Podcasts about Public policy

Some rituals are spiritual. Some are silly. Some are inherited, and some are self-made. Casper ter Kuile, author of The Power of Ritual: Turning Everyday Activities into Soulful Practices, walks us through how we create all sorts of meaningful, grounding rituals. And you'll hear clips from past two years of Audacious guests who have shared the rituals that matter most to them, from morning journaling and bedtime affirmations to pre-show sign-slapping. Whether you've already got your rituals down pat, or are still developing your own special routine, this episode shows you how to honor the sacred in the everyday. This episode originally aired on May 17, 2025. Suggested episodes: Forgiveness: How we define it and how it defines us Life advice, one Audacious guest at a time Kitchen objects with a story. Listen at your own whisk Why you so salty? The anger episode Change Of Art: Stories About Tattoo Coverups Awe yeah! Exploring the magic of mind-blowing moments GUESTS: Casper ter Kuile: author of The Power of Ritual: Turning Everyday Activities into Soulful Practices. He holds Master's degrees in Divinity and Public Policy from Harvard University, and is a co-founder of Sacred Design Lab. He also co-hosts the podcast, Harry Potter and the Sacred Text Audacious guests who shared their personal rituals (in order of appearance): Dean Edwards, Jessica Jin, Kristen Geez, Anna Holland, Lena Khalal Tuffaha, Chris Crowe, Bruce W Brackett, Moon Ribas, Azie Dungey, Pony Tromper, Mary Elizabeth Kelly, Paul Marcarelli, Brad White, Begoña Gómez Urzaiz, Dr. Gale Ridge, Mehdi Hasan, Stephanie Courtney, Rosanna Ramos, Sonya Horton, Greg Viloria, Ronnie “Woo Woo” Wickers, Zarna Garg, Jada Star, Luis Mojica, RoseMarie Wallace, Mindy Glickman, David Roche, Paul Gladis, and Arwen, Aidan, and Willow Gladis Perez-Sauquillo Support the show: https://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

00:08 Robert Reich, political economist who worked in the administrations of three presidents (most prominently as Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton) now emeritus Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. His latest book is Coming Up Short: a memoir of my America. This is a rebroadcast of our original interview in summer of 2025. The post Robert Reich on Robert Reich: Former labor secretary talks new memoir appeared first on KPFA.

In Episode 446 of The Andrew Parker Show, Andrew Parker asks a fundamental question: Does the rule of law still matter?This episode examines a public letter issued by faculty affiliated with the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs criticizing immigration enforcement—and what that letter reveals about the mindset of modern public policy elites. Drawing on his personal experience as a graduate of both the Humphrey School and the Mondale School of Law, Parker explores what the letter says, what it omits, and why selective outrage erodes public trust, safety, and democratic accountability.The discussion addresses immigration, enforcement of existing law, large-scale fraud, public safety, and the dangers of academic echo chambers that prioritize ideology over consequences. Parker also connects these issues to broader constitutional concerns, including the boundaries of the First Amendment, institutional responsibility, and the real-world cost of abandoning law and order.A candid and timely episode on immigration, public policy, and why a society that stops enforcing its laws places itself at risk.Support the showThe Andrew Parker Show - Politics, Israel & The Law. Follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube and X. Subscribe to our email list at www.theandrewparkershow.com Copyright © 2025 The Andrew Parker Show - All Rights Reserved.

EVEN MORE about this episode!Step into the magic of Christmas with psychic and medical intuitive Julie Ryan and renowned historian Dr. Gerry Bowler as they uncover the hidden spiritual origins and captivating history behind the world's most beloved holiday. From ancient winter rituals and medieval nativity traditions to the evolution of Santa Claus himself, this episode reveals the powerful symbols—angels, light, miracles, and more—that have shaped Christmas across centuries. If you've ever wondered why we celebrate the way we do—or simply want to feel the wonder of the season on a deeper level—this enchanting Christmas special is the perfect holiday treat. Guest Biography:Dr. Gerry Bowler, a historian from Saskatoon with degrees from the University of Saskatchewan and a Ph.D. from King's College London, has spent his career exploring the intersection of religion and popular culture after beginning as a scholar of Medieval and Early-Modern Europe. His wide-ranging work spans studies on The Simpsons, Aristotle and professional wrestling, Wayne Gretzky, and Bloody Mary, though he is best known for his extensive research on the history of Christmas. The author of numerous books—including The World Encyclopedia of Christmas, Santa Claus: A Biography, God and The Simpsons, and Christmas in the Crosshairs—Gerry has also contributed countless articles, encyclopedia entries, op-eds, and edited volumes, with his works translated into multiple languages worldwide. When not writing or teaching, he serves as a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, where he humorously “shakes a fist at modern society and tells it to get off his lawn.”Episode Chapters:01:04 Exploring Christmas Traditions with Dr. Gerry Bowler02:13 Medieval Beliefs and Christmas04:25 The Emotional Impact of Christmas08:36 The Evolution of Christmas Traditions11:00 The Role of St. Nicholas and the Reformation14:03 The Reinvention of Christmas in the 19th Century19:09 Personal Reflections on Christmas21:41 Blending Winter Rituals with Christian Traditions24:39 The Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men29:05 Christmas Markets and Modern Celebrations30:39 Canadian Christmas Inventions32:49 The Evolution of Santa Claus35:48 Rudolph and Commercialism37:26 Nativity Scenes and Their History41:11 Angels in Christmas Lore43:49 Symbolism of Light in Christmas48:11 Midnight Mass and Traditions49:55 Magical Christmas Superstitions51:40 Personal Reflections on Christmas➡️Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan YouTube➡️Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan Español YouTube➡️Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan Português YouTube➡️Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan Deutsch YouTube➡️Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan Français YouTube✏️Ask Julie a Question!

Seventy years after Brown vs. Board of Education and the movement to promote educational equality, race and class remain the most reliable predictors of educational achievement in America.  In attempting to address this divide, school reformers have turned to solutions like charter schools, vouchers and other innovations designed to build more choice into the system.  Yet, school choice and conservative and liberal approaches to it have changed over the years.  The inside story of how the school choice movement emerged in the 1990’s presents a situation where Black activists joined forces with conservative lawmakers. Yet today’s school choice movement has evolved, championed by Republicans, conservatives, and faith-based organizations who have taken school choice to a very different place.  And liberals have generally shown a skepticism about many choice options which might starve the public schools of resources.  As test results continue to disappoint, new alliances and approaches may be needed.  We’re joined by Joseph Viteritti, the Thomas Hunter Professor of Public Policy at Hunter College, and author of “Radical Dreamers: Race, Choice, and the Failure of American Education,” to discuss.

Steve Forbes lays out some key proposals for President Trump and his economic team to juice the economy in 2026 and give Republicans an edge in the midterm elections.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

As we close out 2025, host Tess Vigeland highlights research from UChicago scholars. Hyuk Su Kwon, Assistant Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy, explains the design of electric vehicle subsidies. Eduardo Montero, Assistant Professor at Harris, reveals how Seventh Day Adventist churches adapt when members face costly trade-offs between faith and farming. Virginia Minni, Assistant Professor at the Booth School of Business, shares how a one-day purpose workshop where workers connect childhood passions to their current roles drives measurable productivity gains. Plus, Leo Bursztyn discusses why green text bubbles create lock-in effects for Apple. Full versions of these conversations are available wherever you get your podcasts.

How can we care for the soil and farm for better health outcomes?   Dr. Christine Mahoney of the University of Virginia's Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy and Wayflowering Flower Farm joins Mary and Eric for a conversation about soil health, regenerative farm design, and organic flower farming. Dr. Mahoney shares how better outcomes, such as health, peace, and tranquility, can be achieved through enriching the soil, enhancing biodiversity, sequestering carbon, strengthening local ecosystems, and supporting pollinator habitats. For Dr. Mahoney, caring for the soil and creating an incredible place for flowers, bees, butterflies, and other pollinators is foundational and inspirational. Please visit https://www.wayflowering.com/ to learn more about cut-your-own flower opportunities and immersive experiences at Wayflowering Flower Farm. For details about the flower farming course and podcast that inspired and influenced Dr. Mahoney's thoughts on farm design and organic no-till flower farming, please visit Floret Flowers and The No-Till Flowers Podcast.    We can all be 4 The Soil, for the future! Here is how with four principles:1) Keep the soil covered -- with living plants and residue. Cover crops are our friends and allies; avoid leaving soil bare.2) Minimize soil disturbance -- Practice no-till or gentle tillage as much as possible in your field or garden.3) Maximize living roots -- for the longest time to improve biodiversity, soil structure, and life in the soil.4) Energize with diversity -- aboveground and belowground with high-quality food for soil and plants, and integration of livestock on cropland. If you are interested in art and framing the 4 The Soil posters for your office or home, the 16” by 20” posters are available for purchase and printing as single posters or a set of five posters.If you have questions about soil and water conservation practices, natural resource concerns, and soil health principles and practices to restore the life in your soil, call or visit a USDA Service Center, a Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District office, or your local Virginia Cooperative Extension office.  4 the Soil: A Conversation is made possible with funding support from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and The Agua Fund. Other partners include the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Virginia Cooperative Extension; Virginia State University; Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and partners of the Virginia Soil Health Coalition.Disclaimer: Views expressed on this podcast are those of each individual guest.To download a copy of this, or any other show, visit the website 4thesoil.org. Music used during today's program is courtesy of the Flip Charts. All rights reserved. 4 the Soil: A Conversation is produced by On the Farm Radio in collaboration with Virginia Tech. The host and co-hosts are Jeff Ishee, Mary Sketch Bryant, and Eric Bendfeldt.

2025 has been a challenging year for advocates fighting for equitable access to care, as the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has upended a legacy of science-based recommendations supported by the research community. In a particularly concerning move, ACIP removed its decades-long recommendation for the proven pediatric hepatitis B vaccine—a decision that puts millions of children at risk of long-term complications from this infectious disease.Joining us to discuss the implications of ACIP's latest action, and how advocacy organizations across the country are responding, is Scott Frey, Senior VP of Public Policy and Relations here at the Alliance.

Michael Centrella is the Head of Public Policy at SecurityScorecard. In this episode, he joins host Paul Spaulding and Anton Chuvakin, Security Advisor at Office of the CISO, Google Cloud, to reflect back on 2025 and look ahead to 2026 in terms of cybersecurity. SecurityScorecard's mission is to make the world a safer place by transforming the way organizations understand, mitigate, and communicate cybersecurity risk to their boards, employees, and vendors. Learn more about our sponsor at https://securityscorecard.com

Almost every serious discussion about options to constrain the development of advanced AI results in someone raising the question: “But what about China?” The worry behind this question is that slowing down AI research and development in the US and Europe will allow China to race ahead.It's true: the relationship between China and the rest of the world has many complications. That's why we're delighted that our guest in this episode is Kayla Blomquist, the Co-founder and Director of the Oxford China Policy Lab, or OCPL for short. OCPL describes itself as a global community of China and emerging technology researchers at Oxford, who produce policy-relevant research to navigate risks in the US-China relationship and beyond.In parallel with her role at OCPL, Kayla is pursuing a DPhil at the Oxford Internet Institute. She is a recent fellow at the Centre for Governance of AI, and the lead researcher and contributing author to the Oxford China Briefing Book. She holds an MSc from the Oxford Internet Institute and a BA with Honours in International Relations, Public Policy, and Mandarin Chinese from the University of Denver. She also studied at Peking University and is professionally fluent in Mandarin.Kayla previously worked as a diplomat in the U.S. Mission to China, where she specialized in the governance of emerging technologies, human rights, and improving the use of new technology within government services.Selected follow-ups:Kayla Blomquist - Personal siteOxford China Policy LabThe Oxford Internet Institute (OII)Google AI defeats human Go champion (Ke Jie)AI Safety Summit 2023 (Bletchley Park, UK)United Kingdom: Balancing Safety, Security, and Growth - OCPLChina wants to lead the world on AI regulation - report from APEC 2025China's WAICO proposal and the reordering of global AI governanceImpact of AI on cyber threat from now to 2027Options for the future of the global governance of AI - London Futurists WebinarA Tentative Draft of a Treaty - Online appendix to the book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone DiesAn International Agreement to Prevent the Premature Creation of Artificial SuperintelligenceMusic: Spike Protein, by Koi Discovery, available under CC0 1.0 Public Domain DeclarationC-Suite PerspectivesElevate how you lead with insight from today's most influential executives.Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

Democracy in the UK is under strain. Many voters feel deeply alienated from politics, believing that those elected to represent them often pursue narrow or personal interests rather than the public good. Political polarisation, intensified by changes in the media landscape, is undermining constructive debate. And for many citizens, it can feel as though money (rather than votes) is what really speaks loudest in politics.Against this backdrop, there is growing interest in how democratic systems might be reformed to function better and become more resilient. A wide range of proposals has emerged, tackling different aspects of democratic decline. While we can't cover them all in a single episode, today's discussion focuses on two specific reform ideas explored in recent articles published in the journal The Political Quarterly.The first examines the role of donations to political parties, asking how political finance shapes power, influence, and public trust in the democratic system. The second looks at the position of smaller parties in the House of Commons, exploring how parliamentary procedures affect their ability to contribute meaningfully to debate and scrutiny.To discuss these ideas, we're joined by the authors of both pieces:Iain McMenamin, Professor of Comparative Politics at Dublin City University, is an expert on political finance and co-author of the article on party donations.Louise Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester, is a leading scholar of parliamentary politics and the author of the study on the role of small parties in the Commons.Together, we explore whether reforming party funding and giving smaller parties a stronger voice in Parliament could help rebuild trust, improve representation, and strengthen UK democracy.Mentioned in this episode:‘Unbroken, but Dangerous: The UK's Political Finance Regime and the Rationale for Reform', by Logan De la Torre, Kevin Fahey, and Iain McMenamin 'Modernising the House: Why the 2024 Parliament Highlights the Need to Formalise Party-Group Rights in the House of Commons', by Louise Thompson.  UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

We close out Season 8 with a very special episode that is particularly poignant in this holiday season when people of many faiths are called to reflect on our core values. We are joined by Reverend Jackson who is currently the Associate Conference Minister for Justice and Witness Ministries in the Central Atlantic Conference in the United Church of Christ. Reverend Jackson has been the pastor at the United Church of Christ of Seneca Valley in Germantown, Maryland since 2016. She earned her Master of Divinity degree in 2012 from Wesley Theological Seminary. She also holds a Master of Social Work from Fordham University and a Bachelor's in Social Relations and Public Policy from Michigan State University.In this conversation, Reverend Jackson discusses the evolving role of sanctuary churches in the context of immigration and the legal risks they face. Since the withdrawal of federal guidance designating protected locations such as churches went into effect, it is more difficult for churches to provide sanctuary for refugees at risk for being deported to dangerous and life-threatening situations. A coalition of religious organizations has since brought a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security arguing that this policy violates the right to expression of faith and freedom of religion.Reverend Jackson discusses the theological and moral imperative to support immigrants that arises from multiple biblical texts, and the calling on Christians to take risks for their faith. Reverend Jackson advocates for a proactive approach to community involvement and the need for churches to educate themselves about local laws and the realities of immigration. Churches must advocate for their rights to practice their faith without government interference. She reminds us that love for one's neighbor is a core tenant of Christian faith. The biblical texts clearly demonstrate that this imperative applies to all people around us, regardless of status.Links to organizations proving support to immigrants:https://www.ilrc.orghttps://unitedwedream.org

This conversation explores the life and legacy of Charles C. Diggs Jr., a significant yet often overlooked figure in the civil rights movement and American politics. Brown University Professor, Marion Orr, discusses his new biography of Diggs, detailing his contributions to the Congressional Black Caucus, his legislative achievements, and the circumstances surrounding his fall from grace. The discussion also touches on Diggs' personal life, his family's involvement, and the broader implications of his work for African American history and political science.Marion Orr is the inaugural Frederick Lippitt Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Political Science and Urban Studies at Brown University. He previously was a member of the political science faculty at Duke University.Professor Orr earned his B.A. degree in political science from Savannah State College, M.A. in political science from Atlanta University (now Clark-Atlanta University), and a Ph.D. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland, College Park.From 2008-2014, Professor Orr served as Director of the A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions at Brown University.  He is a former chair of Brown's Department of Political Science and a former director of Brown's Urban Studies Program.Professor Orr's expertise is in the area of American politics.  He specializes in urban politics, race and ethnic politics, and African-American politics.  He is the author and editor of eight books. His book, House of Diggs: The Rise and Fall of America's Most Consequential Black Congressman, Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (University of North Carolina Press, 2025), is the first biography of Michigan's first Black member of the U.S. House of Representatives.Among Professor Orr's other books, Black Social Capital: The Politics of School Reform in Baltimore (University Press of Kansas), won the Policy Studies Organization's Aaron Wildavsky Award and his co-authored, The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics and the Challenge of Urban Education (Princeton University Press), was named the best book by the American Political Science Association's (APSA) Urban Politics Section. He is the co-editor (with Domingo Morel) of Latino Mayors: Political Change in the Postindustrial City.  He is also the author of numerous scholarly articles, essays, and reviews.Professor Orr is the recipient of the Biographers International Organization Francis “Frank” Rollin Fellowship. He has also held a research fellowship at the Brookings Institution, a Presidential Fellowship from the University of California, Berkeley, and a fellowship from the Ford Foundation.  In 2019, Orr was awarded APSA's Hanes Walton, Jr. Career Award,  awarded to “a political scientist whose lifetime of distinguished scholarship has made significant contributions to our understanding of racial and ethnic politics and illuminates the conditions under which diversity and intergroup tolerance thrive in democratic societies.”Professor Orr served as President of the APSA's Organized Section on Urban Politics and an elected member and chair of the Governing Board of the Urban Affairs Association, an international organization devoted to the study of urban issues. Dr. Orr has also served as a member of the executive councils of the American Political Science Association and the National Conference of Black Political Scientists. He has served, or is currently serving, on the editorial boards of the National Political Science Review, Journal of Urban Affairs, Journal of Race, Ethnicity and the City, and Urban Affairs Review.

On Today's Episode – Mark is joined by Dr. Eric Wallace, who tells us a little about how he came to be a member of Project 21. He has a new book out (link below). The guys talk all things politics and the relationship between them and the Black Church. Tune in for all the funProject 21 Ambassador Dr. Eric Wallace is the president and co-founder of Freedom's Journal Institute (FJI) for the Study of Faith and Public Policy, an Illinois-based nonprofit organization designed to “advance the Kingdom of God through socio-political, education and engagement.”Wallace is a visionary who couples his rich educational background with a bold approach to challenging the status quo. His post-graduate degrees in Biblical Studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), combined with his passion and powerful message, make him one of today's most powerful voices of Bible-centered reason and change. Eric is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary).Wallace is outspoken about the evils of Critical Race Theory (CRT) — speaking recently about CRT at the For God and Country Biblical Worldview Intensive at World Outreach Center in Newport News, Va., and at a special panel discussion at the Conservative Minority Convention (CMC) in Dallas-Fort Worth. https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Apostasy-Abandoned-Authority-Ideology/dp/0979763185 https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/4pUysvR Final Dividend Cafe of 2025: Year-End Market Recap and Outlook for 2026 In this final Dividend Cafe of 2025, David Bahnsen reviews key economic data points and market trends, including the performance of major indices and sector highlights. The discussion covers the lack of seasonality in market movements, updates on bond yields, and the significance of periodic portfolio rebalancing. The episode also touches on public policy issues related to data centers and provides insights on midstream energy sectors. David announces the upcoming annual 'year behind, year ahead' white paper and his ongoing book project on dividend growth investing. The session concludes with a look ahead to the first Dividend Cafe of 2026 and encourages listeners to read further on topics like gold as an inflation hedge. 00:00 Welcome to the Final Dividend Cafe of 2025 00:43 Recap of the Year and Upcoming Plans 02:44 Market Updates and Trends 06:29 Public Policy and The Fed 07:28 Energy Sector Insights 08:39 Looking Ahead to 2026 Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

In this episode of Policy Chats, Riverside City Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes sits down with Dori Pham and Sammie Burgess for a conversation about what it takes to build abundant, welcoming communities at the local level. From immigration enforcement protocols to housing policy and public art, Councilmember Cervantes explains how city decisions shape daily life for families, students, and workers across Riverside.Throughout the episode, she breaks down her recent resolution on federal immigration enforcement, which strengthens identification standards, reinforces state law, and creates new tools for civil rights documentation and community education. She shares how collaboration with community groups, legal partners, and the Riverside Police Department helped craft one of the strongest resolutions of its kind in California, and why it matters for immigrant families and public safety.The discussion then turns to housing and homelessness, where Councilmember Cervantes serves as chair of the city's Housing and Homelessness Committee. She talks about motel conversions into permanent supportive housing, safe parking pilots for families living in their cars, and the importance of prevention as well as shelter. She also reflects on how budgets, staffing, and creative partnerships can move resources toward the neighborhoods with the greatest need.Finally, Councilmember Cervantes shares her planner's view of transportation, walkability, and public art. She describes Riverside's investments in bus service, bike and walking connections, and mural programs that build pride, safety, and economic opportunity. Her vision of abundance centers on dignity, imagination, and the power of art and policy together to transform a city street by street.Topics Covered:- How Councilmember Cervantes stays connected with residents and neighborhood groups- The development and impact of Riverside's immigration enforcement resolution- Community partnerships in advancing immigrant rights and public safety- Housing and homelessness strategies, including motel conversions and safe parking pilots-How murals, public art, and artist residencies can foster safety, pride, and economic activity

Kyla Scanlon and Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at University of Michigan, join the show to break down the Federal Reserve's latest rate cut—and why growing internal dissent at the Fed actually matters. We unpack what the dot plot reveals, how markets may be misreading Jerome Powell, and whether inflation data is being misunderstood rather than manipulated. The conversation also dives into tariffs, affordability, and why cost-driven inflation hits households differently than demand-driven price spikes.

In this episode of Energy Newsbeat – Conversations in Energy, host Stu Turley sits down with Sarah E. Hunt, President of the Rainey Center, to break down groundbreaking new polling that reveals overwhelming bipartisan support for American energy dominance, secure domestic data centers, and rapid permitting reform. Sarah explains how voters overwhelmingly link energy independence to national security, the growing AI arms race with China, and the urgent need to build every possible electron—nuclear, natural gas, solar, wind—to safeguard America's technological future. From China's 10x energy build-out to AI-driven permitting solutions, this conversation delivers sharp insights, alarming realities, and a clear call to action for policymakers across the U.S.Highlights of the Podcast00:00 - Intro00:33 – Why Energy Dominance = National Security01:04 – The Shocking Truth About U.S. Data Stored in China02:27 – Voters See a Tech Arms Race With China03:23 – China's 10x Energy Build-Out Advantage03:58 – Nuclear Power, Permitting, & Speeding Up Builds05:42 – Using AI to Fix Permitting Bottlenecks06:08 – The “Three Horsemen” of Energy Dominance07:02 – Voters Overwhelmingly Support Cutting Red Tape08:03 – Grid Vulnerabilities & Chinese-Linked Equipment09:02 – Electricity as a Weapon of War10:12 – Bipartisan Consensus on Energy Independence10:40 – How the Rainey Center Started11:22 – Supporting Local, State & Federal Leaders14:00 – State-Level Energy Action & AI Competition With China16:41 – The Electricity War for Human Freedom17:15 – Wind, Solar, Nuclear & Reality of Energy Costs18:44 – Who Should Pay for Data Center Power?20:18 – Solar Already Built But Stuck in Red Tape21:48 – Critical Minerals, Supply Chains & Energy Security22:13 – How to Follow & Connect With Sarah23:59 – Closing RemarksWe recommend checking out the Rainey Center for Public Policy: https://www.raineycenter.org/Follow Sarah on her LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahelisabethhunt/Check out https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/and https://energynewsbeat.co/

Kara and Scott take questions from listeners about how they manage their money, how to fix the American tax system, and which public policy would help the greatest number of people.  Plus…all the audience suggestions for Kara's next tattoo. Watch this episode on the ⁠⁠Pivot YouTube channel⁠⁠.Follow us on Instagram and Threads at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcastofficial⁠⁠.Follow us on Bluesky at ⁠⁠@pivotpod.bsky.social⁠⁠Follow us on TikTok at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcast⁠⁠.Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or email Pivot@voxmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What if a single clause in your job contract could quietly shape how much you are able to get paid -- after you leave that job? And what if that same contract clause ends up limiting the places you can move for a job? Today, the hidden power of the non-compete clause. New research from Matt Johnson, professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and co-authors gives insight into what the practice actually costs workers.

In this episode, I'm joined by Shana Peschek, Executive Director of the Machinists Institute, for a timely conversation about what it really takes to build a manufacturing workforce that can meet the moment. Workforce is one of the AMCC “Big Six” pillars of a functioning regional manufacturing ecosystem, and across the country, we're falling short. Shana brings a practitioner's lens to this challenge, drawing on her experience building apprenticeship and training models to support advanced manufacturing talent pipelines.We talk about how the Machinists Institute was founded by IAM District 751 to serve aerospace, manufacturing, and industrial trades; how Shana scaled the organization from an idea into a statewide—and now national—workforce platform; and why apprenticeship is fundamentally an educational modality, not a niche labor program. Along the way, she breaks down persistent myths around apprenticeship, explains how employer-driven curriculum keeps training relevant, and shares how the Institute partners with unions, non-union employers, community colleges, workforce boards, and community-based organizations without duplicating efforts.If you care about reindustrialization, aerospace and defense manufacturing, apprenticeships, or how regions can build real workforce capacity,this is a must-listen. Shana's work shows what systems leadership looks like in practice, and why workforce development can't be siloed from economic development if we're serious about competing globally, way to go Shana!

Daily Israeli breaches of the Gaza ceasefire agreement threaten the entire peace process, says the Qatari prime minister, who helped broker the deal forged by Donald Trump. So, what's gone wrong -- and what might the US president do to get it back on track? In this episode: Tamer Qarmout - Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies Daniel Levy - President of the U.S. / Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator Rami Khouri - Distinguished Fellow at the American University of Beirut Host: Folly Bah Thibault Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

Explore how students are using simple mindful breathing practices to navigate stress, stay grounded, and support their classmates.Summary: Classrooms often are confronted with difficult topics that can leave students overwhelmed and anxious. In this episode of The Science of Happiness, we highlight how college student Evelyn Mata brought calm to herself and peers during an Immigration Studies class through simple collective breathing practices. How to Do Box Breathing: Sit comfortably: Find a quiet spot and focus on your breath, keeping a relaxed posture.  Inhale (4 counts): Breathe in slowly through your nose, letting the air fill your belly and chest. Keep the pace steady, not strained for a count of four.  Hold (4 counts): Pause gently at the top of the inhale. This isn't a tense hold, just a moment of stillness to let the body register calm. Hold your breath for four slow counts.  Exhale (4 counts): Release the breath through your nose or mouth in a smooth, even flow. Imagine tension leaving the body as the breath moves out for a count of four, emptying your lungs.  Hold (4 counts): Let yourself rest briefly in the empty space before the next inhale. This completes the “box.” Repeat: Continue this cycle for several minutes, or for 3-4 rounds, until you feel calmer. Stop sooner if you feel lightheaded; return to natural breathing when you're done. Scroll down for a transcription of this episode.Today's Guests: EVELYN MATA is an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley, studying Psychology and Public Policy.DR. PABLO GONZALEZ is a professor in the Ethnic Studies department at UC Berkeley.Learn more about Pablo here: https://ethnicstudies.berkeley.edu/people/pablo-gonzalezRelated The Science of Happiness episodes:  Breathe Away Anxiety (Cyclic Sighing): https://tinyurl.com/3u7vsrr5How To Tune Out The Noise: https://tinyurl.com/4hhekjuh What To Do When Stress Takes Over: https://tinyurl.com/mskvfmv4Related Happiness Breaks:Make Uncertainty Part of the Process: https://tinyurl.com/234u5ds7A Meditation for When You Feel Uneasy: https://tinyurl.com/4x27ut3pA Mindful Breath Meditation, With Dacher Keltner: https://tinyurl.com/mr9d22krTell us about your experience with this practice. Email us at happinesspod@berkeley.edu or follow on Instagram @HappinessPod.Help us share The Science of Happiness! Leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts and share this link with someone who might like the show: https://tinyurl.com/2p9h5aapTranscription: https://tinyurl.com/4wz4vbc3

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Lamell J. McMorris about his book, THE POWER TO PERSIST: 8 Simple Habits To Build Lifelong Resilience. Lamell J. McMorris is a nationally recognized entrepreneur, activist, and changemaker dedicated to advancing equity and revitalizing underserved communities. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, he went on to find phenomenal success as a D.C. policymaker, a consultant in the financial and professional sports arenas, and a civil and human rights advocate. McMorris is the founder and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based company Phase 2 Consulting, which offers strategic insight and external affairs services to some of the nation's leading decision-makers in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including Fortune 100 companies. He is also founder and managing principal of Greenlining Realty USA, a comprehensive urban redevelopment firm dedicated to neighborhood investment, redevelopment, housing rehabilitation, and home improvement in low-income communities. He holds a BA in Religion and Society from Morehouse College, a MDiv in Social Ethics and Public Policy from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a DLP in Law and Policy from Northeastern University. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

The Reagan National Defense Survey has again illuminated the MAGA world: MAGA Republicans are not isolationists, nor are the majority of Americans. Despite what those in Washington assert Americans believe, the latest polling reveals that 64 percent of Americans support U.S. leadership on the world stage, with eight in ten self-identified MAGA Republicans driving that figure. So why do we see this dissonance on the Right? Who gets to speak for “America First,” and what does it really mean? Why are figures within Trump's ranks convincing him that his base opposes intervention and a strong foreign policy? The latest polling reminds us that the American people know who our enemies are, and they are telling us how they want to deal with them. Who's going to listen?Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. He previously practiced law at Covington & Burling LLP where he led the firm's Public Policy and Government Affairs practice group. Before joining Covington, he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Zakheim also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where he supported the department's policies and programs related to Iraq and Afghanistan coalition affairs. Mr. Zakheim also currently serves on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace and is a Commissioner on the Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy of the United States.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

A Chicago violence prevention program is pairing cognitive behavioral therapy with intensive mentoring and wraparound support to help high-risk teens avoid incarceration.Guests:Nour Abdul-Razzak, Research Associate, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy; Research Director, University of Chicago Inclusive Economy LabCharles Branas, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public HealthToni Copeland, Director of Student Supports and Violence Prevention Programs, Chicago Public SchoolsJennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice, Arnold VenturesJasper Guilbault, Therapist, BrightpointGary Ivory, President and CEO, Youth Advocate ProgramsJulie Noobler, Director of Mental Health and Wellness, BrightpointT-ManLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Help us unlock a $5,000 match by becoming one of 200 new donors at tradeoffs.org/donate.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“People are not looking for a perfect, polished answer. They're looking for a human to speak to them like a human,” says Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist and one of the most trusted science communicators in the U.S. to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. That philosophy explains her relatable, judgement-free approach to communications which aims to make science more human, more accessible and less institutional. In this wide-ranging Raise the Line discussion, host Lindsey Smith taps Rivera's expertise on how to elevate science understanding, build public trust, and equip people to recognize disinformation. She is also keen to help people understand the nuances of misinformation -- which she is careful to define – and the emotional drivers behind it in order to contain the “infodemics” that complicate battling epidemics and other public health threats. It's a thoughtful call to educate the general public about the science of information as well as the science behind medicine. Tune in for Rivera's take on the promise and peril of AI-generated content, why clinicians should see communication as part of their professional responsibility, and how to prepare children to navigate an increasingly complex information ecosystem.Mentioned in this episode:de Beaumont Foundation If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

In this episode of the Society of Actuaries Research Insights Podcast, Dale Hall, Managing Director of Research at the SOA Research Institute, welcomes Geralyn Trujillo, Senior Director of Public Policy at the American Academy of Actuaries. Together, they provide an insightful recap of the 2025 NAIC Fall Meeting held in Hollywood, Florida, December 8-11, 2025. The discussion covers key takeaways from the meeting, including updates from the SOA on climate-related research such as climate-induced migration, sea level rise, and wildfires, as well as important developments in long-term care experience studies and global mortality experience studies from Canada and China. Tune in for a deep dive into the issues shaping regulatory, policy, and actuarial landscapes in the U.S. and globally.

This episode is an audio recording of an Opportunity Starts at Home (OSAH) Campaign Roundtable event held in Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2025. The event brought together campaign partners to reflect on campaign achievements, mobilize around priority bills, and discuss new strategies to further multi-sector collaboration for housing affordability. The episode features Renee M. Willis, NLIHC President and CEO, Chantelle Wilkinson, NLIHC Vice President of Strategic Partnerships & Campaigns, May Louis-Juste, NLIHC Project Manager of Strategic Partnerships, Julie Walker, OSAH Campaign Project Manager, David Gonzalez Rice, NLIHC Senior Vice President of Public Policy, and Meghan Mertyris, NLIHC Disaster Recovery Policy Analyst. Learn more about the OSAH Roundtable here: https://www.opportunityhome.org/organizations-2/opportunity-roundtable/

Our world faces a growing set of challenges that transcend national borders - from climate change and pandemic threats to the governance of emerging technologies and the protection of public goods. Yet political authority and decision making remain overwhelmingly rooted in sovereign states. How, then, can global challenges be tackled effectively?In this special episode, we turn to the concept of global governance - the institutions, norms, and practices through which collective action is coordinated beyond the nation state. Joining us is Professor Tom Pegram, Director of the UCL Global Governance Institute and Programme Director of the MSc in Global Governance and Ethics in the UCL Department of Political Science.Tom recently delivered his inaugural lecture as Professor of Global Politics at UCL, titled “Crisis? What Crisis? Rethinking Global Governance Through the Lens of Crisis.” Drawing on that lecture and his wider body of work, this conversation ranges across his academic career and explores how moments of crisis, from financial shocks and pandemics to democratic backsliding and climate emergencies, both expose the limits of existing governance arrangements and create opportunities for innovation and reform.Mentioned in this episode:Prof Pegram's lecture on YouTubeReflexive legitimation conflict: trumpism and the crisis of legitimacy in global AI governance in Global Public Policy and Governance. UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

Claire de Mézerville López welcomes Blair Kirby and Professor Mark Osler to the Restorative Works! Podcast. Blair and Mark join us to illuminate how restorative practices intersect with clemency work, storytelling, and systemic reform. Their conversation opens a window into the human impact of policies that often feel remote, revealing how small acts of recognition and repair can shift entire systems toward healing. Mark tells us about his commutation clinic at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, where he guides students as they uncover untold stories, meet directly with clients inside federal prisons, and learn how authentic narrative reshapes justice. Blair, a third-year law student and senior editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy, brings her own lens as a former data analyst turned advocate. Her retelling of a first-degree murder clemency case, where three heartfelt apology letters were lost inside the corrections system, reveals how transparency and communication influence a victim's family's capacity to heal. Together, Mark and Blair describe how the commutation clinic operates at both the individual and systemic level, helping incarcerated people tell the fuller stories of their lives while also proposing legislative reforms that expand access to second chances. They highlight clients whose transformations demonstrate the power of rehabilitation, the role of narrative in restorative justice, and the responsibility of legal advocates to restore humanity, not simply file petitions. Blair grew up in South Korea and came to the US on her own at 15. After graduating from Macalester College with degrees in Applied Mathematics, Statistics, and Economics, she worked with government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on epidemiology studies during the COVID-19 pandemic as a data and policy analyst in the Bay Area of California. She is currently a student at the University of St. Thomas School of Law (MN). Mark is the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, where he was chosen as Professor of the Year in 2016, 2019, and 2022. He also holds the Ruthie Mattox Preaching Chair at First Covenant Church, Minneapolis. His writing on clemency, sentencing, and narcotics policy has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Atlantic and in law journals at Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, Northwestern, Georgetown, the University of Texas, Ohio State, UNC, William and Mary, and Rutgers. A former federal prosecutor, he won the case of Spears v. United States in the U.S. Supreme Court, with the Court ruling that judges could categorically reject the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine in the federal sentencing guidelines. Mark is a graduate of the College of William and Mary and Yale Law School. Tune in to discover how storytelling, advocacy, and courageous leadership move restorative justice from theory into action.

Arrancamos con housekeeping importante de fin de año: no hay episodio el viernes, el del domingo se graba el jueves con Zoom, y el martes 23 es el último episodio del 2025. En el tema principal entramos de lleno a la comparación que muchos están mezclando: ¿en qué se diferencia la demanda contra LUMA del caso de Valerie DACO? Explicamos por qué LUMA removió el caso al foro federal, qué puede pasar ahora y cuáles son los findings clave que separan ambos escenarios: el contrato como propiedad del deudor, el police power del gobierno como excepción al Código de Quiebras y el Public Policy and Pecuniary Interest Test. Derecho, pero explicado. Luego volvemos a #NoticieroWars para contestarle —con calma quirúrgica— a quienes no nos pueden sacar de la boca. Si hay reply, hay reply. Si fueras integrante de nuestro Patreon, hubieras escuchado este episodio ayer. Únete ahora en patreon.com/puestospalproblema! PRESENTADO POR

Higher education is operating in a more competitive, consumer-driven environment than ever before, and new data shows what actually moves the needle. In this episode, Patrick Patterson, CEO of Level Agency, and Prithwi Dasgupta, President of LeadSquared North America, join host Jason Altmire to unpack national benchmarking data, analyzing more than 500,000 student inquiries and $100 million in higher education advertising spend.The conversation explores what the data reveals about enrollment performance today, including why responding to student inquiries within the first five minutes leads to significantly higher conversion rates, how channel mix and brand building impact cost per enrollment, and where many institutions are misallocating their marketing dollars. Listen now and learn how to adjust your marketing strategy!Learn more about Level Agency here.Learn more about LeadSquared here.Read the report here.To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website.

Colonel Lawrence (Larry) Wilkerson is a retired US Army Colonel who served in the military for 31 years and was the former chief of staff to General Colin Powell in his role as Secretary of State and earlier as a General Powell's special assistant when he served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He is a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of  Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Col. Wilkerson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, the Bush and Cheney White House, and the Biden administration's fueling the current military engagements underway in Ukraine and Palestine at the expense of peaceful negotiations. 

Is grad school on your radar? Join host Tasha (formerly at Boston University and USC) and IvyWise graduate school admissions expert Indhika (formerly at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service and McCourt School of Public Policy) as they break down what you should be doing in each year of your undergraduate career to prepare for successful graduate school applications.

Chapters:0:00 Introduction and Manbun3;00 Mosharraf Zaidi and the current regime11:00 PTI's future15:25 Shahbaz Sharif23:00 War with India24:46 Nadir Ali and Entertainment content37:00 Ayurvedic Medicine vs Western Medicine 43:30 Pitfalls of Capitalism and Public Policy making55:00 Hum Jannat Jaye gai1:00:32 God and existential philosophy1:10:24 Zahid Ahmed's clip and Hamza Ali Abbasi's evolution1:17:30 Malash story1:20:30 Audience QuestionsThe Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceTo support the channel:Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912Patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceAnd Please stay in touch:https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperiencehttps://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperienceThe podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikhFacebook.com/Shehzadghias/Twitter.com/shehzad89Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC44l9XMwecN5nSgIF2Dvivg/join

Listener survey: bit.ly/datasmartpodIn our end-of-year episode, host Stephen Goldsmith reflect on 2025's most promising advancements in local government and shares his vision for how cities can harness generative AI to drive real change. Goldsmith discusses why a problem-first approach to AI implementation matters, how cities can rebuild public trust through better community listening, and why government processes must fundamentally transform—not just be overlaid with new technology. Drawing on decades of experience, he explains how bridging the gap between data-rich officials and context-rich residents creates opportunities for meaningful, co-created solutions.Episodes mentioned: City Leadership in the AI Era with Rochelle Haynes and Carrie Bishop; Generative AI and the Possibility Government with Mitch Weiss; and Recoding America Author Interview with Jennifer Pahlka.Music credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter. 

Steve Forbes explains how Congressional Republicans can push back on Democrats' successful efforts to portray them as wrong on healthcare, achieve good results for the American people, and regain momentum as the midterms near.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, Norbert Wilson of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy speaks with researchers Jean Adams from the University of Cambridge and Mike Essman from Duke's World Food Policy Center. They discuss the mandatory calorie labeling policy introduced in England in April 2022 for large food-away-from-home outlets. The conversation covers the study recently published in the British Medical Journal, exploring its results, strengths, limitations, and implications within the broader context of food labeling and public health policies. Key findings include a slight overall reduction in calorie content offered by food outlets, driven by the removal of higher-calorie items rather than reformulation. The discussion also touches on the potential impacts on different consumer groups, the challenges of policy enforcement, and how such policies could be improved to more effectively support public health goals. Interview Summary Now everyone knows eating out is just part of life. For many, it's a place to make connections, can be a guilty pleasure, and sometimes it's just an outright necessity for busy folks. But it is also linked to poor dietary quality, weight gain, and even obesity. For policymakers, the challenge is identifying what policy changes can help improve population health. Jean, let's begin with you. Can you tell our listeners about the UK's menu labeling intervention and what change did you hope to see? Jean - Yes, so this was a policy that was actually a really long time in coming and came in and out of favor with a number of different governments. So maybe over the last 10 years we've had various different suggestions to have voluntary and/or mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector. Eventually in April, 2022, we did have new mandatory regulations that came into a force that required large businesses just in England - so not across the whole of the UK, just in England - if they sold food and non-alcoholic drinks and they had to display the calories per portion of every item that they were selling. And then have alongside that somewhere on their menu, a statement that said that adults need around 2000 calories per day. The policy applied just to large businesses, and the definition of that was that those businesses have 250 or more employees, but the employees didn't all have to be involved in serving food and drinks. This might apply also to a large hotel chain who just have some bars or something in their hotels. And the food and drinks covered were things that were available for immediate consumption. Not prepackaged. And then there was also this proviso to allow high-end restaurants to be changing their menus regularly. So, it was only for things that were on the menu for at least 30 days. You mentioned that this policy or a menu labeling might have at least two potential modes of impacts. There's first this idea that providing calories or any sort of labeling on food can somehow provide information for consumers to make what we might hope would be better choices. Might help them choose lower calorie options or healthier options. And then the second potential impact is that businesses might also use the information to change what sort of foods they're serving. It might be that they didn't realize how many calories were in the foods and they're suddenly embarrassed about it. Or as soon as their customers realize, they start to put a little bit of pressure on, you know, we want something a little bit lower calorie. So, there's this potential mechanism that operates at the demand side of how consumers might make choices. And another one at the supply side of what might be available to consumers. And we knew from previous evaluations of these sorts of interventions that there was some evidence that both could occur. Generally, it seems to be that findings from other places and countries are maybe null to small. So, we were thinking that maybe we might see something similar in England. Thank you for sharing that background. I do have a question about the length of time it took to get this menu labeling law in place. Before we get into the results, do you have a sense of why did it take so long? Was it industry pushback? Was it just change of governments? Do you have a sense of that? Jean - Yes, so I think it's probably a bit of both. To begin with, it was first proposed as a voluntary measure actually by industry. So, we had this kind of big public-private partnership. What can industry do to support health? And that was one of the things they proposed. And then they didn't really do it very well. So, there was this idea that everybody would do it. And in fact, we found maybe only about 20% of outlets did it. And then definitely we have had government churn in the UK over the last five years or so. So, every new prime minister really came in and wanted to have their own obesity policy threw out the last one started over. And every policy needs consulted on with the public and then with industry. And that whole process just kind of got derailed over and over again. Thank you. That is really helpful to understand that development of the policy and why it took time. Industry regulated policy can be a tricky one to actually see the results that we would hope. You've already given us a sort of insight into what you thought the results may be from previous studies - null to relatively small. So, Mike, I want to turn to you. Can you tell us what came out of the data? Mike - Thank you, yes. So, we found a small overall drop in average calories offered per item. That amounts to a total of nine calories per item reduction in our post policy period relative to pre policy. And this is about a 2% reduction. It was statistically significant and we do in public health talk about how small effects can still have big impacts. So, I do want to sort of put that out there, but also recognize that it was a small overall drop in calories. And then what we did is we looked at how different food groups changed, and also how calories changed at different types of restaurants, whether it was fast food, restaurants, sit downs that we call pubs, bars, and inns. And then also other different types of takeaways like cafes and things like that where you might get a coffee or a cappuccino or something like that. What we found was driving the overall reduction in calories was a reduction in higher calorie items. So, as Jean mentioned at the outset, one of the things we were trying to identify in this analysis was whether we saw any evidence of reformulation. And we defined reformulation as whether specific products were reduced in their calories so that the same products were lower calories in the post period. We define that as reformulation. And that would be different from, say, a change in menu offering where you might identify a high calorie item and take it off the menu so that then the overall calories offered goes down on average. We found more evidence for the latter. Higher calorie items were removed. We separated into categories of removed items, items that were present in both periods, and new items added in the post period. There were higher calorie items in the removed group. The items that were present in both periods did not change. The new items were lower calorie items. What this says overall is this average reduction is driven by taking off high calorie items, adding some slightly lower calorie items. But we did not find evidence for reformulation, which is a crucial finding as well. We saw that the largest reductions occurred in burgers, beverages and a rather large mixed group called Mains. So, burgers reduced by 103 calories per item. That's pretty substantial. One of the reasons that's so large is that burgers, particularly if they're offered at a pub and might even come with fries or chips, as they say in the UK. And because they have such a high baseline calorie level, there's more opportunity to reduce. So, whether it's making it slightly smaller patty or reducing the cheese or something like that, that's where we saw larger reductions among the burgers. With beverages, typically, this involved the addition of lower calorie options, which is important if it gives an opportunity for lower calorie selections. And that was the main driver of reduction there. And then also we saw in Mains a reduction of 30 calories per item. A couple of the other things we wanted to identify is whether there was a change in the number of items that were considered over England's recommended calories per meal. The recommended calories per meal is 600 calories or less for lunch and dinner. And we saw no statistical change in that group. So overall, we do see a slight reduction in average calories. But this study did not examine changes in consumer behavior. I do want to just briefly touch on that because this was part of a larger evaluation. Another study that was published using customer surveys that was published in Nature Human Behavior found no change in the average calories purchased or consumed after the policy. This evaluation was looking at both the supply and the demand side changes as a result of this policy. Thanks, Mike and I've got lots of questions to follow up, but I'll try to control myself. The first one I'm interested to understand is you talk about the importance of the really calorie-heavy items being removed and the introduction of newer, lower calorie items. And you said that this is not a study of the demand, but I'm interested to know, do you have a sense that the higher calorie items may not have been high or top sellers. It could be easy for a restaurant to get rid of those. Do you have any sense of, you know, the types of items that were removed and of the consumer demand for those items? Mike - Yes. So, as I mentioned, given that the largest changes were occurring among burgers, we're sort of doing this triangulation attempt to examine all of the different potential impacts we can with the study tools we have. We did not see those changes reflected in consumer purchases. So, I think sticking with the evidence, the best thing we could say is that the most frequently purchased items were not the ones that were being pulled off of menus. I think that would be the closest to the evidence. Now, no study is perfect and we did in that customer survey examine the purchases and consumption of about 3000 individuals before and after the policy. It's relatively large, but certainly not fully comprehensive. But based on what we were able to find, it would seem that those reductions in large calorie items, it's probably fair to say, were sort of marginal choices. So, we see some reduction in calories at the margins. That's why the overall is down, but we don't see at the most commonly sold. I should also mention in response to that, a lot of times when we think about eating out of home, we often think about fast food. We did not see reductions in fast food chains at all, essentially. And so really the largest reductions we found were in what would be considered more sit-down dining establishment. For example, sit-down restaurants or even pubs, bars and ends was one of our other categories. We did see average reductions in those chains. The areas you kind of think about for people grabbing food quickly on the go, we did not see reductions there. And we think some of this is a function of the data itself, which is pubs, bars and inns, because they offer larger plates, there's a little bit more space for them to reduce. And so those are where we saw the reductions. But in what we might typically think is sort of the grab and go type of food, we did not see reductions in those items. And so when we did our customer surveys, we saw that those did not lead to reductions in calories consumed. Ahh, I see this and thank you for this. It sounds like the portfolio adjusted: getting rid of those heavy calorie items, adding more of the lower calorie items that may not have actually changed what consumers actually eat. Because the ones that they typically eat didn't change at all. And I would imagine from what you've said that large global brands may not have made many changes, but more local brands have more flexibility is my assumption of that. So that, that's really helpful to see. As you all looked at the literature, you had the knowledge that previous studies have found relatively small changes. Could you tell us about what this work looks like globally? There are other countries that have tried policy similar to this. What did you learn from those other countries about menu labeling? Jean - Well, I mean, I'm tempted to say that we maybe should have learned that this wasn't the sort of policy that we could expect to make a big change. To me one of the really attractive features of a labeling policy is it kind of reflects back those two mechanisms we've talked about - information and reformulation or changing menus. Because we can talk about it in those two different ways of changing the environment and also helping consumers make better choices, then it can be very attractive across the political landscape. And I suspect that that is one of the things that the UK or England learned. And that's reflected in the fact that it took a little while to get it over the line, but that lots of different governments came back to it. That it's attractive to people thinking about food and thinking about how we can support people to eat better in kind of a range of different ways. I think what we learned, like putting the literature all together, is this sort of policy might have some small effects. It's not going to be the thing that kind of changes the dial on diet related diseases. But that it might well be part of an integrated strategy of many different tools together. I think we can also learn from the literature on labeling in the grocery sector where there's been much more exploration of different types of labeling. Whether colors work, whether black stop signs are more effective. And that leads us to conclusions that these more interpretive labels can lead to bigger impacts and consumer choices than just a number, right? A number is quite difficult to make some sense of. And I think that there are some ways that we could think about optimizing the policy in England before kind of writing it off as not effective. Thank you. I think what you're saying is it worked, but it works maybe in the context of other policies, is that a fair assessment? Jean - Well, I mean, the summary of our findings, Mike's touched on quite a lot of it. We found that there was an increase in outlets adhering to the policy. That went from about 20% offered any labeling to about 80%. So, there were still some places that were not doing what they were expected to do. But there was big changes in actual labeling practice. People also told us that they noticed the labels more and they said that they used them much more than they were previously. Like there was some labeling before. We had some big increases in noticing and using. But it's... we found this no change in calories purchased or calories consumed. Which leads to kind of interesting questions. Okay, so what were they doing with it when they were using it? And maybe some people were using it to help them make lower calorie choices, but other people were trying to optimize calories for money spent? We saw these very small changes in the mean calorie of items available that Mike's described in lots of detail. And then we also did some work kind of exploring with restaurants, people who worked in the restaurant chains and also people responsible for enforcement, kind of exploring their experiences with the policy. And one of the big conclusions from that was that local government were tasked with enforcement, but they weren't provided with any additional resources to make that happen. And for various reasons, it essentially didn't happen. And we've seen that with a number of different policies in the food space in the UK. That there's this kind of presumption of compliance. Most people are doing it all right. We're not doing it a hundred percent and that's probably because it's not being checked and there's no sanction for not following the letter of the law. One of the reasons that local authorities are not doing enforcement, apart from that they don't have resources or additional resources for it, is that they have lots of other things to do in the food space, and they see those things as like higher risk. And so more important to do. One of those things is inspecting for hygiene, making sure that the going out is not poisonous or adulterated or anything like that. And you can absolutely understand that. These things that might cause acute sickness, or even death in the case of allergies, are much more important for them to be keeping an eye on than labeling. One of the other things that emerged through the process of implementation, and during our evaluation, was a big concern from communities with experience of eating disorders around kind of a greater focus on calorie counting. And lots of people recounting their experience that they just find that very difficult to be facing in a space where they're maybe not trying to think about their eating disorder or health. And then they're suddenly confronted with it. And when we've gone back and looked at the literature, there's just not very much literature on the impact of calorie labeling on people with eating disorders. And so we're a little bit uncertain still about whether that is a problem, but it's certainly perceived to be a problem. And lots of people find the policy difficult for that reason because they know someone in their family or one of their friends with an eating disorder. And they're very alert to that potential harm. I think this is a really important point to raise that the law, the menu labeling, could have differential effects on different consumers. I'm not versed in this literature on the triggering effects of seeing menu labeling for people with disordered eating. But then I'm also thinking about a different group of consumers. Consumers who are already struggling with obesity, and whether or not this policy is more effective for those individuals versus folks who are not. In the work that you all did, did you have any sense of are there heterogeneous effects of the labeling? Did different consumers respond differentially to seeing the menu label? Not just, for example, individuals maybe with disordered eating? Mike - In this work, we mostly focused on compliance, customer responses in terms of consumption and purchases, changes in menus, and customers reporting whether or not they increase noticing and using. When we looked at the heterogeneous effects, some of these questions are what led us to propose a new project where we interviewed people and tried to understand their responses to calorie labeling. And there we get a lot of heterogenous groups. In those studies, and this work has not actually been published, but should be in the new year, we found that there's a wide range of different types of responses to the policy. For example, there may be some people who recently started going to the gym and maybe they're trying to actually bulk up. And so, they'll actually choose higher calorie items. Conversely, there may be people who have a fitness routine or a dieting lifestyle that involves calorie tracking. And they might be using an app in order to enter the calories into that. And those people who are interested in calorie counting, they really loved the policy. They really wanted the policy. And it gave them a sense of control over their diet. And they felt comfortable and were really worried that if there was evidence that it wouldn't work, that would be taken away. Then you have a whole different group of people who are living with eating disorders who don't want to interact with those numbers when they are eating out of home. They would rather eat socially and not have to think about those challenges. There's really vast diversity in terms of the responses to the policy. And that does present a challenge. And I think what it also does is cause us just to question what is the intended mechanism of action of this policy? Because when the policy was implemented, there's an idea of a relatively narrow set of effects. If customers don't understand the number of calories that are in their items, you just provide them with the calories that are in those items, they will then make better choices as rational actors. But we know that eating out of home is far more complex. It's social. There are issues related to value for money. So maybe people want to make sure they're purchasing food that hasn't been so reduced in portions that now they don't get the value for money when they eat out. There are all sorts of body image related challenges when people may eat out. We didn't find a lot of evidence of this in our particular sample, but also in some of our consultation with the public in developing the interview, there's concern about judgment from peers when eating out. So, it's a very sensitive topic. Some of the implications of that are we do probably need more communication strategies that can come alongside these policies and sort of explain the intended mechanism impact to the public. We can't expect to simply add numbers to items and then expect that people are going to make the exact choices that are sort of in the best interest of public health. And that sort of brings us on to some potential alternative mechanisms of impact and other modes of labeling, and those sorts of things. Mike, this has been really helpful because you've also hinted at some of the ways that this policy as implemented, could have been improved. And I wonder, do you have any other thoughts to add to how to make a policy like this have a bigger impact. Mike - Absolutely. One of the things that was really helpful when Jean laid out her framing of the policy was there's multiple potential mechanisms of action. One of those is the potential reformulation in menu change. We talked about those results. Another intended mechanism of action is through consumer choice. So, if items have fewer calories on average, then that could reduce ultimately calories consumed. Or if people make choices of lower calorie items, that could also be a way to reduce the overall calories consumed. And I would say this calorie labeling policy, it is a step because the calories were not previously available. People did not know what they were eating. And if you provide that, that fulfills the duty of transparency by businesses. When we spoke to people who worked in enforcement, they did support the policy simply on the basis of transparency because it's important for people to understand what they're consuming. And so that's sort of a generally acceptable principle. However, if we want to actually have stronger population health impact, then we do need to have stronger mechanisms of action. One of the ways that can reduce calories consumed by the consumers, so the sort of demand side, would be some of the interpretive labels. Jean mentioned them earlier. There's now a growing body of evidence of across, particularly in Latin America. I would say some of the strongest evidence began in Chile, but also in Mexico and in other Latin American countries where they've put warning labels on items in order to reduce their consumption. These are typically related to packaged foods is where most of the work has been done. But in order to reduce consumer demand, what it does is rather than expecting people to be sort of doing math problems on the fly, as they go around and make their choices, you're actually just letting them know, well, by the way, this is an item that's very high in calories or saturated fat, or sodium or sugars. Or some combination of those. What that does is you've already helped make that decision for the consumers. You've at least let them know this item has a high level of nutrients of concern. And you can take that away. Conversely, if you have an item that's 487 calories, do you really know what you're going to do with that information? So that's one way to have stronger impact. The other way that that type of policy can have stronger impact is it sets clear thresholds for those warnings. And so, when you have clear thresholds for warnings, you can have a stronger mechanism for reformulation. And what companies may want to do is they may not want to display those warning labels, maybe because it's embarrassing. It makes their candy or whatever the unhealthy food look bad. Sort of an eyesore, which is the point. And what they'll do is they can reformulate those nutrients to lower levels so that they no longer qualify for that regulation. And so there are ways to essentially strengthen both of those mechanisms of action. Whereas when it's simply on the basis of transparency, then what that does is leave all of the decision making and work on the consumer. Mike, this is great because I've worked with colleagues like Gabby Fretes and Sean Cash and others on some menu labeling out of Chile. And we're currently doing some work within the center on food nutrition labels to see how different consumers are responding. There's a lot more work to be done in this space. And, of course, our colleagues at UNC (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) have also been doing this work. So, this work is really important because it tells us how it can help consumers make different choices, and how it can affect how companies behave. My final question to the two of you is simply, what would you like policymakers to learn from this study? Or maybe not just this study alone, but this body of work. What should they take away? Jean - Well, I think there's lots of information out there on how to do food labeling well, and we can certainly learn from that. And Mike talks about the work from South America particularly where they're helping people identify the least healthy products. And they're also providing messaging around what you should do with that - like choose a product with fewer of these black symbols. But I think even if labeling is optimized, it's not really going to solve our problem of dietary related diseases. And I think I always want policymakers to know, and I think many of them do understand this, that there is no one magic solution and we need to be thinking about labeling as part of a strategy that addresses marketing in its entirety, right? Companies are using all sorts of strategies to encourage us to buy products. We need to be thinking of all sorts of strategies to support people to buy different products and to eat better. And I think that focuses on things like rebalancing price, supporting people to afford healthier food, focusing advertising and price promotions on healthier products. And I also think we need to be looking even further upstream though, right? That we need to be thinking about the incentives that are driving companies to make and sell less healthy products. Because I don't think that they particularly want to be selling less healthy products or causing lots of illness. It's those products are helping them achieve their aims of creating profit and growth for their shareholders. And I think we need to find creative ways to support companies to experiment with healthier products that either help them simultaneously achieve those demands of profit or growth. Or somehow allow them to step away from those demands either for a short period or for a longer period. I think that that requires us to kind of relook at how we do business in economics in our countries. Mike? Yes, I think that was a really thorough answer by Jean. So, I'll just add a couple points. I think most fundamentally what we need to think about when we're doing policy making to improve diet is we need to always think about are we helping to make the healthier choice the easier choice? And what that means is we're not implementing policies that merely provide information that then require individuals to do the rest of the work. We need to have a food environment that includes healthier options that are easily accessible, but also affordable. That's one thing that's come through in quite a lot of the work we've done. There are a lot of concerns about the high cost of food. If people feel like the healthier choices are also affordable choices, that's one of many ways to support the easier choice. And I really just want to reiterate what Jean said in terms of the economics of unhealthy food. In many ways, these large multinational corporations are from their perspective, doing right by their shareholders by producing a profitable product. Now there are debates on whether or not that's a good thing, of course. There's quite a lot of evidence for the negative health impacts of ultra-processed (UPF) products, and those are getting a lot more attention these days and that's a good thing. What we do need to think about is why is it that UPFs are so widely consumed. In many ways they are optimized to be over consumed. They're optimized to be highly profitable. Because the ingredients that are involved in their production means that they can add a lot of salt, sugar, and fat. And what that does is lead to overconsumption. We need to think about that there's something fundamentally broken about this incentive structure. That is incentivizing businesses to sell unhealthy food products with these food additives that lead to over consumption, obesity, and the associated comorbidities. And if we can start to make a little progress and think creatively about how could we incentivize a different incentive structure. One where actually it would be in a food business's best interest to be much more innovative and bolder and produce healthier products for everyone. That's something that I think we will have to contend with because if we are thinking that we are only going to be able to restrict our way out of this, then that's very difficult. Because people still need to have healthy alternatives, and so we can't merely think about restricting. We also have to think about how do we promote access to healthier foods. This is great insight. I appreciate the phrasing of making the healthy choice the easy choice, and I also heard a version of this making the healthy choice the affordable choice. But it also seems like we need to find ways to make the healthy choice the profitable choice as well. Bios: Jean Adams is a Professor of Dietary Public Health and leads the Population Health Interventions Programme at the University of Cambridge MRC Epidemiology Unit. Adams trained in medicine before completing a PhD on socio-economic inequalities in health. This was followed by an MRC Health of the Population fellowship and an NIHR Career Development Fellowship both exploring influences on health behaviours and socio-economic inequalities in these. During these fellowships Jean was appointed Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in Public Health at Newcastle University. Jean moved to Cambridge University to join the MRC Epidemiology Unit and CEDAR in 2014 where she helped establish the Dietary Public Health group. She became Programme Leader in the newly formed Population Health Interventions programme in 2020, and was appointed Professor of Dietary Public Health in 2022. Mike Essman is a Research Scientist at Duke University's World Food Policy Center. His background is in evaluating nutrition and food policies aimed at improving diets and preventing cardiometabolic diseases. His work employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore drivers of dietary behavior, particularly ultra-processed food consumption, across diverse environments and countries. Mike earned his PhD in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his research focused on evaluating the impacts of a sugary beverage tax in South Africa. He completed MSc degrees in Medical Anthropology and Global Health Science at the University of Oxford through a fellowship. Prior to joining Duke, he conducted research at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, where he evaluated the impacts of calorie labeling policies in England and led a study examining public perceptions of ultra-processed foods.  

Renée DiResta, Lawfare contributing editor and associate research professor at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy, and Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare senior editor and associate professor of law the University of Minnesota, spoke with Jacob Mchangama, research professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and founder of The Future of Free Speech, and Jacob Shapiro, the John Foster Dulles Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University. The conversation covered the findings of a new report examining how AI models handle contested speech; comparative free speech regulations across six jurisdictions; empirical testing of how major chatbots respond to politically sensitive prompts; and the tension between free expression principles and concerns about manipulation in AI systems. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Nathan Fabian, Chief Sustainable Systems Officer at the PRI, examines rising economic inequality and why it poses a material, systemic risk for long-term investors. He is joined by Delaney Greig (Director of Investor Stewardship, University Pension Plan Ontario), Emma Douglas (Sustainable Investment & Stewardship Lead, Brightwell; BT Pension Scheme), and David Wood (Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School).Together, they explore how inequality affects economic stability, corporate performance, long-horizon portfolio returns, and what asset owners can do to respond.OverviewTen years after the adoption of the SDGs, inequality is increasing across major economies. The top 1% now holds over 40% of global wealth, and widening gaps in income, labour rights and access to opportunity are shaping economic and political outcomes.The guests discuss:Why inequality is a non-diversifiable, systemic riskHow it undermines growth, resilience and productivityThe implications for diversified investorsThe interplay between inequality, climate, nature and social outcomesHow asset owners can use stewardship, integration and policy engagement to address key driversDetailed Coverage1. Why inequality matters for investorsDelaney and Emma outline why rising inequality threatens long-term returns: weakening demand, increasing volatility, reducing workforce resilience, and fuelling political instability. Both highlight evidence linking excessive pay gaps and poor labour practices to weaker corporate performance.2. What the research showsDavid summarises major findings from the IMF, OECD and others showing that inequality constrains growth rather than accelerates it. He notes that investors have clearer data and frameworks today than ever before, and that social issues have become central to responsible investment.3. Making inequality actionableEmma discusses a new analysis tool developed with Cambri to map social risks across sectors, revealing under-examined areas such as technology, media and natural-resource-intensive industries.Delaney explains UPP's “top-and-bottom guardrails” approach, engaging on excessive executive pay at the top and fundamental labour rights at the bottom.4. Stewardship, integration and policyThe panel discusses:Embedding social risks into investment processesSector-level prioritisationCollective action on labour rightsThe emerging TISFD standardHow investors should (and should not) engage in political debates around taxation, labour markets and redistribution5. Looking aheadGuests reflect on:Strengthening investor–manager dialogueIntegrating inequality into capital allocation decisionsOpportunities in areas such as affordable housingAddressing market concentration and competition issuesThe need for aligned, collective advocacy from asset ownersChapters(0:00) - Introduction: Economic Inequality and Investment Risk (2:29) - Delaney Greg: Why Inequality Matters for Pension Plans (4:50) - Emma Douglas: Systemic Risk and Investment Opportunities (7:16) - David Wood: Research on Inequality and Growth (9:21) - Understanding the Drivers of Economic Inequality (11:51) - Emma's Approach: Using Data and AI for Social Risk Analysis (15:01) - Delaney's Strategy: Top-End and Bottom-End Guardrails (17:55) - Measuring Impact and Defining Success in Inequality Work (20:16) -...

Why is there so much dumb public policy and what can we do about it?There's government money to address a service need in just about every arena, which is great. But the flip side of that is the rules that are attached to that money. The rules about who can be served, how they can be served, under what circumstances, how money can be spent. All those rules, more often than not, get in the way of Nonprofits' ability to provide a high-quality service that is going to actually solve the problem. It happens so often that we start to think that's just the way it always is. I had a conversation recently with one of my clients who expressed this exact sentiment. She had been dealing with a number of really stupid public policy problems. And one day in exasperation, she just said, “public policy is just bad. It never works.”  My initial reaction to that was to argue with her. But the fact is, a lot of the time that's true. The problem with operating from that frame is two things really. One, it presumes things can't be changed. And two, it keeps you operating under a set of limitations that are tangibly impairing your ability to deliver the exceptional outcomes you want to create. It's time to take apart why so much public policy is such a mess. And then look at what we can do about it – without devoting our entire lives to changing public policy. Because we have other work we have to do.  There really are things that we can do. And you'll not be surprised to learn that a lot of them center on our messaging and engagement strategies. In this episode, we share:The three main causes of unhelpful, counterproductive public policy around fundingHow good intentions result in some of the worst policy decisionsThe biggest mistake Nonprofit leaders often make when trying to get decisionmakers to change an unhelpful policyWhy your best policy analysis will likely be ignored if you offer it at the wrong point in the processThe perspective shift we must be able to make in order to motivate the decisionmaker to help solve the problem they createdHow to create powerful metaphors that will help decisionmakers see the flaws in their policy Ready to take your messaging and engagement skills to the next level and start getting next-level results? The wait list for my new coaching program is now open. Only 10 Founding Member spots will be available. Claim yours by sending me a message here: On the Podcast websiteOn LinkedIn

Have you ever spent over a fortnight in Antarctica? Jess Styles recounts a fabulous experience with Homeward Bound doing exactly that!My guest today is Jess Styles who earlier this year spent 16 days on a ship in Antarctica with 120 other women leaders in STEM. Not only did she learn a lot about leadership, ice and penguins... she had the opportunity to self-reflect and heal having undergone cancer treatment only months before. Join Jess and me for this fascinating reflection. Jess, on what she learned:"In Antarctica, we saw extreme nature and got to see places no human has ever set foot in before which was really special. With 120 other STEM leaders onboard our ship over the 16 days, I learned a lot about leadership and what kind of leader I aspire to be. A big part of my learning was self-discovery. Taking time out for me was really important and I'd encourage everyone to do that: take time out for yourself because it isn't selfish - it's needed. It was very freeing to have that time to work out what I really want to do."Links:For Career & Leadership coaching, connect with Rebecca Allen on Linkedin or visit the Illuminate website Rate, Review, & Follow our Show on Apple Podcasts:Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast. We air every week and I don't want you to miss out on a single broadcast. Follow now!About Jess:Jess Styles is a graduate of Human Biology and Psychology with a Masters degree in Social and Public Policy. She has worked for the public service, not-for-profit and private sectors to support health and wellbeing outcomes for Australians, using her knowledge and experience to connect and understand people.Currently working to support outcomes in social policy and gender equality for education, Jess has also had roles in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health space, supporting work in closing the gap in health inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.  She has previous experience in supporting mental health research in current serving and recently discharged military veterans, and their families to support policy change and clinical outcomes for the Australian Defence Force.About Rebecca:Rebecca Allen is a Career & Leadership Coach for corporate women, aspiring to senior levels of leadership. Over the last decade, Rebecca has helped women realise their potential at companies including Woolworths, ANZ, J.P. Morgan, PwC, Coca-Cola Amatil, Ministry of Defence, Frontier Sensing and AbbVie Medical Research through her Roadmap to Senior Leadership coaching programs. 

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Joining State of Tel Aviv and Beyond today is Professor Suzie Navot, one of Israel's foremost constitutional law experts currently serving as Vice President of the Israel Democracy Institute.For six years now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been on trial for multiple corruption charges. He does not hide his contempt for the judicial system which he considers to be rotten to the core. A consistent theme of his leadership for the last decade has been to relentlessly attack the judiciary and law enforcement institutions for being an elitist, self-serving clique that is also left leaning and determined to sabotage the policies of his successive government coalitions. Most recently, Netanyahu has enlisted the support of U.S. President Trump to publicly pressure President Isaac Herzog to grant him a pardon; to make the charges and the trial just go away. Two months ago, in signature Trump larger-than-life theatrics, the American president implored his Israeli counterpart to just give Bibi a pardon already. Raucous applause filled the Knesset hall - where Trump was speaking - but the din has since died down. Pardoning Netanyahu is no simple matter - legally, politically or in terms of social mores. But Netanyahu is not relenting. In the last two weeks, Bibi and his lawyer sent written documents to President Herzog setting out what they state is the legal rationale for granting a pardon. Interestingly, they present Netanyahu as the man who is needed to heal the country and manage the security and diplomatic challenges free from distractions - like the trial. But, as Prof. Navot notes - Benjamin Netanyahu is charged personally with corruption-related offenses. He is not the state. And he is not above the law. With clarity and precision, Prof. Navot explains why the Netanyahu pardon request does not meet Israeli legal requirements and this request places President Herzog in a very difficult spot.Show your support for STLV at buymeacoffee.com/stateoftelavivPodcast NotesProfessor Suzie Navot is a Professor of Constitutional Law. She holds an LL. B degree from Tel-Aviv University, an MA in Public Policy from Tel-Aviv University and a LL.D from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her doctoral thesis studied the parliamentary immunity of the Knesset members.Prof. Navot's areas of research include constitutional law, law of institutions, parliamentary law and comparative constitutional law.Prior to her appointment to IDI. she served on the faculty of the Striks Faculty of Law, College of Management. For over ten years, she served as a visiting Professor at the National Security College, and from 2009 until 2015, as a visiting Professor at the University of Paris (Sorbonne).Navot has served as the Chairperson of the Israeli Association of Public Law (2014-2017), currently serves on the executive council of the Israeli Association of Legislation and is a member of the Executive Council of the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL).She is active in a wide range of public activities. A small selection of these activities includes her service on public commissions dealing with such issues as an Ethics Code for the Israeli Parliament, the Presidential volunteers' award; the preparation of a new law on election propaganda (appointed by the Israeli President and the Chair of the Central Elections Committee), and was appointed by the Prime Minster to the board of directors for the Civil Service education program. Since 2021, Prof. Navot serves as a member of the commission tasked with preparing a draft of the Basic Law: The Legislature, presided by the Minister of Justice.Navot has published widely in several languages. She has prepared written opinions for Knesset committees and for the President of Israel on constitutional questions. She received a special award from the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the prestigious Zeltner prize for a special contribution to Israeli society in the field of law, and the “Ometz” award for a special contribution to the battle against corruption.In recognition of her extraordinary teaching skills, Navot was the recipient of the teaching excellence nomination, for almost 30 consecutive years, and the Inspiring Lecturer award, by the National Students Union.State of Tel Aviv is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.stateoftelaviv.com/subscribe

“Delivering a baby one day and holding a patient's hand at the end of life literally the next day...that continuity is very powerful,” says Dr. Jen Brull, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). And as she points out, that continuity also builds trust with patients, an increasingly valuable commodity when faith in medicine and science is declining. As you might expect given her role, Dr. Brull believes strengthening family medicine is the key to improving health and healthcare. Exactly how to do that is at the heart of her conversation with host Lindsey Smith on this episode of Raise the Line, which covers ideas for payment reform, reducing administrative burdens, and stronger support for physician well-being. And with a projected shortage of nearly forty thousand primary care physicians, Dr. Brull also shares details on AAFP's “Be There First” initiative which is designed to attract service-minded medical students – whom she describes as family physicians at heart -- early in their educational journey. “I have great hope that increasing the number of these service-first medical students will fill part of this gap.”Tune-in for an informative look at a cornerstone of the healthcare system and what it means to communities of all sizes throughout the nation.  Mentioned in this episode:AAFP If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

This hour, we look at the political erasure of history, and its impacts. Plus, we talk about why artists destroy their own work or the works of others. And, the history and evolution of erasers. GUESTS: Jason Stanley: Bissell-Heyd-Associates Chair in American Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto. His latest book is Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future Preminda Jacob: Associate Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where she is also an Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies Caroline Weaver: Former shopkeeper at CW Pencil Enterprise, a pencil shop in New York City. She is founder of The Locavore Guide and author of The Pencil Perfect: The Untold Story of a Cultural Icon Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to The Noseletter, an email compendium of merriment, secrets, and ancient wisdom brought to you by The Colin McEnroe Show. The Colin McEnroe Show is available as a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, TuneIn, Listen Notes, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe and never miss an episode! Colin McEnroe and Dylan Reyes contributed to this show, which originally aired on April 23, 2025.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Carol Platt Liebau, President of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy & Salem National News & Public Affairs Board Member, discusses the crisis of our young men, the role parents, society, and culture plays in properly rearing children, the profound loss of the late Charlie Kirk as a guiding voice for young men, and more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/44NZ88R Market Volatility, Small Cap Performance, and Corporate Takeovers: A Comprehensive Market Update In this episode, we cover the Fed's anticipated rate cut, the current state of credit spreads, and the mixed performance of sectors with a focus on semiconductors. We analyze the significant increase in negative earnings within the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index post-financial crisis and highlight the importance of selectivity in small cap investing. We also discuss President Zelensky's visit to London, Netflix's bid to acquire Warner Brothers Discovery, and the White House's concerns about the deal. Other topics include the executive order on AI regulation, China's compliance with new trade agreements, and the state of the U.S. labor market. We provide insights into New York City's office vacancy rates, the Bank of Japan's expected rate hike, and recent fluctuations in oil prices and infrastructure stocks. Additional information is available on DivaidendCafe.com, including a discussion on the yen carry trade and its potential future impact on stocks. 00:00 Market Overview and Rate Cuts 00:30 Equity Volatility and Sector Rotation 01:07 Small Cap Index Performance 02:10 Global News Highlights 02:38 Corporate News and Mergers 03:42 Public Policy and AI Regulation 04:43 Economic Indicators and Trade 05:04 Labor Market Analysis 07:07 Commercial Real Estate Insights 08:00 Global Financial Movements 08:57 Weekly Recap and Closing Remarks Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com