Podcasts about Public policy

Google and Microsoft issue critical updates. CISA warns of active exploitation of a critical flaw in Wing FTP Server. Cloudflare restores their DNS Resolver service following a brief outage. A critical vulnerability in a PHP documentation tool allows attackers to execute code on affected servers. NSA and FBI officials say they've disrupted Chinese cyber campaigns targeting U.S. critical infrastructure. A UK data breach puts Afghan soldiers and their families at risk. Researchers find malware hiding in DNS records. A former U.S. Army soldier pleads guilty to charges of hacking and extortion. Ben Yelin joins us with insights on the Senate Armed Services Committee's response to rising threats to critical infrastructure.The large print giveth and the small print taketh away.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today we are joined by Ben Yelin, co host of our Caveat podcast and Program Director for Public Policy & External Affairs at the University of Maryland Center for Cyber Health and Hazard Strategies, discussing the Senate Armed Services Committee's and Trump administration nominees' recent conversation about rising threats to critical infrastructure. You can find the article Ben discusses here. Selected Reading Google fixes actively exploited sandbox escape zero day in Chrome (Bleeping Computer) Windows KB5064489 emergency update fixes Azure VM launch issues (Bleeping Computer) Exploited Wing file transfer bug risks ‘total server compromise,' CISA warns (The Record) Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 incident on July 14, 2025 (Cloudflare) Critical template Injection flaw in LaRecipe Documentation Package enables remote code execution (Beyond Machines) NSA: Volt Typhoon was ‘not successful' at persisting in critical infrastructure (The Record) Defence secretary 'unable to say' if anyone killed after Afghan data breach  (BBC News) Hackers exploit a blind spot by hiding malware inside DNS records (Ars Technica) 21-year-old former US soldier pleads guilty to hacking, extorting telecoms  (The Record) WeTransfer says files not used to train AI after backlash (BBC News) Audience Survey Complete our annual audience survey before August 31. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Steve Forbes warns that lost in the endless conversation about tariffs is the issue of the tax wedge, a calculation that shows the real distance between a consumer and the ability to purchase a product, and how the new levies imposed by President Trump will create barriers to business.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Interview Summary So, you two, along with a number of other people in the field, wrote a chapter for a recently published book called The Handbook of Children and Screens. We discussed that book in an earlier podcast with its editors, Dmitri Christakis and Kris Perry, the executive director of the Children and Screens organization. And I'd like to emphasize to our listeners that the book can be downloaded at no cost. I'd like to read a quote if I may, from the chapter that the two of you wrote. 'Screen time continues to evolve with the advent of continuous and immersive video reels, voice activated assistance, social media influencers, augmented and virtual reality targeted advertising. Immersive worlds where children can virtually shop for food and beverages, cook or work in a fast-food outlet from a smartphone, a tablet, a computer, or an internet connected tv and more.' So as much as I follow the field, I still read that and I say, holy you know what. I mean that's just an absolutely alarming set of things that are coming at our children. And it really sounds like a tidal wave of digital sophistication that one could have never imagined even a short time ago. Amanda, let's start with you. Can you tell us a little bit more about these methods and how quickly they evolve and how much exposure children have? I think you're right, Kelly, that the world is changing fast. I've been looking at screen media for about 20 years now as a researcher. And in the earlier years, and Tom can attest to this as well, it was all about TV viewing. And you could ask parents how much time does your child spend watching TV? And they could say, well, they watch a couple shows every night and maybe a movie or two on the weekend, and they could come up with a pretty good estimate, 1, 2, 3 hours a day. Now, when we ask parents how much time their children spend with media, they have to stop and think, 'well, they're watching YouTube clips throughout the day. They're on their smartphone, their tablet, they're on social media, texting and playing all these different games.' It really becomes challenging to even get a grasp of the quantity of screen time let alone what kids are doing when they're using those screens. I will say for this book chapter, we found a really great review that summarized over 130 studies and found that kids are spending about three and a half or four hours a day using screens. Yet some of these studies are showing as high as seven or eight hours. I think it's probably under-reported because parents have a hard time really grasping how much time kids spend on screens. I've got a one-year-old and a five-year-old, and I've got some nieces and nephews and I'm constantly looking over their shoulder trying to figure out what games are they playing and where are they going online and what are they doing. Because this is changing really rapidly and we're trying to keep up with it and trying to make sure that screen time is a safe and perhaps healthy place to be. And that's really where a lot of our research is focused. I can only imagine how challenging it must be to work through that landscape. And because the technology advances way more quickly than the policies and legal landscape to control it, it really is pretty much whatever anybody wants to do, they do it and very little can be done about it. It's a really interesting picture, I know. We'll come back later and talk about what might be done about it. Tom, if you will help us understand the impact of all this. What are the effects on the diets of children and adolescents? I'm thinking particularly when Amanda was mentioning how many hours a day children are on it that three to four hours could be an underestimate of how much time they're spending. What did kids used to do with that time? I mean, if I think about when you and I were growing up, we did a lot of different things with that time. But what's it look like now? Well, that's one of the important questions that we don't really know a lot about because even experimental studies that I can talk about that look at reducing screen time have not been very good at being able to measure what else is going on or what substitutes for it. And so, a lot of the day we don't really know exactly what it's displacing and what happens when you reduce screen time. What replaces it? The assumption is that it's something that's more active than screen time. But, you know, it could be reading or homework or other sedentary behaviors that are more productive. But we really don't know. However, we do know that really the general consensus across all these studies that look at the relationship between screen time and nutrition is that the more time children spend using screens in general, the more calories they consume, the lower the nutritional quality of their diets and the greater their risk for obesity. A lot of these studies, as Amanda mentioned, were dominated by studies of television viewing, or looking at television viewing as a form of screen use. And there's much less and much more mixed results linking nutrition and obesity with other screens such as video games, computers, tablets, and smartphones. That doesn't mean those relationships don't exist. Only that the data are too limited at this point. And there's several reasons for that. One is that there just haven't been enough studies that single out one type of screen time versus another. Another is what Amanda brought up around the self-report issue, is that most of these studies depend on asking children or the parents how much time they spend using screens. And we know that children and adults have a very hard time accurately reporting how much time they're using screens. And, in fact when we measure this objectively, we find that they both underestimate and overestimate at times. It's not all in one direction, although our assumption is that they underestimate most of the time, we find it goes in both directions. That means that in addition to sort of not having that answer about exactly what the amount of screen time is, really makes it much tougher to be able to detect relationships because it adds a lot of error into our studies. Now there have been studies, as I mentioned, that have tried to avoid these limitations by doing randomized controlled trials. Including some that we conducted, in which we randomized children, families or schools in some cases to programs that help them reduce their screen time and then measure changes that occur in nutrition, physical activity, and measures of obesity compared to kids who are randomized to not receive those programs. And the randomized trials are really useful because they allow us to make a conclusion about cause-and-effect relationships. Some of these programs also targeted video games and computers as well as television. In fact, many of them do, although almost all of them were done before tablets and smartphones became very common in children. We still don't have a lot of information on those, although things are starting to come out. Most of these studies demonstrated that these interventions to reduce screen use can result in improved nutrition and less weight gain. And the differences seen between the treatment and control groups were sometimes even larger than those commonly observed from programs to improve nutrition and increased physical activity directly. Really, it's the strongest evidence we have of cause-and-effect relationships between screen use and poor nutrition and risk for obesity. Of course, we need a lot more of these studies, particularly more randomized controlled studies. And especially those including smartphones because that's where a lot of kids, especially starting in the preteen age and above, are starting to spend their time. But from what we know about the amount of apparent addictiveness that we see in the sophisticated marketing methods that are being used in today's media, I would predict that the relationships are even larger today than what we're seeing in all these other studies that we reviewed. It's really pretty stunning when one adds up all that science and it looks pretty conclusive that there's some bad things happening, and if you reduce screen time, some good things happen. So, Amanda, if you know the numbers off the top of your head, how many exposures are kids getting to advertisements for unhealthy foods? If I think about my own childhood, you know, we saw ads for sugar cereals during Saturday morning cartoon televisions. And there might have been a smattering if kids watch things that weren't necessarily just directed at kids like baseball games and stuff like that. But, and I'm just making this number up, my exposure to those ads for unhealthy foods might have been 20 a week, 30 a week, something like that. What does it look like now? That is a good question. Kelly. I'm not sure if anyone can give you a totally accurate answer, but I'll try. If you look at YouTube ads that are targeting children, a study found that over half of those ads were promoting foods and beverages, and the majority of those were considered unhealthy, low nutritional value, high calorie. It's hard to answer that question. What we used to do is we'd take, look at all the Saturday morning cartoons, and we'd actually record them and document them and count the number of food ads versus non-food ads. And it was just a much simpler time in a way, in terms of screen exposure. And we found in that case, throughout the '90s and early 2000s, a lot of food ads, a lot of instances of these food ads. And then you can look at food placement too, right? It's not an actual commercial, but these companies are paying to get their food products in the TV show or in the program. And it's just become much more complicated. I think it's hard to capture unless you have a study where you're putting a camera on a child, which some people are doing, to try to really capture everything they see throughout their day. It's really hard to answer, but I think it's very prolific and common and becoming more sophisticated. Okay, thanks. That is very helpful context. Whatever the number is, it's way more than it used to be. Definitely. And it also sounds as if and it's almost all for unhealthy foods, but it sounds like it's changed in other ways. I mean, at some point as I was growing up, I started to realize that these things are advertising and somebody's trying to sell me something. But that's a lot harder to discern now, isn't it with influencers and stuff built in the product placements and all that kind of stuff. So, to the extent we had any safeguards or guardrails in the beginning, it sounds like those are going to be much harder to have these days. That's right. It really takes until a child is 6, 7, 8 years old for them to even identify that this is a commercial. That this is a company that's trying to sell me something, trying to persuade. And then even older children are having to really understand those companies are trying to make money off the products that they sell, right? A lot of kids, they just look at things as face value. They don't discriminate against the commercial versus the non-commercial. And then like you're suggesting with social influencers, that they're getting paid to promote specific products. Or athletes. But to the child that is a character or a person that they've learned to love and trust and don't realize, and as adults, I think we forget sometimes too. That's very true. Amanda, let me ask about one thing that you and Tom had in your chapter. You had a diagram that I thought was very informative and it showed the mechanisms through which social media affects the diet and physical activity of children. Can you describe what you think some of the main pathways of influence might be? That figure was pretty fun to put together because we had a wonderful wealth of knowledge and expertise as authors on this chapter. And people provided different insight from the scientific evidence. I will say the main path we were trying to figure out how does this exposure to screen really explain changes in what children are eating, their risk for obesity, the inactivity and sedentary behavior they're engaging in? In terms of food, really what is I believe the strongest relationship is the exposure to food advertisement and the eating while engaging in screen time. You're getting direct consumption while you're watching screens, but also the taste preferences, the brand loyalty that's being built over time by constantly seeing these different food products consistently emerge as one of the strongest relationships. But we identified some other interesting potential mechanisms too. While kids are watching screens or engaging in screens, there's some evidence to indicate that they're not able to read their body as well. Their feelings of hunger, their feelings of satiety or fullness. That they're getting distracted for long periods of time. Also, this idea of instant gratification, just like the reward process of instant gratification with using the screen. They're so interactive. You can go online and get what you want and reach what you want. And the same thing is happening with food. It becomes habitual as well. Children get off of school and they go home, and they grab a snack, and they watch tv or they watch their YouTube clips or play their games. And it becomes an eating occasion that may not have otherwise existed. But they're just associating screen time with eating. There's some evidence even on screen time impacting inhibition and controlling impulse and memory. And that's more emerging, but it's interesting to just consider how this prolonged screen time where you're not interacting with someone in person, your eyes are focused on the screen, might actually be having other cognitive impacts that we may not even be aware of yet. If we ask the question why Is screen time having a bad impact on children and their diets? It's almost let us count the ways. There are a lot of possible things going on there. And speaking of that, there's one question in particular I'd like to ask you, Tom. Certainly marketing might affect what kids prefer. Like it might make them want to have a cereal or a beverage A or snack food B or whatever it happens to be. But could it also affect hunger? How much kids want to eat? I mean, you think, well, hunger is biological, and the body sends out signals that it's time to eat. How does that all figure in? The research suggests it can. Advertising in particular but even non-advertising references or images of food can trigger hunger and eating whether or not you felt hungry before you saw them. And I'm guessing almost everyone's experienced that themselves, where they see an image of food, and all of a sudden, they're craving it. It can be as simple as Pavlov's dogs, you know, salivating in response to cues about food. In addition, I think one of the mechanisms that Amanda brought up is this idea that when you're distracted with a screen, it actually overruns or overwhelms your normal feelings of fullness or satiety during eating. When distracted, people are less aware of how much they're eating. And when you're eating while using a screen, people tend to eat until they've finished the plate or the bag or the box, you know? And until that's empty, till they get to the bottom, instead of stopping when they start to get full. Well, there's sort of a double biological whammy going on there, isn't there? It is affecting your likelihood of eating in the first place, and how hungry you feel. But then it also is affecting when you stop and your satiety happening. And you put those two together there's a lot going on, isn't there? Exactly. And it's really one of the reasons why a lot of our programs to reduce weight gain and improve nutrition really put a lot of emphasis on not eating in front of screens. Because our studies have shown it accounts for a large proportion of the calories consumed during the day. Oh, that's so interesting. Amanda, you mentioned influencers. Tell us a little bit more about how this works in the food space. These social influencers are everywhere, particularly Instagram, TikTok, et cetera. Kids are seeing these all the time and as I mentioned earlier, you often build this trusting relationship with the influencer. And that becomes who you look to for fads and trends and what you should and shouldn't do. A lot of times these influencers are eating food or cooking or at restaurants, even the ones that are reaching kids. As you analyze that, oftentimes it's the poor nutrition, high calorie foods. And they're often being paid for the ads too, which as we discussed earlier, kids don't always realize. There's also a lot of misinformation about diet and dieting, which is of concern. Misinformation that could be harmful for kids as they're growing and trying to grow in a healthy way and eat healthy foods. But kids who may look to overly restrict their foods, for example, rather than eating in a healthier manner. So that's definitely a problem. And then also, oftentimes these social influencers really have these unattainable beauty standards. Maybe they're using a filter or maybe they are models or whatnot. They're projecting these ideal body images that are very difficult and sometimes inappropriate for children to try to attain. Now, we've seen this in other forms, right? We've seen this in magazines going back. We've seen this on websites. But now as soon as a kid turns on their smartphone or their tablet and they're online, it's in front of them all the time. And, and they're interacting, they're liking it, they're commenting and posting. I think the social influencers have just really become quite pervasive in children's lives. Somebody who's an influencer might be recording something that then goes out to lots and lots of people. They're eating some food or there's some food sitting in the background or something like that. And they're getting paid for it, but not saying they're getting paid for it. Probably very few people realize that money is changing hands in all of that, I'm suspecting, is that right? Yes, I do believe they're supposed to do hashtag ad and there are different indicators, but I'm not sure the accountability behind that. And I'm also not sure that kids are looking for that and really understand what that means or really care what that means. Okay. Because they're looking to sense what's popular. But there's an opportunity to perhaps further regulate, or at least to educate parents and kids in that regard that I think would be helpful. Tom, while we're on this issue of conflicts of interest, there was recent press coverage, and then there were reports by reporters at the Washington Post and The Examination showing that the food industry was paying dieticians to be influencers who then posted things favorable to industry without disclosing their funding. How big of a problem do you think this is sort of overall with professionals being paid and not disclosing the payments or being paid even if they disclose things. What kind of a negative impact that's having? Yes, I find it very concerning as you would guess, knowing me. And I believe one of the investigations found that about half of influencers who were being paid to promote foods, drinks, or supplements, didn't disclose that they were paid. It was quite a large magnitude. It goes throughout all types of health professionals who are supposed to be sources of quality information and professional organizations themselves which take advertising or take sponsorships and then don't necessarily disclose it. And you know in this day when we're already seeing drops in the public's trust in science and in research, I think this type of information, or this type of deception just makes it a lot worse. As you know, Kelly, there's quite a bit of research that suggests that being paid by a company actually changes the way you talk about their products and even conduct research in a way that's more favorable to those products. Whether you think it does or not, whether you're trying to be biased or not. Tom, just to insert one thing in my experience. If you ask people in the field, does taking money from industry affect the way scientists do their work and they'll almost always say yes. But if you say, does it influence your work, they'll almost always say no. There's this unbelievable blind spot. And one might conclude from what you were telling us is that disclosure is going to be the remedy to this. Like for the half of people who didn't disclose it, it would be okay if they took the money as long as they disclosed it. But you're saying that's obviously not the case. That there's still all kinds of bias going on and people who are hearing some disclosure don't necessarily discount what they're hearing because of it. And it's still a pretty bad kettle of fish, even if disclosure occurs. It's especially pernicious when it doesn't, but it seems even when disclosure happens, it's not much of a remedy to anything. But you may not agree. No, I definitely agree with that. And that's only, you know, part of it too because there's the other side of the audience that Amanda brought up as well. And in particular what kids, but also adults, how they react to disclosures. And, while it's been possible to teach people to recognize potential bias, you know, when there's a disclosure. And to make people aware, which is a good thing, we want disclosure, I guess, so people are aware to be more vigilant in terms of thinking about what biases may be in the messages. There's not much evidence that teaching people that or making them aware of that changes their behavior. They still believe the advertising. Right. They still act in the same way. It's still just as persuasive to them. One more little editorial insertion. The thing that has always puzzled me about disclosure is that it implies that there's something bad going on or else, why would you have to disclose it? And the solution seems not to disclose it, but not to do the bad thing. And it's like, I could come up and kick you in the leg, but it's okay if I disclose that I kick you in the leg. I mean, it just makes no sense to me. But let me move on to something different. Amanda, I'd like to ask you this. I assume the food industry gets a lot more impact and reach per dollar they spend from when the only option was to run ads on national television and now, they're doing things at much less expense, I think, that can have, you know, orders of magnitude more impact and things. But is my perception correct? And how do you think through that? I think of it like the Tupperware model, right? You're building these trusted local or national celebrities, spokespeople for kids. Oftentimes these young adults or teenagers who are doing funny things and they're engaging, and so you're building this trust like you did with the Tupperware. Where you go and train people to go out to people's homes and their neighbors and their friends and their church and sell the product. It's really similar just in an online space. I think you're right; the cost is likely much less. And yet the reach and even the way these influencers are paid is all about the interaction, the likes, the comments, that sort of thing. The reposts. It's become quite sophisticated, and clearly, it's effective because companies are doing this. And one other thing to mention we haven't talked about yet is the food companies themselves have hired young people who use humor as a way to create a following for the different brands or products. It's not a person now, it's either the branded character or the actual company itself. And I think that has great influence of building some loyalty to the brand early in life. So that child is growing up and not only persuading their parents to purchase these products, but as they have more disposable income, they're going to continue purchasing the product. I wonder if Edward Tupper or I don't know if I remember his first name right, but I wonder if you could have ever imagined the how his plastic invention would permeate more of society than he ever thought? Tom, what about the argument that it's up to parents to decide and to monitor what their children are exposed to and the government needs to back off. Oh, it would be so nice if they were that easy, wouldn't it? If we could depend on parents. And I think every parent would love to be able to do that. But we're talking about individual parents and their kids who are being asked to stand up against billions, literally billions and billions of dollars spent every year to get them to stay on their screens as long as possible. To pay attention to their marketing, as Amanda was talking about the techniques they use. And to really want their products even more. If you could think of a parent with endless knowledge and time and resources, even they are really unable to stand up to such powerful forces working against them. Unfortunately, and this is not unique to the issues of screens in children's health, but really many of the issues around health, that in the absence of government regulation and really lack of any oversight, this really difficult job is dumped on parents. You know, not their choice, but it's sort of in their lap. We still try and help them to be better at this. While we're waiting for our elected representatives to stand up to lobbyists and do their jobs, we still in a lot of our interventions we develop, we still try and help parents as well as schools, afterschool programs, teachers, health professionals, develop the skills to really help families resist this pool of media and marketing. But that shouldn't be the way it is. You know, most parents are really already doing the best they can. But it's drastically unfair. It's really an unfair playing field. That all makes good sense. We've been talking thus far about the negative impacts of media, but Amanda, you've done some work on putting this technology to good use. Tell us about that if you will. I do enjoy trying to flip the script because technology is meant to help us, not harm us. It's meant to make our lives more efficient, to provide entertainment. Now with video chatting, to provide some social connection. A lot of my work over the past 20 years has been looking at what's commercially available, what kids are using, and then seeing let's test these products or these programs and can we flip them around to promote healthier eating? To promote physical activity? Can we integrate them for kids who are in a weight management program? Can we integrate the technology to really help them be successful? It doesn't always work, and we certainly aren't looking to increase screen time, but we also need to recognize that achieving zero hours of screen time is really unattainable pretty much universally. Let's try to evaluate the screen time that is being used and see if we can make it healthier. A few examples of that include when the Nintendo Wii came out about 18 years ago now. I was part of a group that was one of the first to test that video game console system because up until that point, most of the games you sat down to play, you held a remote in your hand. There were Dance Dance Revolution games and arcade halls so you could do a little bit of movement with games. But pretty much they were sedentary. Nintendo Wii came out and really changed a lot because now you had to get up off the couch, move your body, move your arms and legs to control the game. And we found it cut across all demographics. Men, women, boys, girls, different age groups. There was content available for a lot of different groups. These types of games became really popular. And I did some of the earlier studies to show that at least in a structured program that kids can engage in what we call moderate levels of physical activity. They're actually moving their bodies when they play these games. And over time, I and others have integrated these games into programs as a way to be an in with kids who may not be involved in sports, may not go outside to play, but they're willing to put on a video game and move in their living room at home. Building from that, we've developed and tested various apps. Some of these apps directly reach the parents, for example, teaching the parents. These are strategies to get your child to eat healthier. Prepare healthier meals, grocery shop, be more physically active as a family. We've looked at different wearables, wristwatches that can help kids and parents. Maybe they'll compete against each other to try to get the most steps of a day and that sort of thing. And then some of my recent work is now integrating chatbots and artificial intelligence as ways to provide some tailored feedback and support to kids and families who are looking to be more physically active, eat healthier. And then one study I'm really excited about uses mixed reality. This is virtual reality where you're putting on a headset. And for that study we are integrating children's homework that they would otherwise do on their Chromebook. And we're removing the keyboard and computer mouse so that they now have to use their body to click and point and drag and move the screen. And these are just a few examples. I do not think this is the magical solution. I think as Tom alluded to, there are different levels of government regulation, educating parents, working with schools. There's working with the food industry. There's a lot that we need to do to make this a healthier media space for kids. But I think this is something we should be open to, is figuring out if people are going to spend a lot of time using screens, what can we do to try to make those screens healthier? You make me smile when I'm hearing that because all these things sound really exciting and like there's plenty of potential. And you're right, I mean, if they're going to be on there anyway, maybe there can be some positive way to harness that time. And those all sound really important and really good. And let's hope that they spread enough to really touch lots and lots of children and their families. Tom, you and I keep caught up. We see each other at professional meetings or we just have periodic phone calls where we tell each other what we're up to. And you've been telling me over the past couple years about this really amazing project you're heading up tracking screen usage. Could you tell us a little bit about that? I'd love to. Really it addresses the problem that came up before, which is really how we measure what people are doing and seeing on their screens. Basically all the studies of media effects for the past a hundred plus years that the field has been studying media, has been dependent on people telling us what they do and what they saw. When in fact, we know that's not particularly accurate. So now we have technology that allows us to track exactly what people are doing and seeing on their screens. We call this screenomics, like genomics, except instead of studying how genes affect us, it's studying how screens affect us and how the screens we experience in our lives really are a reflection of our lives. The way we are doing this is we put software on your phone or your laptop, and it can be on other screens as well, and it runs in the background and takes a screenshot every five seconds. And it covers everything on the screen because it's just taking a picture of the screen. All the words, all the images. Then we use AI to help us decipher [00:34:00] what was on those screens. And so far, we've collected over 350 million screenshots from several hundred adults and teenagers who've participated in our studies for periods of six months to a year. Some of our most interesting findings, I think, is how much idiosyncrasy there is in people's screen use. And this has a huge impact on how we do research on the effects of screens, I believe. Because no two people really have the same screenomes, which is what we call the sequence of screenshots that people experience. And even for the same person, no two hours or days or weeks are the same. We're looking at both how different people differ in their screen use, and how that's related to their mental health, for example. But also how changes over time in a single person's screenome is related to their mental health, for example. Comparing your screen use this afternoon to your screen use this morning or yesterday, or last week or last month. And how that changes your health or is at least associated with changes in your health at this point. Eventually, we hope to move this into very precise interventions that would be able to monitor what your screen experience is and give you an appropriate either change in your screen or help you change your behavior appropriate to what you're feeling. One of our current studies is to learn really the details of what, when, how, why, and where foods and beverages appear in adolescent screenomes. And how these factors relate to foods and beverages they consume and their health. In fact, we're currently recruiting 13- to 17-year-olds all over the US who can participate in this study for six months of screenome collection and weekly surveys we do with them. Including detailed surveys of what they're eating. But this sort of goes back to an issue that came up before that you had asked us about how much is advertising? I can tell you that at least some of our preliminary data, looking at a small number of kids, suggests that food, it varies greatly across kids and what they're experiencing, especially on their phones. And, we found, for example, one young girl who 37% of all her screens had food on them. About a third, or more than a third of her entire screenome, had food in it. And it wasn't just through advertising and it wasn't just through social media or influencers. It was everywhere. It was pictures she was taking of food. It was influencers she was following who had food. It was games she was playing that were around food. There are games, they're all about running a restaurant or making food and serving and kitchen work. And then there were also videos that people watched that are actually fairly popular among where you watch other people eat. Apparently it's a phenomenon that came out of Korea first. And it's grown to be quite popular here over the last several years in which people just put on their camera and show themselves eating. I mean, nothing special, nothing staged, just people eating. There's all kinds of food exists everywhere throughout the screenome, not just in one place or another, and not just in advertising. Tom, a study with a hundred data points can be a lot. You've got 350 million, so I wish you the best of luck in sorting all that out. And boy, whatever you find is going to be really informative and important. Thanks for telling us about this. I'd like to end with kind of a basic question to each of you, and that is, is there any reason for hope. Amanda, let's, let's start with you. Do you see any reason to be optimistic about all this? We must be optimistic. No matter how we're facing. We have no choice. I think there's greater awareness. I think parents, policy makers, civic leaders are really recognizing this pervasive effective screen use on mental health, eating, obesity risk, even just the ability to have social interactions and talk to people face to face. And I think that's a good sign. I've seen even in my own state legislature in Louisiana, bills going through about appropriately restricting screens from schools and offering guidance to pediatricians on counseling related to screen use. The American Academy of Pediatrics changed their guidelines a number of years ago. Instead of just saying, no screens for the really little ones, and then limit to fewer than two hours a day for the older ones. They recognized and tried to be more practical and pragmatic with family. Sit down as a family, create some rules, create some boundaries. Make sure you're being healthy with your screen use. Put the screens away during mealtime. Get the screens out of the bedroom. And I think going towards those more practical strategies that families can actually do and sustain is really positive. I'd like to remain optimistic and let's just keep our eyes wide open and talk to the kids too. And ask the kids what they're doing and get them part of this because it's so hard to stay up to date on the technology. Thanks. I appreciate that positive note. Tom, what do you think? Yeah, I agree with Amanda. I can be positive about several things. First of all, I think last year, there were two bills, one to protect child privacy and the other to regulate technology aimed at children. COPPA 2.0 (Children's Online Private Protection Act) and KOSA (Kid's Online Safety Act). And they passed the Senate overwhelmingly. I mean, almost unanimously, or as close as you can get in our current senate. Unfortunately, they were never acted upon by the house, but in the absence of federal legislature regulation, we've had, as Amanda mentioned, a lot of states and also communities where they have actually started to pass bills or regulate social media. Things like prohibiting use under a certain age. For example, social media warning labels is another one. Limiting smartphone use in schools has become popular. However, a lot of these are being challenged in the courts by tech and media industries. And sadly, you know, that's a strategy they've borrowed, as you know well, Kelly, from tobacco and food industry. There also have been attempts that I think we need to fight against. For the federal legislature or the federal government, congress, to pass legislation to preempt state and local efforts, that would not allow states and local communities to make their own laws in this area. I think that's an important thing. But it's positive in that we're hearing advocacy against that, and people are getting involved. I'm also glad to hear people talking about efforts to promote alternative business models for media. I believe that technology itself is not inherently good or bad, as Amanda mentioned, but the advertising business models that are linked to this powerful technology has inevitably led to a lot of these problems we're seeing. Not just in nutrition and health, but many problems. Finally, I see a lot more parent advocacy to protect children and teens, especially around tech in schools and around the potential harms of social media. And more recently around AI even. As more people start to understand what the implications of AI are. I get the feeling these efforts are really starting to make a difference. Organizations, like Fair Play, for example, are doing a lot of organizing and advocacy with parents. And, we're starting to see advocacy in organizing among teens themselves. I think that's all really super positive that the public awareness is there, and people are starting to act. And hopefully, we'll start to see some more action to help children and families. Bios Developmental psychologist Dr. Amanda Staiano is an associate professor and Director of the Pediatric Obesity & Health Behavior Laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University. She also holds an adjunct appointment in LSU's Department of Psychology. Dr. Staiano earned her PhD in developmental psychology and Master of Public Policy at Georgetown University, followed by a Master of Science in clinical research at Tulane University. Her primary interest is developing and testing family-based healthy lifestyle interventions that utilize innovative technology to decrease pediatric obesity and its comorbidities. Her research has involved over 2500 children and adolescents, including randomized controlled trials and prospective cohorts, to examine the influence of physical activity and sedentary behavior on body composition and cardiometabolic risk factors. Thomas N. Robinson, MD, MPH is the Irving Schulman, MD Endowed Professor in Child Health, Professor of Pediatrics and of Medicine, in the Division of General Pediatrics and the Stanford Prevention Research Center at Stanford University School of Medicine, and Director of the Center for Healthy Weight at Stanford University and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford. Dr. Robinson focuses on "solution-oriented" research, developing and evaluating health promotion and disease prevention interventions for children, adolescents and their families to directly inform medical and public health practice and policy. His research is largely experimental in design, conducting school-, family- and community-based randomized controlled trials to test the efficacy and/or effectiveness of theory-driven behavioral, social and environmental interventions to prevent and reduce obesity, improve nutrition, increase physical activity and decrease inactivity, reduce smoking, reduce children's television and media use, and demonstrate causal relationships between hypothesized risk factors and health outcomes. Robinson's research is grounded in social cognitive models of human behavior, uses rigorous methods, and is performed in generalizable settings with diverse populations, making the results of his research more relevant for clinical and public health practice and policy.

Mindy Romero is the founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy that is part of the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy based in Sacramento, California. Romero is a political sociologist whose research focuses on political behavior and race/ethnicity. The research and reports of the Center seek to explain patterns of voting and political underrepresentation, particularly among youth and communities of color in California and the U.S. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. 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

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter.

In this episode, Richard Westcott is joined by Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Benjamin Pitt to explore a big, everyday question: what is the value of speaking other languages? The conversation looks at how the languages we speak shape our sense of identity, influence how we think and reason, and affect how we relate to others. We explore how multilingualism can foster social cohesion, support cognitive flexibility, and even boost economic opportunities.Our guests discuss why language is never just a tool for communication and why recognising its deeper value matters for how we design education, shape public policy, and navigate life in an increasingly interconnected world.This episode is hosted by Richard Westcott (Cambridge University Health Partners and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus), and features experts Benjamin Pitt (IAST) and Wendy Ayres-Bennett (University of Cambridge). Season 4 Episode 9 transcriptListen to this episode on your preferred podcast platform For more information about the Crossing Channels podcast series and the work of the Bennett Institute and IAST visit our websites at bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk and iast.frFollow us on Linkedin, Bluesky and X. With thanks to:Audio production by Steve HankeyAssociate production by Burcu Sevde SelviVisuals by Tiffany Naylor and Aurore CarbonnelMore information about our host and guests:Richard Westcott is an award-winning journalist who spent 27 years at the BBC as a correspondent/producer/presenter covering global stories for the flagship Six and Ten o'clock TV news as well as the Today programme. Last year, Richard left the corporation and he is now the communications director for Cambridge University Health Partners and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, both organisations that are working to support life sciences and healthcare across the city. @BBCwestcottBenjamin Pitt is a cognitive scientist and current Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse. He studies how language and culture shape the way people think, and what this cognitive diversity can tell us about the structure of the human mind. He holds degrees from Brown University and the University of Chicago, and – starting next Spring – he will be joining the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, as assistant professor and director of the “Cognitive Construction” lab.Wendy Ayres-Bennett is Emerita Professor of French Philology and Linguistics, University of Cambridge. She was Principal Investigator (2016-2021) on the AHRC-funded, multi-disciplinary research project, Multilingualism: Empowering Individuals, Transforming Societies, which promoted the value of languages for key issues of our time and explored the benefits of language learning for individuals and societies. An AHRC-funded follow-on project Promoting Language Policy provided research-based evidence for moving languages higher up the political agenda. She currently holds a Leverhulme Trust Emeritus Fellowship to write a book on language policy in the UK.

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

For decades, Democratic politicians have frustrated progressives by tinkering around the margins of policy while shying away from truly ambitious change. What happened to bold political vision on the left, and what shrunk the very horizons of possibility? In Thinking like an Economist, Elizabeth Popp Berman tells the story of how a distinctive way of thinking—an “economic style of reasoning”—became dominant in Washington between the 1960s and the 1980s and how it continues to dramatically narrow debates over public policy today. Introduced by liberal technocrats who hoped to improve government, this way of thinking was grounded in economics but also transformed law and policy. At its core was an economic understanding of efficiency, and its advocates often found themselves allied with Republicans and in conflict with liberal Democrats who argued for rights, equality, and limits on corporate power. By the Carter administration, economic reasoning had spread throughout government policy and laws affecting poverty, healthcare, antitrust, transportation, and the environment. Fearing waste and overspending, liberals reined in their ambitions for decades to come, even as Reagan and his Republican successors argued for economic efficiency only when it helped their own goals.A compelling account that illuminates what brought American politics to its current state, Thinking like an Economist also offers critical lessons for the future. With the political left resurgent today, Democrats seem poised to break with the past—but doing so will require abandoning the shibboleth of economic efficiency and successfully advocating new ways of thinking about policy. Elizabeth Popp Berman is Director and Richard H. Price Professor of Organizational Studies at the University of Michigan and the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton). Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Victor Davis Hanson: John Brennan Has Himself to Blame for FBI Investigation The FBI announced they are launching a criminal investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan for “potential wrongdoing related to the Trump-Russia probe," according to Fox News Digital.  John Brennan, one of the main architects behind the 2016 Russian Collusion Hoax, and a contributor to the 2020 Hunter Biden “Laptop From Hell” Cover-up, has a storied history of being at the heart of the most significant scandals in American history of the last 50 years. And now it's rightfully starting to catch up with him, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” 00:00 Introduction: Investigating Comey and Brennan 01:25 John Brennan's Controversial Career 02:46 The Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal 03:40 Trump vs. Biden: The Debate and Aftermath 04:34 Brennan's Accusations Against Trump 05:03 Impact on U.S.-Russia Relations 07:07 Conclusion: Brennan's Legacy and Accountability 07:33 Closing Remarks and Call to Action 

Steve Forbes explains that President Trump can take on the Federal Reserve in its intransigent refusal to cut rates: have the Treasury issue bonds in gold, which would provide a simple, everyday metric as to whether Washington is undermining the dollar's integrity or maintaining its value.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kishore Mahbubani is a distinguished Singaporean diplomat, academic, and author, renowned for his incisive commentary on global geopolitics and the rise of Asia. He served in the Singapore Foreign Service as Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Singapore's Ambassador to the UN, where he was President of the UN Security Council in 2001 and 2002. He was also the Founding Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy from 2004 to 2017 and his bestselling books include The Great Convergence and Has China Won? Currently a Distinguished Fellow at the National University of Singapore's Asia Research Institute, Mahbubani is celebrated as a leading voice on Asia's growing influence, earning accolades like inclusion in Foreign Policy's Top 100 Global Thinkers.(01:24) The US-China rivalry(13:44) The Taiwan issue(17:10) Global hegemony vs. domestic stability(22:42) Will China ever democratize?(24:35) Why poverty is a lack of freedom(25:14) China's political evolution(26:38) Pros & cons of democracy(29:34) The future of US-China relations(32:07) Evaluating Xi Jinping's Leadership(34:44) The importance of diplomacy(41:05) Lessons from Lee Kuan Yew(46:15) Paths to peace & cooperation(47:36) Advice for American citizens

Kent Smetters, Faculty Director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model and Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at the Wharton School, discusses the newly passed reconciliation bill—highlighting its projected $3.6 trillion increase to the national debt, minimal near-term economic growth, and long-term GDP decline, along with how the legislation may reduce resources for lower-income households.Ask ChatGPT Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) recently released its second draft of new Health Education Standards. The Sexual Health portion includes required student learning expectations that violate related laws and are developmentally inappropriate. Doug Wardlow, True North Legal's new Director of Litigation, and Rebecca Delahunt, Director of Public Policy at MFC join Grace on the podcast to discuss this issue and how you can take action.Learn more and take action: https://www.mfc.org/healthbenchmarks25

Law professor Daniel Ho says that the law is ripe for AI innovation, but a lot is at stake. Naive application of AI can lead to rampant hallucinations in over 80 percent of legal queries, so much research remains to be done in the field. Ho tells how California counties recently used AI to find and redact racist property covenants from their laws—a task predicted to take years, reduced to days. AI can be quite good at removing “regulatory sludge,” Ho tells host Russ Altman in teasing the expanding promise of AI in the law in this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcastHave a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Daniel HoConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / FacebookChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRuss Altman introduces Dan Ho, a professor of law and computer science at Stanford University.(00:03:36) Journey into Law and AIDan shares his early interest in institutions and social reform.(00:04:52) Misconceptions About LawCommon misunderstandings about the focus of legal work.(00:06:44) Using LLMs for Legal AdviceThe current capabilities and limits of LLMs in legal settings.(00:09:09) Identifying Legislation with AIBuilding a model to identify and redact racial covenants in deeds.(00:13:09) OCR and Multimodal ModelsImproving outdated OCR systems using multimodal AI.(00:14:08) STARA: AI for Statute SearchA tool to scan laws for outdated or excessive requirements.(00:16:18) AI and Redundant ReportsUsing STARA to find obsolete legislatively mandated reports(00:20:10) Verifying AI AccuracyComparing STARA results with federal data to ensure reliability.(00:22:10) Outdated or Wasteful RegulationsExamples of bureaucratic redundancies that hinder legal process.(00:23:38) Consolidating Reports with AIHow different bureaucrats deal with outdated legislative reports.(00:26:14) Open vs. Closed AI ModelsThe risks, benefits, and transparency in legal AI tools.(00:32:14) Replacing Lawyers with Legal ChatbotWhy general-purpose legal chatbots aren't ready to replace lawyers.(00:34:58) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook

A while back David Mahan shared his struggles as a young father. It's a story of Christ's love and intervention. But today—as the Director of Public Policy at the Center for Christian Virtue in Columbus, Ohio – he's here to share a recently published study on the value of FAMILY. Although the Hope and a Future study focused on Ohio, families, you'll quickly see the information is essential—no matter where we live.

It was a real privilege to welcome my longtime collaborator and friend, Dr. Susan Helper, to the Manufacturing in the American Century podcast. Sue is not only a Harvard-trained PhD economist and professor at Case Western Reserve University, but also a seasoned federal leader who's served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Commerce and on the White House Council of Economic Advisers. She's a nationally recognized expert on manufacturing and one of the most influential thought leaders advancing bottom-up economic development in America today.In this episode, we dive into our shared work on the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP), which was an early and influential federal initiative that helped seed the emergence of place-based development strategies across the country. Sue offers fascinating insights into the practical, evidence-based methods for catalyzing regional growth through smarter manufacturing, to include the power of industrial ecosystems, the risks of "racing to the bottom," and the need for better structures, metrics, and coordination among federal, state, and regional actors.From her reflections on the enduring value of manufacturing to her passionate call for a long-term national industrial strategy, Sue's clarity and conviction make her such a trusted leader in the field. Whether you're new to the AMCC network or a seasoned stakeholder, this episode is full of wisdom and takeaways from one of the nation's foremost champions for bottom-up, evidence-based sustainable development - it's a must listen!!

Steve Forbes lays out a tough set of proposals President Trump should immediately employ against Russia—including hardline sanctions, sending Ukraine major weapons, and freezing Russian assets—to finally end the invasion of Ukraine.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump hokey cokey is back. Tariffs on, tariffs reduced - now they're heading back up again. It really got going on April 2nd- President Trump's so-called “Liberation Day” - when he announced a swathe of punitive tariffs on trading partners across the world. The markets tanked and then there was a pause. Countries had 90 days to strike a trade deal - 90 deals in 90 days - we were told. But there weren't. There were only 2. The deadline was this week but now it's next month. But in the past few days the White House has been sending out a flurry of letters with higher tariffs for those without a deal - which is almost everyone. David Aaronovitch asks his guests just what is going on, what's happening to world trade and what happens next? Guests: Soumaya Keynes, Economics Columnist The Financial Times Meredith Crowley, Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge Justin Wolfers, Professor of Economics and Public Professor of Economics and Public Policy, University of Michigan Philip Coggan, author, The Economic Consequences of Mr Trump: What the Trade War Means for the World Presenter: David Aaronovitch Producers: Caroline Bayley, Sally Abrahams, Kirsteen Knight Production co-ordinator: Maria Ogundele Sound engineer: Neil Churchill and David Crackles Editor: Richard Vadon

“Very often, doctors try to suppress what they feel or don't even have the vocabulary to describe their emotions,” says Professor Alicja Galazka of the University of Silesia, an observation based on decades of work with physicians to enhance their emotional intelligence and resilience. Galazka, a psychotherapist, psychologist, lecturer and coach, believes this deficit is rooted in part in a lack of instruction in the internal and external psychological dimensions of being a medical provider. “There is not enough space created in medical school for teaching and training students about how to deal with their own stress and all of the skills connected to building relationships with patients,” she tells host Michael Carrese. Those same skills are also critical to working effectively as a member of a care team, which is an increasingly common arrangement in hospitals and clinics. Galazka employs simulations, dramatic role-playing, mindfulness, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and other methods in her work with an eye on increasing the emotional agility and sensitivity of her trainees and clients. Tune in to this thoughtful episode of Raise the Line to hear Galazka's ideas on how to reshape medical training, why she is a proponent of narrative medicine, and the merits of embedding psychologists on care teams as a resource for both patients and providers. Mentioned in this episode:University of SilesiaInternational Association of Coaching Institutes 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/raisethelinepodcast

Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot started praising Hitler and calling itself “MechaHitler.” We try to sort out what happened with Phil Napoli, Professor of Public Policy at Duke and author of Social Media and the Public Interest: Media Regulation in the Disinformation Age

Minister Meisch outlines his plan, alongside Professor Lindsay Flynn discussing house-driven inequality and Martin Stoz highlighting his estate agency's community initiatives. Housing is one of the most emotionally charged, personally impactful, and politically complex issues in Luxembourg today.  In today's show, my guests are: - Minister Claude Meisch, who holds the portfolios for Housing and Spatial Planning; and Education, Children and Youth, talks about the way in which he sees the picture to be tackeld and his ideas for doing so. - Professor Lindsay Flynn, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Luxembourg, examines the causes and consequences of housing-driven inequality in Europe and North America. - Martin Stoz, a real estate and social entrepreneur, whose estate agency gives away one third of its commission to a charity of the seller's choice.  Minister Meisch: Build Faster, Smarter, Fairer Minister Meisch outlines a housing landscape shaped by rapid economic growth, population expansion, and a growing disconnect between incomes and housing prices. “We want to be a country where every family finds an affordable home,” he says, but current waiting lists have over 5,500 families are on the public housing waiting list, and many more have simply given up trying. To tackle this, the government is pushing through 40 new measures to simplify building procedures, accelerate planning, and prioritise affordable housing, particularly near transport hubs and employment zones. Spatial planning also must include schooling, healthcare, green spaces, and de-centralisation, away from just Luxembourg city and Esch, to include projects such as the Nordstad, to develop Ettelbrück and Diekirch as northern urban centres. Define Affordable: A Moving Target Prof. Lindsay Flynn draws a sharp distinction between policy definitions of affordable housing and people's lived realities. “When people say ‘affordable', they mean affordable for them – not a statistical bracket,” she notes. Her research, funded by the FNR's PROPEL project, focuses on the ripple effects of housing inequality – particularly among young people and renters. Unlike many EU countries, Luxembourg offers both rental and ownership options under the affordable label. However, whether these are truly accessible depends on income, mortgage access, and policy eligibility – highlighting the mismatch between public definitions and private experience. Renting Realities: What Tenants Are Up Against Prof. Flynn's team recently led a landmark study for Mieterschutz Luxembourg, delving into tenant experiences in the private rental market. The findings included mould and landlords commonly ignoring repair requests. Even when tenants have legal rights, many lack the time, money, or confidence, especially in a foreign language, to enforce them. One practical solution she proposes is to download a letter template to support tenants in communicating formally with landlords. But “many fear retaliation. They don't want to make a fuss.” Youth Extended: The Hidden Costs of Inaccessibility Young people are increasingly stuck at home longer, delaying not only homeownership but life itself: settling down with a partner, starting families, building a financial base. Flynn warns that the housing crisis is “not just about shelter. It's shaping our demographics, our birth rates, and our economic futures.” Her transatlantic studies show striking similarities between Europe and North America: housing costs directly correlate with smaller families and fewer life milestones. “It's not always delay,” she says. “Sometimes, it's trade-off. Life choices are being forgone because of rent.” Immigration, Inclusion & Infrastructure Luxembourg can't cap immigration under EU law. So instead, it must anticipate growth. That means not only more homes, but more schools, including three new international public schools planned by 2028, and better integration. “Only one-third of children in Luxembourg speak Luxembourgish or German at home,”  notes Minister Meisch. Flexibility in education, housing, and planning is essential for cohesion. Can Design Save the City? What about the aesthetics of housing? Minister Meisch admits not all new developments are beautiful, and that's a problem. While individual communes control architectural regulations, the Ministry of the Interior is working on harmonising rules. Public developers like the Fonds du Logement are increasingly showcasing that affordability and design don't have to be mutually exclusive. A Human-Centred Real Estate Model Finally, Martin Stoz of Together Immo offers a fresh take: a for-profit real estate agency that donates a third of every commission to a charity of the seller's choice. “I wanted my work to have meaning,” he explains. Stoz hopes to build a model of conscious capitalism in a sector often criticised for its contribution to inequality. Do write to tell us about your housing experiences in Luxembourg. https://www.uni.lu/fhse-en/people/lindsay-flynn/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordstad https://together-immo.lu/ https://snhbm.lu/ https://fondsdulogement.lu/fr

Victor Davis Hanson breaks down what's driving this madness on today's episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.” “ We've got even more disturbing reports that Democratic Congress people said, ‘Well, what are we supposed to do? We meet with our constituents and they're telling us that one of us should be shot. I don't mean shot by punishment. They're urging us to use violence and be willing to be shot by others to promote a radical agenda.'” “ This is insurrection. Why is it happening? …They lost the Congress, they lost the White House, they lost, of course, in most cases, the Supreme Court. So, they don't have any power. So, they're frustrated.” (0:00) The Era of Sedition and Insurrection (0:24) Disturbing Comments and Actions (1:47) The Hard Left Turn of Democrats (3:00) Violence and Radical Agendas (5:59) Trump's Counterrevolution (7:39) Conclusion and Caution

David & Ed chat with renowned scientist, author and Canadian, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe who argues that hope—not doom—is what drives action. Dr. Hayhoe is one of the world's most prominent climate communicators and known for crossing political, religious, and cultural lines to connect with audiences that most climate advocates can't or won't reach. It's an engaging discussion that delves into the psychology of despair, the limits of data in changing minds and behaviour, and whether hope still has a fighting chance. Show Notes:Available on the episode page on our website.About Our Guest:Katharine Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on understanding what climate change means for people and the places where we live. She is the Chief Scientist for The Nature Conservancy and a Horn Distinguished Professor and Endowed Professor of Public Policy and Public Law in the Dept. of Political Science at Texas Tech University. She is the author of the book, Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World, has given a TED talk with over 4 million views, and hosted the PBS digital series Global Weirding. Katharine has been named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People, Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Thinkers, and the United Nations Champion of the Environment.Produced by Amit Tandon & Bespoke PodcastsSend us a text (if you'd like a response, please include your email)___Energy vs Climate Podcastwww.energyvsclimate.com Contact us at info@energyvsclimate.com Bluesky | YouTube | LinkedIn | X/Twitter

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

In this episode, Professor Stephen Goldsmith is joined by Miguel Carrasco, Global Leader for Boston Consulting Group's Center for Digital Government, connecting from Australia to share a worldwide view of how artificial intelligence and digital tools are transforming public service. Carrasco reveals how governments are leveraging generative and agentic AI to cut through bureaucracy, empower front line workers, and streamline services. They also discuss how public leaders can use AI to rebuild trust between government and residents.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 join us on Twitter, Bluesky, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

Three major global challenges – climate change, loss of biodiversity and its benefits, and inequality and inequity among people – are typically tackled within three separate silos. However, scientific knowledge tells us that the three are inextricably linked. If the problems are not considered together, solutions to one may undermine solutions to the others. Moreover, more holistic, integrated solutions can deliver multiple co-benefits. Success requires integrated solutions. Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University, talks about the historically ambitious, innovative policies implemented by the Biden-Harris Administration to achieve this integration. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being. From 2021-2025, she served as Deputy Director for Climate and Environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40426]

Global birth rates are collapsing—sometimes to half the level needed to keep populations stable. UT-Austin's Michael Geruso explains how that trend could shrink the world's population from eight billion to three billion in just three generations. He unpacks the silent drivers behind falling fertility, why cash incentives rarely work, and what disappearing people mean for innovation, cities, pensions, and geopolitical power. If you've never worried about a world that's too small, this conversation will change your mind.

About Philippe Johnson:Philippe Johnson is a retired United States Air Force officer and advocate for principled and ethical leadership in public service. The son of a language teacher and career United States Army officer, he was raised in the United States, France, and Germany. During his 24 years on active duty, Lieutenant Colonel Johnson served as a fixed- and rotary-wing pilot, intelligence officer, and diplomat (military attaché), and was honored with the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, and the Air Medal with one oak leaf cluster. He also served on the staffs of two Air Force major commands as his final two assignments. Philippe received a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Florida and earned his master's degree in public policy from the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy. In this episode, Dean Newlund and Philippe Johnson discuss:Defining ethical leadership across diverse perspectivesNavigating unprincipled loyalty in power dynamicsRebuilding trust in a post-COVID, virtual workplaceCombating disinformation and the collapse of shared factsAligning values and ethics within polarized environments Key Takeaways:Ethical leadership must be embedded in leadership training from the start of one's career, or organizations risk producing senior leaders who cause significant harm.Self-interest and personality disorders (e.g., narcissism) are major contributors to non-compliance with ethical standards, both in military and corporate settings.Philippe's book uses recent political leadership as a case study to highlight the consequences of unethical, incompetent, and self-serving leadership behaviors.The normalization of disinformation undermines democracy, as without agreed-upon facts, there's no foundation for holding power accountable. "If you're lacking that ethical foundation from the very beginning… you're going to end up with senior leaders who, unfortunately, are not setting the example.” — Philippe Johnson Connect with Philippe Johnson:  Website: http://www.philippejohnson.com/Book: What Hangs in the Balance: The Case for Principled, Ethical, Competent, and Courageously Selfless Leadership: https://www.amazon.com/What-Hangs-Balance-Principled-Courageously/dp/1637633491LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/formulaphil/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/philippe.johnson.52   See Dean's TedTalk “Why Business Needs Intuition” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEq9IYvgV7I Connect with Dean:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgqRK8GC8jBIFYPmECUCMkwWebsite: https://www.mfileadership.com/The Mission Statement E-Newsletter: https://www.mfileadership.com/blog/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deannewlund/X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/deannewlundFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/MissionFacilitators/Email: dean.newlund@mfileadership.comPhone: 1-800-926-7370 Show notes by Podcastologist: Hanz Jimuel AlvarezAudio production by Turnkey Podcast Productions. You're the expert. Your podcast will prove it.

State Representative Pam Marsh and Dr. Sristi Kamal, Director of Western Environmental Law Center, join guest host Geoffrey Riley on the Exchange.

But from the Bull Moose Party to Ross Perot, third-party efforts rarely succeed and often hand power to the Left. Will this be another spoiler moment that hurts Republicans in 2026 and 2028? Victor Davis Hanson breaks it down on today's episode of "Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words." “  It's kind of an effort to hurt Donald Trump, both in the Congress and his successor in four years. But here's the question that I have for Elon Musk, and that is, does he really believe that he can pull this off? Apparently, he does. “ I don't think in the next midterm election there's going to be American Party senators or representatives. However, they do, in some cases, affect elections. And for the most part, it's unpredictable. Nobody knows what the situation will be in 2028. But Elon Musk must know that it won't be a constructive role.” 00:00 The Rupture: Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump 01:40 Revisiting the Rupture: Musk and Trump 02:11 The America Party: A Potential Spoiler? 03:23 Lessons from History: Third-Party Impacts 04:13 Elon Musk's Track Record of Success 09:12 The Unpredictable Future of Third Parties 09:36 A Plea for Unity

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/45XWcrO Market Reactions and the Impact of New Tax Legislation In this Monday edition of Dividend Cafe, David recaps the past week's market activity, the impact of recent tariff threats, and the passing of the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' tax legislation. The DOW, S&P, and Nasdaq experienced volatility, primarily due to trade war-related announcements. Despite recent fluctuations, market internals remain healthy. Discussion includes the contrarian sentiment in investor behavior, and upcoming detailed coverage of the new tax bill. Other topics include economic data such as job numbers and ISM services index, alongside updates on federal student loans and oil exports. 00:00 Introduction and Weekend Recap 00:53 Market Overview and Volatility 03:49 Sentiment and Indicators 05:04 New Tax Bill Insights 07:45 Public Policy and Trade Tariffs 08:47 Economic Data Highlights 11:27 Conclusion and Upcoming Topics Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

Host Mikey Muhanna talks to Rana AlMutawa, Assistant Professor of Social Research and Public Policy at NYU Abu Dhabi and author of "Everyday Life in the Spectacular City, Making Home in Dubai." They delve into the misunderstood complexities of Dubai's social dynamics, exploring urban ethnography, the mislabeling of spaces as "fake" or "authentic" and the city's multifaceted social hierarchies. AlMutawa provides insights into the real and significant social lives created within Dubai's often-criticized spaces, such as shopping malls, and challenges Western-centric viewpoints on the city's development and social structure. 00:00 Introduction05:29 Understanding Urban Ethnography08:59 Middle-Class Dynamics in Dubai14:16 Neoliberalism and Urban Spaces17:50 Exclusions in Public Spaces25:07 Authenticity and Exoticization27:02 Research Methodology in Urban Ethnography29:31 Social Hierarchies in Dubai31:31 Complexities of Privilege in Dubai32:33 Diverse Urban Spaces and Social Interactions37:03 Malls as Social Newspapers40:23 Personalities of Different Malls45:50 Inclusivity and Accessibility in Public Spaces49:32 Comparing Cities in the UAE57:16 Double Standards in Global Cities01:01:35 Further Reading Rana AlMutawa is an Assistant Professor of Social Research and Public Policy at New York University Abu Dhabi. She focuses on urban ethnography, social hierarchies (race, class, gender, citizenship, Orientalism, and social distinction), and belonging. She completed her doctoral training at the University of Oxford in 2021 and published her first book "Everyday Life in the Spectacular City: Making Home in Dubai" in 2024 with the University of California Press.Connect with Rana AlMutawa 

In this episode, Policy Chats hosts our second live podcast recording, featuring researchers, practitioners, and individuals with lived experiences discussing the current policies that shape reentry, higher education, and employment access post-incarceration. This panel was produced in collaboration with the UCR Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies. Panelists include:Dr. Annika Anderson, CSUSB Project Rebound Executive Director/Principal InvestigatorPete Pridanonda, UCR Department of Economics Ph.D. CandidateSofia Alvarenga, CSUSB Project Rebound Outreach CoordinatorRyan Uribe, UCR School of Public Policy StudentLearn more about the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies via presleycenter.ucr.eduStay tuned until the end of the episode for bonus content featuring panelists' research, as well as a discussion with the incoming host of Policy Chats, Dori Pham!Interviewer:Rachel Strausman (UCR Public Policy Major, Dean's Chief Ambassador)Music by: Vir SinhaCommercial Links:⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/ba-mpp⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/mpp⁠⁠⁠⁠ This is a production of the UCR School of Public Policy: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode. Learn more about the series and other episodes via ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://spp.ucr.edu/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

The topic of this episode is, Why are legislators on social media?”We've all seen it, and if you haven't, well, you will soon enough. Social media posts by members of Congress. They are on Facebook, X.com (what used to be called Twitter), Bluesky, and the like. The average voter may be forgiven for wondering, “Why are these lawmakers hanging out online? Don't they have anything better to do?”To try to help us better understand what is going on here, I have Annelise Russell, Associate Professor of Public Policy at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Russell has been studying legislators' use of social media for years and is the author of Tweeting is Leading: How Senators Communicate and Represent in the Age of Twitter (Oxford, 2021). So who better to discuss this topic with us?Click here to read the full transcript.

For a moment it seemed all Canadians understood that, facing President Donald Trump's tariff war, we had to make our economy as resilient and competitive as possible. As Martha Hall Findlay discusses with Brian, there was finally talk of ending Ottawa's war on oil and gas, building infrastructure and boosting productivity. The government even yanked the aggravating digital services tax. But, explains Findlay, a former Liberal MP, now director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, politicians just kneecapped nearly every Canadian exporter by exempting our globally detested dairy supply management system from trade talks … forever. Hall Findlay explains how this small cartel of millionaires works, why it's so powerful, and why it hurts not just consumers, but every other trade-exposed business. (Recorded July 4, 2025) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to another episode of the Heartland Daily Podcast, where Ann Marie Sheber and healthcare economist Devon Herrick unpack this week's biggest developments in health policy:

Ross Douthat confronts Peter Thiel with the possibility that he is the anti-Christ. Zohran Mamdani shows a model for politics that the media fears. The Democrats' Project 2029 is a farce that shows leaders of the party don't actually want to win. Fascist public policy is here, and it's class war. According to Gallup, even most Americans think US hegemony sucks. The Pentagon's Elbridge Colby just halted missile shipments to Ukraine so that the US can more readily fight a war against China that it just can't win. Why European elites are embarrassing themselves. Subscribe to the Un-Diplomatic Newsletter: https://www.un-diplomatic.com/ Watch Un-Diplomatic Podcast on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@un-diplomaticpodcast Catch Un-Diplomatic on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/undiplomaticpodcast Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the individuals and not of any institutions.

Donald Trump had one of the best Junes of any modern president. U.S. Customs and Border Protection recorded the lowest number of illegal aliens crossing the southern border, ever. His tariff policies did not collapse the economy. In fact, the stock market is nearing record highs. Iran's nuclear program was severely weakened without 30,000 people having to die in another endless war.  However, for every victory, there is another impending challenge President Trump will have to grapple with argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” “Bottom line: Donald Trump's going to have to decide, when countries come to him and say, "We'll run a deficit with you, we will have symmetrical tariffs," or, "We'll have no tariffs," is he going to take that or not? If Iran violates the ceasefire—and to what degree that would be true I don't know, but if we see trucks going into these enrichment sites or we find evidence of a new one, he's going to have to act and deal with a fallout. And then, of course, on the border, it's not going to be a problem of new illegal aliens. It's not going to be a problem of the 12 million that Joe Biden let in. But there will be some people that he'll have to decide, and I think it would be wise for them to have to pay a fine, get a green card, continue working, stay off social services, stay crime-free, and become a valuable green card holder.” 

With the U.S.' northern neighbor at bay, for now, Americans should turn their attention to the south, where Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum continues to criticize proposed remittance taxes while defending illegal immigration and even weighing in on U.S. civil unrest. Why the hostility?   On today's episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Hanson asks the question: Why are our supposed “partners” adding fuel to the fire in a time of instability?   “  This is the killer. They're going to enforce the law all the way back to 2022. … There's $9 trillion of market capitalization in Silicon Valley. But the idea that they're going to be gouged for $2 or $3 billion right in the middle of these heated discussions.   “ They are playing with fire. I have a solution. Maybe we could take Mexico and put it next to Canada and let them fight it out with each other. And keep us out of it.” (0:00) North American Trade Relations (0:27) Trade Disputes with Mexico (2:05) Canada's Digital Services Tax (3:54) Mexico's Trade Surplus and Remittances (5:25) Contentious Issues and Proposed Solutions