Podcast appearances and mentions of Queen Mary

In this lively episode of Travels Through Time the historian Dr David Veevers takes us to the heart of the seventeenth century to visit three key locations in which the British Empire was being formed, challenged and resisted.  First, we head to the Deccan Plateau of the Indian Subcontinent to witness a dramatic stand off between the Mughal and Maratha Empires. It would set off a series of events which would eventually lead to the English East India Company acquiring a colony of its own in the region. Next, we cross continents and oceans to meet the Indigenous Kalinago of the Eastern Caribbean as they sign a treaty with the English and French. And finally, David takes us to the west coast of Africa where the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading to Africa is launched – an operation that would soon gain a monopoly over the trade in enslaved people in West Africa. These stories represent just a select few from David's brilliant new book The Great Defiance: How the World Took On the British Empire. It's a work of history that challenges our idea of the empire as one in which the British came, saw and conquered. Dr David Veevers is an award-winning historian and Lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of Bangor, and was formerly a Leverhulme Fellow in the School of History at Queen Mary, University of London.  Show Notes Scene One: January, 1660, Deccan. The Mughal Empire invade the emerging Maratha Empire, setting off a series of events that lead to the sack of Surat and the quest of the English East India Company to acquire a colony of its own in India. Scene Two: March, 1660, Guadeloupe. An Anglo-French delegation conclude a treaty with the Indigenous Kalinago of the Eastern Caribbean to partition the region between them. Scene Three: December, 1660, London and West Africa. The Company of Royal Adventurers Trading to Africa is launched, eventually gaining a monopoly over the trade in enslaved people in West Africa. Momemto: A silver cup that the British allege is stolen by Powhatan people. People/Social   Presenter: Artemis Irvine Guest: David Veevers Production: Maria Nolan Podcast partner: Ace Cultural Tours Theme music: ‘Love Token' from the album ‘This Is Us' By Slava and Leonard Grigoryan Follow us on Twitter: @tttpodcast_ See where 1660 fits on our Timeline  

On this episode of ID The Future, plant scientist Richard Buggs speaks to the hosts of the Table Talk podcast about the long-standing claim that science and religion are at odds. Buggs is a professor and Senior Research Leader at Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, one of the UK's largest plant science research institutes. He is also Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary, University of London. Contrary to the prevailing view, Buggs says his Christian faith motivates his research, giving him the ability not only to think with different perspectives but also better understand the people groups stewarding natural resources around the world as well as more adequately explain certain processes he studies in nature. Buggs also explains why the term "evolution" can vary between scientists and the public, and he reminds listeners of the current debate among evolutionary biologists themselves about the sufficiency of the current Darwinian mechanism to account for the origin and diversity of life. Along the way, Buggs points out the unconscious bias within his field that favors atheistic assumptions, nothing that more cognitive diversity would improve the scientific landscape and bring more rigor and creativity to the scientific process. For their kind permission to post this informative exchange, we thank Table Talk hosts Jack Timpany and Graeme Johnstone. Source

Professor Peter Hennessy is one of the UK's leading contemporary historians. He has written acclaimed and important books about politics, the civil service, the intelligence agencies and the British constitution on which he is an expert. Peter was born in London in 1947 and read history at St John's College, Cambridge. He started writing for the Times in the mid-1970s, covering the inner workings of Whitehall whose activities at that time were shrouded in secrecy. Peter says he approached his journalism like an amateur anthropologist trying to discover more about an unknown culture. His reports were viewed with suspicion by some members of the civil service and Harold Wilson, the then prime minister, issued an edit banning them from talking to him. In 1986 Peter co-founded the Institute of Contemporary British History, and in 1992 he moved from journalism to academia at Queen Mary, University of London where he is Attlee professor of contemporary British history. He is a fellow of the British Academy and was made a crossbench life peer in 2010. During the COVID-19 pandemic he started keeping a diary which he describes as an “aid to humility” with the aim of assessing post-world war history as BC (Before Covid) or AC (After Covid). Peter lives in London with his wife Enid. DISC ONE: Slow Train - Flanders & Swann DISC TWO: Italian Concerto in F, BWV 971, composed by Johann Sebastian Bach and performed by George Malcolm DISC THREE: Why Don't Women Like Me? - George Formby DISC FOUR: Schubert String Quintet In C Major,D. 956 - 2. Adagio, composed by Franz Schubert, performed by Robert Cohen (cello) and Amadeus Quartet DISC FIVE: The Elements - Tom Lehrer DISC SIX: London Girls - Chas & Dave DISC SEVEN: Skye Boat Song - The Pipes and Drums Of Leanisch DISC EIGHT: How Lovely is Thy Dwelling Place, composed by Johannes Brahms, performed by Festival Choir And Orchestra, conducted by Thomas D. Rossin BOOK CHOICE: Poetry in the Making by Ted Hughes LUXURY ITEM: A fountain pen, ink and paper CASTAWAY'S FAVOURITE: London Girls - Chas & Dave Presenter Lauren Laverne Producer Paula McGinley

The RMS Queen Mary (The Grey Ghost during wartime) is permanently moored in Long Beach, California. She boasts having been a luxury ocean liner, a troop transport during World War II, & a tourist attraction. Her history is rife with tumult & tourist traps, ghost stories & glamour, deception & The Great Depression. Sit back with Emily & Joy while they tell you the history of The Queen Mary both as written in her logs & the paranormal experiences of those who've set foot on her decks. If you've had an experience you'd like to share, email us TheResidualsPodcast@gmail.com or call us (323)538-2666. Please leave us a review, too! * * * * * * * * * * * * * Between the present & past there are memories held in the walls & earth. Join Emily & Joy as they explore the spaces between the living & the dead. Hauntings, extrasensory perception, & all things paranormal. Welcome to The Residuals. email: TheResidualsPodcast@gmail.com instagram: @the_residuals_podcast music: purple-planet.com   ©2023

My guest today is Robert Carver, an independent systematic futures trader, investor, writer, and research consultant. He is currently a visiting lecturer at Queen Mary, University of London. Robert trades and invests with his own money using the methods you can find in his books. Until 2013 Robert worked for AHL, a large systematic hedge fund, and part of the Man Group. He was responsible for the creation of AHL's fundamental global macro strategy. Prior to that Robert worked as a research manager for CEPR, an economics think tank, and traded exotic derivatives for Barclays investment bank.  The topic is his book Advanced Futures Trading Strategies. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Systematic trading Short term strategies Profits in trading Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

We are honored to bring you a conversation with Stuart Ralph, host of The OCD Stories podcast.  Stuart founded The OCD Stories podcast in 2015 to improve the lives of those with OCD. He holds a masters degree in psychological therapies from the University of London, Queen Mary and a masters degree in integrative child and adolescent counselling and psychotherapy from the University of Roehampton. He works in private practice as a child and adolescent counsellor and psychotherapist in the UK.  In this episode, Stuart graciously shares his personal experiences with OCD, from his first childhood intrusive thoughts, to dealing with an OCD relapse as a new therapist. We discuss why Stu chooses to practice as an integrative therapist, and how he uses modalities including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Compassion-Focused Therapy, and psychodynamic approaches alongside Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP). 

It was a tremendous honor & pleasure to interview Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Making of the Atomic BombWe discuss* similarities between AI progress & Manhattan Project (developing a powerful, unprecedented, & potentially apocalyptic technology within an uncertain arms-race situation)* visiting starving former Soviet scientists during fall of Soviet Union* whether Oppenheimer was a spy, & consulting on the Nolan movie* living through WW2 as a child* odds of nuclear war in Ukraine, Taiwan, Pakistan, & North Korea* how the US pulled of such a massive secret wartime scientific & industrial projectWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movie(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?(0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombs(0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet program(1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, Taiwan(1:33:12) - Oppenheimer as lab director(1:53:40) - AI progress vs Manhattan Project(1:59:50) - Living through WW2(2:16:45) - Secrecy(2:26:34) - Wisdom & warTranscript(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movieDwarkesh Patel 0:00:51Today I have the great honor of interviewing Richard Rhodes, who is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and most recently, the author of Energy, A Human History. I'm really excited about this one. Let's jump in at a current event, which is the fact that there's a new movie about Oppenheimer coming out, which I understand you've been consulted about. What did you think of the trailer? What are your impressions? Richard Rhodes 0:01:22They've really done a good job of things like the Trinity test device, which was the sphere covered with cables of various kinds. I had watched Peaky Blinders, where the actor who's playing Oppenheimer also appeared, and he looked so much like Oppenheimer to start with. Oppenheimer was about six feet tall, he was rail thin, not simply in terms of weight, but in terms of structure. Someone said he could sit in a children's high chair comfortably. But he never weighed more than about 140 pounds and that quality is there in the actor. So who knows? It all depends on how the director decided to tell the story. There are so many aspects of the story that you could never possibly squeeze them into one 2-hour movie. I think that we're waiting for the multi-part series that would really tell a lot more of the story, if not the whole story. But it looks exciting. We'll see. There have been some terrible depictions of Oppenheimer, there've been some terrible depictions of the bomb program. And maybe they'll get this one right. Dwarkesh Patel 0:02:42Yeah, hopefully. It is always great when you get an actor who resembles their role so well. For example, Bryan Cranston who played LBJ, and they have the same physical characteristics of the beady eyes, the big ears. Since we're talking about Oppenheimer, I had one question about him. I understand that there's evidence that's come out that he wasn't directly a communist spy. But is there any possibility that he was leaking information to the Soviets or in some way helping the Soviet program? He was a communist sympathizer, right? Richard Rhodes 0:03:15He had been during the 1930s. But less for the theory than for the practical business of helping Jews escape from Nazi Germany. One of the loves of his life, Jean Tatlock, was also busy working on extracting Jews from Europe during the 30. She was a member of the Communist Party and she, I think, encouraged him to come to meetings. But I don't think there's any possibility whatsoever that he shared information. In fact, he said he read Marx on a train trip between Berkeley and Washington one time and thought it was a bunch of hooey, just ridiculous. He was a very smart man, and he read the book with an eye to its logic, and he didn't think there was much there. He really didn't know anything about human beings and their struggles. He was born into considerable wealth. There were impressionist paintings all over his family apartments in New York City. His father had made a great deal of money cornering the markets on uniform linings for military uniforms during and before the First World War so there was a lot of wealth. I think his income during the war years and before was somewhere around $100,000 a month. And that's a lot of money in the 1930s. So he just lived in his head for most of his early years until he got to Berkeley and discovered that prime students of his were living on cans of god-awful cat food, because they couldn't afford anything else. And once he understood that there was great suffering in the world, he jumped in on it, as he always did when he became interested in something. So all of those things come together. His brother Frank was a member of the party, as was Frank's wife. I think the whole question of Oppenheimer lying to the security people during the Second World War about who approached him and who was trying to get him to sign on to some espionage was primarily an effort to cover up his brother's involvement. Not that his brothers gave away any secrets, I don't think they did. But if the army's security had really understood Frank Oppenheimer's involvement, he probably would have been shipped off to the Aleutians or some other distant place for the duration of the war. And Oppenheimer quite correctly wanted Frank around. He was someone he trusted.(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?Dwarkesh Patel 0:06:22Let's start talking about The Making of the Bomb. One question I have is — if World War II doesn't happen, is there any possibility that the bomb just never gets developed? Nobody bothers.Richard Rhodes 0:06:34That's really a good question and I've wondered over the years. But the more I look at the sequence of events, the more I think it would have been essentially inevitable, though perhaps not such an accelerated program. The bomb was pushed so hard during the Second World War because we thought the Germans had already started working on one. Nuclear fission had been discovered in Nazi Germany, in Berlin, in 1938, nine months before the beginning of the Second World War in Europe. Technological surveillance was not available during the war. The only way you could find out something was to send in a spy or have a mole or something human. And we didn't have that. So we didn't know where the Germans were, but we knew that the basic physics reaction that could lead to a bomb had been discovered there a year or more before anybody else in the West got started thinking about it. There was that most of all to push the urgency. In your hypothetical there would not have been that urgency. However, as soon as good physicists thought about the reaction that leads to nuclear fission — where a slow room temperature neutron, very little energy, bumps into the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom it would lead to a massive response. Isidore Rabi, one of the great physicists of this era, said it would have been like the moon struck the earth. The reaction was, as physicists say, fiercely exothermic. It puts out a lot more energy than you have to use to get it started. Once they did the numbers on that, and once they figured out how much uranium you would need to have in one place to make a bomb or to make fission get going, and once they were sure that there would be a chain reaction, meaning a couple of neutrons would come out of the reaction from one atom, and those two or three would go on and bump into other Uranium atoms, which would then fission them, and you'd get a geometric exponential. You'd get 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and off of there. For most of our bombs today the initial fission, in 80 generations, leads to a city-busting explosion. And then they had to figure out how much material they would need, and that's something the Germans never really figured out, fortunately for the rest of us. They were still working on the idea that somehow a reactor would be what you would build. When Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist, escaped from Denmark in 1943 and came to England and then United States, he brought with him a rough sketch that Werner Heisenberg, the leading scientist in the German program, had handed him in the course of trying to find out what Bohr knew about what America was doing. And he showed it to the guys at Los Alamos and Hans Bethe, one of the great Nobel laureate physicists in the group, said — “Are the Germans trying to throw a reactor down on us?” You can make a reactor blow up, we saw that at Chernobyl, but it's not a nuclear explosion on the scale that we're talking about with the bomb. So when a couple of these emigres Jewish physicists from Nazi Germany were whiling away their time in England after they escaped, because they were still technically enemy aliens and therefore could not be introduced to top secret discussions, one of them asked the other — “How much would we need of pure uranium-235, this rare isotope of uranium that chain reacts? How much would we need to make a bomb?” And they did the numbers and they came up with one pound, which was startling to them. Of course, it is more than that. It's about 125 pounds, but that's just a softball. That's not that much material. And then they did the numbers about what it would cost to build a factory to pull this one rare isotope of uranium out of the natural metal, which has several isotopes mixed together. And they figured it wouldn't cost more than it would cost to build a battleship, which is not that much money for a country at war. Certainly the British had plenty of battleships at that point in time. So they put all this together and they wrote a report which they handed through their superior physicists at Manchester University where they were based, who quickly realized how important this was. The United States lagged behind because we were not yet at war, but the British were. London was being bombed in the blitz. So they saw the urgency, first of all, of eating Germany to the punch, second of all of the possibility of building a bomb. In this report, these two scientists wrote that no physical structure came to their minds which could offer protection against a bomb of such ferocious explosive power. This report was from 1940 long before the Manhattan Project even got started. They said in this report, the only way we could think of to protect you against a bomb would be to have a bomb of similar destructive force that could be threatened for use if the other side attacked you. That's deterrence. That's a concept that was developed even before the war began in the United States. You put all those pieces together and you have a situation where you have to build a bomb because whoever builds the first bomb theoretically could prevent you from building more or prevent another country from building any and could dominate the world. And the notion of Adolf Hitler dominating the world, the Third Reich with nuclear weapons, was horrifying. Put all that together and the answer is every country that had the technological infrastructure to even remotely have the possibility of building everything you'd have to build to get the material for a bomb started work on thinking about it as soon as nuclear fusion was announced to the world. France, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, even Japan. So I think the bomb would have been developed but maybe not so quickly. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:10In the book you talk that for some reason the Germans thought that the critical mass was something like 10 tons, they had done some miscalculation.Richard Rhodes 0:14:18A reactor. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:19You also have some interesting stories in the book about how different countries found out the Americans were working on the bomb. For example, the Russians saw that all the top physicists, chemists, and metallurgists were no longer publishing. They had just gone offline and so they figured that something must be going on. I'm not sure if you're aware that while the subject of the Making of the Atomic Bomb in and of itself is incredibly fascinating, this book has become a cult classic in AI. Are you familiar with this? Richard Rhodes 0:14:52No. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:53The people who are working on AI right now are huge fans of yours. They're the ones who initially recommended the book to me because the way they see the progress in the field reminded them of this book. Because you start off with these initial scientific hints. With deep learning, for example, here's something that can teach itself any function is similar to Szilárd noticing the nuclear chain reaction. In AI there's these scaling laws that say that if you make the model this much bigger, it gets much better at reasoning, at predicting text, and so on. And then you can extrapolate this curve. And you can see we get two more orders of magnitude, and we get to something that looks like human level intelligence. Anyway, a lot of the people who are working in AI have become huge fans of your book because of this reason. They see a lot of analogies in the next few years. They must be at page 400 in their minds of where the Manhattan Project was.Richard Rhodes 0:15:55We must later on talk about unintended consequences. I find the subject absolutely fascinating. I think my next book might be called Unintended Consequences. Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:10You mentioned that a big reason why many of the scientists wanted to work on the bomb, especially the Jewish emigres, was because they're worried about Hitler getting it first. As you mentioned at some point, 1943, 1944, it was becoming obvious that Hitler, the Nazis were not close to the bomb. And I believe that almost none of the scientists quit after they found out that the Nazis weren't close. So why didn't more of them say — “Oh, I guess we were wrong. The Nazis aren't going to get it. We don't need to be working on it.”?Richard Rhodes 0:16:45There was only one who did that, Joseph Rotblat. In May of 1945 when he heard that Germany had been defeated, he packed up and left. General Groves, the imperious Army Corps of Engineers General who ran the entire Manhattan Project, was really upset. He was afraid he'd spill the beans. So he threatened to have him arrested and put in jail. But Rotblat was quite determined not to stay any longer. He was not interested in building bombs to aggrandize the national power of the United States of America, which is perfectly understandable. But why was no one else? Let me tell it in terms of Victor Weisskopf. He was an Austrian theoretical physicist, who, like the others, escaped when the Nazis took over Germany and then Austria and ended up at Los Alamos. Weisskopf wrote later — “There we were in Los Alamos in the midst of the darkest part of our science.” They were working on a weapon of mass destruction, that's pretty dark. He said “Before it had almost seemed like a spiritual quest.” And it's really interesting how different physics was considered before and after the Second World War. Before the war, one of the physicists in America named Louis Alvarez told me when he got his PhD in physics at Berkeley in 1937 and went to cocktail parties, people would ask, “What's your degree in?” He would tell them “Chemistry.” I said, “Louis, why?” He said, “because I don't really have to explain what physics was.” That's how little known this kind of science was at that time. There were only about 1,000 physicists in the whole world in 1900. By the mid-30s, there were a lot more, of course. There'd been a lot of nuclear physics and other kinds of physics done by them. But it was still arcane. And they didn't feel as if they were doing anything mean or dirty or warlike at all. They were just doing pure science. Then nuclear fission came along. It was publicized worldwide. People who've been born since after the Second World War don't realize that it was not a secret at first. The news was published first in a German chemistry journal, Die Naturwissenschaften, and then in the British journal Nature and then in American journals. And there were headlines in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and all over the world. People had been reading about and thinking about how to get energy out of the atomic nucleus for a long time. It was clear there was a lot there. All you had to do was get a piece of radium and see that it glowed in the dark. This chunk of material just sat there, you didn't plug it into a wall. And if you held it in your hand, it would burn you. So where did that energy come from? The physicists realized it all came from the nucleus of the atom, which is a very small part of the whole thing. The nucleus is 1/100,000th the diameter of the whole atom. Someone in England described it as about the size of a fly in a cathedral. All of the energy that's involved in chemical reactions, comes from the electron cloud that's around the nucleus. But  it was clear that the nucleus was the center of powerful forces. But the question was, how do you get them out? The only way that the nucleus had been studied up to 1938 was by bombarding it with protons, which have the same electric charge as the nucleus, positive charge, which means they were repelled by it. So you had to accelerate them to high speeds with various versions of the big machines that we've all become aware of since then. The cyclotron most obviously built in the 30s, but there were others as well. And even then, at best, you could chip a little piece off. You could change an atom one step up or one step down the periodic table. This was the classic transmutation of medieval alchemy sure but it wasn't much, you didn't get much out. So everyone came to think of the nucleus of the atom like a little rock that you really had to hammer hard to get anything to happen with it because it was so small and dense. That's why nuclear fission, with this slow neutron drifting and then the whole thing just goes bang, was so startling to everybody. So startling that when it happened, most of the physicists who would later work on the bomb and others as well, realized that they had missed the reaction that was something they could have staged on a lab bench with the equipment on the shelf. Didn't have to invent anything new. And Louis Alvarez again, this physicist at Berkeley, he said — “I was getting my hair cut. When I read the newspaper, I pulled off the robe and half with my hair cut, ran to my lab, pulled some equipment off the shelf, set it up and there it was.” So he said, “I discovered nuclear fission, but it was two days too late.” And that happened all over. People were just hitting themselves on the head and saying, well, Niels Bohr said, “What fools we've all been.” So this is a good example of how in science, if your model you're working with is wrong it doesn't lead you down the right path. There was only one physicist who really was thinking the right way about the uranium atom and that was Niels Bohr. He wondered, sometime during the 30s, why uranium was the last natural element in the periodic table? What is different about the others that would come later? He visualized the nucleus as a liquid drop. I always like to visualize it as a water-filled balloon. It's wobbly, it's not very stable. The protons in the nucleus are held together by something called the strong force, but they still have the repellent positive electric charge that's trying to push them apart when you get enough of them into a nucleus. It's almost a standoff between the strong force and all the electrical charge. So it is like a wobbly balloon of water. And then you see why a neutron just falling into the nucleus would make it wobble around even more and in one of its configurations, it might take a dumbbell shape. And then you'd have basically two charged atoms just barely connected, trying to push each other apart. And often enough, they went the whole way. When they did that, these two new elements, half the weight of uranium, way down the periodic table, would reconfigure themselves into two separate nuclei. And in doing so, they would release some energy. And that was the energy that came out of the reaction and there was a lot of energy. So Bohr thought about the model in the right way. The chemists who actually discovered nuclear fusion didn't know what they were gonna get. They were just bombarding a solution of uranium nitrate with neutrons thinking, well, maybe we can make a new element, maybe a first man-made element will come out of our work. So when they analyzed the solution after they bombarded it, they found elements halfway down the periodic table. They shouldn't have been there. And they were totally baffled. What is this doing here? Do we contaminate our solution? No. They had been working with a physicist named Lisa Meitner who was a theoretical physicist, an Austrian Jew. She had gotten out of Nazi Germany not long before. But they were still in correspondence with her. So they wrote her a letter. I held that letter in my hand when I visited Berlin and I was in tears. You don't hold history of that scale in your hands very often. And it said in German — “We found this strange reaction in our solution. What are these elements doing there that don't belong there?” And she went for a walk in a little village in Western Sweden with her nephew, Otto Frisch, who was also a nuclear physicist. And they thought about it for a while and they remembered Bohr's model, the wobbly water-filled balloon. And they suddenly saw what could happen. And that's where the news came from, the physics news as opposed to the chemistry news from the guys in Germany that was published in all the Western journals and all the newspapers. And everybody had been talking about, for years, what you could do if you had that kind of energy. A glass of this material would drive the Queen Mary back and forth from New York to London 20 times and so forth, your automobile could run for months. People were thinking about what would be possible if you had that much available energy. And of course, people had thought about reactors. Robert Oppenheimer was a professor at Berkeley and within a week of the news reaching Berkeley, one of his students told me that he had a drawing on the blackboard, a rather bad drawing of both a reactor and a bomb. So again, because the energy was so great, the physics was pretty obvious. Whether it would actually happen depended on some other things like could you make it chain react? But fundamentally, the idea was all there at the very beginning and everybody jumped on it. Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:54The book is actually the best history of World War II I've ever read. It's about the atomic bomb, but it's interspersed with the events that are happening in World War II, which motivate the creation of the bomb or the release of it, why it had to be dropped on Japan given the Japanese response. The first third is about the scientific roots of the physics and it's also the best book I've read about the history of science in the early 20th century and the organization of it. There's some really interesting stuff in there. For example, there was a passage where you talk about how there's a real master apprentice model in early science where if you wanted to learn to do this kind of experimentation, you will go to Amsterdam where the master of it is residing. It's much more individual focused. Richard Rhodes 0:28:58Yeah, the whole European model of graduate study, which is basically the wandering scholar. You could go wherever you wanted to and sign up with whoever was willing to have you sign up. (0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombsDwarkesh Patel 0:29:10But the question I wanted to ask regarding the history you made of World War II in general is — there's one way you can think about the atom bomb which is that it is completely different from any sort of weaponry that has been developed before it. Another way you can think of it is there's a spectrum where on one end you have the thermonuclear bomb, in the middle you have the atom bomb, and on this end you have the firebombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo. Do you think of these as completely different categories or does it seem like an escalating gradient to you? Richard Rhodes 0:29:47I think until you get to the hydrogen bomb, it's really an escalating gradient. The hydrogen bomb can be made arbitrarily large. The biggest one ever tested was 56 megatons of TNT equivalent. The Soviet tested that. That had a fireball more than five miles in diameter, just the fireball. So that's really an order of magnitude change. But the other one's no and in fact, I think one of the real problems, this has not been much discussed and it should be, when American officials went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war, one of them said later — “I got on a plane in Tokyo. We flew down the long green archipelago of the Japanese home island. When I left Tokyo, it was all gray broken roof tiles from the fire bombing and the other bombings. And then all this greenery. And then when we flew over Hiroshima, it was just gray broken roof tiles again.” So the scale of the bombing with one bomb, in the case of Hiroshima, was not that different from the scale of the fire bombings that had preceded it with tens of thousands of bombs. The difference was it was just one plane. In fact, the people in Hiroshima didn't even bother to go into their bomb shelters because one plane had always just been a weather plane. Coming over to check the weather before the bombers took off. So they didn't see any reason to hide or protect themselves, which was one of the reasons so many people were killed. The guys at Los Alamos had planned on the Japanese being in their bomb shelters. They did everything they could think of to make the bomb as much like ordinary bombing as they could. And for example, it was exploded high enough above ground, roughly 1,800 yards, so that the fireball that would form from this really very small nuclear weapon — by modern standards — 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent, wouldn't touch the ground and stir up dirt and irradiate it and cause massive radioactive fallout. It never did that. They weren't sure there would be any fallout. They thought the plutonium and the bomb over Nagasaki now would just kind of turn into a gas and blow away. That's not exactly what happened. But people don't seem to realize, and it's never been emphasized enough, these first bombs, like all nuclear weapons, were firebombs. Their job was to start mass fires, just exactly like all the six-pound incendiaries that had been destroying every major city in Japan by then. Every major city above 50,000 population had already been burned out. The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around to be atomic bombed is because they'd been set aside from the target list, because General Groves wanted to know what the damage effects would be. The bomb that was tested in the desert didn't tell you anything. It killed a lot of rabbits, knocked down a lot of cactus, melted some sand, but you couldn't see its effect on buildings and on people. So the bomb was deliberately intended to be as much not like poison gas, for example, because we didn't want the reputation for being like people in the war in Europe during the First World War, where people were killing each other with horrible gasses. We just wanted people to think this was another bombing. So in that sense, it was. Of course, there was radioactivity. And of course, some people were killed by it. But they calculated that the people who would be killed by the irradiation, the neutron radiation from the original fireball, would be close enough to the epicenter of the explosion that they would be killed by the blast or the flash of light, which was 10,000 degrees. The world's worst sunburn. You've seen stories of people walking around with their skin hanging off their arms. I've had sunburns almost that bad, but not over my whole body, obviously, where the skin actually peeled blisters and peels off. That was a sunburn from a 10,000 degree artificial sun. Dwarkesh Patel 0:34:29So that's not the heat, that's just the light? Richard Rhodes 0:34:32Radiant light, radiant heat. 10,000 degrees. But the blast itself only extended out a certain distance, it was fire. And all the nuclear weapons that have ever been designed are basically firebombs. That's important because the military in the United States after the war was not able to figure out how to calculate the effects of this weapon in a reliable way that matched their previous experience. They would only calculate the blast effects of a nuclear weapon when they figured their targets. That's why we had what came to be called overkill. We wanted redundancy, of course, but 60 nuclear weapons on Moscow was way beyond what would be necessary to destroy even that big a city because they were only calculating the blast. But in fact, if you exploded a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead over the Pentagon at 3,000 feet, it would blast all the way out to the capital, which isn't all that far. But if you counted the fire, it would start a mass-fire and then it would reach all the way out to the Beltway and burn everything between the epicenter of the weapon and the Beltway. All organic matter would be totally burned out, leaving nothing but mineral matter, basically. Dwarkesh Patel 0:36:08I want to emphasize two things you said because they really hit me in reading the book and I'm not sure if the audience has fully integrated them. The first is, in the book, the military planners and Groves, they talk about needing to use the bomb sooner rather than later, because they were running out of cities in Japan where there are enough buildings left that it would be worth bombing in the first place, which is insane. An entire country is almost already destroyed from fire bombing alone. And the second thing about the category difference between thermonuclear and atomic bombs. Daniel Ellsberg, the nuclear planner who wrote the Doomsday machine, he talks about, people don't understand that the atom bomb that resulted in the pictures we see of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is simply the detonator of a modern nuclear bomb, which is an insane thing to think about. So for example, 10 and 15 kilotons is the Hiroshima Nagasaki and the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 megatons. So more than 1,000 times as much. And that wasn't even as big as they could make it. They kept the uranium tamper off, because they didn't want to destroy all of Siberia. So you could get more than 10,000 times as powerful. Richard Rhodes 0:37:31When Edward Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb and one of the dark forces in the story, was consulting with our military, just for his own sake, he sat down and calculated, how big could you make a hydrogen bomb? He came up with 1,000 megatons. And then he looked at the effects. 1,000 megatons would be a fireball 10 miles in diameter. And the atmosphere is only 10 miles deep. He figured that it would just be a waste of energy, because it would all blow out into space. Some of it would go laterally, of course, but most of it would just go out into space. So a bomb more than 100 megatons would just be totally a waste of time. Of course, a 100 megatons bomb is also a total waste, because there's no target on Earth big enough to justify that from a military point of view. Robert Oppenheimer, when he had his security clearance questioned and then lifted when he was being punished for having resisted the development of the hydrogen bomb, was asked by the interrogator at this security hearing — “Well, Dr. Oppenheimer, if you'd had a hydrogen bomb for Hiroshima, wouldn't you have used it?” And Oppenheimer said, “No.” The interrogator asked, “Why is that?” He said because the target was too small. I hope that scene is in the film, I'm sure it will be. So after the war, when our bomb planners and some of our scientists went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just about as soon as the surrender was signed, what they were interested in was the scale of destruction, of course. And those two cities didn't look that different from the other cities that had been firebombed with small incendiaries and ordinary high explosives. They went home to Washington, the policy makers, with the thought that — “Oh, these bombs are not so destructive after all.” They had been touted as city busters, basically, and they weren't. They didn't completely burn out cities. They were not certainly more destructive than the firebombing campaign, when everything of more than 50,000 population had already been destroyed. That, in turn, influenced the judgment about what we needed to do vis-a-vis the Soviet Union when the Soviets got the bomb in 1949. There was a general sense that, when you could fight a war with nuclear weapons, deterrence or not, you would need quite a few of them to do it right. And the Air Force, once it realized that it could aggrandize its own share of the federal budget by cornering the market and delivering nuclear weapons, very quickly decided that they would only look at the blast effect and not the fire effect. It's like tying one hand behind your back. Most of it was a fire effect. So that's where they came up with numbers like we need 60 of these to take out Moscow. And what the Air Force figured out by the late 1940s is that the more targets, the more bombs. The more bombs, the more planes. The more planes, the biggest share of the budget. So by the mid 1950s, the Air Force commanded 47% of the federal defense budget. And the other branches of services, which had not gone nuclear by then, woke up and said, we'd better find some use for these weapons in our branches of service. So the Army discovered that it needed nuclear weapons, tactical weapons for field use, fired out of cannons. There was even one that was fired out of a shoulder mounted rifle. There was a satchel charge that two men could carry, weighed about 150 pounds, that could be used to dig a ditch so that Soviet tanks couldn't cross into Germany. And of course the Navy by then had been working hard with General Rickover on building a nuclear submarine that could carry ballistic missiles underwater in total security. No way anybody could trace those submarines once they were quiet enough. And a nuclear reactor is very quiet. It just sits there with neutrons running around, making heat. So the other services jumped in and this famous triad, we must have these three different kinds of nuclear weapons, baloney. We would be perfectly safe if we only had our nuclear submarines. And only one or two of those. One nuclear submarine can take out all of Europe or all of the Soviet Union.Dwarkesh Patel 0:42:50Because it has multiple nukes on it? Richard Rhodes 0:42:53Because they have 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads, at least three per missile. Dwarkesh Patel 0:43:02Wow. I had a former guest, Richard Hanania, who has a book about foreign policy where he points out that our model of thinking about why countries do the things they do, especially in foreign affairs, is wrong because we think of them as individual rational actors, when in fact it's these competing factions within the government. And in fact, you see this especially in the case of Japan in World War II, there was a great book of Japan leading up to World War II, where they talk about how a branch of the Japanese military, I forget which, needed more oil to continue their campaign in Manchuria so they forced these other branches to escalate. But it's so interesting that the reason we have so many nukes is that the different branches are competing for funding. Richard Rhodes 0:43:50Douhet, the theorist of air power, had been in the trenches in the First World War. Somebody (John Masefield) called the trenches of the First World War, the long grave already dug, because millions of men were killed and the trenches never moved, a foot this way, a foot that way, all this horror. And Douhet came up with the idea that if you could fly over the battlefield to the homeland of the enemy and destroy his capacity to make war, then the people of that country, he theorized, would rise up in rebellion and throw out their leaders and sue for peace. And this became the dream of all the Air Forces of the world, but particularly ours. Until around 1943, it was called the US Army Air Force. The dream of every officer in the Air Force was to get out from under the Army, not just be something that delivers ground support or air support to the Army as it advances, but a power that could actually win wars. And the missing piece had always been the scale of the weaponry they carried. So when the bomb came along, you can see why Curtis LeMay, who ran the strategic air command during the prime years of that force, was pushing for bigger and bigger bombs. Because if a plane got shot down, but the one behind it had a hydrogen bomb, then it would be just almost as effective as the two planes together. So they wanted big bombs. And they went after Oppenheimer because he thought that was a terrible way to go, that there was really no military use for these huge weapons. Furthermore, the United States had more cities than Russia did, than the Soviet Union did. And we were making ourselves a better target by introducing a weapon that could destroy a whole state. I used to live in Connecticut and I saw a map that showed the air pollution that blew up from New York City to Boston. And I thought, well, now if that was fallout, we'd be dead up here in green, lovely Connecticut. That was the scale that it was going to be with these big new weapons. So on the one hand, you had some of the important leaders in the government thinking that these weapons were not the war-winning weapons that the Air Force wanted them and realized they could be. And on the other hand, you had the Air Force cornering the market on nuclear solutions to battles. All because some guy in a trench in World War I was sufficiently horrified and sufficiently theoretical about what was possible with air power. Remember, they were still flying biplanes. When H.G. Wells wrote his novel, The World Set Free in 1913, predicting an atomic war that would lead to world government, he had Air Forces delivering atomic bombs, but he forgot to update his planes. The guys in the back seat, the bombardiers, were sitting in a biplane, open cockpit. And when the pilots had dropped the bomb, they would reach down and pick up H.G. Wells' idea of an atomic bomb and throw it over the side. Which is kind of what was happening in Washington after the war. And it led us to a terribly misleading and unfortunate perspective on how many weapons we needed, which in turn fermented the arms race with the Soviets and just chased off. In the Soviet Union, they had a practical perspective on factories. Every factory was supposed to produce 120% of its target every year. That was considered good Soviet realism. And they did that with their nuclear war weapons. So by the height of the Cold War, they had 75,000 nuclear weapons, and nobody had heard yet of nuclear winter. So if both sides had set off this string of mass traps that we had in our arsenals, it would have been the end of the human world without question. Dwarkesh Patel 0:48:27It raises an interesting question, if the military planners thought that the conventional nuclear weapon was like the fire bombing, would it have been the case that if there wasn't a thermonuclear weapon, that there actually would have been a nuclear war by now because people wouldn't have been thinking of it as this hard red line? Richard Rhodes 0:48:47I don't think so because we're talking about one bomb versus 400, and one plane versus 400 planes and thousands of bombs. That scale was clear. Deterrence was the more important business. Everyone seemed to understand even the spies that the Soviets had connected up to were wholesaling information back to the Soviet Union. There's this comic moment when Truman is sitting with Joseph Stalin at Potsdam, and he tells Stalin, we have a powerful new weapon. And that's as much as he's ready to say about it. And Stalin licks at him and says, “Good, I hope you put it to good use with the Japanese.” Stalin knows exactly what he's talking about. He's seen the design of the fat man type Nagasaki plutonium bomb. He has held it in his hands because they had spies all over the place. (0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet programDwarkesh Patel 0:49:44How much longer would it have taken the Soviets to develop the bomb if they didn't have any spies? Richard Rhodes 0:49:49Probably not any longer. Dwarkesh Patel 0:49:51Really? Richard Rhodes 0:49:51When the Soviet Union collapsed in the winter of ‘92, I ran over there as quickly as I could get over there. In this limbo between forming a new kind of government and some of the countries pulling out and becoming independent and so forth, their nuclear scientists, the ones who'd worked on their bombs were free to talk. And I found that out through Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's widow, who was connected to people I knew. And she said, yeah, come on over. Her secretary, Sasha, who was a geologist about 35 years old became my guide around the country. We went to various apartments. They were retired guys from the bomb program and were living on, as far as I could tell, sac-and-potatoes and some salt. They had government pensions and the money was worth a salt, all of a sudden. I was buying photographs from them, partly because I needed the photographs and partly because 20 bucks was two months' income at that point. So it was easy for me and it helped them. They had first class physicists in the Soviet Union, they do in Russian today. They told me that by 1947, they had a design for a bomb that they said was half the weight and twice the yield of the Fat Man bomb. The Fat Man bomb was the plutonium implosion, right? And it weighed about 9,000 pounds. They had a much smaller and much more deliverable bomb with a yield of about 44 kilotons. Dwarkesh Patel 0:51:41Why was Soviet physics so good?Richard Rhodes 0:51:49The Russian mind? I don't know. They learned all their technology from the French in the 19th century, which is why there's so many French words in Russian. So they got good teachers, the French are superb technicians, they aren't so good at building things, but they're very good at designing things. There's something about Russia, I don't know if it's the language or the education. They do have good education, they did. But I remember asking them when they were working, I said — On the hydrogen bomb, you didn't have any computers yet. We only had really early primitive computers to do the complicated calculations of the hydrodynamics of that explosion. I said, “What did you do?” They said, “Oh, we just used nuclear. We just used theoretical physics.” Which is what we did at Los Alamos. We had guys come in who really knew their math and they would sit there and work it out by hand. And women with old Marchant calculators running numbers. So basically they were just good scientists and they had this new design. Kurchatov who ran the program took Lavrentiy Beria, who ran the NKVD who was put in charge of the program and said — “Look, we can build you a better bomb. You really wanna waste the time to make that much more uranium and plutonium?” And Beria said, “Comrade, I want the American bomb. Give me the American bomb or you and all your families will be camp dust.” I talked to one of the leading scientists in the group and he said, we valued our lives, we valued our families. So we gave them a copy of the plutonium implosion bomb. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:37Now that you explain this, when the Soviet Union fell, why didn't North Korea, Iran or another country, send a few people to the fallen Soviet Union to recruit a few of the scientists to start their own program? Or buy off their stockpiles or something. Or did they?Richard Rhodes 0:53:59There was some effort by countries in the Middle East to get all the enriched uranium, which they wouldn't sell them. These were responsible scientists. They told me — we worked on the bomb because you had it and we didn't want there to be a monopoly on the part of any country in the world. So patriotically, even though Stalin was in charge of our country, he was a monster. We felt that it was our responsibility to work on these things, even Sakharov. There was a great rush at the end of the Second World War to get hold of German scientists. And about an equal number were grabbed by the Soviets. All of the leading German scientists, like Heisenberg and Hans and others, went west as fast as they could. They didn't want to be captured by the Soviets. But there were some who were. And they helped them work. People have the idea that Los Alamos was where the bomb happened. And it's true that at Los Alamos, we had the team that designed, developed, and built the first actual weapons. But the truth is, the important material for weapons is the uranium or plutonium. One of the scientists in the Manhattan Project told me years later, you can make a pretty high-level nuclear explosion just by taking two subcritical pieces of uranium, putting one on the floor and dropping the other by hand from a height of about six feet. If that's true, then all this business about secret designs and so forth is hogwash. What you really need for a weapon is the critical mass of highly enriched uranium, 90% of uranium-235. If you've got that, there are lots of different ways to make the bomb. We had two totally different ways that we used. The gun on the one hand for uranium, and then because plutonium was so reactive that if you fired up the barrel of a cannon at 3,000 feet per second, it would still melt down before the two pieces made it up. So for that reason, they had to invent an entirely new technology, which was an amazing piece of work. From the Soviet point of view, and I think this is something people don't know either, but it puts the Russian experience into a better context. All the way back in the 30s, since the beginning of the Soviet Union after the First World War, they had been sending over espionage agents connected up to Americans who were willing to work for them to collect industrial technology. They didn't have it when they began their country. It was very much an agricultural country. And in that regard, people still talk about all those damn spies stealing our secrets, we did the same thing with the British back in colonial days. We didn't know how to make a canal that wouldn't drain out through the soil. The British had a certain kind of clay that they would line their canals with, and there were canals all over England, even in the 18th century, that were impervious to the flow of water. And we brought a British engineer at great expense to teach us how to make the lining for the canals that opened up the Middle West and then the West. So they were doing the same thing. And one of those spies was a guy named Harry Gold, who was working all the time for them. He gave them some of the basic technology of Kodak filmmaking, for example. Harry Gold was the connection between David Greenglass and one of the American spies at Los Alamos and the Soviet Union. So it was not different. The model was — never give us something that someone dreamed of that hasn't been tested and you know works. So it would actually be blueprints for factories, not just a patent. And therefore when Beria after the war said, give us the bomb, he meant give me the American bomb because we know that works. I don't trust you guys. Who knows what you'll do. You're probably too stupid anyway. He was that kind of man. So for all of those reasons, they built the second bomb they tested was twice the yield and half the way to the first bomb. In other words, it was their new design. And so it was ours because the technology was something that we knew during the war, but it was too theoretical still to use. You just had to put the core and have a little air gap between the core and the explosives so that the blast wave would have a chance to accelerate through an open gap. And Alvarez couldn't tell me what it was but he said, you can get a lot more destructive force with a hammer if you hit something with it, rather than if you put the head on the hammer and push. And it took me several years before I figured out what he meant. I finally understood he was talking about what's called levitation.Dwarkesh Patel 0:59:41On the topic that the major difficulty in developing a bomb is either the refinement of uranium into U-235 or its transmutation into plutonium, I was actually talking to a physicist in preparation for this conversation. He explained the same thing that if you get two subcritical masses of uranium together, you wouldn't have the full bomb because it would start to tear itself apart without the tamper, but you would still have more than one megaton.Richard Rhodes 1:00:12It would be a few kilotons. Alvarez's model would be a few kilotons, but that's a lot. Dwarkesh Patel 1:00:20Yeah, sorry I meant kiloton. He claimed that one of the reasons why we talk so much about Los Alamos is that at the time the government didn't want other countries to know that if you refine uranium, you've got it. So they were like, oh, we did all this fancy physics work in Los Alamos that you're not gonna get to, so don't even worry about it. I don't know what you make of that theory. That basically it was sort of a way to convince people that Los Alamos was important. Richard Rhodes 1:00:49I think all the physics had been checked out by a lot of different countries by then. It was pretty clear to everybody what you needed to do to get to a bomb. That there was a fast fusion reaction, not a slow fusion reaction, like a reactor. They'd worked that out. So I don't think that's really the problem. But to this day, no one ever talks about the fact that the real problem isn't the design of the weapon. You could make one with wooden boxes if you wanted to. The problem is getting the material. And that's good because it's damned hard to make that stuff. And it's something you can protect. Dwarkesh Patel 1:01:30We also have gotten very lucky, if lucky is the word you want to use. I think you mentioned this in the book at some point, but the laws of physics could have been such that unrefined uranium ore was enough to build a nuclear weapon, right? In some sense, we got lucky that it takes a nation-state level actor to really refine and produce the raw substance. Richard Rhodes 1:01:56Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning on the way over. And all the uranium in the world would already have destroyed itself. Most people have never heard of the living reactors that developed on their own in a bed of uranium ore in Africa about two billion years ago, right? When there was more U-235 in a mass of uranium ore than there is today, because it decays like all radioactive elements. And the French discovered it when they were mining the ore and found this bed that had a totally different set of nuclear characteristics. They were like, what happened? But there were natural reactors in Gabon once upon a time. And they started up because some water, a moderator to make the neutrons slow down, washed its way down through a bed of much more highly enriched uranium ore than we still have today. Maybe 5-10% instead of 3.5 or 1.5, whatever it is now. And they ran for about 100,000 years and then shut themselves down because they had accumulated enough fusion products that the U-235 had been used up. Interestingly, this material never migrated out of the bed of ore. People today who are anti-nuclear say, well, what are we gonna do about the waste? Where are we gonna put all that waste? It's silly. Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:35Shove it in a hole. Richard Rhodes 1:03:36Yeah, basically. That's exactly what we're planning to do. Holes that are deep enough and in beds of material that will hold them long enough for everything to decay back to the original ore. It's not a big problem except politically because nobody wants it in their backyard.Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:53On the topic of the Soviets, one question I had while reading the book was — we negotiated with Stalin at Yalta and we surrendered a large part of Eastern Europe to him under his sphere of influence. And obviously we saw 50 years of immiseration there as a result. Given the fact that only we had the bomb, would it have been possible that we could have just knocked out the Soviet Union or at least prevented so much of the world from succumbing to communism in the aftermath of World War II? Is that a possibility? Richard Rhodes 1:04:30When we say we had the bomb, we had a few partly assembled handmade bombs. It took almost as long to assemble one as the battery life of the batteries that would drive the original charge that would set off the explosion. It was a big bluff. You know, when they closed Berlin in 1948 and we had to supply Berlin by air with coal and food for a whole winter, we moved some B-29s to England. The B-29 being the bomber that had carried the bombs. They were not outfitted for nuclear weapons. They didn't have the same kind of bomb-based structure. The weapons that were dropped in Japan had a single hook that held the entire bomb. So when the bay opened and the hook was released, the thing dropped. And that's very different from dropping whole rows of small bombs that you've seen in the photographs and the film footage. So it was a big bluff on our part. We took some time after the war inevitably to pull everything together. Here was a brand new technology. Here was a brand new weapon. Who was gonna be in charge of it? The military wanted control, Truman wasn't about to give the military control. He'd been an artillery officer in the First World War. He used to say — “No, damn artillery captain is gonna start World War III when I'm president.” I grew up in the same town he lived in so I know his accent. Independence, Missouri. Used to see him at his front steps taking pictures with tourists while he was still president. He used to step out on the porch and let the tourists take photographs. About a half a block from my Methodist church where I went to church. It was interesting. Interestingly, his wife was considered much more socially acceptable than he was. She was from an old family in independence, Missouri. And he was some farmer from way out in Grandview, Missouri, South of Kansas City. Values. Anyway, at the end of the war, there was a great rush from the Soviet side of what was already a zone. There was a Soviet zone, a French zone, British zone and an American zone. Germany was divided up into those zones to grab what's left of the uranium ore that the Germans had stockpiled. And there was evidence that there was a number of barrels of the stuff in a warehouse somewhere in the middle of all of this. And there's a very funny story about how the Russians ran in and grabbed off one site full of uranium ore, this yellow black stuff in what were basically wine barrels. And we at the same night, just before the wall came down between the zones, were running in from the other side, grabbing some other ore and then taking it back to our side. But there was also a good deal of requisitioning of German scientists. And the ones who had gotten away early came West, but there were others who didn't and ended up helping the Soviets. And they were told, look, you help us build the reactors and the uranium separation systems that we need. And we'll let you go home and back to your family, which they did. Early 50s by then, the German scientists who had helped the Russians went home. And I think our people stayed here and brought their families over, I don't know. (1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, TaiwanDwarkesh Patel 1:08:24Was there an opportunity after the end of World War II, before the Soviets developed the bomb, for the US to do something where either it somehow enforced a monopoly on having the bomb, or if that wasn't possible, make some sort of credible gesture that, we're eliminating this knowledge, you guys don't work on this, we're all just gonna step back from this. Richard Rhodes 1:08:50We tried both before the war. General Groves, who had the mistaken impression that there was a limited amount of high-grade uranium ore in the world, put together a company that tried to corner the market on all the available supply. For some reason, he didn't realize that a country the size of the Soviet Union is going to have some uranium ore somewhere. And of course it did, in Kazakhstan, rich uranium ore, enough for all the bombs they wanted to build. But he didn't know that, and I frankly don't know why he didn't know that, but I guess uranium's use before the Second World War was basically as a glazing agent for pottery, that famous yellow pottery and orange pottery that people owned in the 1930s, those colors came from uranium, and they're sufficiently radioactive, even to this day, that if you wave a Geiger counter over them, you get some clicks. In fact, there have been places where they've gone in with masks and suits on, grabbed the Mexican pottery and taken it out in a lead-lined case. People have been so worried about it but that was the only use for uranium, to make a particular kind of glass. So once it became clear that there was another use for uranium, a much more important one, Groves tried to corner the world market, and he thought he had. So that was one effort to limit what the Soviet Union could do. Another was to negotiate some kind of agreement between the parties. That was something that really never got off the ground, because the German Secretary of State was an old Southern politician and he didn't trust the Soviets. He went to the first meeting, in Geneva in ‘45 after the war was over, and strutted around and said, well, I got the bomb in my pocket, so let's sit down and talk here. And the Soviet basically said, screw you. We don't care. We're not worried about your bomb. Go home. So that didn't work. Then there was the effort to get the United Nations to start to develop some program of international control. And the program was proposed originally by a committee put together by our State Department that included Robert Oppenheimer, rightly so, because the other members of the committee were industrialists, engineers, government officials, people with various kinds of expertise around the very complicated problems of technology and the science and, of course, the politics, the diplomacy. In a couple of weeks, Oppenheimer taught them the basics of the nuclear physics involved and what he knew about bomb design, which was everything, actually, since he'd run Los Alamos. He was a scientist during the war. And they came up with a plan. People have scoffed ever since at what came to be called the Acheson-Lilienthal plan named after the State Department people. But it's the only plan I think anyone has ever devised that makes real sense as to how you could have international control without a world government. Every country would be open to inspection by any agency that was set up. And the inspections would not be at the convenience of the country. But whenever the inspectors felt they needed to inspect. So what Oppenheimer called an open world. And if you had that, and then if each country then developed its own nuclear industries, nuclear power, medical uses, whatever, then if one country tried clandestinely to begin to build bombs, you would know about it at the time of the next inspection. And then you could try diplomacy. If that didn't work, you could try conventional war. If that wasn't sufficient, then you could start building your bombs too. And at the end of this sequence, which would be long enough, assuming that there were no bombs existing in the world, and the ore was stored in a warehouse somewhere, six months maybe, maybe a year, it would be time for everyone to scale up to deterrence with weapons rather than deterrence without weapons, with only the knowledge. That to me is the answer to the whole thing. And it might have worked. But there were two big problems. One, no country is going to allow a monopoly on a nuclear weapon, at least no major power. So the Russians were not willing to sign on from the beginning. They just couldn't. How could they? We would not have. Two, Sherman assigned a kind of a loudmouth, a wise old Wall Street guy to present this program to the United Nations. And he sat down with Oppenheimer after he and his people had studied and said, where's your army? Somebody starts working on a bomb over there. You've got to go in and take that out, don't you? He said, what would happen if one country started building a bomb? Oppenheimer said, well, that would be an act of war. Meaning then the other countries could begin to escalate as they needed to to protect themselves against one power, trying to overwhelm the rest. Well, Bernard Baruch was the name of the man. He didn't get it. So when he presented his revised version of the Acheson–Lilienthal Plan, which was called the Baruch Plan to the United Nations, he included his army. And he insisted that the United States would not give up its nuclear monopoly until everyone else had signed on. So of course, who's going to sign on to that deal? Dwarkesh Patel 1:15:24I feel he has a point in the sense that — World War II took five years or more. If we find that the Soviets are starting to develop a bomb, it's not like within the six months or a year or whatever, it would take them to start refining the ore. And to the point we found out that they've been refining ore to when we start a war and engage in it, and doing all the diplomacy. By that point, they might already have the bomb. And so we're behind because we dismantled our weapons. We are only starting to develop our weapons once we've exhausted these other avenues. Richard Rhodes 1:16:00Not to develop. Presumably we would have developed. And everybody would have developed anyway. Another way to think of this is as delayed delivery times. Takes about 30 minutes to get an ICBM from Central Missouri to Moscow. That's the time window for doing anything other than starting a nuclear war. So take the warhead off those missiles and move it down the road 10 miles. So then it takes three hours. You've got to put the warhead back on the missiles. If the other side is willing to do this too. And you both can watch and see. We require openness. A word Bohr introduced to this whole thing. In order to make this happen, you can't have secrets. And of course, as time passed on, we developed elaborate surveillance from space, surveillance from planes, and so forth. It would not have worked in 1946 for sure. The surveillance wasn't there. But that system is in place today. The International Atomic Energy Agency has detected systems in air, in space, underwater. They can detect 50 pounds of dynamite exploded in England from Australia with the systems that we have in place. It's technical rather than human resources. But it's there. So it's theoretically possible today to get started on such a program. Except, of course, now, in like 1950, the world is awash in nuclear weapons. Despite the reductions that have occurred since the end of the Cold War, there's still 30,000-40,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Way too many. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:01Yeah. That's really interesting. What percentage of warheads do you think are accounted for by this organization? If there's 30,000 warheads, what percentage are accounted for? Richard Rhodes 1:18:12All.Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:12Oh. Really?  North Korea doesn't have secrets? Richard Rhodes 1:18:13They're allowed to inspect anywhere without having to ask the government for permission. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:18But presumably not North Korea or something, right? Richard Rhodes 1:18:21North Korea is an exception. But we keep pretty good track of North Korea needless to say. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:27Are you surprised with how successful non-proliferation has been? The number of countries with nuclear weapons has not gone up for decades. Given the fact, as you were talking about earlier, it's simply a matter of refining or transmuting uranium. Is it surprising that there aren't more countries that have it?Richard Rhodes 1:18:42That's really an interesting part. Again, a part of the story that most people have never really heard. In the 50s, before the development and signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was 1968 and it took effect in 1970, a lot of countries that you would never have imagined were working on nuclear weapons. Sweden, Norway, Japan, South Korea. They had the technology. They just didn't have the materials. It was kind of dicey about what you should do. But I interviewed some of the Swedish scientists who worked on their bomb and they said, well, we were just talking about making some tactical

We couldn't be happier to tell you that our beloved Queen Mary is open again to the public and ghost hunting!! If you're a fan of the show, you know how much we love this place so have it closed weighted on our collected spooky souls. We were THRILLED to not only find out they were reopening but we were invited aboard to interview the team about the ships resurrection and plan for the future. Today we chat with Steve Caloca and Queen Mary's resident Ghost Guy Bill Wood about our Majestic Lady of Long Beach. We are recording LIVE on location so you'll get to listen to the ship say hello! If you haven't been, time to go! Patreon subscribers be on the look out for "Best of the Queen Mary" episode as well as our exclusive tour and investigation!   #QueenMary #HauntedShip #TheQueenMary #GirlsNextLevel

Help spread the darkness! VOTE FOR THIS EPISODE at https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/mvjsnkbz – you can vote up to 3X per day! Find Weird Darkness in your favorite podcast app at https://weirddarkness.com/listen. PLEASE SHARE WEIRD DARKNESS® in your social media and with others who loves paranormal stories, true crime, monsters, or unsolved mysteries like you do!IN THIS EPISODE: When you think of the most deadly, man-killing animals in existence, you might think of the big cats, or alligators, or sharks… but don't be too quick to dismiss birds as dealers of death. (Death-Dealing Fowl) *** It's one of the world's most haunted places… it is a ship that you can now book a room in as a hotel. We'll look at the very haunted Queen Mary. (The Haunted Queen Mary) *** The result of an accidental pregnancy finds out later in life he might be the son of a demon. (Son of the Demon) *** Most every item I bring to you here in Weird Darkness is going to have taken place in history – and most all of them you hear are going to be unnerving, or even horrifying… but there are some particularly macabre moments in history that stand out among the others. Most of which you've probably never heard of. (Macabre Moments in History) *** Something strange happened in 1966 Australia. Lights in the skies, sightings of saucer shaped objects, and the start of what eventually came to be known as crop circles. It's a mystery that still lingers today, and it appears to be a kind of catalyst for so many similar oddities to follow. (The Tully Nests Affair)SOURCES AND ESSENTIAL WEB LINKS…Book a room on the Queen Mary: https://queenmary.com/tours/tours-exhibits/ “Delphine LaLaurie” episode: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8vr5wj “Mellification” episode: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/4km5fa57 “The Tully Nests Affair” by Marcus Lowth for UFO Insight: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2jm2bujx “Death-Dealing Fowl” by Darci Heikkinen for ListVerse: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/yckrdrea “The Haunted Queen Mary” from The Scare Chamber: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p98rr3z “Son of the Demon” by HauntedJurist, posted at YourGhostStories.com: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/5n954sur “Macabre Moments in History” by Lauren Glen for Ranker: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/y69r65ft= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Weird Darkness theme by Alibi Music Library. Background music provided by Alibi Music Library, EpidemicSound and/or StoryBlocks with paid license. Music from Shadows Symphony (https://tinyurl.com/yyrv987t), Midnight Syndicate (http://amzn.to/2BYCoXZ) Kevin MacLeod (https://tinyurl.com/y2v7fgbu), Tony Longworth (https://tinyurl.com/y2nhnbt7), and Nicolas Gasparini (https://tinyurl.com/lnqpfs8) is used with permission of the artists.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =(Over time links seen above may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ="I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness." — John 12:46= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =WeirdDarkness™ - is a production and trademark of Marlar House Productions. © 2023, Weird Darkness.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =TRANSCRIPT: https://weirddarkness.com/archives/15420

Date: May 10, 2023 Reference: Harhay MO, et al. A bayesian interpretation of a pediatric cardiac arrest trial (THAPCA-OH). NEJM Evidence. 2023. Guest Skeptic: Dr. Kat Priddis is a paediatric emergency medicine consultant and trauma director at Watford General Hospital. She is part of the Don't Forget the Bubbles team and faculty at Queen Mary […] The post SGEM #404: Sitting on the Dock of the Bay-esian Interpretation of Therapeutic Hypothermia for Pediatric Cardiac Arrest first appeared on The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine.

Sink or swim with one of the most haunted ships on the planet. The fun part is its now a hotel! Check it out. 

"After Henry VIII's reign ended and his only son dies, there is a rush for the English throne. A protestant, Lady Jane Grey, is chosen by the boy king to inherit the crown. This triggers the horrific revenge of his sister Bloody Mary who murders Lady Jane Grey and rules with a killer's heart and vengeful soul. Quiet is only felt once more over English shores when her younger sister Queen Elizabeth I is crowned after Bloody Mary's death, her unquiet wrath silenced until... "465 years later a luxury, historic stately home has been left in house-selling limbo. A plucky estate agent come amateur ghost hunter, Jane, invites her school friend Elizbeth, Liz, along with Jane's enthusiastic boyfriend, to search the house of its history via the trusted method of the Ouija board. However, through the door of haphazard necromancy, they unlock the brewing rage of the long-scorned Bloody Mary. Through the deep-seated hatred, there seems to be more. There seems to be a... connection between the three women." The March of Queen Mary by Jude GrayTrigger Warnings Available at bottom of show notes, may contain spoilersLeave me a voice mail! ‪(323) 546-8764‬Ad Free version available on PatreonCheck out Historic Hangouts!LinkTree for all of my social media, YouTube, Patreon etc.You can send your stories to: scareyoutosleep@gmail.comMusic by Epidemic Sound and Co.AGThe following music was used for this media project:Music: Angst Enterprises uLtd. by Brian Holtz MusicFree download: https://filmmusic.io/song/7216-angst-enterprises-ultdLicense (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-licenseThe following FX are from FreeSound.org:Spit Water.wav by pugaeme breaking a tooth. by Chinouk211Footsteps on Pavement.wav by 21100206TM Walk on dirt road.wav by laurentsh_shop_door_bell_openclose.wav by shall555Door, Train, Open, A.wav by InspectorJ aluminum bottle slosh 2 by youandbiscuitmeBook.wav by pboixFalling book.WAV by jatmeverBooks Falling by theshaggyfreakCAR STALL.wav by Ch0cchiTW: vomit, one tooth pull, scream, improper ghostly care of books Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

"After Henry VIII's reign ended and his only son dies, there is a rush for the English throne. A protestant, Lady Jane Grey, is chosen by the boy king to inherit the crown. This triggers the horrific revenge of his sister Bloody Mary who murders Lady Jane Grey and rules with a killer's heart and vengeful soul. Quiet is only felt once more over English shores when her younger sister Queen Elizabeth I is crowned after Bloody Mary's death, her unquiet wrath silenced until... "465 years later a luxury, historic stately home has been left in house-selling limbo. A plucky estate agent come amateur ghost hunter, Jane, invites her school friend Elizbeth, Liz, along with Jane's enthusiastic boyfriend, to search the house of its history via the trusted method of the Ouija board. However, through the door of haphazard necromancy, they unlock the brewing rage of the long-scorned Bloody Mary. Through the deep-seated hatred, there seems to be more. There seems to be a... connection between the three women." The March of Queen Mary by Jude GrayTrigger Warnings Available at bottom of show notes, may contain spoilersLeave me a voice mail! ‪(323) 546-8764‬Ad Free version available on PatreonCheck out Historic Hangouts!LinkTree for all of my social media, YouTube, Patreon etc.You can send your stories to: scareyoutosleep@gmail.comMusic by Epidemic Sound and Co.AGThe following music was used for this media project:Music: Angst Enterprises uLtd. by Brian Holtz MusicFree download: https://filmmusic.io/song/7216-angst-enterprises-ultdLicense (CC BY 4.0): https://filmmusic.io/standard-licenseThe following FX are from FreeSound.org:Spit Water.wav by pugaeme breaking a tooth. by Chinouk211Footsteps on Pavement.wav by 21100206TM Walk on dirt road.wav by laurentsh_shop_door_bell_openclose.wav by shall555Door, Train, Open, A.wav by InspectorJ aluminum bottle slosh 2 by youandbiscuitmeBook.wav by pboixFalling book.WAV by jatmeverBooks Falling by theshaggyfreakCAR STALL.wav by Ch0cchiTW: vomit, one tooth pull, scream, improper ghostly care of books Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jessica introduces us to the true story of a fading mystery writing queen and a plucky struggling reporter who join forces to help a detective solve a murder and a suicide on the Queen Mary post WWII. Let's dress for dinner at the captain's table as Christy McGinn lets Lady Abigail Austin have the spotlight and reveal the murderer despite her being off base. https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thefletcherfiles/subscribe Two extra episodes a month with pop culture themes. https://www.patreon.com/Thefletcherfiles Three to four extra episodes a month related to cozy mysteries and Hallmark themes with movie and book reviews.

A review of Royal Caribbean's Navigator of the Seas and share their experiences dining and exploring on the ship.  This week we discuss recent incidents in the cruise industry, including MSC Cruises failing a CDC inspection, a Royal Caribbean guest arrested for placing a camera in a bathroom, and a man being airlifted from a Carnival ship for eating a battery. The hosts also discuss the impact of 9/11 on the cruise industry and share positive stories about Norwegian Cruise Line's Giving Joy contest and the Queen Mary hotel.  

In this podcast, Rob Briner shares his expertise and insights on evidence-based practice. Rob became interested in evidence-based research early in his academic career when he realised how much knowledge and assumed facts lacked convincing evidence. Simon converses with Rob from the position of a sceptic, having experienced evidence-based practice in healthcare and human resources settings when poorly delivered. Rob offers a fascinating insight into how evidence-based practice can be useful if delivered in a thoughtful and rigorous way.  He shares the importance of collecting evidence from multiple sources and different perspectives. In a healthcare setting for example, this would include gathering opinions from patients and families, getting expert views from professionals, gathering data from the context such as healthcare outcomes, and finally looking at scientific data to search for the best knowledge/evidence available to apply to the situation.  Evidence-based research can be distorted to produce ‘magical numbers' and Rob emphasises the need to critically examine what these numbers do and do not mean, and how they are used and misused. Critical thinking is also necessary to reflect on assumptions and biases that can lead to ‘evidence-based' findings, produced to convince people to follow a particular path that was pre-ordained. Rob also points to the need for a more ground-up approach, to really think about what the challenge or problem is, and then design an evidence-based research study,  rather than  designing a study that will produce findings desired by a particular power group.  This podcast is a must listen for all who wish to deepen their understanding of evidence-based practice.   Bio Rob is Professor of Organizational Psychology at Queen Mary, University of London and is co-founder and Scientific Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Management. He is also a Visiting Professor of Evidence-Based HRM at Birkbeck (University of London) and Professor at Oslo Nye Høyskole. He has held positions at the Institute for Employment Studies, London School of Economics, Kings's College (University of London), Bath University and University of Edinburgh. His research has focused on several topics including well-being, emotions, stress, ethnicity, the psychological contract, organizational culture and climate, absence from work, motivation, work-nonwork and everyday work behaviour. Beyond academic research and teaching, Rob helps practitioners and organizations make better use of evidence, including research evidence in decision-making as well as encouraging academics to make scientific research more accessible. He has received several awards for his work in this area including the British Psychological Society Division of Occupational Psychology Academic Contribution to Practice Award in 2014, topped HR Magazine's Most Influential Thinker list in 2016, received a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2019 and was admitted to HR Magazine's Hall of Fame. Contact Rob: r.briner@gmail.com

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, May 9th, 2023. Samaritan Ministries: Don’t be limited by restrictive networks. There’s another way. A Biblical way. Samaritan Ministries. Say you have a medical need. You don’t have to check and see what hospital is in your network, or be concerned about the doctor being in-network, too. No. You go to the hospital you choose, and don’t give a second thought as to what’s in-network and what’s not, because with Samaritan Ministries, you’re in control of your health care. Afterwards, fellow members pray for you, and send money directly to you to help you pay your medical bills. And when they have a medical need, you’ll do the same for them. That’s what Biblical health care sharing looks like. Check it out today at samaritan ministries dot org slash cross politic First, we start with the news of a coronation for our friends across the pond. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/06/europe/coronation-king-charles-ckc-gbr-intl/index.html King Charles III is crowned in once-in-a-generation ceremony Britain’s King Charles III has been crowned in a once-in-a-generation royal event witnessed by hundreds of high-profile guests inside Westminster Abbey, as well as tens of thousands of well-wishers who gathered in central London despite the rain. While Charles became King on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II last September, the coronation on Saturday was the formal crowning of the monarch. The service was a profoundly religious affair, reflecting the fact that aside from being head of state of the United Kingdom and 14 other countries, Charles is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In the most significant moment of the day, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby placed the 360-year-old St. Edward’s Crown on Charles’ head. The spiritual leader of the Anglican Church then declared: “God Save the King.” The intricate service lasted just over two hours – about an hour shorter than Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953 – and followed a traditional template that has stayed much the same for more than 1,000 years. However, it has been modernized in certain key ways. The archbishop acknowledged the multiple faiths observed in the UK during the ceremony, saying the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths may live freely.” The King took the Coronation Oath and became the first monarch to pray aloud at his coronation. In his prayer he asked to “be a blessing” to people “of every faith and conviction.” In what is considered the most sacred part of the ceremony, the King was anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was also presented with the coronation regalia, including the royal Robe and Stole, in what is known as the investiture part of the service. Then, for the first time in coronation history, the archbishop invited the British public, as well as those from “other Realms,” to recite a pledge of allegiance to the newly crowned monarch and his “heirs and successors.” Ahead of the event, some parts of the British media and public interpreted the invitation as a command, reporting that people had been “asked” and “called” to swear allegiance to the King. In the face of such criticism, the Church of England revised the text of the liturgy so that members of the public would be given a choice between saying simply “God save King Charles” or reciting the full pledge of allegiance. The ceremony also included a reading from the Bible by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and, in another coronation first, gospel music. Once the King was crowned, his wife, Queen Camilla, was crowned in her own, shorter ceremony with Queen Mary’s Crown – marking the first time in recent history that a new crown wasn’t made specifically for this occasion. After the ceremony, the newly crowned King and Queen rode back to Buckingham Palace in a much larger parade, featuring 4,000 members of the armed forces, 250 horses and 19 military bands. The pomp and pageantry concluded with a royal salute and the customary balcony appearance by the King and family members. They and the crowds below watched a flypast of military aircraft, slimmed down because of the poor weather. Despite the splendor of the occasion, it has not been without controversy. Some have objected to millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent on a lavish ceremony at a time when millions of Britons are suffering a severe cost-of-living crisis. Security is by far the most costly element of large events and the Met said ahead of time that Saturday would be the largest one-day policing operation in decades, with more than 11,500 officers on duty in London. The coronation has also attracted anti-monarchy demonstrations, with a small number of protesters arrested in central London on Saturday morning before the event began. Republic, a campaign group that calls for the abolition of the monarchy, said the idea of the “homage of the people” was “offensive, tone deaf and a gesture that holds the people in contempt.” Some eyebrows were also raised earlier this week when a controversial and widely criticized UK public order bill came into force. Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year, there have been a number of instances of anti-monarchists turning up at royal engagements to voice their grievances against the institution. The new rules, signed into law by the King on Tuesday, just days before the coronation, empower the police to take stronger action against peaceful protesters. https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-to-veto-house-remain-in-mexico-bill?utm_campaign=64487 Biden to veto House 'remain in Mexico' bill On Monday, the White House announced that Joe Biden would veto an immigration bill coming out of the House of Representatives that would reinstitute several Trump-era policies including construction of the border wall and the remain in Mexico policy, which stated that anyone seeking asylum had to wait in Mexico as their claim was processed. According to the Associated Press, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement, "While we welcome Congress' engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected." On Thursday, the House is set to vote on the 213-page Secure the Border Act. Thursday also marks the expiration of Title 42, the Trump-era policy instituted under Covid that granted Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security officials the ability to expel illegal immigrants over health concerns. The Secure the Border Act would also require employers to verify a worker's immigration status for employment and institute the E-Verify system House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said, "Joe Biden sent a message that America’s border is open, and millions of people answered that call and started coming across our border illegally. We’re going to show the president how to solve the problem." The Daily Mail reports, the Secure the Border Act would limit federal funds for NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that aid illegal immigrants crossing the border, would end Biden's expedited entry policy for Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Cubans, and grant more money for hiring additional border agents. Joe Biden loosened restrictions along the southern border after he took office and HHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the announcement that migrants seeking asylum would be permitted entry into the US as would unaccompanied minors. US Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said that over the weekend 26,382 apprehensions were made by border patrol and that 11 pounds of fentanyl and 83 pounds of meth were seized. Mexican cartels have exploited Biden's border crisis, with 2,378,944 illegal immigrant encounters reported in the 2022 fiscal year and 1,659,206 reported in FY 2021, by trafficking humans and drugs, especially fentanyl across the border in record numbers. https://www.dailywire.com/news/airlines-may-soon-be-on-the-hook-for-delayed-and-canceled-flights-transportation-dept-says Airlines May Soon Be On The Hook For Delayed And Canceled Flights, Transportation Dept Says Transportation Secretary Pete Boo-tuh-jeg announced on Monday that the agency introduced rules requiring airlines to reimburse customers who incur expenses due to certain delayed and canceled flights, a move which comes as the industry faces elevated demand and a constrained labor force. The proposed rules, which would apply when an airline delays a flight for more than three hours or cancels a flight for a “controllable” reason, would mandate that the firms offer compensation for stranded passengers, as well as a meal or meal voucher, overnight accommodations, and ground transportation between the airport and hotel. “When an airline causes a flight cancellation or delay, passengers should not foot the bill,” Buttigieg said in a statement, noting that the proposed reimbursement rules would be the first in American history. The move comes after Southwest Airlines experienced holiday travel disruptions last year due to extreme winter weather conditions, staff shortages, and an outdated computer system. The carrier canceled thousands of flights days after other carriers had resumed normal operations. Buttigieg told the company, which has since promised to compensate passengers for all expenses incurred during that time, that the disruptions were “unacceptable” and promised that his agency would exercise “the fullest extent of its investigative and enforcement powers” to ensure customers are reimbursed. The new proposals also occur as the sector faces a severely limited pool of available pilots and frontline staff. Carriers previously encouraged commercial pilots to retire as worldwide lockdowns caused demand for air travel to plummet in the spring of 2020, worsening a previous trend toward a lack of available pilots. Elevated prices for airline tickets and a rapid return in travel demand, however, are now prompting lawmakers to consider the problem. Regional Airline Association CEO Faye Malarkey Black told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last month that more than 50% of current pilots would be forced to retire within the next 15 years because of federal rules mandating that pilots exit their positions once they reach 65 years of age, even as only 8% of pilots are below 30 years of age due to the high cost of flight education. Buttigieg has opposed legislation that would increase the retirement threshold to 67 years of age, contending that “the answer is to make sure we have as many and as good pilots ready to take their place, to have a stronger pipeline.” https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fecal-transplant-pill-fda-approval-rcna81779 FDA approves first pill for fecal transplants, made from healthy bacteria in human waste U.S. health officials on Wednesday approved the first pill made from healthy bacteria found in human waste to fight dangerous gut infections — an easier way of performing so-called fecal transplants. The new treatment from Seres Therapeutics provides a simpler, rigorously tested version of stool-based procedures that some medical specialists have used for more than a decade to help patients. The Food and Drug Administration cleared the capsules for adults 18 and older who face risks from repeat infections with Clostridium difficile, a bacteria that can cause severe nausea, cramping and diarrhea. diff is particularly dangerous when it reoccurs, leading to between 15,000 and 30,000 deaths per year. It can be killed with antibiotics but they also destroy good bacteria that live in the gut, leaving it more susceptible to future infections. The new capsules are approved for patients who have already received antibiotic treatment. More than 10 years ago, some doctors began reporting success with fecal transplants — using stool from a healthy donor — to restore the gut’s healthy balance and prevent reinfections. The FDA approved the first pharmaceutical-grade version of the treatment last year from a rival drugmaker, Ferring Pharmaceuticals. But that company’s product — like most of the original procedures — must be delivered via the rectum. Cambridge, Mass.-based Seres will market its drug as a less invasive option. The treatment will be sold under the brand name Vowst and comes as a regimen of four daily capsules taken for three consecutive days. Both of the recent FDA approvals are the product of years of pharmaceutical industry research into the microbiome, the community of bacteria, viruses and fungi that live in the gut. Currently most fecal transplants are provided by a network of stool banks that have popped up at medical institutions and hospitals across the country. While the availability of new FDA-approved options is expected to decrease demand for donations from stool banks, some plan to stay open. The FDA warned in its approval announcement that the drug “may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents. It is also possible for Vowst to contain food allergens,” the agency noted. The FDA approved the treatment based on a 180-patient study in which nearly 88% of patients taking the capsules did not experience reinfection after 8 weeks, compared with 60% of those who received dummy pills.

My Friend Irma starring Marie Wilson, originally broadcast May 10, 1948, 75 years ago, Bon Voyage. Richard is leaving on a trip to England. Jane and all her friends go down to the Queen Mary to see him off. Visit my web page - http://www.classicradio.streamWe receive no revenue from YouTube. If you enjoy our shows, listen via the links on our web page or if you're so inclined, Buy me a coffee! https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wyattcoxelAHeard on almost 100 radio stations from coast to coast. Classic Radio Theater features great radio programs that warmed the hearts of millions for the better part of the 20th century. Host Wyatt Cox brings the best of radio classics back to life with both the passion of a long-time (as in more than half a century) fan and the heart of a forty-year newsman. But more than just “playing the hits”, Wyatt supplements the first hour of each day's show with historical information on the day and date in history including audio that takes you back to World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, LBJ. It's a true slice of life from not just radio's past, but America's past.Wyatt produces 21 hours a week of freshly minted Classic Radio Theater presentations each week, and each day's broadcast is timely and entertaining!#ClassicRadio #OldTimeRadio #Comedy #MarieWilson #MyFriendIrma

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, May 9th, 2023. Samaritan Ministries: Don’t be limited by restrictive networks. There’s another way. A Biblical way. Samaritan Ministries. Say you have a medical need. You don’t have to check and see what hospital is in your network, or be concerned about the doctor being in-network, too. No. You go to the hospital you choose, and don’t give a second thought as to what’s in-network and what’s not, because with Samaritan Ministries, you’re in control of your health care. Afterwards, fellow members pray for you, and send money directly to you to help you pay your medical bills. And when they have a medical need, you’ll do the same for them. That’s what Biblical health care sharing looks like. Check it out today at samaritan ministries dot org slash cross politic First, we start with the news of a coronation for our friends across the pond. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/06/europe/coronation-king-charles-ckc-gbr-intl/index.html King Charles III is crowned in once-in-a-generation ceremony Britain’s King Charles III has been crowned in a once-in-a-generation royal event witnessed by hundreds of high-profile guests inside Westminster Abbey, as well as tens of thousands of well-wishers who gathered in central London despite the rain. While Charles became King on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II last September, the coronation on Saturday was the formal crowning of the monarch. The service was a profoundly religious affair, reflecting the fact that aside from being head of state of the United Kingdom and 14 other countries, Charles is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In the most significant moment of the day, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby placed the 360-year-old St. Edward’s Crown on Charles’ head. The spiritual leader of the Anglican Church then declared: “God Save the King.” The intricate service lasted just over two hours – about an hour shorter than Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953 – and followed a traditional template that has stayed much the same for more than 1,000 years. However, it has been modernized in certain key ways. The archbishop acknowledged the multiple faiths observed in the UK during the ceremony, saying the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths may live freely.” The King took the Coronation Oath and became the first monarch to pray aloud at his coronation. In his prayer he asked to “be a blessing” to people “of every faith and conviction.” In what is considered the most sacred part of the ceremony, the King was anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was also presented with the coronation regalia, including the royal Robe and Stole, in what is known as the investiture part of the service. Then, for the first time in coronation history, the archbishop invited the British public, as well as those from “other Realms,” to recite a pledge of allegiance to the newly crowned monarch and his “heirs and successors.” Ahead of the event, some parts of the British media and public interpreted the invitation as a command, reporting that people had been “asked” and “called” to swear allegiance to the King. In the face of such criticism, the Church of England revised the text of the liturgy so that members of the public would be given a choice between saying simply “God save King Charles” or reciting the full pledge of allegiance. The ceremony also included a reading from the Bible by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and, in another coronation first, gospel music. Once the King was crowned, his wife, Queen Camilla, was crowned in her own, shorter ceremony with Queen Mary’s Crown – marking the first time in recent history that a new crown wasn’t made specifically for this occasion. After the ceremony, the newly crowned King and Queen rode back to Buckingham Palace in a much larger parade, featuring 4,000 members of the armed forces, 250 horses and 19 military bands. The pomp and pageantry concluded with a royal salute and the customary balcony appearance by the King and family members. They and the crowds below watched a flypast of military aircraft, slimmed down because of the poor weather. Despite the splendor of the occasion, it has not been without controversy. Some have objected to millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent on a lavish ceremony at a time when millions of Britons are suffering a severe cost-of-living crisis. Security is by far the most costly element of large events and the Met said ahead of time that Saturday would be the largest one-day policing operation in decades, with more than 11,500 officers on duty in London. The coronation has also attracted anti-monarchy demonstrations, with a small number of protesters arrested in central London on Saturday morning before the event began. Republic, a campaign group that calls for the abolition of the monarchy, said the idea of the “homage of the people” was “offensive, tone deaf and a gesture that holds the people in contempt.” Some eyebrows were also raised earlier this week when a controversial and widely criticized UK public order bill came into force. Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year, there have been a number of instances of anti-monarchists turning up at royal engagements to voice their grievances against the institution. The new rules, signed into law by the King on Tuesday, just days before the coronation, empower the police to take stronger action against peaceful protesters. https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-to-veto-house-remain-in-mexico-bill?utm_campaign=64487 Biden to veto House 'remain in Mexico' bill On Monday, the White House announced that Joe Biden would veto an immigration bill coming out of the House of Representatives that would reinstitute several Trump-era policies including construction of the border wall and the remain in Mexico policy, which stated that anyone seeking asylum had to wait in Mexico as their claim was processed. According to the Associated Press, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement, "While we welcome Congress' engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected." On Thursday, the House is set to vote on the 213-page Secure the Border Act. Thursday also marks the expiration of Title 42, the Trump-era policy instituted under Covid that granted Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security officials the ability to expel illegal immigrants over health concerns. The Secure the Border Act would also require employers to verify a worker's immigration status for employment and institute the E-Verify system House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said, "Joe Biden sent a message that America’s border is open, and millions of people answered that call and started coming across our border illegally. We’re going to show the president how to solve the problem." The Daily Mail reports, the Secure the Border Act would limit federal funds for NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that aid illegal immigrants crossing the border, would end Biden's expedited entry policy for Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Cubans, and grant more money for hiring additional border agents. Joe Biden loosened restrictions along the southern border after he took office and HHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the announcement that migrants seeking asylum would be permitted entry into the US as would unaccompanied minors. US Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said that over the weekend 26,382 apprehensions were made by border patrol and that 11 pounds of fentanyl and 83 pounds of meth were seized. Mexican cartels have exploited Biden's border crisis, with 2,378,944 illegal immigrant encounters reported in the 2022 fiscal year and 1,659,206 reported in FY 2021, by trafficking humans and drugs, especially fentanyl across the border in record numbers. https://www.dailywire.com/news/airlines-may-soon-be-on-the-hook-for-delayed-and-canceled-flights-transportation-dept-says Airlines May Soon Be On The Hook For Delayed And Canceled Flights, Transportation Dept Says Transportation Secretary Pete Boo-tuh-jeg announced on Monday that the agency introduced rules requiring airlines to reimburse customers who incur expenses due to certain delayed and canceled flights, a move which comes as the industry faces elevated demand and a constrained labor force. The proposed rules, which would apply when an airline delays a flight for more than three hours or cancels a flight for a “controllable” reason, would mandate that the firms offer compensation for stranded passengers, as well as a meal or meal voucher, overnight accommodations, and ground transportation between the airport and hotel. “When an airline causes a flight cancellation or delay, passengers should not foot the bill,” Buttigieg said in a statement, noting that the proposed reimbursement rules would be the first in American history. The move comes after Southwest Airlines experienced holiday travel disruptions last year due to extreme winter weather conditions, staff shortages, and an outdated computer system. The carrier canceled thousands of flights days after other carriers had resumed normal operations. Buttigieg told the company, which has since promised to compensate passengers for all expenses incurred during that time, that the disruptions were “unacceptable” and promised that his agency would exercise “the fullest extent of its investigative and enforcement powers” to ensure customers are reimbursed. The new proposals also occur as the sector faces a severely limited pool of available pilots and frontline staff. Carriers previously encouraged commercial pilots to retire as worldwide lockdowns caused demand for air travel to plummet in the spring of 2020, worsening a previous trend toward a lack of available pilots. Elevated prices for airline tickets and a rapid return in travel demand, however, are now prompting lawmakers to consider the problem. Regional Airline Association CEO Faye Malarkey Black told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last month that more than 50% of current pilots would be forced to retire within the next 15 years because of federal rules mandating that pilots exit their positions once they reach 65 years of age, even as only 8% of pilots are below 30 years of age due to the high cost of flight education. Buttigieg has opposed legislation that would increase the retirement threshold to 67 years of age, contending that “the answer is to make sure we have as many and as good pilots ready to take their place, to have a stronger pipeline.” https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fecal-transplant-pill-fda-approval-rcna81779 FDA approves first pill for fecal transplants, made from healthy bacteria in human waste U.S. health officials on Wednesday approved the first pill made from healthy bacteria found in human waste to fight dangerous gut infections — an easier way of performing so-called fecal transplants. The new treatment from Seres Therapeutics provides a simpler, rigorously tested version of stool-based procedures that some medical specialists have used for more than a decade to help patients. The Food and Drug Administration cleared the capsules for adults 18 and older who face risks from repeat infections with Clostridium difficile, a bacteria that can cause severe nausea, cramping and diarrhea. diff is particularly dangerous when it reoccurs, leading to between 15,000 and 30,000 deaths per year. It can be killed with antibiotics but they also destroy good bacteria that live in the gut, leaving it more susceptible to future infections. The new capsules are approved for patients who have already received antibiotic treatment. More than 10 years ago, some doctors began reporting success with fecal transplants — using stool from a healthy donor — to restore the gut’s healthy balance and prevent reinfections. The FDA approved the first pharmaceutical-grade version of the treatment last year from a rival drugmaker, Ferring Pharmaceuticals. But that company’s product — like most of the original procedures — must be delivered via the rectum. Cambridge, Mass.-based Seres will market its drug as a less invasive option. The treatment will be sold under the brand name Vowst and comes as a regimen of four daily capsules taken for three consecutive days. Both of the recent FDA approvals are the product of years of pharmaceutical industry research into the microbiome, the community of bacteria, viruses and fungi that live in the gut. Currently most fecal transplants are provided by a network of stool banks that have popped up at medical institutions and hospitals across the country. While the availability of new FDA-approved options is expected to decrease demand for donations from stool banks, some plan to stay open. The FDA warned in its approval announcement that the drug “may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents. It is also possible for Vowst to contain food allergens,” the agency noted. The FDA approved the treatment based on a 180-patient study in which nearly 88% of patients taking the capsules did not experience reinfection after 8 weeks, compared with 60% of those who received dummy pills.

Ep 247- Joining us this week is Danny Dior, influencer and restaurateur from Hudson, Wyoming. Danny has an amazing story about a home invasion by what seems to be a dark spirit, but turns out to be something more. Plus, stories from his investigations of the world famous haunted ship the Queen Mary. Not only … Continue reading "Ep 247- “Motion on the Ocean” with Danny Dior"

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Tuesday, May 9th, 2023. Samaritan Ministries: Don’t be limited by restrictive networks. There’s another way. A Biblical way. Samaritan Ministries. Say you have a medical need. You don’t have to check and see what hospital is in your network, or be concerned about the doctor being in-network, too. No. You go to the hospital you choose, and don’t give a second thought as to what’s in-network and what’s not, because with Samaritan Ministries, you’re in control of your health care. Afterwards, fellow members pray for you, and send money directly to you to help you pay your medical bills. And when they have a medical need, you’ll do the same for them. That’s what Biblical health care sharing looks like. Check it out today at samaritan ministries dot org slash cross politic First, we start with the news of a coronation for our friends across the pond. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/06/europe/coronation-king-charles-ckc-gbr-intl/index.html King Charles III is crowned in once-in-a-generation ceremony Britain’s King Charles III has been crowned in a once-in-a-generation royal event witnessed by hundreds of high-profile guests inside Westminster Abbey, as well as tens of thousands of well-wishers who gathered in central London despite the rain. While Charles became King on the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II last September, the coronation on Saturday was the formal crowning of the monarch. The service was a profoundly religious affair, reflecting the fact that aside from being head of state of the United Kingdom and 14 other countries, Charles is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In the most significant moment of the day, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby placed the 360-year-old St. Edward’s Crown on Charles’ head. The spiritual leader of the Anglican Church then declared: “God Save the King.” The intricate service lasted just over two hours – about an hour shorter than Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953 – and followed a traditional template that has stayed much the same for more than 1,000 years. However, it has been modernized in certain key ways. The archbishop acknowledged the multiple faiths observed in the UK during the ceremony, saying the Church of England “will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths may live freely.” The King took the Coronation Oath and became the first monarch to pray aloud at his coronation. In his prayer he asked to “be a blessing” to people “of every faith and conviction.” In what is considered the most sacred part of the ceremony, the King was anointed with holy oil by the Archbishop of Canterbury. He was also presented with the coronation regalia, including the royal Robe and Stole, in what is known as the investiture part of the service. Then, for the first time in coronation history, the archbishop invited the British public, as well as those from “other Realms,” to recite a pledge of allegiance to the newly crowned monarch and his “heirs and successors.” Ahead of the event, some parts of the British media and public interpreted the invitation as a command, reporting that people had been “asked” and “called” to swear allegiance to the King. In the face of such criticism, the Church of England revised the text of the liturgy so that members of the public would be given a choice between saying simply “God save King Charles” or reciting the full pledge of allegiance. The ceremony also included a reading from the Bible by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and, in another coronation first, gospel music. Once the King was crowned, his wife, Queen Camilla, was crowned in her own, shorter ceremony with Queen Mary’s Crown – marking the first time in recent history that a new crown wasn’t made specifically for this occasion. After the ceremony, the newly crowned King and Queen rode back to Buckingham Palace in a much larger parade, featuring 4,000 members of the armed forces, 250 horses and 19 military bands. The pomp and pageantry concluded with a royal salute and the customary balcony appearance by the King and family members. They and the crowds below watched a flypast of military aircraft, slimmed down because of the poor weather. Despite the splendor of the occasion, it has not been without controversy. Some have objected to millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being spent on a lavish ceremony at a time when millions of Britons are suffering a severe cost-of-living crisis. Security is by far the most costly element of large events and the Met said ahead of time that Saturday would be the largest one-day policing operation in decades, with more than 11,500 officers on duty in London. The coronation has also attracted anti-monarchy demonstrations, with a small number of protesters arrested in central London on Saturday morning before the event began. Republic, a campaign group that calls for the abolition of the monarchy, said the idea of the “homage of the people” was “offensive, tone deaf and a gesture that holds the people in contempt.” Some eyebrows were also raised earlier this week when a controversial and widely criticized UK public order bill came into force. Since the death of Queen Elizabeth II last year, there have been a number of instances of anti-monarchists turning up at royal engagements to voice their grievances against the institution. The new rules, signed into law by the King on Tuesday, just days before the coronation, empower the police to take stronger action against peaceful protesters. https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-to-veto-house-remain-in-mexico-bill?utm_campaign=64487 Biden to veto House 'remain in Mexico' bill On Monday, the White House announced that Joe Biden would veto an immigration bill coming out of the House of Representatives that would reinstitute several Trump-era policies including construction of the border wall and the remain in Mexico policy, which stated that anyone seeking asylum had to wait in Mexico as their claim was processed. According to the Associated Press, the White House Office of Management and Budget said in a statement, "While we welcome Congress' engagement on meaningful steps to address immigration and the challenges at the border, this bill would make things worse, not better. Because this bill does very little to actually increase border security while doing a great deal to trample on the nation’s core values and international obligations, it should be rejected." On Thursday, the House is set to vote on the 213-page Secure the Border Act. Thursday also marks the expiration of Title 42, the Trump-era policy instituted under Covid that granted Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security officials the ability to expel illegal immigrants over health concerns. The Secure the Border Act would also require employers to verify a worker's immigration status for employment and institute the E-Verify system House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said, "Joe Biden sent a message that America’s border is open, and millions of people answered that call and started coming across our border illegally. We’re going to show the president how to solve the problem." The Daily Mail reports, the Secure the Border Act would limit federal funds for NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that aid illegal immigrants crossing the border, would end Biden's expedited entry policy for Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Cubans, and grant more money for hiring additional border agents. Joe Biden loosened restrictions along the southern border after he took office and HHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas made the announcement that migrants seeking asylum would be permitted entry into the US as would unaccompanied minors. US Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz said that over the weekend 26,382 apprehensions were made by border patrol and that 11 pounds of fentanyl and 83 pounds of meth were seized. Mexican cartels have exploited Biden's border crisis, with 2,378,944 illegal immigrant encounters reported in the 2022 fiscal year and 1,659,206 reported in FY 2021, by trafficking humans and drugs, especially fentanyl across the border in record numbers. https://www.dailywire.com/news/airlines-may-soon-be-on-the-hook-for-delayed-and-canceled-flights-transportation-dept-says Airlines May Soon Be On The Hook For Delayed And Canceled Flights, Transportation Dept Says Transportation Secretary Pete Boo-tuh-jeg announced on Monday that the agency introduced rules requiring airlines to reimburse customers who incur expenses due to certain delayed and canceled flights, a move which comes as the industry faces elevated demand and a constrained labor force. The proposed rules, which would apply when an airline delays a flight for more than three hours or cancels a flight for a “controllable” reason, would mandate that the firms offer compensation for stranded passengers, as well as a meal or meal voucher, overnight accommodations, and ground transportation between the airport and hotel. “When an airline causes a flight cancellation or delay, passengers should not foot the bill,” Buttigieg said in a statement, noting that the proposed reimbursement rules would be the first in American history. The move comes after Southwest Airlines experienced holiday travel disruptions last year due to extreme winter weather conditions, staff shortages, and an outdated computer system. The carrier canceled thousands of flights days after other carriers had resumed normal operations. Buttigieg told the company, which has since promised to compensate passengers for all expenses incurred during that time, that the disruptions were “unacceptable” and promised that his agency would exercise “the fullest extent of its investigative and enforcement powers” to ensure customers are reimbursed. The new proposals also occur as the sector faces a severely limited pool of available pilots and frontline staff. Carriers previously encouraged commercial pilots to retire as worldwide lockdowns caused demand for air travel to plummet in the spring of 2020, worsening a previous trend toward a lack of available pilots. Elevated prices for airline tickets and a rapid return in travel demand, however, are now prompting lawmakers to consider the problem. Regional Airline Association CEO Faye Malarkey Black told members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last month that more than 50% of current pilots would be forced to retire within the next 15 years because of federal rules mandating that pilots exit their positions once they reach 65 years of age, even as only 8% of pilots are below 30 years of age due to the high cost of flight education. Buttigieg has opposed legislation that would increase the retirement threshold to 67 years of age, contending that “the answer is to make sure we have as many and as good pilots ready to take their place, to have a stronger pipeline.” https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fecal-transplant-pill-fda-approval-rcna81779 FDA approves first pill for fecal transplants, made from healthy bacteria in human waste U.S. health officials on Wednesday approved the first pill made from healthy bacteria found in human waste to fight dangerous gut infections — an easier way of performing so-called fecal transplants. The new treatment from Seres Therapeutics provides a simpler, rigorously tested version of stool-based procedures that some medical specialists have used for more than a decade to help patients. The Food and Drug Administration cleared the capsules for adults 18 and older who face risks from repeat infections with Clostridium difficile, a bacteria that can cause severe nausea, cramping and diarrhea. diff is particularly dangerous when it reoccurs, leading to between 15,000 and 30,000 deaths per year. It can be killed with antibiotics but they also destroy good bacteria that live in the gut, leaving it more susceptible to future infections. The new capsules are approved for patients who have already received antibiotic treatment. More than 10 years ago, some doctors began reporting success with fecal transplants — using stool from a healthy donor — to restore the gut’s healthy balance and prevent reinfections. The FDA approved the first pharmaceutical-grade version of the treatment last year from a rival drugmaker, Ferring Pharmaceuticals. But that company’s product — like most of the original procedures — must be delivered via the rectum. Cambridge, Mass.-based Seres will market its drug as a less invasive option. The treatment will be sold under the brand name Vowst and comes as a regimen of four daily capsules taken for three consecutive days. Both of the recent FDA approvals are the product of years of pharmaceutical industry research into the microbiome, the community of bacteria, viruses and fungi that live in the gut. Currently most fecal transplants are provided by a network of stool banks that have popped up at medical institutions and hospitals across the country. While the availability of new FDA-approved options is expected to decrease demand for donations from stool banks, some plan to stay open. The FDA warned in its approval announcement that the drug “may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents. It is also possible for Vowst to contain food allergens,” the agency noted. The FDA approved the treatment based on a 180-patient study in which nearly 88% of patients taking the capsules did not experience reinfection after 8 weeks, compared with 60% of those who received dummy pills.

Please visit the following links to learn more: Queen Mary's LLM in Art, Business and Law and the Institute of Art and Law. Show Notes:1:00 Stephanie Drawdy - introduction1:20 Emily Gould - overview of the Institute of Art and Law (IAL)5:20 Gould's background7:35 careers in art law practice9:35 Janan Foster - background and experience with Art, Business and Law LLM11:35 Chiara Gallo - background and experience with Art, Business and Law LLM15:40 Jane (Chang Yue) Liu - experience with Siena program and internship with IAL18:40 Chelsea Conyers - experience with Siena program and internship with IAL20:35 Gina McKlveen - experience as an artist, law student and now lawyer27:40 Gould on IAL blog28:40 Alan Robertshaw29:10 McKlveen's beginning interest in art and law30:15 Jerry Alonzo's experience in the law and arts34:10 Charles Sabba's experience in the military, law enforcement and the arts43:05 Nnebundo Obi44:45 Charles Sabba45:40 Emily Gould re: interdisciplinary nature of art law cases46:35 Alan Robertshaw's law practicePlease share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comTo hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.To view rewards for supporting the podcast, please visit Warfare's Patreon page.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2023]

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 10. Emilia Lanyer Presenter Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 9. Mohammed al-Annuri Presenter Jerry Brotton is Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London. Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 8. Roderigo Lopez Presenter Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 7. Mary Fillis Presenter Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 6. Chinano 'the Turk' Presenter Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary. University of London Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Join the Parajunkie Fam for ZERO ADS ALWAYS and exclusive content!! www.patreon.com/savannahunderground On this episode of The Most Haunted City on Earth, Madison, Chris, & JT sit down to discuss one of the most haunted ships on this earth... The Queen Mary! Docked off the coast of California, this ship has seen hundreds die and has been home to numerous tragedies of all types! Check out Madison's spell jar jewelry! www.countrywitchco.com Send in your Ghostmail here! ghostmail@hauntedcitypodcast.com --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/john-taylor-timmons/support

Jerry Brotton listens for the voices and tells the stories of the ‘other Tudors': ten men and women from across the world that lived, worked, worshipped and died in Tudor England. The popular fascination with the Tudors tends to concentrate on the lives of white, elite, English-born men (and the occasional woman). But Tudor England also saw Muslims, Jews, Africans and Native Americans come and go from the Russia, Persia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal and the Americas, making their homes and careers here, and in the process transforming the nature of early English culture and society. This series tells the stories of ten individuals that reveal a very different story of the Tudor period as a time of multicultural exchange, encounter and ordinary working people living alongside each other. 5. Manteo Presenter Jerry Brotton, Professor of Renaissance Studies at Queen Mary, University of London Producer Mark Rickards A Whistledown Scotland production

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Virginia Woolf's highly influential essay on women and literature, which considers both literary history and future opportunity. In 1928 Woolf gave two lectures at Cambridge University about women and fiction. In front of an audience at Newnham College, she delivered the following words: “All I could do was offer you an opinion upon one minor point - a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of the true nature of woman and the true nature of fiction unsolved”. These lectures formed the basis of a book she published the following year, and Woolf chose A Room Of One's Own for its title. It is a text that set the scene for the study of women's writing for the rest of the 20th century. Arguably, it initiated the discipline of women's history too. With Hermione Lee Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford Michele Barrett Emeritus Professor of Modern Literary and Cultural Theory at Queen Mary, University of London and Alexandra Harris Professor of English at the University of Birmingham Producer Luke Mulhall

Although King Charles will have a low-key ceremony on his coronation day this May 6, the Crown Jewels will still figure prominently. An exploration of the story of the jewels tells a tale of brutal exploitation, rape and the original looting. Join us on Don't Call Me Resilient to follow the jewels.  Much of what was called the British Empire was built from stolen riches - globally - and also from India.In fact, India was such an abundant contributor to the Crown that at the time of its occupation of South Asia, Britain called India the Jewel in its Crown.  India was called this because of its location — easy access to the silk route, but mostly because of its vast human and natural resources: things like cotton, and tea and of course its abundance of jewels.Literally, the brightest jewel in Britain's Crown is the Koh-i-Noor diamond.  It is considered one of the world's largest and most valued diamonds and it usually sits on top of the Crown of Queen Mary.It has a controversial history  — namely that it was “surrendered” to the British by an Indian 10-year-old boy whose mother had been imprisoned and whose father had recently died. It's likely for that reason, that it won't be on display at the coronation. But plenty of other jewels will be part of the ceremony. There is the five-pound gold St. Edward's Crown that Charles will be officially crowned with, the Sovereign's Sceptre, which has the Great Star of Africa diamond in it and the Imperial State Crown, which is set with almost 3,000 diamonds - including another Star of Africa.Joining me to explore the history and meaning behind these jewels is Annie St. John-Stark, assistant professor of British history at Thompson Rivers University. Also here today is: Sharanjit Kaur Sandhra, sessional instructor of history at both the University of the Fraser Valley and the University of British Columbia. Her recently completed PhD reimagines museums as spaces of belonging.  Both historians on today's episode believe change is possible with a redress: of how the histories of the Crown Jewels are told and also how wealth is redistributed.  And actually, if recent polls are to be believed, although many will be out celebrating (any excuse for a party, right?) the pomp of the coronation along with its display of the Crown Jewels does not reflect the attitudes of modern Britain. The most recent poll available indicates only 32 per cent of Britons believe the Empire is something to be proud of  — that is down almost 25 per cent from a 2014 poll. That means, attitudes are changing quickly.  Will the Royal Family catch up?