Podcasts about Public interest

The concentration of power and lack of regulation in the technology industry directly shapes how AI is designed and deployed, and whose interests it serves. That means decisions about these tools often reflect corporate priorities over public benefits. While AI is often held up as a tool to increase “efficiency,” it is essential to ask: efficiency for whom, and at what cost? What would it mean to create and oversee AI in the public's best interest? How could these technologies be made more accountable to the people and communities they affect? And what is needed to create a future where AI works for everyone? About 'Understanding AI'In the fall of 2025, The New York Public Library and Data & Society collaborated to present “Understanding AI,” a four-part live event series exploring the social implications of artificial intelligence and its impacts on democracy, the environment, and human labor. Featuring key figures in the AI ethics field, these events took place at the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Library (SNFL)in New York City as part of the library's7 Stories Up program, and are now available for all to watch.Revisit the series

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

Summer associate positions can be crucial in helping law students formulate their post-law school career paths, whether that means entering private practice, public service, or academia. In the season five finale of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined in a live conversation with WilmerHale Senior Counsel and former Massachusetts state senator Eric Lesser and Associate Professor of Practice at Boston College Law School Cheryl Bratt to discuss the many options available to WilmerHale summer associates and alumni. Speaking to an audience of over one hundred WilmerHale summer associates, Lesser and Bratt discuss how their time at the firm prepared and encouraged them to pursue their respective career paths in politics and teaching. They emphasize how WilmerHale's reputation for excellence initially attracted them to the firm and, in Lesser's case, caused him to return after his time in office. Throughout their conversation, Lesser and Bratt also share how the early connections they formed during their summer experiences served them throughout their careers, allowing them to access opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Welcome to the Social-Engineer Podcast: The Doctor Is In Series – where we will discuss understandings and developments in the field of psychology.   In today's episode, Chris and Dr. Abbie explore psychopathy, focusing on its clinical definition and common misconceptions. They discuss how the term is often misapplied to various behaviors, stressing the importance of understanding its roots in empathy and fear. By highlighting the need for accurate knowledge, they aim to prevent stigmatization and promote a deeper understanding of mental health. [Jan 5, 2026]     00:00 - Intro 00:24 - Dr. Abbie Maroño Intro 00:42 - Intro Links -          Social-Engineer.com - http://www.social-engineer.com/ -          Offensive Security Vishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/vishing/ -          Offensive Security SMiShing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Offensive Security Phishing Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/smishing/ -          Call Back Phishing - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/call-back-phishing/ -          Adversarial Simulation Services - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/adversarial-simulation/ -          Social Engineering Risk Assessments - https://www.social-engineer.com/offensive-security/social-engineering-risk-assessment/ -          Social-Engineer channel on SLACK - https://social-engineering-hq.slack.com/ssb -          CLUTCH - http://www.pro-rock.com/ -          innocentlivesfoundation.org - http://www.innocentlivesfoundation.org/                 03:47 - The Topic of the Day: Psychopathy 04:28 - A Proper Definition 06:13 - Key Indicators 07:46 - Lack of Empathy 09:36 - The Influence of Social Media 11:51 - Evil ≠ Psychopathy 12:40 - Environment Matters 14:17 - Size Matters 16:02 - MasterClass Ad 17:28 - Work Advantage 18:46 - Gender Differences 20:54 - Big Red Flag! 26:00 - Teaching Emotional Regulation 27:27 - Label Hoarding 32:33 - It's Not Exclusive 36:04 - Wrap Up 36:58 - Next Month's Topic: Imposter Syndrome 37:23 - Outro -          www.social-engineer.com -          www.innocentlivesfoundation.org   Find us online: -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/dr-abbie-maroño-phd -          Instagram: @DoctorAbbieofficial -          LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/christopherhadnagy     References: Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.07.003   Blair, R. J. R. (2013). The neurobiology of psychopathic traits in youths. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(11), 786–799. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3577   Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01862.x   Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2014). Neurocriminology: Implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3640   Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452   Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Pemment, J. (2013). Psychopathy versus sociopathy: Why the distinction has become crucial. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 458–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.07.001   Severson, H., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: Distinctions and implications for treatment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 37, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.07.006   Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706   Viding, E., Blair, R. J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(6), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00393.x   Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2008). Psychopathy and violent crime: A prospective study of the influence of psychopathic traits on violence among offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710802014489

Thursday, December 11th, 2025Today, the Pentagon considered sending boat strike survivors to CECOT to hide from US courts; Judge Breyer blocks Trump from deploying the California National Guard; Miami elects its first woman mayor and the first Democrat since the 90s; Democrats flip a Georgia state house seat Republicans won by 22 points last time; the DOJ responded to my Epstein files lawsuit arguing that there's not any public interest in the Epstein case; the US plans to scrutinize visitors' social media; Kushner and the Saudis are backing a hostile takeover of Warner Brothers for Paramount Skydance; Federal prosecutors in Chicago say a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer committed multiple “gunpoint sexual assaults”; and Allison and Dana deliver and your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get 50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life! http://HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@MSWMediaPodsStoriesJudge Dismantles Trump's Legal Argument for Deploying the National Guard|Allison Gillhttps://www.muellershewrote.com/p/judge-dismantles-trumps-legal-argumentKushner and Saudis back hostile takeover of Hollywood giant|Popular Informationhttps://popular.info/p/kushner-and-saudis-back-hostile-takeoverO'Hare-based Border Protection officer sexually abused, robbed women at gunpoint, indictment claims|Chicago Sun Timeshttps://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/12/09/ohare-based-border-patrol-officer-sexually-abused-robbed-women-in-2022-indictment-claimsInside the Pentagon's Scramble to Deal With Boat Strike Survivors|NYThttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/us/politics/pentagon-boat-strike-survivors.htmlU.S. Plans to Scrutinize Foreign Tourists' Social Media History|NYThttps://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/travel/social-media-tourists-visa-border-patrol.htmlNEW: DOJ Responded to Our Epstein Training Materials Motion, Arguing There's No Public Interest|Allison Gill|The Breakdownhttps://www.muellershewrote.com/p/new-doj-responded-to-our-epsteinMiami elects first woman mayor, marking first win by Democrat in 28 years|POLITICOhttps://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/miami-elects-first-woman-mayor-ends-gops-28-year-control-of-city-hall-00683878Good Trouble - https://near.tl/sm/ik-ZushRaOn December, 10th, 2025, articles of impeachment against Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr were introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Haley Stevens from Michigan's 11th congressional district. The quack is endangering the health of so many residents, and he's got to go!Stand Up For Science is supporting the action, and trying to mobilise pressure to collect 218 votes.You can find an easy-to-follow action manual under the link.https://www.standupforscience.net/impeach-rfkjrFrom The Good NewsDemocrats notch gains in another state-level special election|NBC Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-gains-state-level-special-electioon-georgia-rcna248358http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/hccp/medicalDebt/relieve.htmhttps://unduemedicaldebt.orghttps://singingtreepottery.myshopify.comamandaschultz.com/adopt - Brooklyn, NY→Go To https://DailyBeansPod.com Click on ‘Good News and Good Trouble' to Share YoursOur Donation Linkshttps://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/donate, https://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc, http://WhistleblowerAid.org/beansJoin Dana and The Daily Beans and support on Giving Tuesdayhttp://onecau.se/_ekes71Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Dr. Allison Gill - https://www.muellershewrote.com, https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com, https://instagram.com/muellershewrote, https://www.youtube.com/@MSWMediaPodsDana Goldberg - https://bsky.app/profile/dgcomedy.bsky.social, https://www.instagram.com/dgcomedy, https://www.facebook.com/dgcomedy, https://danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - https://mswmedia.com/shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, https://www.muellershewrote.comReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Stijn Schmitz welcomes Gary Savage to the show. Gary Savage is Retired Entrepreneur, Investor, and President of Smart Money Tracker Premium. In this insightful interview, Savage provides a comprehensive analysis of the current precious metals market, focusing on gold and silver’s potential trajectory. Savage believes the gold market is currently in the second phase of a long-term bull market, which began around 2015. He emphasizes the importance of maintaining the “wall of worry” – a psychological state where investors remain cautious – to potentially extend the bull market’s duration. He suggests the market could continue for two to three more years if it avoids excessive optimism and maintains periodic corrections. Regarding potential price targets, Savage is remarkably bullish on gold, predicting it could reach $10,000, and potentially even $15,000 or $20,000. For silver, he anticipates reaching $100 by 2026, with potential for $250 and possibly $500 if market conditions remain favorable. He sees the gold-to-silver ratio as a key indicator of market tops, with a ratio between 20-30 suggesting a potential market peak. Savage’s investment strategy involves an 80/20 split, with 80% in physical gold and silver as a long-term insurance strategy, and 20% dedicated to leveraged trading during intermediate market cycles. Gary cautions against getting caught up in market narratives and emphasizes the importance of recognizing when an asset becomes overvalued. On broader economic trends, Savage discusses potential commodity supercycles, geopolitical conflict cycles, and the likelihood of continued central bank interventions. He remains cautiously optimistic about precious metals while acknowledging the potential for significant market volatility in the coming years. Timestamps: 00:00:00 – Introduction 00:01:08 – Gold Bull Market Phase 00:02:34 – Wall of Worry Dynamics 00:05:03 – Public Interest in Gold 00:08:35 – Fundamentals and Narratives 00:10:22 – Parabolic Phase Indicators 00:12:13 – Playing the Bull Market 00:14:24 – Avoiding Narrative Traps 00:17:31 – Silver Price Outlook 00:21:27 – Market Suppression Break 00:23:53 – Miners as Leverage Play 00:25:44 – Equities Long-Term Cycle 00:29:27 – War Cycles and Recession 00:33:28 – Commodity Supercycle Potential 00:36:01 – Concluding Thoughts Guest Links: X: https:/x.com/garysavage1 Blog: https://blog.smartmoneytrackerpremium.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgiNs7gCxEvgBE1HHvoOKTQ/videos Website: https://smartmoneytrackerpremium.com/login/ Gary Savage is a retired entrepreneur living in Las Vegas. He has been investing in stocks and commodities for 15+ years. Gary is a self-made multi-millionaire and attributes his financial success to savvy investments made in owning/selling several businesses, real estate, and, more recently, the stock market. He is also a national Judo, powerlifting, and Olympic weightlifting champion and world record holder. Gary holds national titles in 3 different sports and continues to challenge himself as an avid rock climber, and recently his newest endeavor bowling (two perfect 300 games so far). Gary’s renown as a recognized trading/investment expert in the areas of precious metals, stock market, oil, and currency markets is demonstrated by his numerous internationally published articles in these market areas: Kitco, 24hGold, Gold-Eagle, Investing, 321Gold, Keyport, SilverSeek, TFMetalsReport, FuturesMag, ResourceInvestor, Silver-Phoenix, BayStreetBlog, BeforeItsNews, ETFDailyNews, TalkMarkets, JuniorMiningAnalyst, MarketOracle.UK, SafeHaven, GoldSeek, Mining, CommodityOnline, SilverMarketNewsOnline, StreetWiseReports, and InvestingNews. Gary publishes the Smart Money Tracker, a daily and weekend market newsletter available online by subscription only, at a very modest price. This subscription-only site provides Gary’s in-depth daily commentary and chart analysis of numerous markets, including the stock, precious metals, oil, and currency markets.

HOW HOSPITALS ARE DRIVING UP HEALTHCARE COSTS The thing that makes health insurance so expensive is the COST of the healthcare being delivered, and as we try to fix health insurance we can't do so without acknowledging what is driving those costs. One bit thing is hospital consolidation. Hospitals are buying up private practices, surgical centers and more and then leveraging their monopoly powers to charge more to insurance companies, who then charge more to insurers. I've got Peter Pitts, former Associate FDA Commissioner and President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest on at 1pm to talk about it. He recently testified before Congress and in part had this to say:“Healthcare in the United States is in a crisis of affordability and accountability. In 2023, Americans spent more than $1.5 trillion at hospitals—nearly one-third of total health expenditures. Hospital systems, especially nonprofit institutions, are the primary driver of healthcare cost inflation and systemic inefficiency.”If we want to lower healthcare costs, we have to fix this broken system. Peter also has a book out about the process of creative destruction and how to leverage it and you can buy it here.

How to deal with the weaponization of information? What is the future (if any) of independent journalism? What does public interest information mean and why should it be protected? Have we lost the shared understanding of the world? And, if that is the case, how can we restore it? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Patrice Schneider, Chief Strategy Officer at the Media Development Investment Fund. He started as a war correspondent in 1980s conflict zones, then spent two decades in media management at Hachette and Time Warner — a transition that proved surprisingly relevant. For 23 years at the Media Development Investment Fund, he has channeled that early idealism into pragmatic action — co-designing impact investment vehicles for independent media and mobilizing €171 million to fight media capture across emerging democracies. He is now turning his focus on building something entirely new: a lab reimagining public interest information that supports any form of public interest information that serves democratic sense-making. Tune in for their talk! This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.

The Public Interest Standard: Outdated Mandate or Democratic Safeguard with Harold Feld and Tom Hazlett by Technology Policy Institute

We discuss how AI can both serve the public interest and advance the goals of our democracy, despite the misgivings about the current state of AI. Bruce's civic action toolkit recommendations are: 1) Use the tools of AI! 2) Use assistive tech to write to your elected representatives Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist, chief of security architecture at Inrupt Inc, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the co-author of Rewiring Democracy: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship. Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/ Discover new ways to #BetheSpark: https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark Follow Mila on X: https://x.com/milaatmos Follow Bruce on X: https://x.com/schneierblog Sponsor: Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful. Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight Credits: Host: Mila Atmos Guests: Bruce Schneier Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Right-wing operatives continue to target diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Through a growing web of hostile executive orders, state bans, and private lawsuits, enemies of diversity are using law to chill discussion of race, gender, sexuality, and other "divisive" concepts. In the face of these attacks, diversity defenders are turning to the First Amendment — and in many cases, they are winning. Taonga Leslie is joined by practitioners from across the country to explore strategies for using First Amendment principles and precedent to strengthen DEI programs going forward and highlight recent wins.Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Taonga Leslie, Director of Policy and Program for Racial JusticeGuest: Katy Youker, Director, Economic Justice Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump)Guest: Lawrence Lustberg, Director, John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest & Constitutional Law, Gibbons P.C. (Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association)Guest: Robert McDuff, Director of the George Riley Impact Litigation Initiative, Mississippi Center for Justice (Jackson Federation of Teachers v. Fitch)Link: The First Amendment in Flux, ACS 2025-2026 Program GuideLink: Using the First Amendment to Uphold DEI Initiatives, by Christopher Lucca and Vanessa HuberLink: Protecting Our PurposeLink: The Legal DEI ProjectVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.

Crisis management has emerged in recent years as an increasingly prominent practice area, helping clients to avoid major pitfalls and determine the path forward amidst conflict and public discourse. In this episode of In the Public Interest, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with Partner Sid Velamoor about his experience managing many such cases both in the public and private sector.Throughout their conversation, Velamoor discusses his career pathway from WilmerHale to the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Crimes section of the US Attorney's Office, and then serving as Senior Counsel at Boeing before returning to the firm in 2024. He describes how the unique experiences he had in each role culminated in his current skillset in managing complex, high stakes matters. He also explains to Ellsworth how he views effective crisis management as crisis elimination, with skilled practitioners able to anticipate market challenges and proactively avoid them.

A New York State judge has ruled that the State is violating its climate law (CLCPA) and it can not delay just because it is complicated. Citizen Action, PUSH Buffalo, Sierra Club, and We ACT sued since the state was 18 months late in issuing regulations on how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Caroline Chen of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest talks with Mark Dunlea for Hudson Mohawk Magazine.

While attending the recent Magistrorum Conference in Dallas, I was surprised to see and hear from a variety of entertainers I had never met, seen, nor (in most cases) even heard of before. It was refreshing to see such robust and exciting talent. One such person who made an impression on me was Susan Gerbic. A long time skeptic (and regular contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer), Susan has been dispelling myths about psychics, spiritualists, and others who “suck the life and money” out of unsuspecting “believers.” Her late partner, Mark Edwards coined the term “Grief Vampires” for those who prey on the grief of others and promise the hope of talking with their dead loved ones from beyond the grave…for the right price.Susan busts psychics much like Houdini did in his day which was part of his three pronged act in his later years: magic, escapes, and spiritualism exposes. She does it using today's social media and speaker platforms across the country. Not only does she have a rich background in the skeptic community, she is also known for her contributions to Wikipedia. In 2010, Gerbic founded "Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia" (GSoW), a group of editors who create and edit Wikipedia articles that reflect scientific skepticism. Among her many awards, she has received the "James Randi Award for Skepticism in the Public Interest" at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2013. View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize View fullsize Having never met nor knowing anything about Susan Gerbic before we sat down to chat, we talked first about our common interests and friends in the community, like Banachek and the Amazing Randi. We quickly connected then I turned on the microphones and the results are obvious in our warm conversation as I seek to explore more about what Susan does. Since this is the “Month of Boo,” I felt it appropriate to celebrate the life of Houdini and his work on busting spiritualism by introducing you to this dynamic woman who is following in those big footsteps. Download this podcast in an MP3 file by Clicking Here and then right click to save the file. You can also subscribe to the RSS feed by Clicking Here. You can download or listen to the podcast through Pandora and SiriusXM (formerly Stitcher) by Clicking Here or through FeedPress by Clicking Here or through Tunein.com by Clicking Here or through iHeart Radio by Clicking Here. If you have a Spotify account, then you can also hear us through that app, too. You can also listen through your Amazon Alexa and Google Home devices. Remember, you can download it through the iTunes store, too. See the preview page by Clicking Here. The winner for Week #3 was Ken Wheeler, Jr. Congratulations, Ken. A Houdini Legacy Deck of cards will be awarded to a different winner each week in October so you have ONE more chances to win. These beautiful cards were designed by the Past National President and artist, John Midgley. If you are interested in learning more about these cards and the cause, then please visit their website at https://houdinicards.com Enter for a Chance to Win a Houdini Legacy Deck of Playing Cards Designed by John Midgley. Designed to help raise funds for the Houdini Memorial Restoration of the Houdini gravesite. Enter with your name and email address. Free shipping within the U.S. First Name Last Name Email Address enter now We respect your privacy. Your email address will only be shared with John Midgley. Thank you for entering this contest. If your name is randomly selected, then you will be sent an email requesting your physical address where you want the cards sent. A FREE copy of “Houdini's Texas Tours: 1916 & 1923” by Ron Cartliege will be given to a lucky winner of our new contest, compliments of Kent Cummins. Long out of print, this rare book could be yours if your name is randomly selected. Postpaid to U.S. residents. If a winner is selected who lives outside the U.S., then foreign shipping charges will apply. Enter for a Chance to Win a FREE copy of "Houdini's Texas Tours: 1916 & 1923" by Ron Cartlidge Donated by Kent Cummins. Free shipping within the U.S. First Name Last Name Email Address enter now We respect your privacy. Your email may be shared with Kent Cummins, donor of this prize. Thank you for entering this contest. If your name is randomly selected, then you will be sent an email requesting your physical address where you want the cards sent. If you resided outside the U.S., then you will be advised of the cost of foreign shipping. If you don't agree to pay for foreign postage, then another name will be randomly selected. Register now to save on registration. Click on the graphic above for more information.

【聊了什么】 “鸡毛秀”停播风波不仅是一场关于言论自由的攻防战，更是美国传统媒体结构性危机的集中爆发。本期节目从这起风波说起，回溯美国广播电视网与地方台独特的共生关系，以及监管机构FCC在其中扮演的角色。 当旧的秩序摇摇欲坠，新的变革也已登堂入室。我们同时将目光投向另一家传统媒体巨头CBS，探讨Bari Weiss的“空降”将给传统新闻编辑室带来怎样的颠覆性实验。一边是在旧体系内艰难挣扎的深夜秀，一边是试图从内部进行激进重塑的百年新闻部。当百年形成的媒体结构遭遇政治极化与新技术的双重冲击，传统电视的未来将走向何方？ 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney-cbs-news-bari-weiss-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 00:40 Jimmy Kimmel因评论Charlie Kirk被ABC停播事件始末 05:05 FCC直接施压的阴影 09:10 深夜秀的历史 15:55 “末代主播”？深夜秀的商业模式危机 25:36 地方电视台巨头Sinclair和Nextstar在此次事件中的关键角色 26:19 全国广播网 (Network) 与地方加盟台 (Affiliate) 的博弈 32:43 地方媒体集团的崛起与政治倾向化（以Sinclair为例） 38:38 FCC（联邦通信委员会）的权力杠杆 49:06 FCC的内容审查边界：从“公共利益”原则的演变看政府监管的合法性 62:47 FCC主席的威胁是否违反第一修正案？ 66:59 对比特朗普与拜登政府的“Jawboning” 72:15 CEO的误判？迪士尼Bob Iger的“缓兵之计”为何失败 82:02 为何大公司在特朗普2.0时代集体“变软”？集体行动的困境 85:50 David Ellison入主派拉蒙与Bari Weiss执掌CBS新闻 90:12 Bari Weiss的挑战：新媒体“网红”能否管理好百年新闻机构？ 106:24 福克斯的“减法”策略与继承人问题的解决 109:35 传统媒体的核心价值还剩下什么？ 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Talich：美国政治和文化历史爱好者 小华：媒体人 杨一：旅英媒体人 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 The suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live was more than a free speech debate—it was a flare-up of the deep, structural crisis in American media. This episode unpacks that crisis, from the complex relationship between networks and local affiliates to the power of the FCC. While the old system crumbles, a radical new experiment is underway at CBS. We examine what happens when an outsider like Bari Weiss is put in charge of a traditional newsroom—a story of external pressure versus a high-stakes internal overhaul. Facing political division and technological disruption, what is the future of traditional TV? Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/jimmy-kimmel-abc-disney-cbs-news-bari-weiss-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 00:40 The Jimmy Kimmel Suspension: A Breakdown of the Controversy Over His Charlie Kirk Comments 05:05 The Shadow of Direct FCC Pressure 09:10 The History of Late Night 15:55 "The Final Generation"? The Business Model Crisis Facing Late Night 25:36 The Key Role of Local TV Giants Sinclair and Nextstar 26:19 The Power Struggle Between National Networks and Local Affiliates 32:43 The Rise and Politicization of Local Media Groups (The Case of Sinclair) 38:38 The FCC's Regulatory Leverage 49:06 The Limits of FCC Content Regulation: Legitimacy and the Evolving "Public Interest" Doctrine 62:47 Did the FCC Chairman's Threats Violate the First Amendment? 66:59 Comparing Government "Jawboning": Trump vs. Biden 72:15 A CEO's Miscalculation? Why Disney's Bob Iger's Delaying Tactic Backfired 82:02 Why Big Business is Bending the Knee to Trump 2.0: The Dilemma of Collective Action 85:50 New Leadership: David Ellison at Paramount & Bari Weiss at CBS News 90:12 The Bari Weiss Challenge: Can a New Media Influencer Run a Legacy News Institution? 106:24 Fox's Streamlining Strategy and the Murdoch Succession Solution 109:35 What Core Value Remains for Traditional Media? 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Talich：Aficionado of American politics, culture, and history 小华 (Xiao Hua): Journalist, political observer Yang Yi: Journalist based in London Pinda：American political enthusiast

We live in an age where truth twists into confusion, opinion drowns out data, and it's increasingly difficult to figure out whose expertise we can trust.Where did our mistrust in expertise come from? Its roots stretch back to deliberate misinformation campaigns beginning in the 1950s spread by the likes of Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and conservative church movements. Then social media poured gasoline on the fire, accelerating the spread of misinformation and making sowing division highly profitable.Misinformation campaigns take advantage of our brains' natural tendency to protect the familiar and mistrust outgroups. And they capitalize on the very real betrayals people have experienced at the hands of corporations, governments, schools, and healthcare systems.Our challenge now isn't just knowing the facts, it's interrogating our own beliefs, asking where our evidence comes from, and resisting the pull of certainty. As leaders, we need to discern who we give our attention to, practice critical thinking, resist manufactured controversy, and platform voices committed to both truth and connection.Today's guest is a neuroscientist and author of Why Brains Need Friends, who works to make science accessible, relational, and rooted in respect. He doesn't focus on winning arguments or shaming people into submission. He focuses on bridging divides, building trust, and reminding us that our brains–and our lives–are wired for connection.Ben Rein, PhD is an award-winning neuroscientist and science communicator. He serves as the Chief Science Officer of the Mind Science Foundation, an Adjunct Lecturer at Stanford University, and a Clinical Assistant Professor at SUNY Buffalo. He has published over 20 peer-reviewed papers on the neuroscience of social behavior, and is the author of Why Brains Need Friends: The Neuroscience of Social Connection. In addition, Rein educates an audience of more than 1 million social media followers and has been featured on outlets including Entertainment Tonight, Good Morning America and StarTalk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He has received awards for his science communication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the Society for Neuroscience, and elsewhere.Listen to the full episode to hear:How an especially vivid nightmare redirected Ben's path to neuroscienceWhy the division and isolation of modern life is so bad for our brains and overall healthHow engaging with strangers isn't as awkward as we often think it is, and why we should do it moreHow small social interactions build our sense of belonging, community, and wellbeingWhy we need to recognize and then override our gut reactions to those we perceive as belonging to outgroupsHow social media sound bites vastly oversimplify the complex and unknown systems in our brainsWhy Ben's primary mission to to help people understand the value of looking to data and evidence rather than personalities and experiencesWhy we all have to get better at fact-checking and questioning why we're ready to believe somethingLearn more about Dr. Ben Rein:WebsiteInstagram: @dr.benreinWhy Brains Need Friends: The Neuroscience of Social ConnectionLearn more about Rebecca:rebeccaching.comWork With RebeccaThe Unburdened Leader on SubstackSign up for the weekly Unburdened Leader EmailResources:Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, Robert N Proctor"Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014),” Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes, 2017 Environmental Research Letters 12 084019The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Ronald L. Numbers"Misinformation and Its Correction Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing,” Stephan Lewandowsky et al., 2012 Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3)The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl PopperSciSpaceSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah HarariDune, Frank HerbertThe Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, Deborah BlumTory Lanez - Gangland x Fargentina 4EVR (feat. Wolfgang Peterson & Kai)Hard Knocks: Training CampCourage the Cowardly Dog

On this episode of The Cybersecurity Defenders Podcast we speak with Sarah Powazek about the Roadmap to Community Cyber Defense. Diving into the report, Sarah emphasizes the need for low-resource organizations and cyber experts to come together in a co-responsibility model for cyber defense. Learn more about the UC Berkeley Center for Long-Term Cybersecurity (CLTC).Get help or join the Cyber Resilience Corps here.Read the roadmap.Sarah leads flagship research on defending low-resource organizations like nonprofits, municipalities, and schools from cyber attacks. She serves as Co-Chair of the Cyber Resilience Corps and is also Senior Advisor for the Consortium of Cybersecurity Clinics, advocating for the expansion of clinical cyber education around the world. Sarah hosts the Cyber Civil Defense Summit, an annual mission-based gathering of cyber defenders to protect the nation's most vulnerable public infrastructure. Sarah previously worked at CrowdStrike Strategic Advisory Services, and as the Program Manager of the Ransomware Task Force.Support our show by sharing your favorite episodes with a friend, subscribe, give us a rating or leave a comment on your podcast platform. This podcast is brought to you by LimaCharlie, maker of the SecOps Cloud Platform, infrastructure for SecOps where everything is built API first. Scale with confidence as your business grows. Start today for free at limacharlie.io.

What's the missing gap between the promise of AI in the future of work and its actual adoption? What is the difference between the organizations that spend millions on technological advances that ultimately fail and those that can unlock unprecedented innovation? You'll learn the one thing that makes a difference in this episode.EPISODE SUMMARY:"WHAT YOU WILL LEARN:Most companies are approaching AI completely backwards. We're going to talk about what actually breaks organizations when they adopt AI — and the human-centered approach that puts them back together. You'll hear how high-achievers in HR and organizational development are sabotaging their own AI initiatives by focusing on the technology instead of the people who use it. We unpack the emotional mechanics behind why leaders make costly AI decisions, and the critical thinking skills that separate successful adoption from expensive failure.If you've ever felt overwhelmed by AI's rapid evolution but couldn't name exactly what felt wrong about your approach, this episode will offer some insight from someone who's built a framework that flips traditional AI adoption on its head — putting human-centered design at the core of artificial intelligence strategy. Our guest shares the one mindset shift that separates organizations thriving with AI from those drowning in it. We're diving into the intersection of artificial intelligence and human-centered design, exploring why the future belongs to leaders who can balance automation with authentic human connection. Let's rethink your AI strategy.***ABOUT OUR GUEST:Wayne Williams is the Founder of Prospective Tech and a Subject Matter Expert on AI and Human Centered Design. He is a co-author of the White Paper “The Intersection of AI and Human Centered Design” and “Connecting the Dots to Entrepreneurship."" Wayne serves as a board advisor for The Harvard Business Review Advisory Council, The Center for Science in the Public Interest, Yale's School of the Environment, and ACLU, and was an advisor to The White House Council on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health.***FIND OUR GUEST HERE:www.prospectivetechpa.org/***IF YOU ENJOYED THIS EPISODE, CAN I ASK A FAVOR?We do not receive any funding or sponsorship for this podcast. If you learned something and feel others could also benefit, please leave a positive review. Every review helps amplify our work and visibility. This is especially helpful for small, women-owned, boot-strapped businesses. Simply go to the bottom of the Apple Podcast page to enter a review. Thank you!Subscribe to my free newsletter at: mailchi.mp/2079c04f4d44/subscribeWork with me one-on-one: calendly.com/mira-brancu/30-minute-initial-consultationConnect with me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/MiraBrancuLearn more about my services: www.gotowerscope.comGet practical workplace politics tips from my books: gotowerscope.com/booksAdd this podcast to your feed: www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-hard-skills-dr-mira-brancu-m0QzwsFiBGE/https://www.prospectivetechpa.org/Tune in for this innovative conversation at TalkRadio.nyc or watch the Livestream by Clicking Here.

My guest today is Sadie Blanchard, a Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. She teaches and writes about contracts, corporations, and international business law. Her research examines how legal institutions interact with social forces to shape behavior, especially in markets. She's here today to discuss her recent article, Contract or Prison, in the University of Chicago Law Review. The paper discusses the expansion and privatization of “Incarceration Alternative” arrangements, such as electronic monitoring, criminal diversion, and parole and probation. Blanchard argues that, while the norm of expanded choice that justifies enforcement of contracts has prima facie plausibility in this context, the agreements ultimately fail under classical contract theory because they are made against the background of entitlements created to extract value from people using the coercive power of the criminal legal system. This episode is co-hosted by UVA Law 3L, Kyndall Walker.Show NotesAbout Sadie BlanchardAbout Kim KrawiecAbout Kyndall WalkerSandie Blanchard, Contract or Prison (forthcoming, University of Chicago Law Review 2025)Additional Reading Discussed (or relevant to the discussion):John H. Langbein, Understanding the Short History of Plea Bargaining, 13 Law & Society Review 261 (1979)John H. Langbein, Torture and Plea Bargaining, 46 Univ. Chicago Law Review 4 (1978); republished in Spanish as “Tortura Y Plea Bargaining,” in El Procedimiento Abreviado (J.B. Maier & A. Bovino eds.) (Buenos Aires 2001); substantially republished in The Public Interest (Winter 1980) at 43; latter version republished in The Public Interest on Crime and Punishment (N. Glazer ed. 1984)Robert E. Scott & William J. Stuntz, Plea-Bargaining as a Social Contract, 101 Yale L. J. 1909 (1992). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/317 Emma Kaufman, "The Prisoner Trade," 133 Harv. L. Rev. 1815 (2020)

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In the final episode of this year's series, guest host Daniel Volchok speaks with WilmerHale Partner and Co-Chair of the firm's Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Practice and its Native American Law Practice Tommy Beaudreau about Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado. The case centers on the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the ways regulators assess and approve highways, pipelines, and other federal infrastructure projects. Together, they explore the history that led to this case, with Beaudreau providing context for NEPA's original purpose and goals when it was enacted in 1970. Volchok and Beaudreau also discuss the potential impact this decision will have on the future of permitting and the role it plays in larger bipartisan efforts to effect permitting reform.

Democrat Special Election Winner Could Force House To Take Up Epstein Files Discharge Petition Please Subscribe + Rate & Review Philip Teresi on KMJ wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Philip Teresi is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi, Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific 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.

Democrat Special Election Winner Could Force House To Take Up Epstein Files Discharge Petition Please Subscribe + Rate & Review Philip Teresi on KMJ wherever you listen! --- KMJ’s Philip Teresi is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen. --- Philip Teresi, Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific 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.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks the legal issues behind Jimmy Kimmel's temporary show suspension. She explains the distinction between private action by ABC and possible government coercion from the FCC or the President, outlining why the First Amendment generally protects speech from government—not private—actions. Jessica also discusses the limited circumstances under which the FCC could revoke broadcast licenses and what this case means for free speech and media organizations moving forward.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. The Suspension and Return of Jimmy Kimmel's ShowJessica Levinson opens the episode by explaining the sequence of events around Jimmy Kimmel's temporary suspension from ABC after a controversial comment in his monologue. She emphasizes that although he has now been returned to air, the legal issues discussed still remain relevant.2. The Role and Limits of the First AmendmentA central theme is clarifying what the First Amendment protects. Jessica explains that the First Amendment limits government action against speech, not actions taken by private entities like ABC. If ABC alone had suspended Kimmel with no government involvement, it would not be a First Amendment issue.3. Government Involvement and the FCC's RoleThe episode explores concerns about potential government overreach, specifically whether statements made by the FCC chair or the President could constitute government coercion. Jessica details how, if the government pressures a private company to take action against someone's speech, First Amendment concerns are triggered.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode of Good Morning Liberty, Nate Thurston and Charles Chuck Charlie Thompson dive deep into the ramifications of the indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel from ABC. They explore the broader issues of cancel culture, political pressures, and the changing dynamics of late-night TV. Additionally, they discuss the role of the FCC and the government's influence on media, highlighting recent comments by FCC Chair Brendan Carr and reflecting on the impacts of President Donald Trump's administration on media regulation. This episode also touches on the evolution of broadcasting and internet streaming, urging the need to reconsider the relevance of traditional broadcast licenses in the modern media landscape. 00:00 Intro 00:37 Cancel Culture and Jimmy Kimmel's Suspension 01:54 Late Night TV Shows and Political Bias 04:32 FCC and Government Pressure 05:33 Charlie Kirk Assassination and Media Reactions 16:43 Public Interest and Broadcast Licensing 27:41 Discussion on Media Control and FCC Remedies 28:23 Impact of Trump's Campaign on Media Narrative 29:47 Role of National Programmers and Local TV Stations 30:41 FCC Regulations and Public Interest Standards 31:17 Challenges in Defining News Distortion 33:22 Local TV Stations and FCC Enforcement 38:56 Trump's Influence on Media and Business Approvals 40:49 Libertarian Perspective on Government Regulation 47:47 Conclusion and Final Thoughts    

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, guest host Daniel Volchok, the Vice Chair of WilmerHale's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice, speaks with Dave Bowker, the Partner-in-Charge of the Washington DC office and chair of the International Litigation practice, about CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., a unique case involving questions surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the ability of U.S. courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign states. Bowker outlines each step of the case, describing its beginnings as a contract dispute in India and its journey to the Supreme Court. Volchok and Bowker further discuss the Court's unanimous 9-0 reversal of the Ninth Circuit's decision, certifying that the FSIA does not require proof of minimum contacts and jurisdiction can be effectively established through exception to immunity and service of process.

EASY LISTENING DEP'T.: Before we get to the larger news, we're going to start with something very small, or at least something petty, that turns out astonishingly and yet obviously, to be of world historic import. It's in a passage by Ben Smith writing for Semafor. “The Trump administration,” Smith writes, “from the president down to the middle levels of obscure cabinet departments is populated by people whose defining experiences in public life involved being silenced by social platforms. This predates the social media wars of the late 2010s.” Smith continues. “One Trump appointee told me that a radicalizing experience was being booted out of the Gawker comments section way back in the day.” Of course it was. Of course the vicious dullards and bigots who are running the country into ruin are the same people who were being dullards and bigots in the comment section back in the day. From Trump on down, and laterally out through the titans of Silicon Valley and their fascist enthusiasms, this is a political movement built on profoundly unpleasant and unlikable people being furious that they can't make other people like them or respect them. Please visit, read, and support INDIGNITY! https://www.indignity.net/

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth speaks with WilmerHale Partner Andrew Rhys Davies and Senior Attorney for the ACLU's National LGBTQ and HIV projects Josh Block about United States v. Skrmetti. The case considers whether a Tennessee state law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth violates the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.Davies and Block unpack the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's 6–3 ruling, including the international context highlighted in WilmerHale's amicus brief. Block also reflects on the decision's potential impact on future civil rights litigation and its immediate consequences for the transgender community and access to gender-affirming healthcare.

After fugitive father Tom Phillips' violent death, media made judgements about the public interest, the interests of the children - and what interested the public. Also: Te Pāti Māori seems to be disengaging from non-Maori media - and an ex-RNZer pioneering automated news to boost newsrooms. SHOW NOTESRead more about this episode of Mediawatch on the RNZ websiteIn this episode:0:00: After the hunt for Tom Phillips came to a violent and deadly end this week, the media had to make quick judgments about what was in the public interest, the interests of the children and the public appetite for details.0:00 Te Pāti Māori won the Tamaki Makarau by-election with a candidate who made a name for herself as a TV journalist, but has distanced itself from non-Māori media during and after the campaign. It's also criticised the conduct of unnamed reporters - and made claims of other bad behaviour, but failed to back it up.0:00 AI doesn't have a great reputation yet for getting it right, but ex-RNZer Peter Fowler who's pioneering automated news powered by AI reckons it can be a force for good - or even survival in smaller New Zealand newsrooms.Learn more:Guests: Peter FowlerIf you have any thoughts for us - or ideas for us to follow up - get in touch. E-mail mediawatch@rnz.co.nz. You'll also find us @MediawatchNZ on X.Follow Mediawatch and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any podcast app to make sure you never miss an episode.Find more RNZ Podcasts at the new section of the RNZ website at rnz.co.nz/podcastsGo to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

U.S. representatives call for extreme censorship measures in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination, going against the free speech principles he stood for. Plus: WIRED reporter Emi Nietfeld discusses her revealing article about the dark side of the surrogacy industry.  ----------------------------------------------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook  

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3116: Dr. Neal Malik explores whether sparkling water is truly a healthy choice, separating myths from facts. He explains how carbonation affects acidity, hydration, and dental health while sharing practical tips to enjoy fizzy drinks without harming your teeth or replacing plain water. Quotes to ponder: "Once you lose enamel, it's gone forever." "As long as you're not relying on carbonated or sparkling waters as your main means of hydrating, enjoy them." "Try and drink them with food and still consider plain water the best way to rehydrate." Episode references: Center for Science in the Public Interest: https://www.cspinet.org/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3116: Dr. Neal Malik explores whether sparkling water is truly a healthy choice, separating myths from facts. He explains how carbonation affects acidity, hydration, and dental health while sharing practical tips to enjoy fizzy drinks without harming your teeth or replacing plain water. Quotes to ponder: "Once you lose enamel, it's gone forever." "As long as you're not relying on carbonated or sparkling waters as your main means of hydrating, enjoy them." "Try and drink them with food and still consider plain water the best way to rehydrate." Episode references: Center for Science in the Public Interest: https://www.cspinet.org/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. In this episode, guest host Tom Saunders speaks with Amanda Masselam Strachan, a WilmerHale partner and member of the firm's white-collar defense and investigations practice, about two fraud cases that were decided this term.While Kousisis concerns if there needs to be economic harm done during a commercial exchange for a perpetrator to be convicted of wire fraud, Thompson is centered on whether misleading but true statements are criminalized as false statements under the mortgage fraud statute. Masselam Strachan breaks down the specifics of both cases, and in comparing them with one another, explains the impact these decisions have on federal fraud claims.

In Episode 98, Andrew Langer and Jerry Rogers are joined by Dr. Peter Pitts—former FDA Associate Commissioner and President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest—for a sobering discussion on how America's hospital system has been hijacked by greed, mismanagement, and a lack of accountability. Dr. Pitts explains how hospital consolidation, private equity influence, and opaque billing practices have created a crisis where profit often trumps patient care. Together, they take aim at the myth of the benevolent nonprofit hospital, expose the billions spent on lobbying, and call out the regulatory failure to enforce even basic price transparency laws.After Dr. Pitts departs, Andrew and Jerry pivot to a deeply troubling story out of Charlotte, NC: the brutal murder of a young Ukrainian refugee by an individual who had been released on bond despite facing serious prior charges. The hosts connect this tragedy to the broader collapse of law and order in American cities and question why progressive leaders continue to prioritize political narratives over public safety. They explore how DEI ideology has seeped into every major institution—from hospitals to law enforcement—and how it's contributing to institutional dysfunction and a dangerous erosion of public trust.Blending policy insight, cultural critique, and principled outrage, this episode is a must-listen for anyone concerned about where the country is headed—and what must be done to save it.

In the Public Interest is excited to continue In That Case, its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by Partner and Chair of WilmerHale's Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practice Seth Waxman and Counsel Zaki Anwar to discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case concerns Richard Glossip, who has been on death row since 1998 on a first-degree murder charge. The team arguing on his behalf in front of Court, which included Waxman and Anwar, successfully argued that Glossip's sentence should be reversed and the state of Oklahoma should be allowed to retry his case.Waxman and Anwar walk through each step of the case, outlining the complex procedural history that has taken place over the course of nearly thirty years. They emphasize the significance of the case for due process and other capital cases in the future, and what it reflects about the current Court's ideologies when it comes to serious criminal convictions.

In the Public Interest is excited to present its third annual miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. In this episode, host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Counsel Joey Meyer to discuss Mahmoud v. Taylor, which concerns the constitutional rights of parents who send their children to public school to opt their children out of lessons that may be at odds with their religious beliefs. WilmerHale represented the appellee in the decision.Together, Meyer and Ellsworth cover the background of the case and the implications of the Court's ruling on issues like parental rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious freedoms. Meyer also shares additional context from his experience as one of the WilmerHale lawyers who helped secure a victory for the public schools in the Fourth Circuit before going on to help represent them before the Supreme Court.

Steven Hayward has been involved in so many conservative institutions and organizations it may be simpler to list where he hasn't left a mark.  This conservative man-about-town joins Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis as they unravel what it means to be a conservative, how Straussians might make peace with Burke, and why Josh shouldn't be so critical of the Trump administration.   About Steven Hayward Steven F. Hayward is a fellow of the Public Law and Policy Program at Berkeley Law and visiting professor in School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University.   Steven frequently writes on a wide range of current topics, including environmentalism, law, economics, and public policy for publications including National Review, Reason, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, The Public Interest, the Claremont Review of Books, and the Policy Review at the Hoover Institution.  His newspaper articles have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune, and dozens of other daily newspapers.   He is the author of a two-volume narrative history of Ronald Reagan and his effect on American political life, The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order, 1964-1980, and The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counter-Revolution, 1980-1989.  His other books include Index of Leading Environmental Indicators; The Almanac of Environmental Trends; Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World, Churchill on Leadership; Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders; Patriotism Is Not Enough; and M. Stanton Evans: Conservative Wit, Apostle of Freedom.   Steven has also served as visiting fellow professor, scholar, or lecturer at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), Ashland University, Mont Pelerin Society, Pacific Research Institute, The Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Georgetown University, The Fund for American Studies, and University of Colorado Boulder.   His blog, powerlineblog.com, is one of the nation's most-read political websites.  

Did you know that the food served and sold in prisons and jails contributes to poor mental and physical health? Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Daniel Rosen, MA, Co-founder of the Coalition for Carceral Nutrition and Public Health Fellow at the Bard Prison Initiative. Rosen will discuss food and eating conditions in prison and jails, and the food industry that profits from the exploitation of those who are incarcerated. Rosen describes food in prison as “dietary malpractice,” and describes his personal food experiences while being incarcerated. A TEDx Talk by Lucy Vincent is discussed: Could Healthier Food Solve the Prison Crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfItENpMSr8 and Rosen's presentation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest is mentioned: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlfRNK0R37MRelated Websites: www.carceralnutrition.org

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse and Father Paul Sullins unpack the myths and political narratives surrounding “conversion therapy,” sharing insights from their amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. They challenge the American Psychological Association's portrayal of sexual orientation change efforts, expose the lack of rigorous evidence behind mainstream claims, and highlight how research on contributing factors—like childhood trauma—has been sidelined. The conversation also examines historical shifts in psychiatric policy, the suppression of certain kinds of research, and key studies showing that ethical, client-led therapy can yield psychological benefits without the coercive practices often cited by opponents. Relevant source documents: APA 2009 Task Force Report (140 pages) “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.” Bailey et.al. 2016 “Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2016, Vol. 17(2) 45–10. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/1529100616637616 APA Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, February 2021. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-sexual-orientation-change-efforts.pdf Books referenced during the show: The Case Against Conversion Therapy, Douglas C. Haldeman, editor, American Psychological Association, 2022. Lauman et.al. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. 1994 Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg and Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. (1981) https://www.apa.org/about/policy/discrimination Father Sullins' Reports on Clergy Sexual Abuse: https://ruthinstitute.org/resource-centers/father-sullins-research/ Father Sullins' Reports on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts: https://ruthinstitute.org/sexual-orientation-change-efforts-arent-harmful/ Buy Dr. Morse's Books: The Sexual State: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/the-sexual-state-2/ Love and Economics: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/love-and-economics-it-takes-a-family-to-raise-a-village/ Smart Sex: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/smart-sex-finding-life-long-love-in-a-hook-up-world/ 101 Tips for a Happier Marriage: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-a-happier-marriage/ 101 Tips for Marrying the Right Person: https://ruthinstitute.org/product/101-tips-for-marrying-the-right-person/ Subscribe to our newsletter to get this amazing report: Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths https://ruthinstitute.org/refute-the-top-five-myths/ Have a question or a comment? Leave it in the comments, and we'll get back to you! Watch the full episode, uncensored, on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/Theruthinstitute Subscribe to our YouTube playlist:  @RuthInstitute   Follow us on Social Media: https://www.instagram.com/theruthinstitute https://twitter.com/RuthInstitute https://www.facebook.com/TheRuthInstitute/ https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/newsfeed Press: NC Register: https://www.ncregister.com/author/jennifer-roback-morse Catholic Answers: https://www.catholic.com/profile/jennifer-roback-morse The Stream: https://stream.org/author/jennifer-roback-morse/ Crisis Magazine: https://crisismagazine.com/author/jennifer-roeback-morse Listen to our podcast:  Apple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ruth-institute-podcast/id309797947 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/1t7mWLRHjrCqNjsbH7zXv1 Subscribe to our newsletter to get this amazing report: Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths https://ruthinstitute.org/refute-the-top-five-myths/ Get the full interview by joining us for exclusive, uncensored content on Locals: https://theruthinstitute.locals.com/support

We know that the quality of what we consume matters to our health and well-being — yet despite our best efforts to eat healthily, there are still many additives and synthetic ingredients in the U.S. food supply that many other countries have banned due to health concerns. In this episode, we're talking with a leader from the Center for Science in the Public Interest — a food and health watch group — about the current state of food safety oversight and regulations, as well as some of the recent legislation that is beginning to move in a positive direction for our health.   Find the episode highlights, get related resources and view the transcript for this episode at https://experiencelife.lifetime.life/podcast/some-positive-news-in-nutrition-legislation   Have thoughts you'd like to share or topic ideas for future episodes? Email us at lttalks@lt.life — we'd love to hear from you!   Follow us on Instagram: @lifetime.life   The information in this podcast is intended to provide broad understanding and knowledge of healthcare topics. This information is for educational purposes only and should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of advice from your physician or healthcare provider. We recommend you consult your physician or healthcare professional before beginning or altering your personal exercise, diet or supplementation program. 

Peter Pitts, President and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest joins to discuss Indiana's non-profit hospitals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The workplace has undergone numerous changes since COVID-19 enforced remote work requirements, including how employee surveillance tools have grown to monitor more and more employee activity. The rise of this expanded technology, with advancements aided by new developments in AI, has led to more questions around its practical uses and how employees perceive it. Partner and Chair of the Labor and Employment Practice Laura Schneider joins this episode of In the Public Interest to discuss the tools and methods currently being used for employee surveillance. She shares her insights into how the workplace surveillance landscape has changed over the last few years, the role AI now plays and federal and state litigation surrounding this topic that could arise in the future.

Friday August 1, 2025 Public Interest Litigator Rob Hager Dies at 80

This month, we're taking a closer look at what's on your dinner plate. From brightly colored cereals to shelf-stable snacks, food dyes, preservatives, and ultra-processed foods are found everywhere. But are they safe? Are they necessary—or could they actually be harmful? In this episode, we speak with leading experts in food science and public health to separate fact from fear. What does the evidence really say about these controversial ingredients? Are recent legislative bans rooted in science, or are other factors at play? Join us as we unpack the science, the politics, and the public perception behind what we eat. Our guests: Lisa Lefferts is an environmental health consultant and former senior scientist at the Center in the Public Interest. She is the primary author of the successful petition to ban Red No. 30 and also served on the FDA's Food Advisory Committee when it considered synthetic food dyes in 2011. Marion Nestle is an American molecular biologist, nutritionist, and public health advocate. She is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health emerita at New York University.   

The New York Times recently published its “10 Nutrition Lessons for 2025, So Far”—and we're putting them under the microscope. I'm joined by journalist and wellness expert Melanie Warner Spencer for a rapid-fire reality check on what works, what needs tweaking, and how to make each tip doable in real life. LINKS  More about Melanie at melaniewarnerspencer.com 10 Nutrition Lessons From 2025, So Far | https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/02/well/eat/nutrition-food-tips-2025.html Food Addiction - Molly's interview with Ashley Gearhart, PhD | http://bit.ly/44TWv4G Synthetic Food Dyes - Molly's interview with Thomas Garrigan, PhD, Center for Science in Public Interest | http://bit.ly/415N9BE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Climate and environmental justice groups in March filed a lawsuit against the DEC for not releasing greenhouse gas reduction regulations mandated by the CLCPA, the state's climate law.. There will be a court hearing on Friday July 25th in Kingston. Caroline Chen of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest talks to Mark Dunlea of Hudson Mohawk Magazine about the status of the lawsuit.

In the latest episode of the Health Matters podcast, Wendy Lund sits down with Peter Pitts, former FDA associate commissioner and current president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, to discuss the state of regulatory science and communication in health care. Pitts shares a cautiously optimistic outlook for the FDA under Commissioner Makary, noting the agency's renewed focus on innovation, patient engagement and modernization. He also stresses the importance of alignment among marketing, legal and regulatory teams—what he calls “regulatory therapy”—to ensure health communications serve the public good. The conversation spans high-stakes topics such as direct-to-consumer advertising, misinformation, and missed PDUFA dates, with Pitts urging both regulators and industry leaders to improve transparency and collaboration. He calls on pharmaceutical companies to put patients first in communications and avoid blaming the FDA when approvals stall. Pitts also encourages the agency to learn from industry on how to better engage the public. For more insights—and a candid look at where the health care conversation needs to go—tune in to the full episode.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Let's Hear It, Eric sits down with two public interest comms powerhouses—Ann Searight Christiano and Angela Bradbury—who've just dropped what might be the most anticipated textbook in our field: Public Interest Communications Strategy for Change Makers. T Ann and Angela share how their years in the trenches at places like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Public Citizen shaped this groundbreaking resource—and why storytelling, systems thinking, and listening (really listening) are the keys to actually making change. They discuss their “six spheres of influence,” the “back-of-the-envelope” strategy tool, and why being strategic isn't the same as shouting into the void (no offense to your latest TikTok brainstorm). It's a lively, insightful conversation filled with warmth, humility, and a generous dose of “finally, someone wrote this down.” If you've ever had a boss say, “just make it go viral,” this one's for you. Enjoy the episode—and if you love it, don't forget to follow, rate, and review. Your support helps others find the show (and helps keep us off TikTok, which we would suck at).

This Independence Day, Breaking Battlegrounds celebrates American liberty with a powerful lineup of guests. We kick off the show with Alex Swoyer, legal affairs reporter for The Washington Times, to discuss her new book Lawless Lawfare, which exposes how the justice system has been weaponized to target Donald Trump and his supporters. Then, ASU Professor Donald Critchlow takes us back to the roots of our founding principles—unpacking the meaning behind “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the truth behind Yankee Doodle, and how the American Revolution stood apart from the rest. We close with Jason Chaffetz, whose new book They're Coming for You warns how powerful institutions are quietly building systems of control that threaten our freedoms. This Independence Day, we're reminded that the fight for liberty lives on—and there's no better place to defend it than the greatest country in the world. Happy Independence Day from all of us at Breaking Battlegrounds!www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegroundsTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@breakingbattlegroundsShow sponsors:Invest Yrefy - investyrefy.comOld Glory DepotSupport American jobs while standing up for your values. OldGloryDepot.com brings you conservative pride on premium, made-in-USA gear. Don't settle—wear your patriotism proudly.Learn more at: OldGloryDepot.comDot VoteWith a .VOTE website, you ensure your political campaign stands out among the competition while simplifying how you reach voters.Learn more at: dotvote.vote4Freedom MobileExperience true freedom with 4Freedom Mobile, the exclusive provider offering nationwide coverage on all three major US networks (Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile) with just one SIM card. Our service not only connects you but also shields you from data collection by network operators, social media platforms, government agencies, and more.Use code ‘Battleground' to get your first month for $9 and save $10 a month every month after.Learn more at: 4FreedomMobile.comAbout our guest:Originally from Texas, Alex Swoyer left the Lone Star State to attend the Missouri School of Journalism where she graduated with a bachelor's degree in journalism with an emphasis in broadcast.She has experience covering stories in the mid-Missouri, Houston and southwest Florida areas where she worked at local affiliate TV stations and received a First Place Mark of Excellence Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.After graduating from law school in Florida, she decided to leave the courtroom and return to the newsroom as a legal affairs reporter for The Washington Times. Follow her on X @ASwoyer.Purchase her new book Lawless Lawfare on Amazon.-Donald T. Critchlow, Katzin Family Professor, teaches courses on American political history, political conspiracy, and contemporary American history. He was awarded the Zebulon Pearce Distinguished Teaching Award in Humanities in 2021. He serves as co-director of the undergraduate certificate Program in Political History and Leadership in the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies. The program's mission is to promote a greater understanding of the foundations of democratic society and actual leadership training through undergraduate education and civic involvement. The program sponsors public lectures, academic seminars, internships, and undergraduate scholarships. He is founding editor the Journal of Policy History a quarterly academic journal published by Cambridge University Press.,In 2018, he was named Katzin Family Professor.He published in 2021 "Revolutionary Monsters: Five Men Who Turned Liberation into Monsters" (Regnery Press) appeared. In 2020, "In Defense of Populism: Social Protest and Democratic Change,"(University of Pennsylvania Press) and in 2018, he published "Republican Character: From Nixon to Reagan" (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), which appeared in paperback in 2020. Other publications include "American Political History: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2015), and "When Hollywood Was Right: How Movie Moguls, Film Stars, and Big Business Remade American Politics," published by Cambridge University Press in 2013. Other publications include "The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Made Political History" (Harvard University Press, 2007; rev. and updated edition University Press of Kansas. 2011); "Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism" (Princeton University Press, 2005); "Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion, and the Federal Government" (Oxford University Press, 1999, pap. 2001); "Studebaker: The Life and Death of an American Corporations" (Indiana University Press, 1997); and the "Brookings Institution: Expertise and the Public Interest in a Democratic Society" (Northern Illinois University Press, 1989). He is general editor for the new Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History. "The Oxford Handbook on American Political History," co-edited with Paula Baker, has been submitted to Oxford University Press.After receiving his doctoral degree in History from the University of California, Berkeley, Critchlow became a professor at the University of Notre Dame and later chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University. He has been a visiting professor at Hong Kong University and Warsaw University. He has lectured extensively in the United States, Europe, and China. He is the founding editor of the Journal of Policy History, a quarterly published by Cambridge University Press.His books are regularly reviewed in the New York Times Book Review, New Republic, National Review, The Nation, The New Yorker, Washington Post Book Review, and other magazines and newspapers. He has appeared on C-Span Books, NPR's Talk of the Nation, BBC World News, and numerous talk-radio programs. He has written for the Washington Post, New York Observer, New York Post, National Review, and Claremont Review of Books.Follow what he's doing here: https://cai.asu.edu/Facebook: Center for American Institutions X: @CAIatASU-Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor, bestselling author, and former Chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee. He is the author of They're Coming For You, The Puppeteers, and The Deep State. Based in Utah, Jason is a leading voice on government accountability and conservative policy, and he regularly shares insights on national issues through media appearances and his platform, JasonInTheHouse.com. Follow him on X @jasoninthehouse.Purchase his new book They're Coming for You on Amazon. Get full access to Breaking Battlegrounds at breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com/subscribe

In 1710, the British Parliament passed a piece of legislation entitled An Act for the Encouragement of Learning. It became known as the Statute of Anne, and it was the world's first copyright law. Copyright protects and regulates a piece of work - whether that's a book, a painting, a piece of music or a software programme. It emerged as a way of balancing the interests of authors, artists, publishers, and the public in the context of evolving technologies and the rise of mechanical reproduction. Writers and artists such as Alexander Pope, William Hogarth and Charles Dickens became involved in heated debates about ownership and originality that continue to this day - especially with the emergence of artificial intelligence. With:Lionel Bently, Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the University of CambridgeWill Slauter, Professor of History at Sorbonne University, ParisKatie McGettigan, Senior Lecturer in American Literature at Royal Holloway, University of London. Producer: Eliane GlaserReading list:Isabella Alexander, Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century (Hart Publishing, 2010)Isabella Alexander and H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui (eds), Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016)David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu, Who Owns this Sentence? A History of Copyrights and Wrongs (Mountain Leopard Press, 2024)Oren Bracha, Owning Ideas: The Intellectual Origins of American Intellectual Property, 1790-1909 (Cambridge University Press, 2016)Elena Cooper, Art and Modern Copyright: The Contested Image (Cambridge University Press, 2018)Ronan Deazley, On the Origin of the Right to Copy: Charting the Movement of Copyright Law in Eighteenth Century Britain, 1695–1775 (Hart Publishing, 2004)Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006)Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel Bently (eds.), Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright (Open Book Publishers, 2010)Marie-Stéphanie Delamaire and Will Slauter (eds.), Circulation and Control: Artistic Culture and Intellectual Property in the Nineteenth Century (Open Book Publishers, 2021) Melissa Homestead, American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822-1869 (Cambridge University Press, 2005)Adrian Johns, Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates (University of Chicago Press, 2009)Meredith L. McGill, American Literature and the Culture of Reprinting, 1834-1853 (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002)Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Harvard University Press, 1993)Mark Rose, Authors in Court: Scenes from the Theater of Copyright (Harvard University Press, 2018)Catherine Seville, Internationalisation of Copyright: Books, Buccaneers and the Black Flag in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge University Press, 2006)Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge University Press, 1999)Will Slauter, Who Owns the News? A History of Copyright (Stanford University Press, 2019)Robert Spoo, Without Copyrights: Piracy, Publishing and the Public Domain (Oxford University Press, 2013)In Our Time is a BBC Studios Audio production

On Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration announced it would revoke authorization of 2 petroleum-based synthetic food dyes with plans to eliminate 6 other food dyes by the end of 2026. While this is not an outright ban, the Trump administration is continuing with its “Make America Healthy Again” mission by urging the food industry to make the switch. President of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Dr. Peter Lurie, joins to discuss HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to phase out synthetic dyes and how this will impact public health. April is National Infertility Awareness Month, spotlighting an issue that affects millions of men and women and that carries a significant impact for American families. Actress Patricia Heaton and her husband, David Hunt, are tackling this topic in their dramedy film, "Unexpected," which closely follows a couple's journey through infertility. "The Middle" & “Everyone Loves Raymond” star Patricia Heaton and director David Hunt join to discuss the joys and challenges of producing this film, making the topic of infertility less socially taboo, and embracing the messiness of life as a couple. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of The Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices