialist tendencies—and eventually to New York City, the heart of free-market capitalism. Along the way, Alexander wrestles with the tension between opportunity, freedom, and justice.Pauline's journey is more focused on the moral and cultural fabric of each society. Her lens offers readers a parallel exploration of what's right, just, and good—not only economically, but relationally and spiritually.Through these characters, readers are invited to explore how faith shapes our perspectives on power, wealth, justice, and human dignity. Some characters see everything through the lens of faith, while others struggle to integrate it or reject it altogether.The beauty of storytelling is that it doesn't just show you what people believe, but why they believe it. That builds compassion and opens the door to real understanding.What Does a Biblical Utopia Look Like?In the final chapters of the novel, Alexander and Pauline discover a society that reflects the fullness of God's Kingdom—a glimpse of the new heavens and the new earth. It's a world where work, community, economics, and leadership are all governed by Christ's nature: sacrificial love, justice, and peace.But how do we pursue this kind of utopia now?Real change begins not at a national or global level, but in our local Christian communities. Reflecting God's image means practicing agape love—self-sacrificing care for one another—in how we use our time, money, influence, and power. We do that in community, not alone.Bringing the Vision to LifeMore than just a novel, Utopia Reimagined is a tool for discipleship and transformation. It's a call to rethink how we live, give, work, and govern in light of God's design. Through this engaging allegory, Jim Jones invites believers to dream again—anchored in Scripture and empowered by the Spirit—to reflect the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven. That's why he has developed a discussion guide for churches, small groups, and communities who want to go deeper. It's available at utopiareimagined.com, where readers can also purchase the book or join a virtual conversation with Jim himself.And for a limited time, the Kindle edition is available for just $1.99.On Today's Program, Rob Answers Listener Questions:I'm a landlord with a duplex and want to sell it in a year. I haven't rented the top unit for a year after a bad tenant experience. What's the best way to proceed - rent it out again or sell, and how do I handle the tax implications of a potential 1031 exchange?I'm 65 and have a life insurance policy with $45,500 cash value. We no longer need the death benefit. Should I cash it out and invest the money or use it to pay down our $50,000 mortgage?Resources Mentioned:Faithful Steward: FaithFi's New Quarterly MagazineUtopia Reimagined: An Allegory of Capital and Conscience by James G. JonesWisdom Over Wealth: 12 Lessons from Ecclesiastes on Money (Pre-Order)Look At The Sparrows: A 21-Day Devotional on Financial Fear and AnxietyRich Toward God: A Study on the Parable of the Rich FoolFind a Certified Kingdom Advisor (CKA) or Certified Christian Financial Counselor (CertCFC)FaithFi App Remember, you can call in to ask your questions most days at (800) 525-7000. Faith & Finance is also available on the Moody Radio Network and American Family Radio. Visit our website at FaithFi.com where you can join the FaithFi Community and give as we expand our outreach.

Proponents of capitalism and free markets don’t often express concern that it must be tempered by love, compassion and stewardship, just as believers in social welfare rarely count the cost. So, what’s the best way to look at these concepts? On today's Faith & Finance Live, Rob West will welcome Jim Jones to talk about a new way of looking at those ideas. Then Rob will answer your questions on different financial topics. Faith & Finance Live is a listener supported program on Moody Radio. To join our team of supporters, click here.To support the ministry of FaithFi, click here.To learn more about Rob West, click here.To learn more about Faith & Finance Live, click here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sign up for our newsletter! Cement is the glue that keeps concrete together, and it has a big carbon footprint. That's a problem for a warming planet. A Johnstown-based mining company has gotten the go-ahead to expand an underground coal mine in Westmoreland County. The site of a demolished coal-fired power plant is being redeveloped to build a massive gas-fired power plant and data center. The American Lung Association gave Pittsburgh's air quality an "F" in its latest annual report. Proponents of sustainable fashion hope tariffs on cheap clothes from overseas will turn consumers on to thrift shopping. Autistic students at a Philly public school are learning life skills by growing their own food. Trump administration cuts are hitting small organic farmers, including freezing a project to jumpstart the production of flax. Students in Pennsylvania's Trout in the Classroom program. recently said goodbye to their aquatic classmates. We're independent and non-profit, and we don't get money from WESA, WPSU or any other radio station. So we must turn to you, our listeners, for support. Take action today so we can continue to keep you informed.  Donate today.  Or send us a check to: The Allegheny Front, 67 Bedford Square, Pittsburgh, 15203.  And thanks! 

The federal deadline to get a REAL ID is now about two weeks away, but only 27% of Pennsylvanians have one. The parent company of Philadelphia’s Independence Blue Cross posted a NET LOSS for the first time in nearly a decade last year. That means the nonprofit spent more on healthcare costs than it collected in insurance premiums. The trade war between the U.S. and China is knocking on the door of the fast-fashion industry. Proponents of sustainable clothing hope tariffs will persuade people to buy second hand. Support WITF: https://www.witf.org/support/give-now/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the fourth episode in a series called “The Failures of Old Earth Creationism.” Many Christians attempt to fit old earth ideology into their beliefs, adopting uniformitarian or evolutionary pieces into their worldview. While this is often done in an effort to appeal to science, it can cause major logical, scientific, and theological issues. Proponents of biological evolution claim that creatures are evolving upward over millions of years, becoming better and ‘more fit’ to survive with each successive generation through the accumulation of ‘beneficial mutations.’ However, even the most cursory dive into genetics shows something entirely different. In fact, the accumulation of mutations is detrimental, and also causes major problems with the concept of biologically long ages. In today’s episode we’ll explore the evidence in an effort to reveal what’s going on beneath the skin. Join host Renée Dusseau and Dr. Jeff Tomkins as they discuss this topic on episode 96 of The Creation Podcast. Resources: Genetic Clocks Verify Recent Creation --- ... More...

Bitcoin arguments get weird fast. Proponents say never spend it, but imagine saying, “Never spend your money.” Others insist you must spend it to help it gain acceptance—would you ever say, “You have to spend YOUR MONEY to make it legitimate?” Meanwhile, critics call it volatile while ignoring that the dollar has lost 99% of its value. The confusion vanishes when you strip away the hype and just call Bitcoin what it is: money. In this episode, I break down the nonsense from both sides, showing how many so-called debates fall apart the moment you apply the same logic to … Continue reading →