Podcasts about Public policy

Policy uncertainty is rising—but markets seem unfazed. In this episode, we sit down with Libby Cantrill, Head of Public Policy at PIMCO, to explore the critical policy risks that investors may be underestimating or ignoring altogether.From the real-world implications of the tariffs to questions around Fed independence, fiscal stimulus, and housing market interventions, Libby provides an insider's perspective on what's happening in Washington—and why it matters more than the market suggests.She also discusses how policy risk differs from macroeconomic risk, how investors often price the wrong factors, and why the next shock may not come from where most expect.Topics covered include:Why policy risk remains underappreciated by marketsThe lasting impact of tariffs—and how they could evolveThe Big, Beautiful Tax Bill: What's real, what's hypeRisks to Fed independence and central bank credibilityGSE reform and the political tightrope in housingThe intersection of fiscal policy and market complacencyWhether you're focused on macro trends, portfolio positioning, or simply trying to understand what Washington might throw at markets next, this is a conversation you don't want to miss.

Steve Forbes calls out Fed Chair Jerome Powell for "playing politics" on refusing to cut interest rates, which not only damages the economy but hurts the U.S. dollar.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the wake of Trump's sweeping economic legislation, Jon is joined by Clara Mattei, Professor of Economics at The University of Tulsa and author of "The Capital Order," and James Robinson, Professor at the Harris School for Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Together, they explore how the myth of free markets masks government interventions for corporate interests, investigate the limits of economic solutions to political problems, and consider what a worker-focused economy could look like. Plus, Jon reacts to Elmo's meltdown & answers some listener questions! This podcast episode is brought to you by: GROUND NEWS - Go to https://groundnews.com/stewart to see how any news story is being framed by news outlets around the world and across the political spectrum. Use my link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription. INDEED - Speed up your hiring with Indeed. Go to https://indeed.com/weekly to get a $75 sponsored job credit. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Steve Forbes warns Republicans and policymakers in general that the failure to confront the immigration crisis through a measured approach that protects Americans and bolsters the economy could cause far-reaching irrevocable damage.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today on Raise the Line, we bring you the unlikely and inspiring story of a woman who was afraid of blood as a child but became an accomplished nurse; who struggled with learning disabilities but became an effective educator; and who, despite lacking business experience or knowledge of graphics, built a successful company that produces visually rich educational materials for nurses and other providers. “I think the theme of my life has been I have struggled with learning, and I didn't want other people to struggle,” says Jennifer Zahourek, RN, the founder and CEO of RekMed which has developed a sequential, interactive learning system that includes illustrated planners, books, and videos used by millions of students and providers. The initial focus was to provide nurses with everything they needed to know from “the basics to the bedside” but RekMed now offers content for medics, respiratory therapists, medical assistants, and veterinarians as well. Driven by her belief in the power of visual learning and her “just freakin' do it” attitude, Jennifer overcame her fear of launching a business and quickly realized just how well nursing had prepared her for the hard work and unpredictability of entrepreneurship. “Nursing teaches you how to just be resilient, to pivot, to delegate, to work on a team and to handle high stress. I think nurses could literally be some of the best entrepreneurs on the planet,” she tells host Lindsey Smith. Tune in to this lively and valuable conversation as Jennifer shares lessons from bootstrapping a publishing company, insights on the evolving landscape of healthcare education, and advice on embracing change in nursing, especially with the expanding role of AI. Mentioned in this episode:RekMed 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

Elizabeth Linos is the Emma Bloomberg Associate Professor for Public Policy and Management, and Faculty Director of The People Lab at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. The majority of her research focuses on how to improve government by focusing on its people and the services they deliver. Specifically, she uses insights from behavioral science and evidence from public management to consider how to recruit, retain, and support the government workforce, how to improve resident-state interactions, and how to better integrate evidence-based policymaking into government. Her research has been published in numerous academic journals including Nature Human Behaviour, Econometrica, The Journal for Public Administration Research and Theory (JPART), The Journal of Political Economy, Public Administration Review, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Behavioural Public Policy, and others. Prior to joining the Harvard Kennedy School faculty, Linos has been an assistant professor at UC Berkeley; the VP and Head of Research and Evaluation at the Behavioral Insights Team in North America; and policy advisor to the Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou, focusing on social innovation and public sector reform. Linos has been named one of the top 10 influencers in local government by ELGL, and was the 2023 recipient of the prestigious David N. Kershaw Award and Prize "established to honor persons who, before the age of 40, have made distinguished contributions to the field of public policy analysis and management."Ralph Ranalli of the HKS Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of HKS PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an BA in political science from UCLA and a master's in journalism from Columbia University.Scheduling and logistical support for PolicyCast has been provided by Lilian Wainaina. Design and graphics support has been provided by Laura King. Web design and social media promotion support has been provided by Catherine Santrock and Natalie Montaner. Editorial support has been provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O'Neill. 

In this episode of The Sweet Tea Series, host Ariana Guajardo sits down with Britt Allen and Carly Widner from the Right on Crime team at the Texas Public Policy Foundation to discuss their new initiative, the Justice Collective. Learn how this digital expansion is making criminal justice policy accessible and engaging for everyday people, especially young conservatives, through a vibrant, feminine aesthetic on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Substack. Britt and Carly explain how they're reframing the conversation around “smart on crime” policies. Tune in for an inspiring discussion about empowering communities, restoring dignity, and driving bipartisan reform. 

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

Annette DiTommaso, Executive Director Annette DiTommaso is the Executive Director of the Blue Line Foundation, where she leads efforts to support first responders, uplift at-risk communities, and drive impactful urban revitalization projects throughout Greater Cincinnati. With over a decade of expertise in corporate social responsibility and nonprofit management, Annette is deeply committed to fostering strategic partnerships, securing sustainable funding, and spearheading initiatives that improve community infrastructure, promote neighborhood safety, and expand affordable housing.Before her role at Blue Line, Annette held key leadership positions at altafiber, including Senior Manager of Employee Experience and Corporate Impact and Employee Engagement Manager. There, she developed comprehensive global CSR programs, established charitable foundations, and significantly boosted employee engagement and corporate philanthropy.Annette began her career as a financial advisor with Merrill Lynch, specializing in ethical investing and strategic charitable giving, before moving into relationship management at United Way of Greater Cincinnati. A proud Indiana University alumna, Annette holds both a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in Public Policy and Nonprofit Management. Recognized as a YWCA Rising Star, she combines strategic vision, data-driven solutions, and passionate leadership to create lasting, positive change in the community. Charlie Williams, President Charlie Williams is a seasoned financial professional and Director of Wealth Management at LS Financial Group, with nearly two decades of experience guiding clients through strategic financial planning, investment management, retirement strategies, and estate planning. At the Blue Line Foundation, Charlie serves as President and leverages his extensive financial expertise to help drive strategic decision-making, fiscal responsibility, and long-term sustainability, supporting the Foundation's critical mission to uplift first responders, enhance community safety, and foster urban revitalization.In addition to his role at LS Financial Group, Charlie previously served as a Financial Consultant at A.G. Edwards & Sons, bringing a wealth of experience in wealth-building and client relations. He also contributed to public service as the Campaign Manager for Debbi Alsfelder for Congress, underscoring his commitment to community and civic engagement.A proud graduate of Miami University, Charlie holds degrees in Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs and Economics. He is recognized as a Five Star Wealth Manager and maintains several financial certifications, including Series 7, 63, and 65 licenses. Charlie is passionate about applying his financial acumen and strategic insight to make a lasting positive impact in his community.

For decades, the “90/10 Rule” has limited the share of revenue that for-profit colleges can receive from federal student aid to 90%. But National Defense Committee Executive Director Bob Carey, tells host Jason Altmire that this rule has had unintended and harmful consequences for veterans. Carey explains how this policy treats veterans' earned education benefits like government handouts, restricts their access to career-focused programs, and undermines their freedom to choose the education that best fits their lives. To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website. Sponsored by LeadSquared. Most enrollment platforms just aren't built for the fast-moving world of career schools.The result? Costly consultants, long implementations, and systems that don't talk to each other.LeadSquared is different. It's designed just for career schools—with AI-powered workflows, fast speed-to-lead, and seamless integrations.Implementation happens in weeks, not months—by in-house education experts who actually understand your business. No outside consultants. No inflated costs. In fact, LeadSquared's total cost of ownership is just one-third of traditional systems.That's why over 800 education institutions worldwide trust LeadSquared—not just as software, but as a partner.Visit leadsquared.com to learn more.

In this episode of Season 2, A. Valerie Mirko, Partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP and leader of the firm's Securities Regulation and Litigation Practice, joins William Nelson, Director of Public Policy and Associate General Counsel at the Investment Adviser Association, for a timely conversation with Kate Ring, Chief Compliance Officer at Stash Financial. Stash is a fintech platform serving over 1.3 million customers with $4.1 billion in assets under management (AUM) - on a mission to help everyday Americans invest and build better financial futures.Building on our June episode regarding artificial intelligence (AI), this conversation examines how AI is reshaping the investment adviser industry—spotlighting key opportunities, emerging risks, and what effective oversight entails. A key takeaway: while AI has the potential to significantly boost efficiency, it must be carefully supervised to ensure it supports - not replaces - human judgment. The goal is AI-assisted human efficiency. Kate shares practical insights from her experience overseeing compliance and risk across Stash's diverse business lines, offering guidance for CCOs on how to effectively understand and supervise the use of AI tools. Her advice focuses on supporting responsible implementation that aligns with both business objectives and regulatory expectations.

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.

It's time for a new narrative for the ocean, one that reflects current scientific knowledge and acknowledges innovative new partnerships and solutions that center the ocean in our future. In this program, Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University and with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being, talks about the two current dominant narratives for the ocean are anchored in the past. The older one considers the ocean to be so vast, bountiful, and resilient that it is simply too big to fail. This first narrative drives pollution and over-exploitation of resources. A second, more recent narrative is that the ocean is now so depleted, polluted, and disrupted, and the drivers of those outcomes are so powerful and complex, that the ocean is simply too big to fix. A third, new narrative is emerging, based on scientific findings, existing solutions, and innovative partnerships and policies. This new narrative acknowledges that the ocean is central to a safe, clean, healthy, just, and prosperous future. This new narrative tells us that the ocean is neither too big to fail, nor is it too big to fix. But it is too important and too central to our future to ignore. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40427]

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

It's time for a new narrative for the ocean, one that reflects current scientific knowledge and acknowledges innovative new partnerships and solutions that center the ocean in our future. In this program, Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University and with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being, talks about the two current dominant narratives for the ocean are anchored in the past. The older one considers the ocean to be so vast, bountiful, and resilient that it is simply too big to fail. This first narrative drives pollution and over-exploitation of resources. A second, more recent narrative is that the ocean is now so depleted, polluted, and disrupted, and the drivers of those outcomes are so powerful and complex, that the ocean is simply too big to fix. A third, new narrative is emerging, based on scientific findings, existing solutions, and innovative partnerships and policies. This new narrative acknowledges that the ocean is central to a safe, clean, healthy, just, and prosperous future. This new narrative tells us that the ocean is neither too big to fail, nor is it too big to fix. But it is too important and too central to our future to ignore. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40427]

Originally uploaded Aug. 6th, video fix uploaded July 1st. Chris Holman welcomes Dalton Herbel, MBA, NHA, Vice President for Public Policy, LeadingAge Michigan, Lansing, MI, but serving statewide. This interview was the July 2024 spotlight interview suggested by EDGE Partnerships, Chris had several questions for Dalton in this interview: Remind our audience about LeadingAge MI? LeadingAge MI recently congratulated the graduates of 2023-24 Leadership Academy tell us about that? Tell us more about the how the "Grant-Sponsored program" develops new leaders in senior care? Is your sector growing or has it plateaued? » Visit MBN website: www.michiganbusinessnetwork.com/ » Subscribe to MBN's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@MichiganbusinessnetworkMBN » Like MBN: www.facebook.com/mibiznetwork » Follow MBN: twitter.com/MIBizNetwork/ » MBN Instagram: www.instagram.com/mibiznetwork/ LeadingAge MI applauds graduates of 2023-24 Leadership Academy Grant-sponsored program develops new leaders in senior care LANSING, MI – Recognizing the rising demand for senior care leaders, LeadingAge Michigan recently recognized 12 graduates of its Leadership Academy. The Academy, offered free of charge to selected participants, provides face-to-face learning experiences to equip new and emerging leaders in mission-driven aging services. The yearlong experience includes visits to LeadingAge member communities, intimate conversations with aging services leaders, and self-exploration of leadership styles through exercises and readings. LeadingAge Michigan can offer the leadership training at no cost through a workforce stabilization grant awarded by the State of Michigan. “This is an important investment in our future leaders and the mission-driven organizations that provide critical care services to older Michiganders,” said Dalton Herbel, MBA, NHA, LeadingAge Michigan's vice president for public policy. “Our Leadership Academy equips participants for success and ensures high quality leaders are ready to take the helm as the demand skyrockets for high-quality aging services .” The Education Foundation of LeadingAge Michigan sponsors one applicant for each long-term care provider member organization during the duration of the workforce stabilization grant. For more information on LeadingAge Michigan, visit www.leadingagemi.org. ### LeadingAge Michigan is a leader representing the full continuum of mission-driven senior care. Founded in 1968, we represent a new era of integrated services, innovation and collaboration to enhance member value and improve the lives of Michigan seniors.

In this episode of EV Hub Live, Nick Nigro from Atlas Public Policy hosts a discussion with Jennifer Hiller from the Wall Street Journal. We'll expand beyond just EVs in this special episode to cover the sunset of IRA incentives following the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Jennifer will reflect on the differences in the lead-up to the enactment of two laws and share insights on what businesses were saying. We'll also explore the risk to the clean economy manufacturing boom and how the clean energy industry is characterizing their future.

It's time for a new narrative for the ocean, one that reflects current scientific knowledge and acknowledges innovative new partnerships and solutions that center the ocean in our future. In this program, Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University and with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being, talks about the two current dominant narratives for the ocean are anchored in the past. The older one considers the ocean to be so vast, bountiful, and resilient that it is simply too big to fail. This first narrative drives pollution and over-exploitation of resources. A second, more recent narrative is that the ocean is now so depleted, polluted, and disrupted, and the drivers of those outcomes are so powerful and complex, that the ocean is simply too big to fix. A third, new narrative is emerging, based on scientific findings, existing solutions, and innovative partnerships and policies. This new narrative acknowledges that the ocean is central to a safe, clean, healthy, just, and prosperous future. This new narrative tells us that the ocean is neither too big to fail, nor is it too big to fix. But it is too important and too central to our future to ignore. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40427]

Air pollution has gone down, but wildfire smoke is here to replace it. Nick Muller, professor of economics, engineering, and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, explores how to address this. Nicholas Muller is the Lester and Judith Lave Professor of Economics, Engineering, and Public Policy and works at the intersection of environmental policy and […]

We get an update on the situation in the Middle East between Iran, Israel, and the US. Bruce Jentleson, Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University, who previously worked in the State Department and on the Middle East peace process, joins us.

It's time for a new narrative for the ocean, one that reflects current scientific knowledge and acknowledges innovative new partnerships and solutions that center the ocean in our future. In this program, Jane Lubchenco, Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University and with expertise in the ocean, climate change, and interactions between the environment and human well-being, talks about the two current dominant narratives for the ocean are anchored in the past. The older one considers the ocean to be so vast, bountiful, and resilient that it is simply too big to fail. This first narrative drives pollution and over-exploitation of resources. A second, more recent narrative is that the ocean is now so depleted, polluted, and disrupted, and the drivers of those outcomes are so powerful and complex, that the ocean is simply too big to fix. A third, new narrative is emerging, based on scientific findings, existing solutions, and innovative partnerships and policies. This new narrative acknowledges that the ocean is central to a safe, clean, healthy, just, and prosperous future. This new narrative tells us that the ocean is neither too big to fail, nor is it too big to fix. But it is too important and too central to our future to ignore. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Lectures" [Public Affairs] [Science] [Show ID: 40427]

On this episode of #TheGlobalExchange, Colin Robertson sits down with Hon. Perrin Beatty, Vice-Admiral (Retd) Mark Norman, Vincent Rigby and Tim Sargent to discuss the risks and opportunities of the recently announced Canada-European Union Security and Defence partnership. // Participants' bios - Hon. Perrin Beatty is a former Minister of National Defence, former President and CEO of CBC and former President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. - Vice-Admiral (Retd) Mark Norman served as the Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy and former Vice Chief of the Defence Staff. - Vincent Rigby is a former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister and is Slater Family Professor of Practice at McGill's Max Bell School of Public Policy. - Tim Sargent served as Deputy Minister in several portfolios and is now Senior Fellow and Director of the Domestic Policy Program at the MacDonald-Laurier Institute. // Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. // Reading Recommendations: - "The Allies Strike Back, 1941-1943" by James Holland - "The Three-Body Problem" by Cixin Liu - "On Freedom" by Timothy Snyder // Music Credit: Drew Phillips | Producer: Jordyn Carroll // Recording Date: July 11, 2025 Release date: July 15, 2025

In the latest episode of Environment China's podcast, we speak to Jialu Zuo. Jialu is a sustainability specialist at China National Aviation Fuel Group (CNAF), focusing on Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) and international engagement. She holds dual Master's degrees in Public Policy for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), jointly awarded by Tsinghua University (Beijing) and the University of Geneva (Switzerland). She earned her Bachelor's degree in International Relations and Diplomacy from Renmin University of China.   This episode is in Chinese and is produced by our Executive Producer Xiaodan Yuan (Joyce).   在环境中国最新一期的播客中，我们邀请到了左佳鹭 —— 佳鹭目前在能源央企做管培生，主要负责可持续航空燃料和企业的国际业务。她毕业于清华大学公共管理学院和日内瓦大学的可持续发展国际公共政策的双硕士项目。她曾在联合国贸易与发展会议担任可持续金融研究员，同时，佳鹭也是清华大学零碳未来青年协会的共同发起人。播客制作人：袁小丹。

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

Helios, a startup aiming to build an AI-powered operating system for policy professionals, has raised $4 million in seed funding. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/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/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

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.

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

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

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