Podcasts about sputnik

Farscape 4·12: Kansas: Part 2""This is ground control to Major John...""“It's Kansas John, but not as we know it! The crew go trick or treating whilst Johnny McFly must navigate teenage rebellion and losing his viginity to avert disaster and fix the ripple in time.” (thanks Marky See!)“All is not when it seems. Cher, a football player, and some aliens walk in to a bar, er... abandoned house. One of them gets lucky with a new old friend, one gets a sugar high, and Cher gets a refresher on her ABCs from a familiar foam rubber face as they all race to get time back on track. ""It works,"" but when will they go next and who will follow?” (thanks Rachel!)“There's no place like home, we find out,Casper the joke is lurking about.Happy Halloween!""Are those jeans?""""Was it a bass or a trout?""” (thanks Ric From the Delta Quadrant!)“Crichton and crew head to earth. Unfortunately, its the right place, but wrong time. They discover things aren't as Crichton remembers and attempt to put things to right. Meanwhile, the crew learns all about Halloween and Rygel obtains an addiction. ” (thanks Melissa!)“Marty McCrichton needs to go Back to the Future after getting sent to the 80s. He steals some milk, sees his brash young self and younger family and has to fix the timeline to get back to the transpresent. Cheryn and Kermit the Dominar learn their ABCs and since it is currently halloween, Kermit becomes addicted to candy and making scary pumpkin carvings. Sheriff D'Argo says hello in sign language to a nosy Karen while he and Wrinkles go for a cruise. Sputnik gets the cold shoulder from Pilot, and Scorpy heats things up between him and an old flame. Chiana Shaw also gets some action as she is finally able to check off the top name on her must frell list.” (thanks NickRude from Canada aka Katratzi!)First aired on Monday, 30 December 2002, written by Justin Monjo, and directed by Rowan WoodsWe're on Twitter, Facebook, and SoFarscape.com. Our theme music is by Leigh Collier of Give Them L.Send us your synopses, support us on Patreon or suggest a fanfic story for us to read!

Lifelong angler Nick Meyer of Breakway Tackle USA comes on the show and dives head-first into the podcast with knowledge at almost every turn.  He shares how he does fishing and shows us a few products he utilizes and why.  A video with this will be uploaded to YouTube if you'd like to watch and see what he is talking about at a few points.  One new technique I'd never heard of has interested me in figuring out (and to see if I can even do it here): uptiding.  A great episode with an outstanding guy!  Thanks again, Nick and I look forward to our next episode, where we talk about what's happening along the Texas National Seashore.YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@NickawayFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/BreakawayUSAThe episode Is Sponsored By:   DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Bait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, 7' Travel Rod, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more) Bait Check: Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!! Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Breakaway TackleHalf HitchFishbitesFranks Tackle, NJSpider WireHenry's TackleTexas Fishing Report FishgumHalco TackleDaiwa Top WaterCabo KillerPlugger: Wade Fishing The Gulf Coast (Book) by Rudy Grigar (died 2001)Breakaway RodsCabellasWalmartCentury Rods#findingdemosurffishing #breakawaytackle ##HalfHitch #FranksTackle #SpiderWire #HenrysTackle #TexasFishingReport #Fishgum #Halco #DaiwaTopWater #CaboKiller #Fishbites #ThePlugger #BreakawayRods #Cabellas #Walmart #CenturyRods

Bis 1974 haben nur die USA und die UdSSR erfolgreich Raumsonden ins All geschickt. Das dritte Land, dass dann dazu kam, war die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wie erfolgreich die deutschen "Helios"-Sonden waren, erfahrt ihr in der neuen Folge der Sternengeschichten. Wer den Podcast finanziell unterstützen möchte, kann das hier tun: Mit PayPal (https://www.paypal.me/florianfreistetter), Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/sternengeschichten) oder Steady (https://steadyhq.com/sternengeschichten)

Dillian (pronounced Dillion) has been fishing his whole life and has found his groove along the Georgia beaches.  While he does fish all facets he can in his home state, he broke down how to fish the beach areas with a lot of insider knowledge.  We both competed in the Kids Can Fish Running of the Bulls Tournament at St. Simons Island, and he found some good ones while he was out there.  The tournament opened my eyes to how they fish there and taught me extremely valuable lessons I use here in Florida (successfully too).  He walks us through scouting, spot selection, bait with dirty water, and so much more.  Definitely an episode worth listening to fill your own knowledge tacklebox for your area, and if you ever do, head to Georgia beaches to fish.   The episode Is Sponsored By:   DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Bait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, 7' Travel Rod, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more) Bait Check: Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!! Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Eagle Claw HooksSt. Simons IslandJekyll IslandFishin' GirlHalf HitchFrisky FinsSalty's Pompano RigsFishbitesSSI Running of the bulls tournamentSurf Fishing SolutionGamagatsu 8/0 HooksPower Pro BraidGarmin GPSDeadliest CatchGhost Shrimp Pumps#findingdemosurffishing #podcast #learntofish #surffishing #beachfishing #georgiabeachfishing #kidscanfish #ninjatackle #dscustomtackle #thesinkerguy #EagleClawHooks #StSimonsIsland #JekylIsland #FishinGirl #HalfHitch #FriskyFins #SaltysPompanoRigs #Fishbites #SSIRunningofthebullstournament #SurfFishingSolution #GamagatsuHooks #PowerProBraid #GarminGPS #DeadliestCatch #GhostShrimpPumps

The Sunday Times' tech correspondent Danny Fortson brings on Stuart Russell, professor at UC Berkeley and one of the world's leading experts on artificial intelligence (AI), to talk about working in the field for decades (4:00), AI's Sputnik moment (7:45), why these programmes aren't very good at learning (13:00), trying to inoculating ourselves against the idea that software is sentient (15:00), why super intelligence will require more breakthroughs (17:20), autonomous weapons (26:15), getting politicians to regulate AI in warfare (30:30), building systems to control intelligent machines (36:20), the self-driving car example (39:45), how he figured out how to beat AlphaGo (43:45), the paper clip example (49:50), and the first AI programme he wrote as a 13-year-old. (55:45). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jim joins Garland Nixon and Dr. Wilmer Leon for Radio Sputnik's Critical Hour where he discuses the Middle East. More than 33 thousand people died in the tragic earthquake. Also, Israel continues to kill Palestinians, and 100 thousand Israelis protest against judicial reforms.

It's time to return to our history lesson through the lyrics of Billy Joel. The fire continues to burn into 1957. Remember, there's always something to learn from the past. Plus we've got some fandom news and a little bit of your feedback. Our Linktree: https://linktr.ee/FiveishFangirls #FiveishFam Time Markers 00:00:22 INTRO 00:04:01 NEWS Indy PopCon guest announcement: Michael Rooker  SAG award winners 00:10:54 FEEDBACK 00:14:38 WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE 00:15:20 LITTLE ROCK 00:43:59 PASTERNACK 01:13:07 MICKEY MANTLE 01:30:29 KEROUAC 01:47:51 SPUTNIK 02:01:19 ZHOU ENLAI 02:19:07 BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI 02:26:19 CLOSING THOUGHTS 02:28:47 OUTRO  

LT Jesse Walker, USN, has moved to the panhandle from Jacksonville and brought some experience.  Not only has he grown up fishing, but after joining the Navy, he has also traveled extensively and picked up new tricks that have helped him be more successful each trip.  This week, we talk with Jesse again, and he dives head first into the world of YouTube, being a digital creator, and influencer thoughts.  You're not going to want to miss these!FB:  https://www.facebook.com/slotcityfishing/IG:  https://www.instagram.com/slotcityfishing/YT: https://www.youtube.com/c/SlotCityFishing Episode Is Sponsored By:  Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!!Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Bait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, 7' Travel Rod, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more) Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Florida Surf TackleClay GordonBama Beach Bum30 Miles OutPerdido BlaneYakin with JackSmitty Surf FishingSalt SquatchBearded BradCatch A Florida MemoryHobie Kayak TeamHalf HitchSurf Fishing SolutionsWalMartPenn Fishing FiercePalnahndle Surf FishingFt Pickens National Seashore#FloridaSurfTackle #ClayGordon #BamaBeachBum #30MilesOut #PerdidoBlane #YakinwithJack #SmittysSurfFishing #SaltSquatch #BeardedBrad #CatchAFloridaMemory #HobieKayakTeam #HalfHitch #SurfFishingSolutions #WalMart #PennFishingFierce #PanhandleSurfFishing #FtPickensNationalSeashore

This episode of Books for Men features Sputnik Sweetheart by Haruki Murakami. It's about an aspiring young female writer who falls for an older woman and then mysteriously goes missing on Greek Island while on vacation with her. Line for line, nobody hits harder than Murakami. Listen for more!If you enjoyed this episode, please consider showing your support for the podcast. Any of the three things below will help to provide awareness for the initiative—inspiring (more) men to read and bringing together men who do. (Ladies, of course, you're always welcome!)Share with a friend or on social mediaSubscribe or follow on your favorite podcast platformLeave a rating or reviewVisit BooksforMen.org to sign up for the Books for Men newsletter, a monthly round-up of all the books and authors featured on the podcast that month.

Because the President and his staff set NASA's agenda, the White House has historically had great influence over the nation's space efforts.

Ever wondered about the sport of curling - you know, the sport that throws rocks at houses and includes brooms and a fair bit of shouting? Our second episode on Winter Sports dials in on the experience of curling at the Anchorage Curling Club in Government Hill! #anchoredcity https://anchoragecurling.com/ https://www.facebook.com/anchoragecurlingclub @anchorage_curling_club   Info. on Culture Shift – March 1 https://www.akhf.org/events/culture-shift-march   Resources Used to Make This Episode: Sputnik Over City Tomorrow – Wednesday February 12, 1958 – Anchorage Daily News – Page 1   Sputnik Soars Over City – Thursday February 13, 1958 – Anchorage Daily News – Page 1   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_crisis   Curling Bonspiel Attracts More Fans Every Afternoon – Friday February 21, 1958 – Anchorage Daily News – Page 9   Dog Sled Racing, Curling, Bowling, Basketball, Ice Hockey Draw Competition – Thursday February 13, 1958 – Anchorage Daily News   Photo caption: Finishing Touches On Curling Rink – Anchorage Daily Times – Tuesday February 11, 1958 – Page 5 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2:14454275A04DAA79@NGPA-AKADN-16ECE96608A818C4@2436246-16EB95B2F0CA8037@4-16EB95B2F0CA8037@?search_terms   Photo caption: Curlers Practice / Curlers Arrive For Rendezvous Tourney -– Anchorage Daily Times – Wednesday February 19, 1958 – Page 15 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2:14454275A04DAA79@NGPA-AKADN-16ECE969BA88176B@2436254-16EB95BC8BEB7C5B@14-16EB95BC8BEB7C5B@?search_terms   Women's Section – Anchorage Daily Times – February 21, 1958 – page 4 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2:14454275A04DAA79@NGPA-AKADN-16ECE96A80814399@2436256-16EB95BE4388B8F2@3-16EB95BE4388B8F2@?search_terms   Curling Bonspiel Attracts More Fans Every After Noon – Anchorage Daily News - February 21, 1958 – Page 9   https://curlfairbanks.org/clubs/fair-banks-curling/pages/club_information_club_history   https://www.alaska.org/detail/fairbanks-curling-club   Curlers Meet Moved Inside By Weather – Anchorage Daily News – Saturday February 22, 1958 – Page 13.   https://anchoragecurling.com/index.php/our-club/club-history   Photo Caption: Bonspiel Winners – Anchorage Daily Times – Tuesday March 4, 1958 – Page 6 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2%3A14454275A04DAA79%40NGPA-AKADN-16ED3370AEACC520%402436267-16EC94836B8652C3%405-16EC94836B8652C3%40?search_terms=Curling&text=Curling&content_added=&date_from=1958&date_to=1958&pub%255B0%255D=14454275A04DAA79&sort=old&page=2&pdate=1958-03-04   Curling Rink Project Gets Board Approval – Anchorage Daily Times – Monday September 25, 1961 – Page 9 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2:14454275A04DAA79@NGPA-AKADN-16ED5810236E6470@2437568-16ED53A9A5B6CD46@8-16ED53A9A5B6CD46@?search_terms   Photo Caption: City Curlers Have New Ice – Anchorage Daily Times - March 9, 1962 – Page 6 - https://adn.newsbank.com/doc/image/v2:14454275A04DAA79@NGPA-AKADN-16ED1C6F0419109C@2437733-16EC959AB7AEDFCB@5-16EC959AB7AEDFCB@?search_terms   https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.173484919397477&type=3   Arno, Rea, 2008. Anchorage Place Names: The Who and Why of Street, Parks, and Places. Todd Communications. p.37.

Welcome to Ideas Untrapped. My guest today is Vincent Geloso who is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He studies economic history, political economy, and the measurement of living standards. In today's episode, we discuss the differences between democracies and dictatorships, and their relative performance in socioeconomic development. The allure of authoritarian governance has grown tremendously due to the economic success of countries like China, Korea, and Singapore - which managed to escape crippling national poverty traps. The contestable nature of democracies and the difficulty many democratic countries have to continue on a path of growth seems to many people as evidence that a benevolent dictatorship is what many countries need. Vincent challenges this notion and explains many seemingly high-performing dictatorships are so because their control of state resources allows them direct investments towards singular objectives - (such as winning Olympic medals or reducing infant mortality) but at the same time, come with a flip side of unseen costs due to their lack of rights and economic freedom. He argues that the benefits of dictatorships are not as great as they may seem and that liberal democracies are better able to decentralize decision-making and handle complex multi-variate problems. He concludes that while democracies may not always be successful in achieving certain objectives, the constraints they place on political power and rulers mean that people are better off in terms of economic freedom, rights, and other measures of welfare.TRANSCRIPTTobi;You made the point that dictatorships usually optimise, not your words, but they optimise for univariate factors as opposed to multiple factors, which you get in democracy. So, a dictatorship can be extremely high performing on some metric because they can use the top-down power to allocate resources for that particular goal. Can you shed a bit more light on that? How does that mechanism work in reality?Vincent;Yeah, I think a great image people are used to is the USSR, and they're thinking about two things the USSR did quite well: putting people in space before the United States and winning medals at Olympics. Now, the regime really wanted to do those two things. [That is], win a considerable number of medals in [the] Olympics and win the space race. Both of them were meant to showcase the regime's tremendous ability. It was a propaganda ploy, but since it was a single objective and they had immense means at their disposal, i. e. the means that coercion allows them, they could reach those targets really well. And it's easy to see the Russians putting Sputnik first in space, the Russians putting Laika first in space. We can see them winning medals. It's easy to see. The part that is harder to see, the unseen, is the fact that Russians were not enjoying rapidly rising living standards, they were not enjoying improvements in medical care that was commensurate with their level of income, they were not enjoying high-quality education. You can pile all the unseens of the ability of the USSR as a dictatorship to allocate so much resources to two issues, [which] meant that it came with a flip side, which is that these resources were not available for people to allocate them in ways that they thought was more valuable. So, the virtue of a liberal democracy, unlike a dictatorship, is that a liberal democracy has multiple sets of preferences to deal with. And in a liberal democracy, it's not just the fact that we vote, but also that people have certain rights that are enshrined and which are not the object of political conversation. I cannot seize your property, and it's not okay for people to vote with me to seize your property. And in these societies, the idea is that under a liberal democracy, you are better able to decentralize decision-making, and people can find ways to deal with the multiple trade-offs much better. Whereas a dictatorship can just decide, I care about this. I am king, I am president, I am first secretary of the party, I decide this and we'll do this regardless of how much you value other things that I value less than you do.Tobi;Two things that I want you to shed more light on. Depending on who you talk to or what they are criticizing, people usually selectively pick their dictatorships. If someone is criticizing, say, for example, capitalism, they always point to the Cuban health care system in contrast to the American health care system. How the American system is so terrible, and how capitalism makes everything worse because of the profit motive. And how we can do better by being more like Cuba.  On the other end of that particular spectrum, if you're talking about economic development, critics of democracy like to point to China. China is not a democracy. And look at all the economic growth they've had in the last 40 years, one of the largest reductions in human poverty we've ever seen in history. I mean, from these two examples, what are the shortcomings of these arguments?Vincent; Let's do Cuba first, then we can do China. So, the Cuban example is really good for the case I'm making. Because the case I'm making is essentially that the good comes with the bad and you can't remove them. So, people will generally say with Cuba, “yes, we know they don't have political rights, they don't have economic freedom, but they do have high-quality health care.” And by this they don't mean actually health care, they mean low infant mortality or high life expectancy at birth. My reply is, it's because they don't have all these other rights and all these other options [that] they can have infant mortality that is so low. That's because the regime involves a gigantic amount of resources to the production of healthcare. Cuba spends more than 10% of its GDP on health care. Only countries that are seven or ten times richer than Cuba spend as much as a proportion of GDP on health care. 1% of their population are doctors. In the United States, it is a third of that, 0.3% of the population are doctors. So, it's a gigantic proportion. But then when you scratch a bit behind, doctors are, for example, members of the army. They are part of the military force. The regime employs them as the first line of supervision. So, the doctors are also meant to report back what the population says on the ground. So, they're basically listening posts for the dictatorship. And in the process, yeah, they provide some health care, but they're providing some health care as a byproduct of providing surveillance.The other part is that they're using health care here to promote the regime abroad. And that has one really important effect. One of those is that doctors have targets they must meet, otherwise they're penalized. And when I mean targets, I mean targets for infant mortality. [If] they don't meet those targets, the result is they get punished. And so what do you think doctors do? They will alter their behaviour to avoid punishment. So in some situations, they will reclassify what we call early neonatal death. So, babies who die immediately after exiting the womb to seven days after birth, they will reclassify many of those as late fetal deaths. And late fetal deaths are in-utero deaths or delivery of a dead baby so that the baby exits the womb dead. Now, if a mortality rate starts with early neonatal death [and] not late fetal ones, so if you can reclassify one into the other, you're going to deflate the number total. And the reason why we can detect this is that the sources of both types of mortality are the same,[they] are very similar, so that when you compare them across countries, you generally find the same ratio of one to the other. Generally, it hovers between four to one and six to one. Cuba has a ratio of twelve to 17 to one, which is a clear sign of data manipulation. And it's not because the regime does it out of, like, direct intent. They're not trying to do it directly. It'd be too easy to detect. But by changing people's incentives, doctors' incentives, in that case, that's what they end up with.There are also other things that doctors are allowed to do in Cuba. One of them is that patients do not have the right to refuse treatment. Neither do they have the right to privacy, which means that doctors can use heavy-handed methods to make sure that they meet their targets. So in Cuba, you have stuff like casa de mata nidad, where mothers who have at-risk pregnancies or at-risk behaviour during pregnancy will be forcibly incarcerated during their pregnancy. There are multiple cases of documented, pressured abortions or literally coerced abortions. So not just pressured, but coerced. Like, the level is that the person wants to keep the infant, the doctor forces an abortion to be made. Sometimes, it is made without the mother's knowledge until it is too late to anything being done. So you end up with basically the infant mortality rate, yes, being low, but yes, being low because of data manipulation and changes in behaviour so that the number doesn't mean the same thing as it does in rich countries. And now the part that's really important in all I'm saying is [that] what people call the benefits for Cuba is relatively small. My point is that, yeah, maybe they could be able to do it. But the problem is that the measures that allow this to happen, to have a low infant mortality rate are also the measures that make Cubans immensely poor. The fact that the regime can deploy such force, use doctors in such a way, employ such extreme measures, it's the reason why Cubans also don't have property rights, don't have strong economic freedom, don't have the liberty to trade with others. Which means that on other dimensions, their lives are worse off. That means that, for example, their incomes are lower than they could be. They have higher maternal mortality. So, mothers die to [a] greater proportion in labour than in other countries or post-labour. There are lower rates of access to clean water than in equally poor countries in Latin America. There are lower levels of geographic mobility within the country, there are lower levels of nutrition because, for example, there are still ration services. So that means that, yes, they have certain amount of calories, but they don't have that much diversity in terms of what they're allowed or are able to eat without resorting to the black market. Pile these on. These are all dimensions of life that Cubans get to not enjoy because the regime has so much power to do that one thing relatively well. Let's assume it's relatively well, but the answer is, well, would you want to make that trade-off? And most people would probably, if given the choice, would not make the choice of having this. So, those who are saying, “look at how great it is,” are being fooled by the nature of what dictatorships are. Dictatorships can solve simple problems really well, but complex multivariate problems, they are not able to do it in any meaningful way.The other part that is going to be of also importance is when you look at Cuba, before we move on to China, the other part about Cuba that's worth pointing out is, I was assuming in my previous answer that the regime was actually doing relatively well. Even without considering all the criticism, it still looks like it has a low infant mortality rate. But when you actually look at the history of Cuba, Cuba was exceptional in terms of low infant mortality. Before the Castros took over, Cuba already had a very low level of infant mortality even for a poor country. And so with a friend of mine, a coauthor, Jamie Bologna Pavlik, we used an econometric method to see if Cuba has an infant mortality rate that is as low as it would have been had it not been for the revolution. So, ergo, we're trying to find what is the effect of the revolution on infant mortality and we're trying to use other Latin American countries to predict Cuba's health performance. And what we find is that in the first year of the regime's, infant mortality actually went up, so it increased relative to other Latin American countries, but it gradually reverted back to what would be the long-run trend. So that Cuba is no more exceptional today in terms of infant mortality than it was in 1959. That is actually a very depressing statement because it's saying that the regime wasn't even able to make the country more exceptional. So even if it's able to achieve that mission quite well, it's not clear how well they've done it. At the very least, they haven't made things worse in the very long run, they only made things worse in the short run. So when you're doing, like, kind of, a ledger of goods and bads of the regime, all the bad trade-offs I mentioned: lower incomes, higher mortality rates for mothers and maternity, lower rates of access to clean water, lower rates of access to diverse food sources, lower rates of geographic mobility - pile these on, keep piling them on, that's the cost. What I'm saying is what they call the benefits, they're not even as big as it's disclaimed. The benefits are relatively small.And now with regards to China…Tobi;Yeah.Vincent;The Chinese case is even worse for people because they have a similar story with GDP. So, in China, a regional bureaucrats have to meet certain targets of economic growth. Now, these same bureaucrats are in charge of producing the data that says whether or not there is economic growth. You can see why there is a who guards the guardian's problem here? The person who guards the guardian is apparently one of the guardians. So you could expect some kind of bad behaviour. And there is an economist, Luis Martinez, out of the University of Chicago. What he did is he say, well, we have one measure that we know is a good reflector of economic growth and it is artificial light intensity at night. Largely because the richer a country is, the more light there will be at night time. And so if you have like 1% growth in income, in real numbers, you should have some form of commensurate increase in light intensity during night time. If the two deviates, it's a sign that the GDP numbers are false, that they're misleading. Because if they deviate, the true number, the always true number will be the light intensity at nighttime. So, when Martinez used the nighttime light to compare GDP in Chinese regions overall and the actual GDP, he found that you can cut the growth rate of China by, maybe, two-fifths, so it is 40% slower than it actually is. So, China is not even as impressive as it is. And the thing is now think about the pandemic, think about how extreme the measures that China deployed to restrain this has been, no liberal democracy would have been able to do that, no free society would have tolerated forcibly walling people into their houses. And there are massive downsides to the communist regime in China. Like, yes, the regime is free to do whatever it wants, but it also means that it can put Uyghur Muslims into concentration camps. It also means that it can wall people into their houses when they do not comply with public health order. It also means that people are under the social credit system where they are being largely surveilled on a daily basis. It also means that the government can allocate massive resources to the act of conquering Taiwan or flexing muscles towards Japan. All things that when you think about it, is that really an improvement in welfare? Obviously, you can say that, oh yeah, they're doing X or Y things really well but here are all the bad things that come with this. And those bad things are on net much worse than the good things.Tobi;Now, you keep emphasizing liberal democracy and I want to get at the nuance here because I've seen several results. Either it is from Chile and other countries that say unequivocally that democracies are better for growth than dictatorships, even in the case of Chile, despite all the reforms of Pinochet regime. But what I want to get at is, what exactly about democracies make them better? Because, for example, we can think of Nigeria and Nigeria as a democracy. We've had uninterrupted election cycles for over two decades now, but there's still very weak rule of law. Successive governments still rely on extracting oil rents, basically. And, the degree to which people enjoy rights vary depending on who is in power or their mood on any particular day. And, of course, Nigeria is a democracy. So is it liberal democracy? Is that the key factor?Vincent;So, think about it this way.Tobi;Yeah.Vincent;Think about it this way. Inside the big box of liberal democracy, there is for sure democracy. But the part that makes the box liberal democracy is not only the smaller babushkadal inside that box which is a democracy one, it is the other constraints that we put on the exercise of political power. The true definition of a liberal democracy, at least in my opinion, is that not only are people allowed to vote, but they are restraints on what we can vote on. So, for example, if it's not legitimate for me to steal from you, it is no more legitimate for me to vote with two other people to steal from you. The act of democracy should warrant some acts that are outside the realm of political decision-making. There are also constraints that exist on rulers, so it's not just that there are some rights that are not subject to conversation. There could be also incentives that prevent rulers from abusing the powers they have. That would mean, for example, checks and balances, where there are different chambers that will compete with each other, different regional powers of government that will compete with each other for jurisdiction, and so they will keep each other in balance. It could also be some form of external constraint, because a liberal democracy can also rely on external constraints upon political actors. It could be the fact that people can leave the country, the fact that taxpayers can migrate to another country, puts pressure on politicians to not abuse them. People can move their capital out of the country, [this] creates a pressure on politicians to not try to steal from them, because people will just remove all the productive capital and the ruler will be left with very little to exploit as a result, regardless of whether or not the ruler is elected or not. So the way to think about this is liberal democracy is, you want to have a system where there are rules, incentives, constraints that make it so that we are not betting on a man or a woman, for that matter, being the correct man and woman for the moment. We care about a set of incentives, constraints, and rules that will make sure that even the worst human being possible will feel compelled or compulsed [sic] to do the right thing. So, that's like the old Milton Friedman thing, it's like “I don't want the right man. I want to have a system that makes sure that even the most horrible person on earth is forced to do the right thing.” That's what a liberal democracy is.Now, it is a broad definition that I've provided. It is not narrow in any way. It is not specific, largely because I don't think it can be what works. It's not everywhere the same. The general family to which this belongs is universal. But the way it can work is not the same everywhere. A homogeneous, small, Sweden probably doesn't need as much level of, say, breakdown of provincial versus federal powers. Whereas, from what I understand, Nigeria is a somewhat multinational country, multiethnic country with multiple groups east and west from what I understand the divide is in Nigeria. There, it might be good to have a division inside the country where things that are most homogeneous, you leave to the federal government, to the highest level of power. Then the things that you can delegate to the local level, [it is] better to do it that way. Countries that are incredibly heterogeneous maybe need even more federalism. What is optimal for one place won't work elsewhere. So I couldn't take Belgian institutions and then just dump them in Nigeria. Same as I couldn't just say, well, let's take Swedish institutions and dump them into Canada. But what makes generally Sweden work better in terms of institutions than Nigeria, for example, is the fact that Sweden does fit in that general box of liberal democracy. There are clear constraints, there are restrictions, there are constitutions that are well respected, there's a strong rule of law, and politicians are compelled to not fall prey to their own baser instincts.Tobi;  A couple of months ago, I had Mark Koyama on the show.Vincent; Great guy. He's a colleague of mine.Tobi;Yeah. So, we were talking about state capacity. We're talking about his book with Noel Johnson. So I did bring up your paper on state capacity, [in] which, basically, one description that stuck with me is that you never really find a poor, but highly capable state in history…Vincent;You mean backwards. A rich society with an incapable state?  Tobi; Yes, a rich society with an incapable state. Thanks for that. So, I've been trying to disentangle this state capacity thing, I know Bryan Caplan basically dismissed it as a sleight of hand. Right. So, like, how does it work and how is it a necessary ingredient for economic development, so to speak?Vincent; I am actually quite respectful of the state capacity literature in one way. So let me do like kind of a quick thing. State capacity says that you want the state to be able to do certain missions. Right, so we're not making judgments as to whether the mission is good. State capacity is about the abilities of the state. The reason why that literature has emerged since the 2000… here's a story of economic thought really briefly: in the 1950s, Samuelson and others show, ‘oh, well, there are market failures' and then a few years later there are the public choice rebuttals, where the public choice economists say, ‘well, you're kind of wrong. There are also government failures.' And the state capacity crowd tries to come in between these two and say, ‘yeah, there are market failures and there are government failures. How do we get a state to solve the market failures but not fall into government failures?' Okay, straightforward, good argument. The part that I'm sceptical of is that the argument of the state capacity crowd is that you will have a lot of rich societies that will have strong states, you will have much fewer societies that have strong states but are very poor (the USSR would be a good example of that), [and] you will have a lot of societies that are poor and have weak state. The thing is that they can't seem to explain why it is under their theory that there are no societies that are relatively weak state but rich. Even though in history we do have many examples of these and they collapse all the time.The argument that I make with my colleague, Alexander Salter, is that societies that have weak states will fall prey to predation because their neighbours with stronger state will try to capture their wealth by conquest. If they are conquered, they grow immensely poor, they are made poor. Basically, it's a terrible event for them. Or they resist, and if they resist ably, the result from resistance is that they have to build a strong state themselves to resist predation by other rulers. And so in the argument me and Alex build, it boils down to: the state is not necessary for development, but it is inevitable as an outcome. So, the task of political science, of political economy, is understanding if we are going to be stuck with one of them, how do we make it that we get the least terrible one? If it's not necessary, but it is inevitable, then how do we get to one that will maybe do some benefit, or at least, we can get the best kind possible? Well, that's where the liberal democratic answer gets into. [It] is [that] we need to find sets of constraints, rules, incentives that force the politicians to make it too costly for them to engage in predatory behaviour, in redistributive behaviour, and that they concentrate on what you could call productive behaviour. That would be like solving externalities. Like dealing with pollution or producing public goods stuff that markets have a harder time to produce. Getting into that category is the task of what liberal democracies are trying to do. That is a much harder proposition. Daron Acemoglu in his somewhat awful book, The Narrow Corridor, calls it a narrow corridor. (I don't like that book that much. I think it's a horrible piece of literature. He should have kept it at Why Nations Fail, we had everything we needed with Buchanan, and it was much better in the other version. He was a much worse version of that.) So, Parenthesis over on Daron Acemoglu, but his point is still relatively okay. There is a narrow corridor on which we evolve. That is a very narrow equilibrium that we want to stay on to, to avoid veering either into more territorial forms of government or into different types of authoritarian[ism], in a certain way. So the corridor for a liberal democracy is very, very, very, very narrow.Tobi; I like that description. The state is not necessary but inevitable. Whereas with the traditional state capacity crowd, the state is often assumed and never justified.Vincent;Actually, that's a bit unfair to them. The state capacity crowd, a lot of them are interested in state capacity as a story of the origins of states. That, I think, is a much-valued contribution. However, the issue of whether or not state capacity is linked to growth, I think this is where there's overstretching. My point is “no, there's very little reason to believe that state capacity is related to growth.” State capacity is more the direct or indirect result of growth in the past. So, either you are getting state capacity because you get conquered and you get imposed it by somebody else, or you get state capacity because you want to protect your wealth from other predators.Tobi; For the record, I'm not talking about your colleagues. There's this industrial policy school in development economics who are also big on state capacity, who think the state has to do this heavy lifting. They sort of assume the state and not justify it. But I won't let you go without asking you this final question. You recently published a paper - talking about the work of Thomas Piketty, the French economist - with Phillip Magness, I should say. What is your critique of his work? Because so far as I can tell, yes, I read the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, [but] everybody else is sort of pretending that a critique of Piketty does not exist. And the political coalition around their research, along with [Emmanuel] Saez and [Gabriel] Zucman is moving rapidly apace, whether it is in taxation or other forms of agenda. So, what is your critique? I know there have been others in the past Matthew Rognlie, I'm not sure how to pronounce his last name.Vincent;Yeah. Our argument is actually very simple. And to be honest, I don't really care about the political conversation where, [for] the political people who are using Piketty's work, I ignore them. There may be a motivation for doing this work because it tells you the importance of his work, but the person I'm trying to talk to is Piketty himself. And the point we make in the paper is that he [not only] massively overestimates inequality in terms of levels, but he also misses times a lot of changes. In the article that me, Phil, another Phil, and John Moore published together in the Economic Journal, we find that there is a very different timeline of inequality in the United States. The most important part is that unlike Piketty and Saez, who can assign most of, and later Zucman… who can assign most of the changes in inequality to tax policy, we find that actually half the decline in inequality that happens between, say, 1917 and 1960, half of it is because of the Great Depression. And just as good economists, we should not be happy that, okay, the rich are growing poor faster than the poor, but the poor are also growing poor. That is not a decent outcome. So we're minimizing the role of fiscal policy and tax policy in doing inequality, but also the other changes that we find give a very different story of what matters in changing policy rather than being taxes, it has more to do with labour mobility within the United States. With capital mobility within the United States. So poor workers from the south, mostly black Americans, move to richer northern cities where wages are higher. Capital moves from the rich north to the poor south where workers are made more productive. So, the levelling has to do with a very standard force in economics - it's a Solow growth model - capital goes to where the returns are greatest, labour goes where the wages are greatest. Most of the convergence is explained by this, not by tax policy changes. So that's the critique we make of them. And there's a lot of other people who are joining in, Gerald Holtham, David Splinter, a lot of people are actually finding that their numbers don't make much sense and they're actually in violation of a lot of other facts of economic history, even though they're correct in the general idea that inequality fell; fell to 1960 and rose since the 1980. The problem is that all they got right is the shape, but they got wrong the timing, the levels, the extent of the changes. They got most of it wrong. They just got the general shape right. And that's no great feat.Tobi;Thank you so much for joining me.Vincent;It was a pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

LT Jesse Walker, USN, has moved to the panhandle from Jacksonville and brought a TON of experience with him.  Not only has he grown up fishing, he further extended his skills after joining the Navy and traveling.  Hawaii, Texas, The Carolinas, and Florida appear in this episode, laced with nuggets to help you succeed wherever you are fishing.  I especially loved the comparison areas that helped paint a picture of where to start and how to adjust.  This episode will help everyone that listens.  This will also be a two-part series.  Next week, we talk with Jesse again, and he dives head first into the world of YouTube, being a digital creator, and influencer thoughts.  You're not going to want to miss these!FB:  https://www.facebook.com/slotcityfishing/IG:  https://www.instagram.com/slotcityfishing/YT: https://www.youtube.com/c/SlotCityFishing Episode Is Sponsored By:  Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!!Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Bait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, 7' Travel Rod, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more) Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Keesler AFB (Mississippi)MWRFt. Bragg, NC U.S. ArmyMirro lures Top DogUniversity of N. AlabamaFishbitesU.S. NavyK-Bay, HawaiiU.S. Marine CorpsBob Sykes BridgeDisneyWalmartLos BuzosRobert FieldJustin Reed FishingSalt StrongBeach BuzzPenn Fathom 2 Casting ReelLive Liner ReelsPaul VanceletteMortician RigHale KoaFishGumHalf Hitch Tackle#findingdemosurffishing #slotcityfishing #podcast #learntofish #atlanticoceanfishing #gulfofmexicofishing #pacificoceanfishing #beachfishing #surffishing #KeeslerAFB #MoraleWelfareRecreation #MWR #FtBragg  #USArmy #MirroluresTopDog #UniversityNAlabama #Fishbites #USNavy #KBay #Hawaii #USMarineCorps #BobSykesBridge #Disney #Walmart #LosBuzos #RobertField #JustinReedFishing #SaltStrong #BeachBuzz #PennFathom #LiveLinerReels #PaulVancelette #MorticianRig #HaleKoa #FishGum #HalfHitchTackle

Margaret O'Mara, Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington, leads the conversation on big tech and global order.   CASA: Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Maria Casa, director of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Thank you all for joining us. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Margaret O'Mara with us to discuss big tech and global order. Dr. O'Mara is the Scott and Dorothy Bullitt Chair of American history and professor at the University of Washington. She writes and teaches about the growth of the high-tech economy, the history of American politics, and the connections between the two. Dr. O'Mara is an Organization of American Historians distinguished lecturer and has received the University of Washington Distinguished Teaching Award for Innovation with Technology. Previously, she served as a fellow with the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Forum on the Future of Liberal Education. From 1993 to 1997, Dr. O'Mara served in the Clinton administration as an economic and social policy aide in the White House and in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She is the author of several books and an editor of the Politics and Society in Modern America series at Princeton University Press. Welcome, Margaret. Thank you very much for speaking with us today. O'MARA: Thank you so much, Maria, and thank you all for being here today. I'm setting my supercomputer on my wrist timer so I—to time my talk to you, and which is very apropos and it's really—it's great to be here. I have a few slides I wanted to share as I talk through, and I thought that since we had some really interesting meaty present tense readings from Foreign Affairs as background for this conversation as well as the recent review essay that I wrote last year, I thought I would set the scene a little more with a little more history and how we got to now and thinking in broad terms about how the technology industry relates to geopolitics and the global order as this very distinctive set of very powerful companies now. So I will share accordingly, and, Maria, I hope that this is showing up on your screen as it should. So I knew I—today I needed to, of course, talk—open with something in the news, this—the current—the ongoing questions around what has—what was in the sky and what is being shot down in addition to a Chinese spy balloon, which is really kind of getting to a question that's at the center of all of my work. I write at the intersection of economic history and political history and I do that because I'm interested in questions of power. Who has power? What do they value? This is the kind of the question of the U.S.-China—the operative question of the U.S.-China rivalry and the—and concern about China, what are the values, what are the—and Chinese technology and Chinese technology companies, particularly consumer-facing ones. And this is also an operative question about the extraordinary concentration of wealth and power in a few large platform companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States—(laughs)—a couple in my town of Seattle where I am right now talking to you, and others in Silicon Valley. It's very interesting when one does a Google image search to find a publicly available image and puts in Silicon Valley the images that come up are either the title cards of the HBO television comedy, which I was tempted to add, but the—really, the iconic shot of the valley as place is the Apple headquarters—the Spaceship, as it's called in Cupertino—that opened a few years ago in the middle of suburbia. And this is—you know, the questions of concentrated power in the Q&A among the background readings, you know, this was noted by several of the experts consulted about what is the threat of big tech geopolitically and concentrated power, whether that's good, bad, if that's an advantage geopolitically or not. It was something that many of those folks brought up as did the other readings as well. And this question of power—who has power and taking power—has been an animating question of the modern technology industry and there's an irony in this that if you think about the ideological granddaddy of Apple itself is the Whole Earth Catalog, which I—and this is—I quote from this in the opening to my review essay that was part of the background readings and I just thought I would pop this up in full for us to think about. This is Stewart Brand. This is the first issue of the Whole Earth Catalog. The full issue is digitized at the Internet Archive as are so many other wonderful artifacts and primary source materials about this world, and this is right here on the—you know, you turn—open the cover and here is the purpose: “We are as gods and might as well get used to it. So far, remotely done power and glory as via government, big business, formal education, and church has succeeded to the point where gross obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate personal power is developing—power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested. Tools that aid this process are sought and promoted by the Whole Earth Catalog.” The audience of the Whole Earth Catalog was not a bunch of techies, per se. It was back to the landers, people who were going and founding communes and the catalog was—you know, which was more a piece of art than it was an actual shopping guide, had all sorts of things from books by Buckminster Fuller to camp stoves and to the occasional Hewlett Packard scientific calculator, making this kind of statement that these tools could actually be used for empowerment of the individual because, of course, the world of 1968 is one in which computers and AI are in the hands of the establishment. We see this playing out in multiple scales including Hollywood films like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which, of course, follows, what, four years earlier Dr. Strangelove, which was also a satiric commentary on concentrated power of the military industrial complex, and computers were, indeed, things that were used by large government agencies, by the Pentagon, by Fortune 50 companies. And so the countercultural computer or personal computer movement is very much about individual power and taking this away from the global order, so to speak. This is the taking—using these tools as a way to connect people at the individual level, put a computer on every desk, connect everyone via computer networks to one another, and that is how the future will be changed. That is how the inequities of the world would be remedied. The notion of ultimate connectivity as a positive good was not something that originated with Facebook but, indeed, has much, much deeper origins and that's worth thinking about as we consider where we are in 2023 and where things are going from there. It's also worth thinking about the way in which global—the global order and particularly national security and government spending has played a role—an instrumental role—in the growth of the technology industry as it is. Take, for example, the original venture-backed startup, Fairchild Semiconductor, which is legendary as really starting the silicon semiconductor industry in the valley. It is the—it puts the silicon in the valley, and the eight co-founders known as the Traitorous Eight because they all quit en masse their previous job at Shockley Semiconductor working for William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor, and they went off and did something that one does not—did not do in 1957 very often, which was start your own company. This was something that you did if you were weird and you couldn't work for people. That's what one old timer told me, reflecting back on this moment. But they, indeed, started their own company, found outside financing and in this group contains Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, the two co-founders of Intel, as well as Gene Kleiner, co-founder of Kleiner Perkins, the venture capital firm. This is really the—you know, the original—where it all began, and yes, this is a story of free-market entrepreneurialism but it also is a story of the national security state. This is a—Fairchild is founded at a moment when most of the business in the Santa Clara Valley of California, later known as Silicon Valley, was defense related. This is where the jobs were. This is the business they were doing, by and large. There was not a significant commercial market for their products. A month after they're incorporated—in September '57 is when Fairchild incorporates itself. October 1957 Sputnik goes into orbit. The consequent wave of space spending is really what is the literal rocket ship that gets Silicon Valley's chip business going. The integrated circuits made by Fairchild and other chip makers in the valley go into the Apollo guidance system. NASA is buying these chips at a time that there is not a commercial market for them and that enables these companies to scale up production to create a commodity that can be delivered to the enterprise. And so by the time you get to the 1970s you are not talking about defense contractors in any way. These are companies that are putting their chips in cars and in other—all sorts of one time mechanical equipment is becoming transistorized. And Intel is Intel, still one of the most important and consequential—globally consequential tech companies around at the center of the action in the CHIPS Act of last year, not to mention others. But this longer history and this intertwining with the military industrial complex and with broader geopolitics—because, of course, the space program and the Apollo program was a Cold War effort. It was about beating the Soviets to the moon, not just doing it because we could. But that really kind of dissipates and fades from collective memory in the Valley and beyond with the rise of these entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates, young, new-time CEOs that are presenting a very, very different face of business and really being consciously apolitical, presenting themselves as something so far apart from Washington, D.C. And this notion of tech, big or little, being something separate from government and governance is perpetuated by leaders of both parties, not just Ronald Reagan but also by Democrats of a younger generation that in the early 1980s there was a brief moment in which lawmakers like Tim Wirth and Gary Hart were referred to as Atari Democrats because they were so bullish on high-tech industries as the United States' economic future. And the way in which politicians and lawmakers from the 1980s forward talked about tech was very much in the same key as that of people like Steve Jobs, which is that this is a revolutionary—the tools have been taken from the establishment, and this is something that is apart from politics, that transcends the old global order and is a new one. And, in fact, in the speech in May 1988 in Moscow at the end of his presidency Ronald Reagan delivers a—you know, really frames the post-Cold War future as one in which the microchip is the revolutionary instrument of freedom: “Standing here before a mural of your revolution”—and a very large bust of Lenin—“I talk about a very different revolution that is taking place right now. Its effects are peaceful but they will fundamentally alter our world, and it is—the tiny silicon chip is the agent of that, no bigger than a fingerprint.” This is really remarkable, if we sit back and take a deep breath and think about it, and particularly thinking about what happens after that. What happens after that are decades in which, again, leaders of both parties in the United States and world leaders elsewhere are framing the internet and understanding the internet as this tool for freedom and liberation, a tool that will advance democracy. Bill Clinton, towards the end of his presidency, famously kind of said, effectively, that I'm not worried about China because the internet is going to bring—you know, internet is going to make it very hard to have anything but democracy. And this notion of a post-Cold War and beyond the end of history and tech and big tech being central to that that, in fact, aided the rise of big tech. That was a rationale for a light regulatory hand in the United States, allowing these companies to grow and flourish and so big, indeed, they have become. But I want to end on a note just thinking about the—you know, why this history is important, why this connective tissue between past and present actually does matter. It isn't just that, oh, this is nice to know. This is useful. Lawrence Preston Gise was the second—sorry, the first deputy administrator of DARPA in 1958, created in the wake of the Sputnik—post-Sputnik panic, originally called ARPA, now DARPA. He later ran the entire Western Division of the Atomic Energy Commission—Los Alamos, Livermore, et cetera. Longtime government public servant. In his retirement he retired to his farm in west Texas and his young grandson came and lived with him every summer. And his grandson throughout his life has talked about how—what a profound influence his grandfather was on him, showing him how to be a self-sufficient rancher, how to wrangle cattle and to build a barbed wire fence. But the grandson—you know, what the grandson didn't mention that much because it wasn't really relevant to his personal experience was who his grandfather was and what he had done. But when that grandson, Jeff Bezos—a few years ago when there was—when Google employees were writing their open letter to CEO Sundar Pichai saying, we are not in the defense business. We are—we don't like the fact that you are doing work with the Pentagon, and pressuring Google successfully and other companies to get out of doing work with the Pentagon, Bezos reflected, no, I think we're—I think this is our patriotic duty to do work—do this kind of work. And as I listened to him say that on a stage in an interview I thought, ah, that's his grandfather talking because this little boy, of course, was Jeff Bezos, the grandfather of Lawrence Preston Gise, and those—that connective tissue—familial connective tissue as well as corporate and political connective tissue, I think, is very relevant to what we have before us today. So I'll leave it there. Thanks. CASA: Thank you, Margaret, for that very interesting introduction. Let's open up to questions. (Gives queuing instructions.) While our participants are gathering their thoughts would you start us off by providing a few examples of emerging technologies that are affecting higher education? O'MARA: Yeah. Well, we've had a very interesting last three years in which the debate over online learning versus in-person learning very quickly was not necessarily resolved. We did this mass real-time experiment, and I think it made—put into sharp relief the way in which different technologies are shaping the way that higher education institutions are working and this question of who's controlling the—who controls the platforms and how we mediate what learning we do. Even though I now teach in person again almost everything that I do in terms of assignments and communication is through electronic learning management systems. The one we use at UW is Canvas. But, of course, there are these broader questions—ethical questions and substantive questions—about how our AI-enabled technologies including, notably, the star of the moment, ChatGPT, going to change the way in which—it's mostly been around how are students going to cheat more effectively. But I think it also has these bigger questions about how you learn and where knowledge, where the human—where the human is necessary. My take on it is, aside from the kind of feeling pretty confident in my having such arcane prompts for my midterm essay questions and research projects that ChatGPT, I think, would have a very hard time doing a good job with it but although I'm looking forward to many a form letter being filled by that technology in the future, I think that there is a—you know, this has a history, too. The concern about the robot overlords is a very deep one. It extends from—you know, predates the digital age, and the anxiety about whether computers are becoming too powerful. Of course, this question of artificial intelligence or augmented intelligence kind of is the computer augmenting what a human can do rather than replacing what a human can do or pretending to have the nuance and the complexity that a human might be able to convey. I think there's, you know, these bigger questions and I'm sure—I imagine there are going to be some other questions about AI. Really, you know, this is a—I think this is a very good learning moment, quite frankly, to think more—you know, one of the things I teach about a lot is kind of the information that is on the internet and who's created it and how it is architected and how it is findable and how those platforms have been developed over time. And what ChatGPT and other AIs like them are doing is they're scraping this extraordinary bounteous ocean of information and it is as good as the—it's as good as its source, right. So whatever you're able to do with it you have—your source materials are going to determine it. So if there is bias in the sources, if there is inaccuracy in the sources, there is—that will be replicated. It cannot be—you know, I think what it is is it's a really good rough draft, first draft, for then someone with tacit knowledge and understanding to come into, and I like to think of digital tools as ones that reveal where things that only people can do that cannot be replicated, that this—where human knowledge cannot be, where a machine still—even though a machine is informed by things that humans do and now does it at remarkable speed and scale it still is—there is—we are able to identify where humanity makes a difference. And then my one last caution is I do—you know, the one thing you can't do with these new—any of these new technologies is do them well really fast, and the rush to it is a little anxiety inducing. CASA: Thank you. Our first question is from Michael Leong from the—he's a graduate student at the University of Arizona. Michael, would you like to unmute and ask your question? Q: Yeah. Hi, Dr. O'Mara. Hi, Ms. Casa. Sorry for any background noise. I just had a, like, general question about your thoughts on the role big tech plays in geopolitics. Specifically, we've seen with SpaceX and Starlink especially with what's going on in Ukraine and how much support that has been provided to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, and potentially holding that over—(inaudible)—forces. So, basically, do we expect to see private companies having more leverage over geopolitical events? And how can we go forward with that? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a really—that's a really great question. And you know, I think that there's—it's interesting because the way—there's always been public-private partnerships in American state building and American geopolitics, and that's something—it's worth kind of just noting that. Like, from the very beginning the United States has used private entities as instruments of policy, as parastatal entities, whether it be through, you know, land grants and transcontinental railroad building in the nineteenth century all the way through to Starlink and Ukraine because, of course, the Pentagon is involved, too—you know, that SpaceX is in a very—is a significant government contractor as ones before it. I think that where there's a really interesting departure from the norm is that what we've seen, particularly in the last, you know, the last forty years but in this sort of post-Cold War moment has been and particularly in the last ten to fifteen years a real push by the Pentagon to go to commercial enterprises for technology and kind of a different model of contracting and, I should say, more broadly, national security agencies. And this is something, you know, a real—including the push under—when Ash Carter was in charge of DOD to really go to Silicon Valley and say, you guys have the best technology and a lot of it is commercial, and we need to update our systems and our software and do this. But I think that the SpaceX partnership is one piece of that. But there has been a real—you know, as the government has, perhaps, not gotten smaller but done less than it used to do and there's been more privatization, there have been—there's been a vacuum left that private companies have stepped into and I think Ian Bremmer's piece was really—made some really important points in this regard that there are things that these platform companies are doing that the state used to do or states used to do and that does give them an inordinate amount of power. You know, and these companies are structurally—often a lot of the control over these companies is in the hands of very, very few, including an inordinate unusual amount of founder power, and Silicon Valley, although there's plenty of political opinionating coming out of there now, which is really a departure from the norm, this kind of partisan statements of such—you know, declarations of the—of recent years are something that really didn't—you didn't see very much before. These are not folks who are—you know, their expertise lies in other domains. So that's where my concern—some concern lies where you have these parastatal actors that are becoming, effectively, states and head of states then and they are not, indeed, speaking for—you know, they're not sovereign powers in the same way and they are speaking for themselves and speaking from their own knowledge base rather than a broader sense of—you know, they're not speaking for the public. That's not their job. CASA: Our next question is from Michael Raisinghani from Texas Woman's University. Michael, if you could unmute. Q: Thank you, Ms. Casa and Dr. O'Mara. A very insightful discussion. Thank you for that. I just thought maybe if you could maybe offer some clarity around the generative AI, whether it's ChatGPT or Wordtune or any of this in terms of the future. If you look, let's say, five, ten years ahead, if that's not too long, what would your thoughts be in this OpenAI playground? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Well, with the first—with the caveat that the first rule of history is that you can't predict the future—(laughs)—and (it's true ?); we are historians, we like to look backwards rather than forwards—I will then wade into the waters of prediction, or at least what I think the implications are. I mean, one thing about ChatGPT as a product, for example, which has been really—I mean, what a—kudos for a sort of fabulous rollout and marketing and all of a sudden kind of jumping into our public consciousness and being able to release what they did in part because it wasn't a research arm of a very large company where things are more being kept closer because they might be used for that company's purposes. Google, for example, kind of, you know, has very in short order followed on with the reveal of what they have but they kind of were beaten to the punch by OpenAI because OpenAI wasn't—you know, it was a different sort of company, a different sort of enterprise. You know, a lot of it are things that are already out there in the world. If we've, you know, made an airline reservation and had a back and forth with a chatbot, like, that's—that's an example of some of that that's already out in the world. If you're working on a Google doc and doing what absolutely drives me bonkers, which is that Google's kind of completing my sentences for me, but that predictive text, those—you know, many things that we are—that consumers are already interacting with and that enterprises are using are components of this and this is just kind of bringing it together. I think that we should be very cautious about the potential of and the accuracy of and the revolutionary nature of ChatGPT or any of these whether it be Bard or Ernie or, you know, name your perspective chatbot. It is what it is. Again, it's coming from the—it's got the source material it has, it's working with, which is not—you know, this is not human intelligence. This is kind of compilation and doing it very rapidly and remarkably and in a way that presents with, you know, literacy. So I'm not—you know, does very cool stuff. But where the future goes, I mean, clearly, look, these company—the big platform companies have a lot of money and they have a great deal of motivation and need to be there for the next big thing and, you know, if we dial back eighteen months ago there were many in tech who were saying crypto and Web3 was the next big thing and that did not—has not played out as some might have hoped. But there is a real desire for, you know, not being left behind. Again, this is where my worry is for the next five years. If this is driven by market pressures to kind of be the—have the best search, have the best—embed this technology in your products at scale that is going to come with a lot of hazards. It is going to replicate the algorithmic bias, the problems with—extant problems with the internet. I worry when I see Google saying publicly, we are going to move quickly on this and it may not be perfect but we're going to move quickly when Google itself has been grappling with and called out on its kind of looking the other way with some of the real ethical dilemmas and the exclusions and biases that are inherent in some of the incredibly powerful LLMs—the models that they are creating. So that's my concern. This is a genie that is—you know, letting this genie out of the bottle and letting it become a mass consumer product, and if—you know, OpenAI, to its credit, if you go to ChatGPT's website it has a lot of disclaimers first about this is not the full story, effectively, and in the Microsoft rollout of their embedding the technology in Bing last week Microsoft leaders, as well as Sam Altman of OpenAI, were kind of—their talking points were very careful to say this is not everything. But it does present—it's very alluring and I think we're going to see it in a lot more places. Is it going to change everything? I think everyone's waiting for, like, another internet to change everything and I don't know if—I don't know. The jury's out. I don't know. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Denis Fred Simon, clinical professor of global business and technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He asked, technology developments have brought to the surface the evolving tension between the drive for security with the desire for privacy. The U.S. represents one model while China represents another model. How do societies resolve this tension and is there some preferred equilibrium point? O'MARA: That is a—that's the billion-dollar question and it's—I think it's a relevant one that goes way back. (Laughs.) I mean, there are many moments in the kind of evolution of all of these technologies where the question of who should know what and what's allowable. If we go back to 1994 and the controversy over the Clipper chip, which was NSA wanting to build a backdoor into commercially available software, and that was something that the industry squashed because it would, among other things, have made it very difficult for a company like Microsoft to sell their products in China or other places if you had a—knew that the U.S. national security agencies were going to have a window into it. And, of course, that all comes roaring back in 2013 with Snowden's revelations that, indeed, the NSA was using social media platforms and other commercial platforms—consumer-facing platforms—to gather data on individuals. You know, what is the perfect balance? I mean, this is—I wish I had this nice answer. (Laughs.) I would probably have a really nice second career consulting and advising. But I think there is a—what is clear is that part of what has enabled the American technology industry to do what it has done and to generate companies that have produced, whether you think the transformations on balance are good or bad, transformative products, right. So everything we're using to facilitate this conversation that all of us are having right now is coming from that font. And democratic capitalism was really critical to that and having a free—mostly free flow of information and not having large-scale censorship. I mean, the postscript to the Clipper chip—you know, Clipper chip controversy is two years later the Telecom Act of 1996, which was, on the one hand, designed to ensure the economic growth of what were then very small industries in the internet sector and not—and prevent the telecoms from ruling it all but also were—you know, this was a kind of making a call about, OK, in terms when it comes to the speech on the internet we are going to let the companies regulate that and not be penalized for private—when private companies decide that they want to take someone down, which is really what Section 230 is. It's not about free speech in a constitutional sense. It's about the right of a company to censor or to moderate content. It's often the opposite of the way that it's kind of understood or interpreted or spun in some ways. But it is clear that the institutions of—that encourage free movement of people and capital have been—are pretty critical in fueling innovation writ large or the development and the deployment and scaling of new technologies, particularly digital technologies. But I think you can see that playing out in other things, too. So that has been, I think, a real tension and a real—there's a market dimension to this, not just in terms of an ethical dimension or political dimension that there does need to be some kind of unfettered ability of people to build companies and to grow them in certain ways. But it's a fine balance. I mean, this sort of, like, when does regulation—when does it—when do you need to have the state come in and in what dimension and which state. And this goes back to that core question of like, OK, the powerful entities, what are their values? What are they fighting for? Who are they fighting for? I don't know. I'm not giving you a terribly good answer because I think it's a really central question to which many have grappled for that answer for a very long time. CASA: Thank you. Our next question comes from Ahmuan Williams, a graduate student at the University of Oklahoma. Ahmuan? Q: Thank you. Hi. I'm wondering about ChatGPT, about the regulation side of that. It seems like it's Microsoft that has kind of invested itself into ChatGPT. Microsoft had before gotten the Pentagon contract just a few years back. So it's kind of a two-part question. So, first of all, how does that—what does that say about government's interest in artificial intelligence and what can be done? I know the Council of Foreign Relations also reported that the Council of Europe is actually planning an AI convention to figure out how, you know, a framework of some type of AI convention in terms of treaties will work out. But what should we be worried about when it comes to government and the use of AI in political advertisements and campaigns, about, basically, them flooding opinions with, you know, one candidate's ideas and, therefore, them being able to win because they're manipulating our opinions? So what would you say would be kind of a regulation scheme that might come out of these type—new flourishing AI devices? O'MARA: Mmm hmm. Mmm hmm. That's a good question. I think there's sort of different layers to it. I mean, I see that, you know, the Pentagon contract—the JEDI contract—being awarded to Microsoft, much to Amazon's distress—(laughs)—and litigious distress, is a kind of a separate stream from its decision to invest 10 billion (dollars) in OpenAI. I think that's a commercial decision. I think that's a recognition that Microsoft research was not producing the—you know, Microsoft didn't have something in house that was comparable. Microsoft saw an opportunity to at last do a—you know, knock Google off of its dominant pedestal in search and make Bing the kind of long—kind of a punch line—no longer a punch line but actually something that was a product that people would actively seek out and not just use because it was preinstalled on their Microsoft devices. That is—so I see that as a market decision kind of separate from. The bigger AI question, the question of AI frameworks, yes, and this, again, has a longer history and, you know, I kind of liken AI to the Pacific Ocean. It's an enormous category that contains multitudes. Like, it's—you know, we can—oftentimes when we talk about AI or the AI that we see and we experience, it's machine learning. And part of why we have such extraordinary advances in machine learning in the last decade has—because of the harvesting of individual data on these platforms that we as individuals use, whether it be Google or Meta or others, that that has just put so much out there that now these companies can create something that—you know, that the state of the art has accelerated vastly. Government often is playing catch up, not just in tech but just in business regulation, generally. The other—you know, another example of this in the United States cases with the—in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century, with what were then new high-tech tech-driven industries of railroads and oil and steel that grew to enormous size and then government regulators played catch up and created the institutions that to this day are the regulators like the FTC created in 1913. Like, you know, that's—of that vintage. So, I think that it depends on—when it comes to—the question about electoral politics, which I think is less about government entities—this is about entities, people and organizations that want to be in charge of government or governments—that is, you know, AI—new technologies of all kinds that incorporate ever more sophisticated kind of, essentially, disinformation, that—information that presents as real and it is not. The increased volume of that and the scale of that and the sophistication of that and the undetectability of it does create a real challenge to free and fair elections and also to preventing, in the American context, international and foreign intervention in and manipulation of elections but true in every context. That is, you know, getting good information before voters and allowing bad actors to exploit existing prejudices or misassumptions. That is an existing problem that probably will be accelerated by it. I think there's—there's a strong case to be made, at least in the U.S. context, for much stronger regulation of campaign advertising that extends to the internet in a much more stricter form. In that domain there's—I think we have pretty good evidence that that has not been—you know, having that back end has made the existing restrictions on other types of campaign speech and other media kind of made them moot because you can just go on a social platform and do other things. So there's—you know, this is—I think the other thing that compromises this is the rapidly changing nature of the technology and the digital—and the global reach of these digital technologies that extends any other product made—you know, any other kind of product. It just is borderless that—in a kind of overwhelming way. That doesn't mean government should give up. But I think there's a sort of supranational level of frameworks, and then there are all sorts of subnational kind of domain-specific frameworks that could occur to do something as a countervailing force or at least slow the role of developers and companies in moving forward in these products. CASA: Thank you. Our next question is a written one. It comes from Prashant Hosur, assistant professor of humanities and social sciences at Clarkson University. He asks, how do you—or she. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. How do you think big tech is likely to affect conventional wisdom around issues of great power rivalry and power transitions? O'MARA: Hmm. I don't—well, I think there are a—these are always—these definitions are always being redefined and who the great powers are and what gives them power is always being reshuffled and—but, of course, markets and economic resources and wealth and—are implicated in this for millennia. I think that tech companies do have this—American tech companies and the tech platforms, which I should preface this by saying, you know, none of the companies we're talking about now are going to rule forever. Maybe that just goes without—it's worth just note, you know, this is—we will have the rise and fall. Every firm will be a dinosaur. Detroit was the most innovative city in the world a hundred and ten years ago. There's still a lot of innovation and great stuff coming out of Detroit, but if you—if I queried anyone here and said, what's the capital of innovation I don't know if you would say Detroit. But back in the heyday of the American auto industry it was, and I think it's a good reminder. We aren't always going to be talking about this place in northern California and north Seattle in this way. But what we have right now are these companies that their products, unlike the products of Henry Ford or General Motors, are ones that are—go across borders with—you know, the same product goes across borders seamlessly and effortlessly, unlike an automobile where a—to sell in a certain country you have to meet that country's fuel standards and, you know, safety standards, et cetera, et cetera. You have a different model for a different market. Instead, here, you know, a Facebook goes where it goes, Google goes where it goes, YouTube goes where it goes, and that has been kind of extraordinary in terms of internationalizing politics, political trends. I think what we've seen globally is very—you know, the role of the internet in that has been extraordinary, both for good and for ill, in the last fifteen years. And then the kind of—the immense—the great deal of power that they have in the many different domains and, again, Ian Bremmer also observed this kind of the—all the different things they do and that is something that is different from twenty-five years ago where you now have companies that are based on the West Coast of the United States with products designed by a small group of people from a kind of narrow, homogenous band of experience who are doing things like transforming taxis and hotels and, I mean, you name it, kind of going everywhere in a way that in the day of the—you know, the first Macintosh, which was like this cool thing on your desk, that was—yes, it was a transformative product. It was a big deal and Silicon Valley was—became a household word and a phrase in the 1980s and the dot.com era, too. That was—you know, everyone's getting online with their AOL discs they got in the mail. But what's happened in the twenty-first century is at a scale and—a global scale and an influence across many different domains, and politics, this very deliberate kind of we are a platform for politics that has really reshaped the global order in ways that are quite profound. This is not to say that everything has to do with big tech is at the root of everything. But let's put it in context and let's, you know—and also recognize that these are not companies that were designed to do this stuff. They've been wildly successful what they set out to do and they have a high-growth tech-driven model that is designed to move fast and, yes, indeed, it breaks things and that has—you know, that has been—they are driven by quarterly earnings. They are driven by other things, as they should be. They are for-profit companies, many of them publicly traded. But the—but because, I think, in part they have been presenting themselves as, you know, we're change the world, we're not evil, we're something different, we're a kinder, gentler capitalism, there has been so much hope hung on them as the answer for a lot of things, and that is not—kind of giving states and state power something of the past to get its act together that instead states need to step up. CASA: Our next question is from Alex Grigor. He's a PhD candidate from University of Cambridge. Alex? Q: Hello. Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? O'MARA: Yes. CASA: Yes. Q: Yeah. Hi. Thank you, Ms. O'Mara. Very insightful and, in fact, a lot of these questions are very good as well. So they've touched upon a lot of what I was going to ask and so I'll narrow it down slightly. My research is looking at cyber warfare and sort of international conflict particularly between the U.S. and China but beyond, and I was wondering—you started with the sort of military industrial complex and industry sort of breaking away from that. Do you see attempts, perhaps, because of China and the—that the technology industry and the military are so closely entwined that there's an attempt by the U.S. and, indeed, other countries. You see increase in defense spending in Japan and Germany. But it seems to be specifically focused, according to my research, on the technologies that are coming out of that, looking to reengage that sort of relationship. They might get that a little bit by regulation. Perhaps the current downsizing of technology companies is an opportunity for governments to finally be able to recruit some good computer scientists that they haven't been able to—(laughs)—(inaudible). Perhaps it's ASML and semiconductor sort of things. Do you see that as part of the tension a conscious attempt at moving towards reintegrating a lot of these technologies back into government? O'MARA: Yeah. I think we're at a really interesting moment. I mean, one thing that's—you know, that's important to note about the U.S. defense industry is it never went away from the tech sector. It just kind of went underground. Lockheed, the major defense contractor, now Lockheed Martin, was the biggest numerical employer in the valley through the end of the Cold War through the end of the 1980s. So well into the commercial PC era and—but very—you know, kind of most of what was going on there was top secret stuff. So no one was on the cover of Forbes magazine trumpeting what they've done. And there has been—but there has been a real renewed push, particularly with the kind of—to get made in Silicon Valley or, you know, made in the commercial sector software being deployed for military use and national security use and, of course, this is very—completely bound up in the questions of cyber warfare and these existing commercial networks, and commercial platforms and products are ones that are being used and deployed by state actors and nonstate actors as tools for cyber terrorism and cyber warfare. So, yes, I think it's just going to get tighter and closer and the great—you know, the stark reality of American politics, particularly in the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries, is the one place that the U.S. is willing to spend lots of money in the discretionary budget is on defense and the one place where kind of it creates a rationale for this unfettered—largely, unfettered spending or spending with kind of a willingness to spend a lot of money on things that don't have an immediately measurable or commercializable outcome is in national security writ large. That's why the U.S. spent so much money on the space program and created this incredible opportunity for these young companies making chips that only—making this device that only—only they were making the things that the space program needed, and this willingness to fail and the willingness to waste money, quite frankly. And so now we're entering into this sort of fresh—this interesting—you know, the geopolitical competition with China between the U.S. has this two dimensions in a way and the very—my kind of blunt way of thinking about it it's kind of like the Soviet Union and Japan all wrapped up in one, Japan meaning the competition in the 1980s with Japan, which stimulated a great deal of energy among—led by Silicon Valley chip makers for the U.S. to do something to help them compete and one of those outcomes was SEMATECH, the consortium to develop advanced semiconductor technology, whose funding—it was important but its funding was a fraction of the wave of money that just was authorized through last year's legislation, the CHIPS Act as well as Inflation Reduction Act and others. So I'm seeing, you know, this kind of turn to hardware and military hardware and that a lot of the commercial—the government subsidized or incentivized commercial development of green technology and advanced semiconductor, particularly in military but other semiconductor technology and bringing semiconductor manufacturing home to the United States, that is—even those dimensions that are nonmilitary, that are civilian, it's kind of like the Apollo program. That was a civilian program but it was done for these broader geopolitical goals to advance the economic strength and, hence, the broader geopolitical strength of the United States against a competitor that was seen as quite dangerous. So that's my way of saying you're right, that this is where this is all going and so I think that's why this sort of having a healthy sense of this long-term relationship is healthy. It's healthy for the private sector to recognize the government's always been there. So it isn't though you had some innovative secret that the government is going to take away by being involved. And to also think about what are the broader goals that—you know, who is benefiting from them and what is the purpose and recognize often that, you know, many of the advanced technologies we have in the United States are thanks to U.S. military funding for R&D back in the day. CASA: Our next question is written. It's from Damian Odunze, who is an assistant professor at Delta State University. Regarding cybersecurity, do you think tech companies should take greater responsibility since they develop the hardware and software packages? Can the government mandate them, for instance, to have inbuilt security systems? O'MARA: Hmm. Yeah. I think—look, with great power comes great responsibility is a useful reminder for the people at the top of these companies that for—that are so remarkably powerful at the moment and because their platforms are so ubiquitous. There are—you see, for example, Microsoft has really—is a—I think what they've done in terms of partnering with the White House and its occupants and being—kind of acting as a NSA first alert system of sorts and kind of being open about that I think that's been good for them from a public relations perspective, and also—but I think it also reflects this acknowledgement of that responsibility and that it also is bad for their business if these systems are exploited. Yeah, I think that, again, regulation is something that—you know, it's like saying Voldemort in Silicon Valley. Like, some people are, like, oh, regulation, you know. But there's really—there can be a really generative and important role that regulation can play, and the current industry has grown up in such a lightly-regulated fashion you just kind of get used to having all that freedom, and when it comes to cybersecurity and to these issues of national security importance and sort of global importance and importance to the users of the products and the companies that make them there's, I think, a mutual interest in having some sort of rules of the road and that—and I think any company that's operating at a certain scale is—understands that it's in their market interest to be—you know, not to be a renegade, that they are working with. But I think having—you know, there can be a willingness to work with but they're—having a knowledge and an understanding and a respect for your government partners, your state partners, whether they be U.S. or non-U.S. or supranational is really critically important and sometimes tech folks are a little too, like, oh, politics, they don't know what they're doing, you know. We know better. And I think there needs to be a little more mutual exchange of information and some more—yes, some more technical people being able to be successfully recruited into government would probably be a help, too, so there's—on both sides of the table you have technically savvy people who really understand the inner workings of how this stuff is made and don't have simplistic answers of like, oh, we'll just take all the China-made technology out of it. You're, like, well, there's—like, it's kind of deep in the system. You know, so having technologists in the conversation at all points is important. CASA: Thank you. I think we have time for one more question. We'll take that from Louis Esparza, assistant professor at California State University in Los Angeles. Q: Hi. Thank you for your very interesting talk. So I'm coming at this from the social movements literature and I'm coming into this conversation because I'm interested in the censorship and influence of big tech that you seem to be, you know, more literate in. So my question is do you think that this—the recent trends with big tech and collaboration with federal agencies is a rupture with the origin story of the 1960s that you talked about in your talk or do you think it's a continuity of it? O'MARA: Yeah. That's a great way to put it. The answer is, is it both? Well, it's something of a rupture. I mean, look, this—you know, you have this—you have an industry that grows up as intensely—you know, that those that are writing and reading the Whole Earth Catalog in 1968 the military industrial complex is all around them. It is paying for their education sort of effectively or paying for the facilities where they're going to college at Berkeley or Stanford or name your research university—University of Washington. It is the available jobs to them. It is paying for the computers that they learn to code on and that they're doing their work on. It is everywhere and it is—and when you are kind of rebelling against that establishment, when you see that establishment is waging war in Vietnam as being a power—not a power for good but a power for evil or for a malevolent—a government you don't trust whose power, whose motivations you don't trust, then you—you know, you want to really push back against that and that is very much what the personal computer movement that then becomes an industry is. That's why all those people who were sitting around in the 1970s in Xerox Palo Alto Research Center—Xerox Park—just spitballing ideas, they just did not want to have anything to do with military technology. So that's still there, and then that—and that ethos also suffused other actors in, you know, American government and culture in the 1980s forward, the sort of anti-government sentiment, and the concerns about concentrated power continue to animate all of this. And the great irony is that has enabled the growth of these private companies to the power of states. (Laughs.) So it's kind of both of those things are happening and I think, in some ways, wanting to completely revolutionize the whole system was something that was not quite possible to do, although many—it is extraordinary how much it has done. CASA: Margaret, thank you very much for this fascinating discussion and to all of you for your questions and comments. I hope you will follow Margaret on Twitter at @margaretomara. Our next Academic Webinar will take place on Wednesday, March 1, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Chris Li, director of research of the Asia Pacific Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, will lead a conversation on U.S. strategy in East Asia. In the meantime, I encourage you to learn about CFR's paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/Careers. Follow at @CFR_Academic on Twitter and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Thank you again for joining us today. We look forward to you tuning in for our webinar on March 1. Bye. (END)  

- Director of China Policy at Center for Security Policy, Brad Thayer joins Rose Unplugged to discuss China's balloons and what they mean to us. - Biden's ‘Sputnik moment': Is China's spy balloon political warfare? - The spy balloon that China sailed over the United States and Canada should compel Americans to ask what, exactly, Beijing is doing. There needs to be a sense of urgency - This was likely a component of china's political warfare campaign against the US and its Allies. - China WANTED us to know they had a balloon hovering over us - We have much work to do --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rose-unplugged/support

Want to do some Land Based Shark Fishing (LBSF) near Beauford, SC?  How about a full-chartered surf fishing day?  Eli Glisson of The Salty Savage Experience has you covered, and he brought it all together during his episode here.  Eli explained how he works in a difficult fishery notorious for heavy tide swings, dirty water, and limited accessibility for fishing successfully.  South Carolina has a lot to offer those coming through to do excellent fishing if you know where to go and how to attack it.  His tips and trick are also universal for use no matter where you are fishing, so the knowledge gained here will surely help any angler in their fishing experiences.  Check him out online and book your charter when going through.  The Salty Savage ExperienceEli Glissoneliglisson77@gmail.com Beauford, SCLand-Based Shark Fishing Charter (LBSF)Surf Fishing Charter FB: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100069217961543TT: SaltySavage2.0 Episode Sponsor: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Bait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, 7' Travel Rod, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more)Bait Check: Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!! Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:No Name Shark ChartersWyatt GlassApex Oil & GreaseSalt SquatchForgotten Coast Shark TournamentPenn Slammer 10500Parris Island, SCU.S. Marine CorpsBeauford, SCDylan WierMagic SeaweedTightlinez Bait & TackleOkuma 50W MarkiePower Pro BraidHillbillies Rattle RigsAdam Williams Low Country Shark TackleEagle Claw 12/0 HooksLongest Cast Surf Fishing HD Shark Rig8/0 Gamakatsu HooksThe SInker Guy 6 oz Owner Mosquito HooksFishGumCatch All TackleFishbites#findingdemosurffishing #thesaltysavageexperience #lbsf #sharkfishing #surffishing #scsurffishing #scsurffishingcharter #learntofish #atlanticoceanfishing #beachfishing #NoNameSharkCharters #WyattGlass #ApexOilGrease #SaltSquatch #ForgottenCoastSharkTournament #PennSlammer #ParrisIslandSC #USMC #BeaufordSC #Fishbites #DylanWier #MagicSeaweed #TightlinezBaitTackle #Okuma50WMarkaria #PowerProBraid #HillbilliesRattleRigs #AdamWilliams #LowCountrySharkTackle #EagleClawHooks #LongestCastSurfFishing #HDSharkRig #gamakatsuhooks #TheSinkerGuy #OwnerMosquitoHooks #FishGum #CatchAllTackle #DSCustomTackle #BaitCheck #NinjaTackle #KidsCanFishFoundation

Last weekend the US shot down a Chinese spy balloon. Today we shot down another unidentified object over Alaska. Both of these events carry echoes of another moment in US history that changed the country's trajectory. The Soviet Union's Sputnik satellite. Mike Mazza from AEI explains why this is our 21st century Sputnik moment and an opportunity to galvanize the nation and create a strategy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the wake of 2023's raucous State of the Union address, Jonah invites Noah Rothman back to the Remnant for some obscenely rank punditry on a host of hot topics. They begin by exploring what we should make of Biden's speech, and whether the rowdy atmosphere that accompanied it was actually a good thing, before turning to issues foreign and domestic. How does Biden look as a 2024 candidate given his age? Does the GOP have anything to offer the electorate? Why did it take so long to pop China's pesky balloon? And could that floating middle finger be the Sputnik moment America needs?Show Notes:- Noah's page at Commentary- Noah's latest book, The Rise of the New Puritans- Noah's previous book, Unjust- Noah's previous Remnant appearance- Kevin Williamson: “Joe Biden as Priest-King”- Jonah: “Advice for Biden: Be Like Ike”-  A deflated Commentary Podcast- The Remnant with Dalibor Rohac

When Peter and Eric open this week's show by talking about balloons and popcorn, you might be imagining wide-eyed little children at the county fair, not a sneaky communist regime committing economic and military espionage on America. But that's what popcorn and balloons mean here at The Drill Down with Peter Schweizer. Of course, the big story of the past week was Communist Chinese government's spy balloon that floated across the US through Montana and 10 other states before being shot down by a missile fired by an F-22 fighter jet off the coast of Myrtle Beach, SC. Not since 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first satellite shot into Earth's orbit, has a foreign government's flight activity so captured attention and rattled so many Americans.

Episode 2496: Capitol Hill Is In Bed With The CCP And America's Sputnik Moment

In 1957, America was panicked by the appearance of Sputnik. The Soviet Union is ahead of us! As a nation we came together and built up our military. Eventually, under Ronald Reagan, the Soviet Union collapsed. China has spent the last couple of decades spending massive amounts of money on its military, and some think it's only a matter of time before it invades Taiwan. Is this our Sputnik moment? Is it time to get serious about countering the Chinese threat? Brad Staggs sits in for Rick Roberts on NewsTalk 820 WBAP ... (Photo Courtesy of WFAA)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Victoria Coates discusses awakening America, the shooting down of the Chinese spy balloon over the weekend, and why it will be this generation's “Sputnik” moment. The former Trump deputy national security adviser comments that “this weekend is the moment when the threat from communist China literally came home, came to the United States, the American people can be excused for sort of seeing this as an abstract. In the past, particularly because a lot of China's own efforts to appear benign, everything from the panda bears at the National Zoo to the Confucius Academies in our schools, they tried to seem benign, but when the good people of Montana looked up and said, ‘that's no moon,' and then demanded to know what the heck is that thing? Literally, Americans are watching in real time as their sovereignty is being invaded by something the size of three Greyhound buses loaded with surveillance equipment. The good news is, I think the wake up moment has has worked, we have awakened and I think it's late in the game, but there's still time for the United States to reposture itself onto almost a Cold War type footing after Sputnik and really confront this for the intolerable threat that it is.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Greg "Maddog Fishing" Findley has been fishing for years with his family, runs a successful beach fishing charter, and shares his knowledge on YouTube!  Through the episode, he shares a few trade secrets on spot selection, what baits & how he uses them, and then there is this one part about using....Well, I can't give you ALL of the details!  Enjoy this week's episode of Finding Demo Surf Fishing with Maddog Fishing.Contactmaddogfishing4u@gmail.com FB: https://www.facebook.com/maddogfishingIG: https://www.instagram.com/maddog_fishing/?fbclid=IwAR33-41v8puEKhyde8PxiU-1tEG19G8-7I4UuTw2CHdnRnHEJLJ-obVBYZwWeb: http://maddogfishing4u.com/?fbclid=IwAR2HyaV140afsZmnEwzF-RahxAdv1zdu253oU-Bmgl-L-PsZrPIEUxBmAaEYT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChC0I2vzsWw_iTl2rwv-4-g/public Episode Sponsor: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more)Bait Check: Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Their mission is to teach kids fishing fundamentals and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!!Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and more Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Justin Reed FishingCatch A Florida MemoryU.S. ArmyFishbitesStella ReelsPenn Fishing Fathom 30FishGum#findingdemosurffishing #maddogfishing #surffishing #podcast #learntofish #beachfishing #shorefishing #reddrum #blackdrum #floridafishing #alabamafishing #usafishing #JustinReedFishing #CatchAFloridaMemory #myFWC #USArmy #Fishbites #StellaReels #PennFishing #Fathom30 #FishGum

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. 1938. Akagi and escorts @Batchelorshow #Bestof2021: 1/2 The Sputnik moment of China's hypersonic missile test; & What is to be done? Jerry Hendrix III. (Sagemore Institute) (Originally posted October 25, 2021) https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Jerry%20Hendrix_The%20Sputnik%20Moment%20-%20Historic%20Lessons%20for%20Our%20Hypersonic%20Age.pdf 1/2

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. Beijing 1908 @Batchelorshow #Bestof2021: 2/2 The Sputnik moment of China's hypersonic missile test; & What is to be done? Jerry Hendrix III. (Sagemore Institute) (Originally posted October 25, 2021) https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Jerry%20Hendrix_The%20Sputnik%20Moment%20-%20Historic%20Lessons%20for%20Our%20Hypersonic%20Age.pdf 1/2

Mike "Redbeard" Bryant comes on the show and talks about how he started fishing, running a YouTube channel, and many tips to help you get things started surf fishing.  Though you'll catch him slaying Blackfin Tuna just off the beach here in Navarre, Fl; he is also finding ways to focus more on continued success from the surf.  A particular part of the episode is how he finds his fresh bait before going out.  A simple technique that has been around on YouTube but not utilized heavily by most anglers.  Though he was gone from the area for 5-years, he hasn't lost a beat yet, and he brings it to your ears today!FB: https://www.facebook.com/CharleyRedbeardFishingIG: https://www.instagram.com/yt_redbeard/YT: https://www.youtube.com/@RedBeard Episode Sponsor: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more)Bait Check: Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally-recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Our mission is to teach kids the fundamentals of fishing and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!!! Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and moreBait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle. Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentionsBama Beach BumYakin with JackJustin Reed FishingPenn CarnagePenn SlammerTFO RodsSt. Croix RodsSaltX ReelsHalf HitchFishbitesSalty's Pompano RigsFrisky FinsRogue ReelzFishgumMagic ThreadWorld Of WarcraftJack Motley#findingdemosurffishing #redbeard #surffishing #podcast #learntofish #BamaBeachBum #YakinwithJack #JustinReedFishing #PennCarnage #PennSlammer #TFORods #StCroixRods #SaltXReels #HalfHitch #Fishbites #SaltysPompanoRigs #FriskyFins #RogueReelz #Fishgum #MagicThread #WorldOfWarcraft #JackMotley

Ep 198: Ed Gein & The Levelland UFO Encounter 1957, Part 6: November & December 1957 Amy finally gets to the big one:  Ed Gein.  One of the grossest, horror movie inspiring murderers of our time, and Amy gets all into it.  Meanwhile, Joe tells us about a harrowing lightless flight, the Russian space dog, King Kong Bundy's birth and a Texas UFO! Part of the Queen City Podcast Network: www.queencitypodcastnetwork.com. Credits Include: Smithsmonian Magazine, americansongwriter.com , Popculture.us, Wikipedia, New York Times, IMDB & Youtube.  Information may not be accurate, as it is produced by jerks. Music by MATT TRUMAN EGO TRIP, the greatest American Band. Click Here to buy their albums!  

Congressman David Price served 34 years representing North Carolina's Research Triangle, leaving the House just this January. Beyond his time as an institution in the House, he's lived a remarkable political life...present on the Washington Mall during the MLK "I Have A Dream" speech...a Senate staffer witnessing key civil rights votes in the mid 1960s...a leading political scientist at Duke University...a Democratic Party leader who helped devise the primary reforms now known as "super delegates"...and an influential House member who's served across parts of five decades in the House and been a witness to - and a part of - some of the most important political moments of the past half century.IN THIS EPISODE...Growing up in the unique political culture of small-town East Tennessee...The Civil Rights Movement inspires an awakening for public service...Memories of being on The Mall during the March on Washington and the MLK "I Have A Dream" Speech...His time as a Senate staffer during the critical 1964 vote to break the filibuster on civil rights... How he merged teaching Political Science at Duke with activity in real-world politics...His time in state party leadership and as part of The Hunt Commission reforming the Democratic Presidential Primary process...The political skill and legacy of North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt...North Carolina's legacy as a progressive Southern state...Remembering the 1984 Senate "race of the century" of Jesse Helms vs. Jim Hunt...His path to running and winning his first race for Congress in 1986...Memories of his first few terms in the House...The story of his loss in the 1994 GOP wave and comeback win in 1996...His thoughts on the legacy of the Newt Gingrich Revolution of the 1990s...His proudest accomplishments from 30+ years in the House...The toughest two votes he took...His analysis on the leadership success of Speaker Nancy Pelosi...The closest Congressman Price came to a statewide race...The advice he gives to new House members...His current work and focuses in his post-House career...AND Lamar Alexander, Howard Baker, Bob Bartlett, Joe Biden, Jack Brooks, C-Span after hours, cabals, Tom Carper, Chapel Hill, church suppers, Joe Clark, Bill Clinton, Jim Clyburn, committee barons, the Confederate Cause, the Contract with America, Harold Cooley, Thomas Dewey, John Dingell, down-home types, Clair Engle, existential questions, Bill Ford, the Gang of Eight, Albert Gore Sr., Jerry Grinstein, Phil Hart, Helms' proteges, Hope VI, Steny Hoyer, inherited Republicanism, inner clubs, the Iran Nuclear Agreement, Jacob Javits, Warren Magnuson, Mars Hill, Kevin McCarthy, the McGovern Commission, metal aprons, Bob Michel, midterm effects, moral suasion, Morehead Scholarships, Mountain Republicans, Ed Muskie, Bill Nelson, Barack Obama, PLEOs, peer pressure, pep talks, Mike Pertschuk, the Political Science Caucus, Edward Pugh, Ronald Reagan, Dan Rostenkowski, rump conventions, Terry Sanford, the Sanford School of Public Policy, Saul Shorr, shouting matches on the House floor, sit-ins, Sputnik, Freddy St. Germain, super-delegates, talk radio, the Tea Party, Donald Trump, turbulent townhall meetings, turnaround artists, Jamie Whitten, Jim Wright, Yale Divinity School, yeoman farmers & more!

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) came on the show and talked through several topics that will answer a few questions.  Emily Abellera- Public Information Specialist & Jill Christoferson- Fisheries Biologist, really brought their A-Game with the answers to the questions, and we had a little fun along the way.  Hopefully, this episode will give you all a little more insight into the organization, and if you have questions, they provided a contact number for you to call.  They want to hear from you!      Do you have questions for FWC?  Call 850-487-4676 Theme Song Dirty Rock by TwisteriumThis episode is sponsored by the Kids Can Fish Foundation: Kids Can Fish is a state and federally recognized 501(c)(3) charitable foundation.  Our mission is to teach kids the fundamentals of fishing and, most importantly, HAVE FUN!!! Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and moreBait Check: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more)Mentions:FWCBass Pro ShopCatch a Florida MemoryICASTFish RulesNOAA#findingdemosurffishing #FWC #podcast #learntofish #floridafishing #BassProShop #CatchAFloridaMemory #ICAST #FishRulesApp #NOAA

«La guerre repose sur le mensonge.» Près de vingt-cinq siècles après sa mort, les mots de Sun Tzu sont toujours d'actualité. L'on pourrait y ajouter cette pensée du sociologue français Jacques Ellul, qui écrivait en 1962 que dans une guerre, «la propagande, l'action sur les populations, la contagion idéologique jouent leur rôle, dans la mesure où les armes psychologiques sont supérieures aux armes militaires». Bien sûr, à l'Est, rien de nouveau. L'information a toujours été une arme, mais en cette ère de la toute-puissance informationnelle, amplifiée entre autres par les réseaux sociaux, elle semble plus que jamais déterminante. Et Paris n'est pas épargné par les offensives du Kremlin en la matière, d'autant que la France comporte de nombreux relais des narratifs russes. C'est pourquoi aujourd'hui, alors que le combat des armes continue de s'intensifier sur le sol ukrainien –Moscou souhaite porter le nombre de soldats sur le terrain à 1,5 million selon les dernières déclarations du ministre de la Défense Choïgou–, nous allons nous intéresser à celles et ceux qui, plus ou moins consciemment, se font les alliés parfois objectifs de Vladimir Poutine. Car malgré la suspension des médias pro-russes RT et Sputnik, la propagande russe reste encore et toujours active. Le monde devant soi est un podcast hebdomadaire d'actualité internationale présenté par Christophe Carron, avec Jean-Marie Colombani, directeur de la publication de Slate.fr, Alain Frachon, éditorialiste au Monde spécialisé dans les questions internationales. Musique: «True Messiah (LilRod Edit)», DJ Freedem Prise de son, montage et réalisation: Mona Delahais Si vous aimez Le monde devant soi, pensez à l'exprimer en nous donnant la note maximale sur votre plateforme de podcast préférée, en en parlant autour de vous et en laissant vos commentaires sur les réseaux sociaux. Suivez Slate Podcasts sur Facebook et Instagram.

The Salty Goat Custom bait team of Nick, a U.S. Army Veteran & his wife Ashley, Active Duty USAF, have been together for 15 years and, after moving to the Panhandle of Florida, created their line of bait.  Nick has spent years crafting baits from his time in Oregon as a fishing and outdoor guide with great success and decided to put his knowledge to work to create a saltwater bait that would be effective.  With their brains combined, The Salty Goat Custom Bait was born!  A lot of great knowledge is dropped in this episode about the bait, fishing it, tips, tricks, ideas, techniques, and an in-depth glimpse of how they make it all work together as a team.  This episode is sponsored by: The Sinker Guy: The Bruno & Mortician rig, Sputnik Sinkers, Sinker pouring supplies, and terminal tackle.Bait Check: Ninja Tackle: Ninja Dagger, Bummy Stick, Akios reels, rigs, bait, and firearm accessories (optics, Glock parts, attachments, and more)Bait Check: DS Custom Tackle: Tackle Supply for all anglers.  Floats, rigs, jigs, bait, and moreBait Check: SORD Fishing Products: Fillet knives, fishing pliers, apparel, and moreTheme Song: Dirty Rock by TwisteriumMentions:Cancelled For Maintenance PodcastFishbitesBasketball (movie)The Goonies (Movie)Jacob_knowles (TikToc)Jacob Knowles (YouTube)Dunkin' DonutsKlamath, CaliforniaPowerbaitThe Grateful DeadBS Surf Fishing RigBama Beach BumBearded BradHalf Hitch TackleFishGum

Amy & Joe stumble and bumble into September and October of 1957, where they cover a spooky trick or treat murder, some cool birthdays, a school bombing, and some top songs movies and shows of 1957 as well as a mobster murder. Part of the Queen City Podcast Network: www.queencitypodcastnetwork.com. Credits Include: The Vintage Woman Magazine, Truecrimeedition.com, history.com, ESPN, Popculture.us, Wikipedia, Raab, Selwyn (2005). Five Families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of America's Most Powerful Mafia Empires, New York Times, IMDB & Youtube.  Information may not be accurate, as it is produced by jerks. Music by MATT TRUMAN EGO TRIP, the greatest American Band. Click Here to buy their albums! Check Out ARN ANDERSON: MY LIFE AS THE ENFORCER, created by Dirk Manning at www.arncomic.com!

Drive-by Truckers "Dragon Pants"Fleetwood Mac "Like It This Way"Fats Domino "The Big Beat"Aerial M "Wedding Song No.2"Valerie June "You And I"Hound Dog Taylor & The HouseRockers "Give Me Back My Wig (Live)"AC/DC "Let There Be Rock"John Fahey "Uncloudy Day"Adia Victoria "Stuck In The South"Andrew Bird "Underlands"Elizabeth Cotten "Going Down the Road Feeling Bad"Craig Finn "God in Chicago"Ian Noe "Strip Job Blues 1984"Esther Phillips "Tonight I'll Be Staying Here with You"R.L. Burnside "Miss Maybelle"Hank Williams "I'm Sorry for You My Friend"Joan Shelley "Amberlit Morning (feat. Bill Callahan)"John R. Miller "Lookin' Over My Shoulder"Max Roach "Garvey's Ghost (feat. Carlos "Patato" Valdes & Carlos "Totico" Eugenio)"Ranie Burnette "Hungry Spell"Nina Nastasia "This Is Love"Thurston Harris "I Got Loaded (In Smokey Joe's Joint)"Folk Implosion "Sputnik's Down"Slim Harpo "I'm a King Bee"Wipers "Youth of America"The Scotty McKay Quintet "The Train Kept a-Rollin'"Mississippi John Hurt "Sliding Delta"Magnolia Electric Co. "Montgomery"Dr. John "Memories of Professor Longhair"Billie McKenzie "I'd Rather Drink Muddy Water"Little Walter "Juke"Elvis Presley "Trying to Get to You"Billie Jo Spears "Get Behind Me Satan And Push"Ray Charles "Georgia On My Mind"Freddy King "Hide Away"Furry Lewis "Old Blue"Billie Holiday "What a Little Moonlight Can Do"Bob Dylan "One More Cup of Coffee"The Primitives "How  Do Yu Feel"Ramones "Blitzkrieg Bop"Ruth Brown "Lucky Lips"Bonnie 'Prince' Billy "A Minor Place"Pearl Bailey "Frankie and Johnnie"fIREHOSE "In Memory Of Elizabeth Cotton"James Booker "On The Sunny Side Of The Street"Ray Price "The Same Old Me"Mississippi Fred McDowell "My Babe"The Replacements "Here Comes a Regular"