Podcasts about Vox

You're invited!  RSVP for a Magic Mixer on Nov. 13th or 14th to preview The MixerMind: https://resources.lindasidhu.com/a/2147961181/HV842Z9z Join The MixerMind (enrollment opens Nov. 13th and closes Nov. 18th): https://resources.lindasidhu.com/a/2147711406/HV842Z9z Have further questions? Vox with Linda directly (https://voxer.app.link/profile?username=lsidhu891) or send Ellen a DM @missellenyin (https://instagram.com/missellenyin) Iconic business leaders all have their own unique genius. Take this quick 10 question quiz to uncover your specific CEO style advantage: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://cubicletoceo.co/quiz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you enjoyed today's episode, please: Post a screenshot & key takeaway on your IG story and tag me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@missellenyin⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@cubicletoce⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠o so we can repost you. Leave a positive review or rating at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.ratethispodcast.com/cubicletoceo⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe for new episodes every Monday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Federico analiza con Carlos Cuesta, Rosana Laviada y Tomás Cuesta la guerra entre PP y Vox.

Millions of people are expected to take part in "No Kings" protests this Saturday in over 2000 cities across the country. The demonstrations are being coordinated as frustration mounts over the president's military crackdown in cities and federal funding cuts. We talk about what to expect and how this movement compares to previous mass demonstrations in American history. Later in the hour, we talk about the value of having a best friend in adulthood. Vox correspondent Allie Volpe has taken a close look at how best friends stave off not just social alienation but also emotional loneliness and why ranking our friendships on a scale of acquaintance can help us conserve social energy. Guests: Omar Wasow, assistant professor of political science, UC Berkeley Allie Volpe, correspondent, Vox Jaimie Arona Krems, associate professor of psychology, UCLA; director, UCLA Center for Friendship Research Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Federico comenta cómo Vox no aplaudió a María Corina Machado en el Congreso y la izquierda ha hecho una huelga por Palestina sin éxito.

Un informe apunta que a través de grupos como el Opus Dei, Hazte Oír o Vox, la ultraderecha española desempeña un papel

An avalanche of information besets us on what to eat. It comes from the news, from influencers of every ilk, from scientists, from government, and of course from the food companies. Super foods? Ultra-processed foods? How does one find a source of trust and make intelligent choices for both us as individuals and for the society as a whole. A new book helps in this quest, a book entitled Food Intelligence: the Science of How Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us. It is written by two highly credible and thoughtful people who join us today.Julia Belluz is a journalist and a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. She reports on medicine, nutrition, and public health. She's been a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and holds a master's in science degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Dr. Kevin Hall trained as a physicist as best known for pioneering work on nutrition, including research he did as senior investigator and section chief at the National Institutes of Health. His work is highly regarded. He's won awards from the NIH, from the American Society of Nutrition, the Obesity Society and the American Physiological Society. Interview Transcript Thank you both very much for being with us. And not only for being with us, but writing such an interesting book. I was really eager to read it and there's a lot in there that people don't usually come across in their normal journeys through the nutrition world. So, Julia, start off if you wouldn't mind telling us what the impetus was for you and Kevin to do this book with everything else that's out there. Yes, so there's just, I think, an absolute avalanche of information as you say about nutrition and people making claims about how to optimize diet and how best to lose or manage weight. And I think what we both felt was missing from that conversation was a real examination of how do we know what we know and kind of foundational ideas in this space. You hear a lot about how to boost or speed up your metabolism, but people don't know what metabolism is anyway. You hear a lot about how you need to maximize your protein, but what is protein doing in the body and where did that idea come from? And so, we were trying to really pair back. And I think this is where Kevin's physics training was so wonderful. We were trying to look at like what are these fundamental laws and truths. Things that we know about food and nutrition and how it works in us, and what can we tell people about them. And as we kind of went through that journey it very quickly ended up in an argument about the food environment, which I know we're going to get to. We will. It's really interesting. This idea of how do we know what we know is really fascinating because when you go out there, people kind of tell us what we know. Or at least what they think what we know. But very few people go through that journey of how did we get there. And so people can decide on their own is this a credible form of knowledge that I'm being told to pursue. So Kevin, what do you mean by food intelligence? Coming from a completely different background in physics where even as we learn about the fundamental laws of physics, it's always in this historical context about how we know what we know and what were the kind of key experiments along the way. And even with that sort of background, I had almost no idea about what happened to food once we ate it inside our bodies. I only got into this field by a happenstance series of events, which is probably too long to talk about this podcast. But to get people to have an appreciation from the basic science about what is going on inside our bodies when we eat. What is food made out of? As best as we can understand at this current time, how does our body deal with. Our food and with that sort of basic knowledge about how we know what we know. How to not be fooled by these various sound bites that we'll hear from social media influencers telling you that everything that you knew about nutrition is wrong. And they've been hiding this one secret from you that's been keeping you sick for so long to basically be able to see through those kinds of claims and have a bedrock of knowledge upon which to kind of evaluate those things. That's what we mean by food intelligence. It makes sense. Now, I'm assuming that food intelligence is sort of psychological and biological at the same time, isn't it? Because that there's what you're being told and how do you process that information and make wise choices. But there's also an intelligence the body has and how to deal with the food that it's receiving. And that can get fooled too by different things that are coming at it from different types of foods and stuff. We'll get to that in a minute, but it's a very interesting concept you have, and wouldn't it be great if we could all make intelligent choices? Julia, you mentioned the food environment. How would you describe the modern food environment and how does it shape the choices we make? It's almost embarrassing to have this question coming from you because so much of our understanding and thinking about this idea came from you. So, thank you for your work. I feel like you should be answering this question. But I think one of the big aha moments I had in the book research was talking to a neuroscientist, who said the problem in and of itself isn't like the brownies and the pizza and the chips. It's the ubiquity of them. It's that they're most of what's available, along with other less nutritious ultra-processed foods. They're the most accessible. They're the cheapest. They're kind of heavily marketed. They're in our face and the stuff that we really ought to be eating more of, we all know we ought to be eating more of, the fruits and vegetables, fresh or frozen. The legumes, whole grains. They're the least available. They're the hardest to come by. They're the least accessible. They're the most expensive. And so that I think kind of sums up what it means to live in the modern food environment. The deck is stacked against most of us. The least healthy options are the ones that we're inundated by. And to kind of navigate that, you need a lot of resources, wherewithal, a lot of thought, a lot of time. And I think that's kind of where we came out thinking about it. But if anyone is interested in knowing more, they need to read your book Food Fight, because I think that's a great encapsulation of where we still are basically. Well, Julie, it's nice of you to say that. You know what you reminded me one time I was on a panel and a speaker asks the audience, how many minutes do you live from a Dunkin Donuts? And people sort of thought about it and nobody was more than about five minutes from a Dunkin Donuts. And if I think about where I live in North Carolina, a typical place to live, I'm assuming in America. And boy, within about five minutes, 10 minutes from my house, there's so many fast-food places. And then if you add to that the gas stations that have foods and the drug store that has foods. Not to mention the supermarkets. It's just a remarkable environment out there. And boy, you have to have kind of iron willpower to not stop and want that food. And then once it hits your body, then all heck breaks loose. It's a crazy, crazy environment, isn't it? Kevin, talk to us, if you will, about when this food environment collides with human biology. And what happens to normal biological processes that tell us how much we should eat, when we should stop, what we should eat, and things like that. I think that that is one of the newer pieces that we're really just getting a handle on some of the science. It's been observed for long periods of time that if you change a rat's food environment like Tony Sclafani did many, many years ago. That rats aren't trying to maintain their weight. They're not trying to do anything other than eat whatever they feel like. And, he was having a hard time getting rats to fatten up on a high fat diet. And he gave them this so-called supermarket diet or cafeteria diet composed of mainly human foods. And they gained a ton of weight. And I think that pointed to the fact that it's not that these rats lacked willpower or something like that. That they weren't making these conscious choices in the same way that we often think humans are entirely under their conscious control about what we're doing when we make our food choices. And therefore, we criticize people as having weak willpower when they're not able to choose a healthier diet in the face of the food environment. I think the newer piece that we're sort of only beginning to understand is how is it that that food environment and the foods that we eat might be changing this internal symphony of signals that's coming from our guts, from the hormones in our blood, to our brains and the understanding that of food intake. While you might have control over an individual meal and how much you eat in that individual meal is under biological control. And what are the neural systems and how do they work inside our brains in communicating with our bodies and our environment as a whole to shift the sort of balance point where body weight is being regulated. To try to better understand this really intricate interconnection or interaction between our genes, which are very different between people. And thousands of different genes contributing to determining heritability of body size in a given environment and how those genes are making us more or less susceptible to these differences in the food environment. And what's the underlying biology? I'd be lying to say if that we have that worked out. I think we're really beginning to understand that, but I hope what the book can give people is an appreciation for the complexity of those internal signals and that they exist. And that food intake isn't entirely under our control. And that we're beginning to unpack the science of how those interactions work. It's incredibly interesting. I agree with you on that. I have a slide that I bet I've shown a thousand times in talks that I think Tony Sclafani gave me decades ago that shows laboratory rats standing in front of a pile of these supermarket foods. And people would say, well, of course you're going to get overweight if that's all you eat. But animals would eat a healthy diet if access to it. But what they did was they had the pellets of the healthy rat chow sitting right in that pile. Exactly. And the animals ignore that and overeat the unhealthy food. And then you have this metabolic havoc occur. So, it seems like the biology we've all inherited works pretty well if you have foods that we've inherited from the natural environment. But when things become pretty unnatural and we have all these concoctions and chemicals that comprise the modern food environment the system really breaks down, doesn't it? Yeah. And I think that a lot of people are often swayed by the idea as well. Those foods just taste better and that might be part of it. But I think that what we've come to realize, even in our human experiments where we change people's food environments... not to the same extent that Tony Sclafani did with his rats, but for a month at a time where we ask people to not be trying to gain or lose weight. And we match certain food environments for various nutrients of concern. You know, they overeat diets that are higher in these so-called ultra-processed foods and they'd spontaneously lose weight when we remove those from the diet. And they're not saying that the foods are any more or less pleasant to eat. There's this underlying sort of the liking of foods is somewhat separate from the wanting of foods as neuroscientists are beginning to understand the different neural pathways that are involved in motivation and reward as opposed to the sort of just the hedonic liking of foods. Even the simple explanation of 'oh yeah, the rats just like the food more' that doesn't seem to be fully explaining why we have these behaviors. Why it's more complicated than a lot of people make out. Let's talk about ultra-processed foods and boy, I've got two wonderful people to talk to about that topic. Julia, let's start with your opinion on this. So tell us about ultra-processed foods and how much of the modern diet do they occupy? So ultra-processed foods. Obviously there's an academic definition and there's a lot of debate about defining this category of foods, including in the US by the Health and Human Services. But the way I think about it is like, these are foods that contain ingredients that you don't use in your home kitchen. They're typically cooked. Concocted in factories. And they now make up, I think it's like 60% of the calories that are consumed in America and in other similar high-income countries. And a lot of these foods are what researchers would also call hyper palatable. They're crossing these pairs of nutrient thresholds like carbohydrate, salt, sugar, fat. These pairs that don't typically exist in nature. So, for the reasons you were just discussing they seem to be particularly alluring to people. They're again just like absolutely ubiquitous and in these more developed contexts, like in the US and in the UK in particular. They've displaced a lot of what we would think of as more traditional food ways or ways that people were eating. So that's sort of how I think about them. You know, if you go to a supermarket these days, it's pretty hard to find a part of the supermarket that doesn't have these foods. You know, whole entire aisles of processed cereals and candies and chips and soft drinks and yogurts, frozen foods, yogurts. I mean, it's just, it's all over the place. And you know, given that if the average is 60% of calories, and there are plenty of people out there who aren't eating any of that stuff at all. For the other people who are, the number is way higher. And that, of course, is of great concern. So there have been hundreds of studies now on ultra-processed foods. It was a concept born not that long ago. And there's been an explosion of science and that's all for the good, I think, on these ultra-processed foods. And perhaps of all those studies, the one discussed most is one that you did, Kevin. And because it was exquisitely controlled and it also produced pretty striking findings. Would you describe that original study you did and what you found? Sure. So, the basic idea was one of the challenges that we have in nutrition science is accurately measuring how many calories people eat. And the best way to do that is to basically bring people into a laboratory and measure. Give them a test meal and measure how many calories they eat. Most studies of that sort last for maybe a day or two. But I always suspected that people could game the system if for a day or two, it's probably not that hard to behave the way that the researcher wants, or the subject wants to deceive the researcher. We decided that what we wanted to do was bring people into the NIH Clinical Center. Live with us for a month. And in two two-week blocks, we decided that we would present them with two different food environments essentially that both provided double the number of calories that they would require to maintain their body weight. Give them very simple instructions. Eat as much or as little as you'd like. Don't be trying to change your weight. We're not going to tell you necessarily what the study's about. We're going to measure lots of different things. And they're blinded to their weight measurements and they're wearing loose fitting scrubs and things like that, so they can't tell if their clothes are getting tighter or looser. And so, what we did is in for one two-week block, we presented people with the same number of calories, the same amount of sugar and fat and carbs and fiber. And we gave them a diet that was composed of 80% of calories coming from these ultra-processed foods. And the other case, we gave them a diet that was composed of 0% of calories from ultra-processed food and 80% of the so-called minimally processed food group. And what we then did was just measured people's leftovers essentially. And I say we, it was really the chefs and the dieticians at the clinical center who are doing all the legwork on this. But what we found was pretty striking, which was that when people were exposed to this highly ultra-processed food environment, despite being matched for these various nutrients of concern, they overate calories. Eating about 500 calories per day on average, more than the same people in the minimally processed diet condition. And they gained weight and gained body fat. And, when they were in the minimally processed diet condition, they spontaneously lost weight and lost body fat without trying in either case, right? They're just eating to the same level of hunger and fullness and overall appetite. And not reporting liking the meals any more or less in one diet versus the other. Something kind of more fundamental seemed to have been going on that we didn't fully understand at the time. What was it about these ultra-processed foods? And we were clearly getting rid of many of the things that promote their intake in the real world, which is that they're convenient, they're cheap, they're easy to obtain, they're heavily marketed. None of that was at work here. It was something really about the meals themselves that we were providing to people. And our subsequent research has been trying to figure out, okay, well what were the properties of those meals that we were giving to these folks that were composed primarily of ultra-processed foods that were driving people to consume excess calories? You know, I've presented your study a lot when I give talks. It's nice hearing it coming from you rather than me. But a couple of things that interest me here. You use people as their own controls. Each person had two weeks of one diet and two weeks of another. That's a pretty powerful way of providing experimental control. Could you say just a little bit more about that? Yeah, sure. So, when you design a study, you're trying to maximize the efficiency of the study to get the answers that you want with the least number of participants while still having good control and being able to design the study that's robust enough to detect a meaningful effect if it exists. One of the things that you do when you analyze studies like that or design studies like that, you could just randomize people to two different groups. But given how noisy and how different between people the measurement of food intake is we would've required hundreds of people in each group to detect an effect like the one that we discovered using the same person acting as their own control. We would still be doing the study 10 years later as opposed to what we were able to do in this particular case, which is completed in a year or so for that first study. And so, yeah, when you kind of design a study that way it's not always the case that you get that kind of improvement in statistical power. But for a measurement like food intake, it really is necessary to kind of do these sorts of crossover type studies where each person acts as their own control. So put the 500 calorie increment in context. Using the old fashioned numbers, 3,500 calories equals a pound. That'd be about a pound a week or a lot of pounds over a year. But of course, you don't know what would happen if people were followed chronically and all that. But still 500 calories is a whopping increase, it seems to me. It sure is. And there's no way that we would expect it to stay at that constant level for many, many weeks on end. And I think that's one of the key questions going forward is how persistent is that change. And how does something that we've known about and we discuss in our books the basic physiology of how both energy expenditure changes as people gain and lose weight, as well as how does appetite change in a given environment when they gain and lose weight? And how do those two processes eventually equate at a new sort of stable body weight in this case. Either higher or lower than when people started the program of this diet manipulation. And so, it's really hard to make those kinds of extrapolations. And that's of course, the need for further research where you have longer periods of time and you, probably have an even better control over their food environment as a result. I was surprised when I first read your study that you were able to detect a difference in percent body fat in such a short study. Did that surprise you as well? Certainly the study was not powered to detect body fat changes. In other words, we didn't know even if there were real body fat changes whether or not we would have the statistical capabilities to do that. We did use a method, DXA, which is probably one of the most precise and therefore, if we had a chance to measure it, we had the ability to detect it as opposed to other methods. There are other methods that are even more precise, but much more expensive. So, we thought that we had a chance to detect differences there. Other things that we use that we also didn't think that we necessarily would have a chance to detect were things like liver fat or something like that. Those have a much less of an ability. It's something that we're exploring now with our current study. But, again, it's all exploratory at that point. So what can you tell us about your current study? We just wrapped it up, thankfully. What we were doing was basically re-engineering two new ultra-processed diets along parameters that we think are most likely the mechanisms by which ultra-processed meals drove increased energy intake in that study. One was the non-beverage energy density. In other words, how many calories per gram of food on the plate, not counting the beverages. Something that we noticed in the first study was that ultra-processed foods, because they're essentially dried out in the processing for reasons of food safety to prevent bacterial growth and increased shelf life, they end up concentrating the foods. They're disrupting the natural food matrix. They last a lot longer, but as a result, they're a more concentrated form of calories. Despite being, by design, we chose the overall macronutrients to be the same. They weren't necessarily higher fat as we often think of as higher energy density. What we did was we designed an ultra-processed diet that was low in energy density to kind of match the minimally processed diet. And then we also varied the number of individual foods that were deemed hyper palatable according to kind of what Julia said that crossed these pairs of thresholds for fat and sugar or fat and salt or carbs and salt. What we noticed in the first study was that we presented people with more individual foods on the plate that had these hyper palatable combinations. And I wrestle with the term terminology a little bit because I don't necessarily think that they're working through the normal palatability that they necessarily like these foods anymore because again, we asked people to rate the meals and they didn't report differences. But something about those combinations, regardless of what you call them, seemed to be driving that in our exploratory analysis of the first study. We designed a diet that was high in energy density, but low in hyper palatable foods, similar to the minimally processed. And then their fourth diet is with basically low in energy density and hyper palatable foods. And so, we presented some preliminary results last year and what we were able to show is that when we reduced both energy density and the number of hyper palatable foods, but still had 80% of calories from ultra-processed foods, that people more or less ate the same number of calories now as they did when they were the same people were exposed to the minimally processed diet. In fact they lost weight, to a similar extent as the minimally processed diet. And that suggests to me that we can really understand mechanisms at least when it comes to calorie intake in these foods. And that might give regulators, policy makers, the sort of information that they need in order to target which ultra-processed foods and what context are they really problematic. It might give manufacturers if they have the desire to kind of reformulate these foods to understand which ones are more or less likely to cause over consumption. So, who knows? We'll see how people respond to that and we'll see what the final results are with the entire study group that, like I said, just finished, weeks ago. I respond very positively to the idea of the study. The fact that if people assume ultra-processed foods are bad actors, then trying to find out what it is about them that's making the bad actors becomes really important. And you're exactly right, there's a lot of pressure on the food companies now. Some coming from public opinion, some coming from parts of the political world. Some from the scientific world. And my guess is that litigation is going to become a real actor here too. And the question is, what do you want the food industry to do differently? And your study can really help inform that question. So incredibly valuable research. I can't wait to see the final study, and I'm really delighted that you did that. Let's turn our attention for a minute to food marketing. Julia, where does food marketing fit in all this? Julia - What I was very surprised to find while we were researching the book was this deep, long history of calls against marketing junk food in particular to kids. I think from like the 1950s, you have pediatrician groups and other public health professionals saying, stop this. And anyone who has spent any time around small children knows that it works. We covered just like a little, it was from an advocacy group in the UK that exposed aid adolescents to something called Triple Dip Chicken. And then asked them later, pick off of this menu, I think it was like 50 items, which food you want to order. And they all chose Triple Dip chicken, which is, as the name suggests, wasn't the healthiest thing to choose on the menu. I think we know obviously that it works. Companies invest a huge amount of money in marketing. It works even in ways like these subliminal ways that you can't fully appreciate to guide our food choices. Kevin raised something really interesting was that in his studies it was the foods. So, it's a tricky one because it's the food environment, but it's also the properties of the foods themselves beyond just the marketing. Kevin, how do you think about that piece? I'm curious like. Kevin - I think that even if our first study and our second study had turned out there's no real difference between these artificial environments that we've put together where highly ultra-processed diets lead to excess calorie intake. If that doesn't happen, if it was just the same, it wouldn't rule out the fact that because these foods are so heavily marketed, because they're so ubiquitous. They're cheap and convenient. And you know, they're engineered for many people to incorporate into their day-to-day life that could still promote over consumption of calories. We just remove those aspects in our very artificial food environment. But of course, the real food environment, we're bombarded by these advertisements and the ubiquity of the food in every place that you sort of turn. And how they've displaced healthy alternatives, which is another mechanism by which they could cause harm, right? It doesn't even have to be the foods themselves that are harmful. What do they displace? Right? We only have a certain amount the marketers called stomach share, right? And so, your harm might not be necessarily the foods that you're eating, but the foods that they displaced. So even if our experimental studies about the ultra-processed meals themselves didn't show excess calorie intake, which they clearly did, there's still all these other mechanisms to explore about how they might play a part in the real world. You know, the food industry will say that they're agnostic about what foods they sell. They just respond to demand. That seems utter nonsense to me because people don't overconsume healthy foods, but they do overconsume the unhealthy ones. And you've shown that to be the case. So, it seems to me that idea that they can just switch from this portfolio of highly processed foods to more healthy foods just doesn't work out for them financially. Do you think that's right? I honestly don't have that same sort of knee jerk reaction. Or at least I perceive it as a knee jerk reaction, kind of attributing malice in some sense to the food industry. I think that they'd be equally happy if they could get you to buy a lot and have the same sort of profit margins, a lot of a group of foods that was just as just as cheap to produce and they could market. I think that you could kind of turn the levers in a way that that would be beneficial. I mean, setting aside for example, that diet soda beverages are probably from every randomized control trial that we've seen, they don't lead to the same amount of weight gain as the sugar sweetened alternatives. They're just as profitable to the beverage manufacturers. They sell just as many of them. Now they might have other deleterious consequences, but I don't think that it's necessarily the case that food manufacturers have to have these deleterious or unhealthy foods as their sole means of attaining profit. Thanks for that. So, Julia, back to you. You and Kevin point out in your book some of the biggest myths about nutrition. What would you say some of them are? I think one big, fundamental, overarching myth is this idea that the problem is in us. That this rise of diet related diseases, this explosion that we've seen is either because of a lack of willpower. Which you have some very elegant research on this that we cite in the book showing willpower did not collapse in the last 30, 40 years of this epidemic of diet related disease. But it's even broader than that. It's a slow metabolism. It's our genes. Like we put the problem on ourselves, and we don't look at the way that the environment has changed enough. And I think as individuals we don't do that. And so much of the messaging is about what you Kevin, or you Kelly, or you Julia, could be doing better. you know, do resistance training. Like that's the big thing, like if you open any social media feed, it's like, do more resistance training, eat more protein, cut out the ultra-processed foods. What about the food environment? What about the leaders that should be held accountable for helping to perpetuate these toxic food environments? I think that that's this kind of overarching, this pegging it and also the rise of personalized nutrition. This like pegging it to individual biology instead of for whatever the claim is, instead of thinking about how did environments and don't want to have as part of our lives. So that's kind of a big overarching thing that I think about. It makes sense. So, let's end on a positive note. There's a lot of reason to be concerned about the modern food environment. Do you see a helpful way forward and what might be done about this? Julia, let's stay with you. What do you think? I think so. We spent a lot of time researching history for this book. And a lot of things that seem impossible are suddenly possible when you have enough public demand and enough political will and pressure. There are so many instances and even in the history of food. We spend time with this character Harvey Wiley, who around the turn of the century, his research was one of the reasons we have something like the FDA protecting the food supply. That gives me a lot of hope. And we are in this moment where a lot of awareness is being raised about the toxic food environment and all these negative attributes of food that people are surrounded by. I think with enough organization and enough pressure, we can see change. And we can see this kind of flip in the food environment that I think we all want to see where healthier foods become more accessible, available, affordable, and the rest of it. Sounds good. Kevin, what are your thoughts? Yes, I just extend that to saying that for the first time in history, we sort of know what the population of the planet is going to be that we have to feed in the future. We're not under this sort of Malthusian threat of not being able to know where the population growth is going to go. We know it's going to be roughly 10 billion people within the next century. And we know we've got to change the way that we produce and grow food for the planet as well as for the health of people. We know we've got to make changes anyway. And we're starting from a position where per capita, we're producing more protein and calories than any other time in human history, and we're wasting more food. We actually know we're in a position of strength. We don't have to worry so acutely that we won't be able to provide enough food for everybody. It's what kind of food are we going to produce? How are we going to produce it in the way that's sustainable for both people and the planet? We have to tackle that anyway. And for the folks who had experienced the obesity epidemic or finally have drugs to help them and other kinds of interventions to help them. That absolve them from this idea that it's just a matter of weak willpower if we finally have some pharmaceutical interventions that are useful. So, I do see a path forward. Whether or not we take that is another question. Bios Dr. Kevin Hall is the section chief of Integrative Physiology Section in the Laboratory of Biological Modeling at the NIH National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Kevin's laboratory investigates the integrative physiology of macronutrient metabolism, body composition, energy expenditure, and control of food intake. His main goal is to better understand how the food environment affects what we eat and how what we eat affects our physiology. He performs clinical research studies as well as developing mathematical models and computer simulations to better understand physiology, integrate data, and make predictions. In recent years, he has conducted randomized clinical trials to study how diets high in ultra-processed food may cause obesity and other chronic diseases. He holds a Ph.D. from McGill University. Julia Belluz is a Paris-based journalist and a contributing opinion writer to the New York Times, she has reported extensively on medicine, nutrition, and global public health from Canada, the US, and Europe. Previously, Julia was Vox's senior health correspondent in Washington, DC, a Knight Science Journalism fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and she worked as a reporter in Toronto and London. Her writing has appeared in a range of international publications, including the BMJ, the Chicago Tribune, the Economist, the Globe and Mail, Maclean's, the New York Times, ProPublica, and the Times of London. Her work has also had an impact, helping improve policies on maternal health and mental healthcare for first responders at the hospital- and state-level, as well as inspiring everything from scientific studies to an opera. Julia has been honored with numerous journalism awards, including the 2016 Balles Prize in Critical Thinking, the 2017 American Society of Nutrition Journalism Award, and three Canadian National Magazine Awards (in 2007 and 2013). In 2019, she was a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Communications Award finalist. She contributed chapters on public health journalism in the Tactical Guide to Science Journalism, To Save Humanity: What Matters Most for a Healthy Future, and was a commissioner for the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges.

José García Domínguez, Cristina Losada y Eugenia Gayo analizan si Vox puede llegar a sobrepasar al PP en votos, como han sugerido desde el PSOE, a raíz del crecimiento del partido de Abascal en los sondeos.

When you think about the challenges of the U.S. southern border, mosquitoes are probably not top of mind – but they should be. Umair Irfan is a correspondent at Vox, and he joins host Krys Boyd to discuss why climate change is making the mosquitoes population boom, why keeping them in check is essential for combating disease, and how the government is attacking the problem with an eye toward keeping people and animals safe. His article is “Mosquitoes at the U.S. southern border reveal a frightening reality about climate change.”  Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Seguiment dels diferents talls a les carreteres per la vaga general per Palestina i de la sessi

220 - Rosie Flores In episode 220 of “Have Guitar Will Travel”, presented by Vintage Guitar Magazine, host James Patrick Regan speaks with singer/guitarist/icon Rosie Flores. They spoke at Duboce Park Cafe, a couple days before her performance at the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass festival, sorry about the noise. In their conversation Rosie tells us about her band in the ‘80's and her performances recently at the Hardly Strictly Bluegrass Festival and how that led to her supporting Robert Plant for a tour this winter. Rosie describes her childhood and her musical education learning from her older brother in San Diego starting a band and opening for Creedence Clearwater and the Turtles by the time she was 18. Rosie takes us through her move to LA and her history at the Palomino club where she ran into and became friends with James Intveld, Dwight Yoakam, Albert Lee, John Jorgensen, Dale Watson, Buddy Miller, Jim Lauderdale and a encounter with Jeff Beck. Rosie discusses her guitars and amps throughout the years Fenders, Gibson's, Vox's, Trussart and now a Ibanez. Rosie talks about her new album Rosie Flores & The Talismen “Impossible Frontiers” which will be available on vinyl. Rosie tells us about her Jazz standards band who played her 75th birthday party at the Baked Potato in LA. Rosie talks about her contemporaries in other genres, Suzi Quatro and Joan Jett. Rosie tells us about her guitar wish list and a Spanish language album she's working on now with Steve Berlin from Los Lobos. Finally Rosie talks about still rocking at 75 and retirement or lack of it. To find out more about Rosie you can go to her website: rosieflores.com Please subscribe, like, comment, share and review this podcast! #VintageGuitarMagazine #RosieFlores #RosieFloresandtheTalismen #ImpossibleFrontiers #JamesPatrickRegan #FenderCustomShop #RobertPlant #VoxGuitars #IbanezGuitars #JamesTrussartGuitars #theDeadlies #HardlyStrictlyBluegrassFestival #haveguitarwilltravelpodcast #HGWT #tourlife Please like, comment, and share this podcast! Download Link

At a summit in Egypt on Monday, President Trump and world leaders signed the first phase of a ceasefire agreement aimed at bringing to an end the brutal two-year war between Israel and Hamas. Under the terms of the deal, Hamas on Monday released all 20 of the remaining hostages it had held since its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Israel released nearly 2,000 Palestinians it held in jails. We'll unpack what's in the peace deal, what brought the parties to the table and what lies ahead for Palestinians returning to a devastated Gaza. Guests: Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor, The Guardian Zack Beauchamp, senior correspondent, Vox - covering challenges to democracy and right-wing populism; author, "The Reactionary Spirit" Gershon Baskin, negotiator and peace activist - was involved in back-channel discussions of the deal Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're continuing our month of movie monsters with a look at Jennifer Kent's 2014 cult classic The Babadook! Join in as we discuss the movie's dismal emotions and colors, its outsized impact compared to its tiny box office, the movie's varying levels of Australian-ness, and Sam's "bad kid" status. Plus: How did the Babadook become a queer icon? Is this monster a murderer? What is Acorn TV? And, most critically, what do the worms represent? Make sure to rate, review, and subscribe! Next week: Leprechaun (1993)------------------------------------------------------Key sources and links for this episode:"How Jennifer Kent Made The Babadook" (SBS Australia)"Homespun Horror: The Making of The Babadook" (FilmInk)"The Babadook: 'I Wanted to Talk about the Need to Face Darkness in Ourselves'" (The Guardian)"Boogeyman Nights: The Story behind this Year's Horror Hit The Babadook" (Rolling Stone)The Babadook Kickstarter Page (includes Kent's earlier short film Monster)"How The Babadook became the LGBTQ Icon We Didn't Know We Needed" (Vox)"The Bird Box Effect: How Memes Drive Users to Netflix" (The Ringer)"The True Story behind the Greatest Halloween Tweet of All Time" (Intelligencer)"Weapons is Why We Go to the Movies" (The Big Picture)The Babadook published picture book

Los políticos ‘juniors’ han debatido los temas más candentes de la actualidad en el informativo '24 Horas de RNE'. En la tertulia han participado Víctor Camino, diputado del PSOE por Valencia en el Congreso; Tesh Sidi, diputada de Más Madrid (Grupo Sumar) en el Congreso de los Diputados; Miriam García Navarro, senadora del PP por Albacete y Júlia Calvet, diputada de Vox en el Parlamento de Cataluña y portavoz Nacional de Juventud de Vox.Entre los temas a debate, los políticos han analizado: la amenaza de Donald Trump a España con imponer aranceles ante la negativa del Gobierno a aumentar el gasto en defensa, la segunda fase de la reconstrucción de Gaza, el primer trámite para blindar el aborto en la Constitución y el plan de migración presentado por el PP.Escuchar audio

El CIS dispara a 15 puntos la ventaja del PSOE con el PP, que se queda a solo dos puntos de distancia de Vox, a quien el CIS otorga una estimación de 17,7%. José María Figaredo, portavoz adjunto de VOX en el Congreso de los Diputados, ha dicho en el informativo 24 horas de RNE que no se fía del CIS ni de ninguna encuesta y ha considerado que en el último barómetro puede haber "cualquiera estrategia socialista por detrás". "El PSOE ha colonizado todas las instituciones del Estado y no nos extrañaría que haya algún tipo de interés espurio detrás de los resultados que da el CIS", ha dicho. Además, Figaredo ha pedido a los de Núñez Feijóo que se aclaren con su posición sobre el aborto porque que ellos lo tienen claro. Y ha insistido en que "participaríamos en un Gobierno o aprobaríamos unos presupuestos que sirviesen para darle a la política española un giro de 180 grados."Escuchar audio

Javitxu Aijón es uno de los "6 de Zaragoza", 6 jóvenes - dos de ellos menores en ese momento - que fueron detenidos de forma arbitraria en 2019 en una manifestación contra un miting de Vox en esa ciudad. Agotaron todas las vías judiciales hasta que el Tribunal Supremo les impuso una pena de 4 y medio por altercados y atentado contra la autoridad. El 23 de septiembre, y tras una intensa campaña de la plataforma de familiares y otros grupos, el gobierno firmó el indulto de Javitxu Aijón y Adrián Latorre. Quedan todavía dos que siguen en prisión cumpliendo su condena. Un año después de que su padre, Francho Aijón, viniese a denunciar y contar lo que pasó. Ahora ha vuelto con su hijo y hemos hablado de lo que ha vivido en prisión durante los 491 días de condena allí dentro.

En Carne Cruda vuelve nuestra tertulia feminista para poner el foco en los últimos temas de la agenda para hablar de instituciones que siguen sin responder, de estigmatización y respuestas tardías del sistema. Un programa con Silvia Nanclares, Ana Requena y Ayme Roman. Analizamos el caso del fallo del sistema de cribado en Andalucía y cómo unas 2.000 mujeres con mamografías que mostraban “lesiones dudosas” o resultados no concluyentes no fueron informadas ni se les hizo seguimiento. Y hablamos del derecho al aborto, de Ayuso y la objeción de conciencia y de la propuesta de Vox en Madrid, aprobada por el PP, de informar a las mujeres que deseen interrumpir su embarazo del síndrome postaborto, una dolencia sin base científica. Y por último, nos centramos en los fallos informáticos en el sistema de pulseras antimaltrato. Más información aquí: https://bit.ly/TertuliaFemCC1558 Haz posible Carne Cruda: http://bit.ly/ProduceCC

Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a stunning $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas—the main channel through which U.S. employers hire foreign professionals in technology, engineering, and research.The move has sent shockwaves through America's innovation ecosystem, prompting fears that companies will either look abroad—or scale back their ambitions at home.Few countries will be as impacted by this change as India, whose citizens account for nearly three-quarters of annual H-1B visa petitions. So, what happens when the world's largest economy makes it harder for global talent to come in?To answer this question, Milan is joined on the show this by Britta Glennon. Britta is an assistant professor of management at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Her research focuses on immigration and cross-border innovation. Much of her work dispels long-held myths about immigrants and how they influence the U.S. economy.Milan and Britta discuss the pluses and minuses of America's “demand-driven” skilled immigration system, the impact on Indians of the Trump administration's massive new fee on H-1B visas, and how the availability of skilled worker visas impact offshoring decisions. Plus, the two discuss how America's competitors are poaching U.S. talent, the complex connection between immigration and innovation, and the economic costs of the green card backlog.To watch this episode, click here.Episode notes:1. Britta Glennon, “Skilled Immigrants, Firms, and the Global Geography of Innovation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 38, no. 1 (Winter 2024): 3-26.2. Britta Glennon, “How Do Restrictions on High-Skilled Immigration Affect Offshoring? Evidence from the H-1B Program​,” Management Science 70, no. 2 (February 2024): 907-930.3. Saerom (Ronnie) Lee and Britta Glennon, “The Effect of Immigration Policy on Founding Location Choice: Evidence from Canada's Start-up Visa Program,” NBER Working Paper 31634 (August 2023).4. Robert Flynn, Britta Glennon, Raviv Murciano-Goroff, and Jiusi Xiao, “Building a Wall Around Science: The Effect of U.S.-China Tensions on International Scientific Research,” NBER Working Paper 32622 (May 2025).5. Vox, “$100,000 for a visa,” Today, Explained (podcast), September 25, 2025.

Meta just dropped Vibes and OpenAI just dropped Sora 2. Both social media platforms are filled with AI videos that warp our sense of reality. This episode was made in collaboration with Vox's Future Perfect. It was produced by Ariana Aspuru, edited by Jolie Myers, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Patrick Boyd and Adriene Lilly, and hosted by Sean Rameswaram. CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Some people get paid to do what they love, but most don't. How can we find meaning in everyday work that we don't always love doing? How can we discover our purpose in life? Author Karen Swallow Prior and Amy Julia Becker explore:Why passion is not the same as callingHow vocation centers on service and relationships, not just careerPursuing truth, goodness, and beauty in ordinary lifeHow multiple callings unfold across a lifetimeWisdom for discerning and living into a deeper purposeSubscribe to my weekly newsletter: amyjuliabecker.com/subscribeNew! Take the Next Step podcast: amyjuliabecker.com/step00:00 Introduction02:04 Exploring the Call to Creativity05:39 The Myths of Passion and Work08:55 Defining Calling and Vocation12:32 The Relational Aspect of Calling15:31 Pursuing Truth, Goodness, and Beauty22:28 The Intersection of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful26:04 The Good Life and Purpose31:46 The Role of Suffering in Calling36:55 Navigating New Callings and Responsibilities40:44 Finding Meaning and Calling in Everyday Tasks__MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:You Have a Calling: Finding Your Vocation in the True, Good, and Beautiful by Karen Swallow Prior_WATCH this conversation on YouTube: Amy Julia Becker on YouTubeSUBSCRIBE to Amy Julia's Substack: amyjuliabecker.substack.comJOIN the conversation on Instagram: @amyjuliabeckerLISTEN to more episodes: amyjuliabecker.com/shows/_ABOUT OUR GUEST:Karen Swallow Prior, Ph.D. is the 2025-26 Karlson Scholar at Bethel Seminary. She is a popular writer and speaker, a contributing writer for The Dispatch, and a columnist for Religion News Service. Her writing has appeared in The New York Times, The Atlantic, Vox, The Washington Post, Christianity Today, and many other places. Her most recent book is You Have a Calling: Finding Your Vocation in the True, Good, and Beautiful (Brazos 2025).CONNECT with Karen: karenswallowprior.comFacebook: Karen Swallow PriorInstagram: karenswallowpriorX: @KSPrior Substack: @karenswallowpriorWe want to hear your thoughts. Send us a text!Connect with me: Instagram Facebook YouTube Website Thanks for listening!

My guest today is Daniel Izzo, co-founder and CEO of Vox Capital – Brazil's first impact investing firm.When Vox launched in 2009, the term "impact investing" barely existed in Latin America. There was no roadmap, just a few people who believed business could do more than serve the top of the pyramid.Daniel teamed up with Kelly Michel, co-founder of Artemisia, an accelerator for social entrepreneurs. Kelly introduced him to Antonio Ermírio de Moraes Neto, a young investor from one of Brazil's most prominent business families. Together, the three launched Vox Capital.When Vox began in 2009, few understood what they were trying to do – and fewer believed in it. “People thought it was cute... crazy... or got angry at us.” The infrastructure wasn't there. Most investors ignored 85% of the population outside their own social class. Daniel understood why – but he also knew what they were missing.His team wasn't avoiding Brazil's social challenges, but solving them. They focused on early-stage companies that could scale – businesses built for scarcity, but still desirable for all.The breakthrough came from the results. Their second fund proved returns were possible – over 30% IRR – and suddenly, the skepticism began to fade. Today, Vox manages over $300 million across VC, credit, and real estate – all aiming to unlock opportunity for Brazil's low-income communities.They invested early in a medical education company that slashed the cost of specialist training from $10,000 to $1,000 and made it available online. They also backed Latin America's leading ventilator maker, years before COVID hit. When the pandemic overwhelmed Brazil's hospitals, that company supplied over 80% of the ventilators procured by the Brazilian government during the crisis.But Vox isn't just about writing checks. They take board seats, offer strategic advice, connect founders with new markets, and help navigate major crises.Today, they're leaning into catalytic capital, reforestation, regenerative agriculture, and environmental finance – the next frontier for impact.In Brazil, where deforestation and unsustainable land use drive climate damage, Daniel sees a huge long-term opportunity. Not just to earn returns, but to restore ecosystems.When I asked him what he'd fix with a magic wand, he went straight to mindset. “It'll only be good for everyone, when it's really good for everyone.” He believes ultra-wealthy families have a responsibility to mobilize their capital for collective survival.This is a conversation about what it takes to build in a place where the challenges are complex, the urgency is real, and the opportunity is bigger than most people realize. Daniel makes the case that the next era of capital won't just be about returns – it'll be about restoration, resilience, and responsibility.Tune in.—About the SRI 360° Podcast: The SRI 360° Podcast is focused exclusively on sustainable & responsible investing. In each episode, I interview a world-class investor who is an accomplished practitioner from all asset classes.—Connect with SRI360°:Sign up for the free weekly email updateVisit the SRI360° PODCASTVisit the SRI360° WEBSITEFollow SRI360° on XFollow SRI360° on FACEBOOK—Additional Resources:- Vox Capital website- Daniel Izzo LinkedIn- The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits

 Self-driving cars are coming for American roadways, and cities better get prepared. David Zipper is a senior fellow at the MIT Mobility Initiative, where he examines the interplay between transportation policy and technology. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of autonomous vehicles, why we might not need those colossal parking lots and ways cities can recoup some of the costs these driverless cars incur. His article for Vox is “A self-driving car traffic jam is coming for U.S. cities.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Federico comenta las encuestas que publica la prensa en la que el PP sube pero perdiendo votos hacia Vox y el PSOE en clara bajada.

Federico analiza con Rosana Laviada, Alejandro Vara y Rubén Arranz las encuestas que arrojan cómo el PP necesita a Vox para gobernar.

Luis Herrero analiza junto a Cristina de la Hoz y Laura Fábregas las últimas encuestas.

Javier Aijón, Javitxu, acaba de salir de la cárcel. Pasó quince meses encerrado por protestar contra un mitin de Vox en Zaragoza en 2019. Fue uno de los seis antifascistas condenados por enfrentarse a la ultraderecha en las calles, en una sentencia sin pruebas claras y que se puede leer como castigo ejemplarizante. El suyo fue un juicio a la protesta, a la organización vecinal y a la resistencia ante el odio. En Carne Cruda hablamos con él, ya en libertad, y también con su padre, Francho Aijón. Una conversación sobre la rabia, pero, sobre todo, sobre cómo se sostiene la dignidad cuando el sistema intenta aplastarla y encerrarla. Un programa en el que ponemos también el foco en el caso de Las Seis de La Suiza en Gijón y el debate sobre la criminalización de la protesta laboral. Más información aquí: https://bit.ly/JavitxuCC1554 Haz posible Carne Cruda: http://bit.ly/ProduceCC

Federico analiza con Rosana Laviada, Alejandro Vara y Rubén Arranz las encuestas que arrojan cómo el PP necesita a Vox para gobernar.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Vox's Ian Millhiser to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term, which officially starts on Monday. The term begins with a slew of wildly significant cases that feel all but decided in the Trump administration's favor already. That feeling of inevitability could perhaps be ascribed to the ongoing assault on democracy coming from the high court's shadow docket, which will now spill over into cases argued on the merits. Dahlia, Mark, and Ian examine the effect of all this sloppy law on the public's perception of the court, and look ahead to upcoming cases on voting rights, campaign finance, conversion therapy, transgender rights, tariffs, and presidential power. They explore how the court's decisions reflect a shift towards a more partisan and less transparent judicial process, and ask whether there's any hope of restoring the rule of law and healthy constitutional democracy in the future.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Vox's Ian Millhiser to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term, which officially starts on Monday. The term begins with a slew of wildly significant cases that feel all but decided in the Trump administration's favor already. That feeling of inevitability could perhaps be ascribed to the ongoing assault on democracy coming from the high court's shadow docket, which will now spill over into cases argued on the merits. Dahlia, Mark, and Ian examine the effect of all this sloppy law on the public's perception of the court, and look ahead to upcoming cases on voting rights, campaign finance, conversion therapy, transgender rights, tariffs, and presidential power. They explore how the court's decisions reflect a shift towards a more partisan and less transparent judicial process, and ask whether there's any hope of restoring the rule of law and healthy constitutional democracy in the future.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern are joined by Vox's Ian Millhiser to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court term, which officially starts on Monday. The term begins with a slew of wildly significant cases that feel all but decided in the Trump administration's favor already. That feeling of inevitability could perhaps be ascribed to the ongoing assault on democracy coming from the high court's shadow docket, which will now spill over into cases argued on the merits. Dahlia, Mark, and Ian examine the effect of all this sloppy law on the public's perception of the court, and look ahead to upcoming cases on voting rights, campaign finance, conversion therapy, transgender rights, tariffs, and presidential power. They explore how the court's decisions reflect a shift towards a more partisan and less transparent judicial process, and ask whether there's any hope of restoring the rule of law and healthy constitutional democracy in the future.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We were delighted to have the chance to speak with Adam Szetela about his new book, That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing. Adam shares what he learned from authors, agents, and editors about the effects of cancel culture in the publishing industry. His behind-the-scenes account is fascinating and sobering in equal measure.Show Notes* For more info on Adam Szetela, check out his website * Here is the official MIT Press link to Adam's book * The Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie audio clips come from her 2022 Reith Lecture on Free Speech (listen here; read the transcript here)* Matt Yglesias coined the term “The Great Awokening” in this 2019 Vox essay* “a rapid change in discourse and norms around social justice issues”: That's a quote from Stony Brook sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, one of the nation's foremost chroniclers of “The Great Awokening”* see Musa's 2024 book We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite * here are two Banished episodes featuring Musa: You Can't Be an Egalitarian Social Climber & Who Speaks the Language of Social Justice?* The Harper's Letter* Michael Hobbes, “Don't Fall for the ‘Cancel Culture Scam,'” HuffPo, July 10, 2020* This 2019 Zadie Smith essay from the New York Review of Books is the definitive rejoinder to the cultural critics who insist that we “should write only about people who are fundamentally ‘like us': racially, sexually, genetically, nationally, politically, personally”* On the controversy surrounding Amélie Wen Zhao's Blood Heir, see Alexandra Alter, “She Pulled Her Debut Book When Critics Found It Racist. Now She Plans to Publish,” New York Times, April 29, 2019* On the cancelation of Kosoko Jackson's book, A Place for Wolves, see Jennifer Senior, “Teen Fiction and the Perils of Cancel Culture,” New York Times, March 8, 2019* On the cancelation of a romance novel based on “criticism from readers over dialogue that some found racist or that praised Elon Musk,” see Alexandra Alter, “A Publisher Pulled a Romance Novel After Criticism From Early Readers,” New York Times, March 5, 2025* On the demographics of the people who work in the publishing industry, with an emphasis on racial diversity, see this 2022 report from Pen America, “Reading Between the Lines”* For more on literature and the culture wars, see Deborah Appleman's incisive 2022 book, Literature and the New Culture Wars: Triggers, Cancel Culture, and the Teacher's Dilemma * On the perils of teaching literature from a narrow social justice lens, see “Poverty of the Imagination,” an essay we wrote a few years back in Arc Digital* On what we keep getting wrong about the cancel culture debate, see this September 26, 2025 Banished post This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit banished.substack.com/subscribe

The federal government shuts down as the Supreme Court returns. Our panel looks at the Trump team's plan to use the shutdown for mass layoffs —and previews a new Supreme Court term packed with big fights over tariffs, emergency powers, and the future of “independent” agencies.Featuring: Ryan Bourne, Gene Healy, Thomas Berry, and Jeffrey MironRomina Boccia, "Thoughts About The Impending Government Shutdown," The Debt Dispatch, September 30, 2025.Jeffrey Miron, "Some Libertarians Cheer When Government Shuts Down: Here's Why They Shouldn't," Vox, January 21, 2018.Ryan Bourne, "The Libertarian Experiment That Isn't," Cato at Liberty blog, January 11, 2019.Thomas A. Berry, Brent Skorup, and Charles Brandt, "Learning Resources v. Trump," Cato Amicus Brief, July 30, 2025. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Linktree: ⁠https://linktr.ee/Analytic⁠Join The Normandy For Additional Bonus Audio And Visual Content For All Things Nme+! Join Here: ⁠https://ow.ly/msoH50WCu0K⁠Ignite the inferno of redemption as Analytic Dreamz unleashes a fiery reaction to the Hazbin Hotel Season 2 Official Trailer on Prime Video. Dropped October 1, 2025, this explosive two-minute showcase heralds the eight-episode sophomore run premiering October 29 with a double-drop, followed by weekly pairs through November 19. Creator Vivienne Medrano ramps up the chaos post-Season 1's angelic showdown: Charlie Morningstar (Erika Henningsen) rebuilds her Hazbin Hotel amid thriving sinner ranks, but overlord Vox (Christian Borle) schemes a media-fueled uprising against Heaven, rallying The Vees—Velvette (Lilli Cooper) and Valentino (Joel Perez)—to sabotage her demon rehab dream.Analytic Dreamz dissects the trailer's hellish highlights: Alastor's (Alex Brightman) shadowy manipulations from his Season 1 "death," Vaggie's (Stephanie Beatriz) fierce loyalty clashing with Lute's (Jessica Vosk) vengeful Exorcist return, and Angel Dust's (Blake Roman) raw vulnerability in Husk's (Keith David) reluctant rescues. Musical mayhem steals the spotlight with the debut single "Hazbin Guarantee (Trust Us)," a satirical banger teasing Broadway-caliber numbers from the full soundtrack—pre-order now via Atlantic Records—blending dark humor, explosive combat, and emotional fractures like Lucifer's (Jeremy Jordan) paternal strains and Sir Pentious' heavenly enigma. New voices amplify the ensemble: Patrick Stump as Abel, Darren Criss, and Shoba Narayan, expanding the Hellaverse ties to Helluva Boss.Does this trailer promise amplified stakes—Vox's power grab igniting Hell-Heaven war, deeper lore on Overlords and Exterminations—or risk diluting Charlie's optimistic core amid gore and gags? Analytic Dreamz probes fan theories on Alastor's survival, redemption arcs' viability, and if A24's animation elevates the musical satire beyond pilot hype. For Hazbin Hotel Season 2 trailer breakdowns, Prime Video animated series reactions, Vivienne Medrano updates, and adult musical analyses, this segment is your sinful essential. Subscribe to Notorious Mass Effect for more Analytic Dreamz descents into worlds where damnation dances with hope. Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/analytic-dreamz-notorious-mass-effect/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

García - Page: "Mi intuición me dice que en todas las encuestas la suma de PP y Vox les darían gobierno"

En la sección ‘Maneras de Vivir' de ‘Herrera en COPE', Jorge Bustos y María José Navarro han repasado las noticias más curiosas (y virales) de la jornada, comenzando con un recuerdo a la recién fallecida Jane Goodall. La célebre conservacionista, que ha muerto a los 91 años, es recordada por su contribución a la comprensión del comportamiento y las emociones animales. Su figura ha evocado una de sus reflexiones más conocidas: “¿cómo es posible que la criatura más intelectual, que jamás ha caminado por el planeta, esté destruyendo su único hogar?”.En el ámbito político, la encuesta de intención de voto de Antena 3 ha generado un notable revuelo. Según el sondeo, el PP podría gobernar con el apoyo de VOX, aunque el PSOE obtendría más escaños. Esta situación ha sido celebrada en redes sociales por dirigentes como Óscar Puente, que ven un posible "sorpaso" de VOX al PP.La polémica también ha rodeado a Jair Netanyahu, hijo del primer ministro israelí. Desde su ...

Manuel Jabois reflexiona sobre la propuesta de Vox que Madrid ha aprobado que obliga a las mujeres a ser informadas del “síndrome posaborto” y que ha contado con el respaldo del PP a nivel nacional.

Well, the Government has shut down and, as of Tuesday afternoon, President Donald Trump didn't sound to worried about it. “A lot of good can come down from shutdowns," he said. "We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn't want, and they'd be Democrat things, but they want open borders. They want men playing in women's sports. They want transgender for everybody.” That statement is a lot of nonsense, as always. But the way Trump views forcing the government to close up shop is telling. Since Trump retook the Oval Office, he has assumed a mantle of overwhelming authority over what TV show hosts are allowed to say and which protesters get to have First Amendment protections, while refusing to take any responsibility for absolutely anything. It feels authoritarian, but it also feels incredibly, unbelievably stupid. So what can people who have studied authoritarianism and know what such movements do to other countries, teach us about what Trump is doing, what Trump wants to do, and how to fight back? To find out, we spoke to Zack Beauchamp. He's a Senior Correspondent at Vox, where he covers the crisis of global democracy and right-wing populism.And in headlines, President Trump announces his latest business venture – TrumpRX, FBI Director Kash Patel smuggles guns into New Zealand, and Trump posts an extremely racist deepfake AI video of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.Show Notes:Check out Zack's work – https://tinyurl.com/3n93m437Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

El Gobierno ha pedido al PP que rectifique su apoyo a la iniciativa impulsada por Vox en el Ayuntamiento de Madrid para que se informe en los centros municipales sobre el "síndrome post aborto" a las mujeres que quieren interrumpir su embarazo en la capital. En el '24 Horas de RNE', hablamos sobre este asunto con Eva Rodríguez, vicepresidenta de la Asociación de Clínicas Acreditadas para la Interrupción del Embarazo, que ha afirmado que esta teoría "no tiene ningún sustento": "Lo que de verdad crea estrés es el embarazo no deseado, la mayoría de las mujeres sienten un 60% más alivio después de interrumpir el embarazo".Rodríguez ha asegurado que con estas medidas lo que intentan es "disuadir" con mentiras ya que la ciencia demuestra lo contrario. "Lo único que consiguen es molestarlas y cuestionar una decisión que la mayoría tiene tomada desde su madurez", sostiene que esas mujeres tienen claro que quieren abortar y es una decisión que se ha meditado bastante antes de ponerse en contacto con el centro. Silvia Aldavert, directora de la Asociación de Derechos Sexuales Reproductivos, explica que este tipo de medidas "no se las ha inventado Vox ni el PP, vienen de organizaciones internacionales que están muy bien aliadas". Escuchar audio

The author and podcaster Ezra Klein may be only forty-one years old, but he's been part of the political-culture conversation for a long time. He was a blogger, then a Washington Post columnist and editor, a co-founder of Vox, and is now a writer and podcast host for the New York Times. He's also the co-author of the recent best-selling book “Abundance”. Most recently, Klein has drawn the ire of progressives for a column he wrote about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which he praised the late conservative activist for practicing politics “the right way.” He's also been making a case for how the Democrats can reëmerge from the political wilderness. But some of his other ideas have also invited their share of detractors. Klein tells David Remnick, “I try to take seriously questions that I don't love. I don't try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it's working.” In response to criticism that his recent work has indicated a rightward shift in his thinking, Klein says, “One thing I've been saying about the big tent of the Democratic Party is the theory of having a big tent doesn't just mean moving to the right; it also means accepting in the left.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Federico entrevista al exdiputado de Vox y presidente de Atenea, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros.

Today I have the real pleasure of speaking with Maytha Alhassen and Halah Ahmad, two prominent feminist activists, writers, and scholars deeply committed to exploring the connections between the Arabic language, storytelling, and political agency, from the historical past to the present. We talk about the continuity of storytelling forms and techniques that bridge generations and support and convey a durable set of values and beliefs that resist western appropriation and distortion. These phenomena have everything to do with continuing and advancing the struggle for Palestinian rights and the celebration of Palestinian life.Halah Ahmad is a Harvard and Cambridge-trained writer, researcher, and political strategist whose work has appeared in multiple outlets from The Hill to Vox and the New York Times. She writes for Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network and provides research and communications services to Palestinian and economic rights organizations across the country. Much of her work focuses on narrative change through storytelling in organizing and media. At a recent Stanford event, Halah discussed the historic forms of Palestinian storytelling, the Hakawati tradition, and the ways it has evolved and continued to be relevant amid the ongoing genocide. As a practitioner in the world of policy and politics, she grapples with the limitations of present avenues for Palestinian storytelling.Maytha Alhassen is a journalist, poet, community organizer, and scholar whose work bridges media, justice advocacy, research, and artistic expression. She's a Co-Executive Producer on Hulu's award-winning Ramy, Executive Producer of the award-nominated PBS docu-series American Muslims: A History Revealed, a Pop Culture Collaborative Pluralist Visionaries Fellow, TED Resident, and Harvard Religion and Public Life Art and Pop Culture Fellow (2021–2024), lectures at Stanford University's Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, and is currenlty a Research Fellow at the Center for Scholars and Storytellers at UCLA. As a journalist, she has hosted on Al Jazeera English, reported for CNN, Huffington Post, Mic, and The Baffler, and written for Boston Review and LA Review of Books. Her work explores how storytelling shapes cultural and political belonging, with a focus on Muslim representation and equity in popular culture. She co-edited Demanding Dignity: Young Voices from the Front Lines of the Arab Revolutions, authored Haqq and Hollywood: Illuminating 100 Years of Muslim Tropes and Traps and How to Transform Them, and has published widely in academic journals. She earned her Ph.D. in American Studies & Ethnicity from USC, an M.A. in Anthropology from Columbia, and a B.A. in Political Science and Arabic & Islamic Studies from UCLA. 

El PP continúa su lucha cuerpo a cuerpo con Vox para impedir una sangría de votos hacia al partido de ultraderecha y acaba de anunciar un paquete de medidas antimigrantes. En este programa analizamos este anuncio del PP y las repercusiones de los giros de guion en el curso político y hablamos también de tribunales, del caso de la pareja de Ayuso a Begoña Gónez o el hermano de Sánchez. TERTULIA A DIESTRA Y SINIESTRA con Noelia Adánez, Juanma Lamet e Íñigo Sáenz de Ugarte: Más información aquí: ⁠bit.ly/TertuliaCC1551⁠ Haz posible Carne Cruda: ⁠http://bit.ly/ProduceCC

President Trump has declared that Tylenol should not be used during pregnancy. On this week's On the Media, how funding cuts and disputed claims linking the drug to autism have sent scientists reeling. Plus, how the religious right are processing the death of Charlie Kirk.[01:00]  Host Brooke Gladstone sits down with John Tuthill, neurobiology and biophysics professor at the University of Washington, describes the state of scientific research under Donald Trump, and how it feels to review grant proposals “while the system is burning.”[15:52] Host Micah Loewinger speaks with Josh Keating, senior correspondent at Vox, on how the Trump administration is combining the “war on terror” with the “war on drugs.” [33:48] Host Brooke Gladstone talks with Matthew D. Taylor, senior Christian scholar at the Institute for Islamic, Christian and Jewish Studies in Baltimore, about how Charlie Kirk has been memorialized as a saint and a martyr by the religious right, and what it means.Further reading / listening:“Fear and loathing on study section: Reviewing grant proposals while the system is burning,” by John Tuthill“What happens when Trump combines the war on drugs with the war on terror,” by Josh Keating“Inside Charlie Kirk's Memorial: A Deep Dive into Christian Nationalism and Political Polarization,” by Bradley Onishi, Straight White American Jesus Podcast On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

The author and podcaster Ezra Klein may be only forty-one years old, but he's been part of the political-culture conversation for a long time. He was a blogger, then a Washington Post columnist and editor, a co-founder of Vox, and is now a writer and podcast host for the New York Times. He's also the co-author of the recent best-selling book “Abundance”. Most recently, Klein has drawn the ire of progressives for a column he wrote about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which he praised the late conservative activist for practicing politics “the right way.” He's also been making a case for how the Democrats can reëmerge from the political wilderness. But some of his other ideas have also invited their share of detractors. Klein tells David Remnick, “I try to take seriously questions that I don't love. I don't try to insist the world works the way I want it to work. I try to be honest with myself about the way it's working.” In response to criticism that his recent work has indicated a rightward shift in his thinking, Klein says, “One thing I've been saying about the big tent of the Democratic Party is the theory of having a big tent doesn't just mean moving to the right; it also means accepting in the left.”

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Adam Chandler is a journalist and author based in New York. A former staff writer at The Atlantic, his work has also appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, WIRED, Vox, Slate, New York Magazine, Texas Monthly, Esquire, TIME, and elsewhere. He is the author of Drive-Thru Dreams: A Journey Through the Heart of America's Fast-Food Kingdom; and 99% Perspiration: A New Working History of the American Way of Life. In this episode, we focus on 99% Perspiration. We start by talking about American meritocracy, and where the ideas associated with it came from. We discuss whether anyone is ever self-reliant. We talk about how people tend to get rich. We discuss neoliberalism and the rise of hustle culture. We talk about the example of France, as a country with another type of work culture. We discuss whether we should tell people that hard work pays off. Finally, we talk about the future of work in the US.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JAMES, JORDAN MANSFIELD, AND CHARLOTTE ALLEN!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, AND PER KRAULIS!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

From horse-drawn carriages finally facing political opposition in NYC to innovative cultivated meat farms in the Netherlands, this week’s Hen Report serves up a feast of animal rights news with a side of irreverent commentary. Jasmin and Mariann dive into Kenny Torrella’s eye-opening Vox article quantifying chicken suffering (spoiler alert: it’s worse than you think), celebrate animal rights pioneer Jim Mason’s…

If pregnant people need to eat for two, why do so many of us puke morning, noon, and night? Our friends from Vox's Unexplainable investigate.  Guests: Julia Longoria, host, Unexplainable; Marlena Fejzo, Ph.D., ⁠geneticist⁠, and Research Director at the ⁠HER Foundation⁠.  For more, go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠vox.com/unexplainable⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Contact Unexplainable: ⁠⁠⁠unexplainable@vox.com⁠⁠⁠ … Join LST+ for community and access to You Know What, another show in the Longest Shortest universe! Follow us on Instagram Website: longestshortesttime.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill McKibben has spent four decades warning us about climate change. Much of what he predicted has come true. And yet, his new book Here Comes the Sun is more hopeful than you might expect. That's because, for the first time, we have a genuine alternative: Solar and wind energy are now the cheapest, fastest-growing sources of power on Earth. The revolution has already begun. This week, Sean is joined by McKibben to talk about the peril and promise of this moment. They explore how close we are to catastrophe, why each fraction of a degree of warming matters, and how the fossil fuel industry is fighting a desperate last stand. They also discuss the politics of energy in the age of Trump, why Texas and Utah may hold surprising lessons, and how cheap, abundant power could transform not just the climate fight but democracy itself. Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling) Guest: Bill McKibben, climate activist and author of Here Comes the Sun We'd love to hear from you. Email us at tga@voxmail.com or leave a voicemail at 1-800-214-5749. Your questions and feedback help us make a better show. ⁠⁠This episode was made in partnership with Vox's Future Perfect team. Watch full episodes of The Gray Area on YouTube. Listen ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Why is Trump sending the National Guard to cities when crime is already falling?Earlier this month, President Trump posted this: “I love the smell of deportations in the morning. Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of WAR.” He seemed poised to send the National Guard to the city in an attempt to curb crime, after having deployed them in D.C. But this week, he turned his attention to Memphis, signing an order for deployment there and vowing to circle back to Chicago later. And these three cities aren't the only ones on his radar: Baltimore, Portland, New Orleans, and St. Louis are also bracing for possible deployments. But why send the National Guard – a temporary military force – to these cities when crime has already fallen this year in every single city he's mentioned? Brittany gets into it with Abdallah Fayyad, policy correspondent at Vox, and Alex V. Hernandez, neighborhood reporter for Block Club Chicago.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock this episode and our entire premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Last week's assassination of right wing personality Charlie Kirk last week was a shock -- and so was the choice of many left and liberal media outlets to publish pieces that lauded the openly supremacist activist for his contribution to American political life. Ezra Klein wrote in The New York Times that Kirk was "practicing politics the right way." Rachel Cohen wrote in Vox that she was "sitting shiva" for a man she described as saying "blatantly antisemitic things," and Ben Burgis offered that at least Kirk "didn't descend into personal attacks." Briahna, who also debated Kirk, felt differently. She discusses the hagiography of Charlie Kirk with journalist Zaid Jilani and whether the left is troublingly indifferent to anti-Black racism if delivered "politely." Note that this episode was supposed to include a lengthy conversation about Matt Taibbi's refusal to cover censorship by right-leaning institutions, but, alas, the conversation didn't get that far. Fortunately, Brie has recorded a separate follow-up interview on that topic to be relased shortly -- stay tuned. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

*Content warning: body-image abuse, disordered eating, distressing topics, suicidal ideation, institutional child abuse, childhood trauma, therapeutic abuse, grooming, abduction, self-harm, emotional and physical violence, isolation, Substance Use Disorder, sexual assault.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness https://blueridgewilderness.com/  “Carlbrook: Unable to ‘pull out of nosedive.'” Sova Now, December 14, 2015 https://www.sovanow.com/articles/carlbrook_unable_to_pull_out_of_nosedive/  "The Carlbrook School”,  Struggling Teens.com, October 27, 2003 https://strugglingteens.com/archives/2003/11/carlbrook1103vr.html  “Carlbrook School files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.” Sova Now, February 18, 2016 https://www.sovanow.com/articles/carlbrook_school "Dan McDougal." Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness https://blueridgewilderness.com/who-we-are/our-team/dan-mcdougal Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness, Our Story https://blueridgewilderness.com/who-we-are/our-story  “Evoke Entrada.” Breaking Code Silence  https://www.breakingcodesilence.org/evoke-entrada/ Gilpin, Elizabeth. Stolen: A Memoir. July 20, 2021  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55898103-stolen  "Introducing Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness." Struggling Teens.com, July 27, 2016 https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/BlueRidgeTherapeuticWilderness “Missing Person / NamUs #MP13098.” National Missing and Unidentified Persons System https://namus.nij.ojp.gov/case/MP13098  "Our Story: From Vision to Transformational Community." Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness https://blueridgewilderness.com/who-we-are/our-story  Rensin, Emmet, “I went into the woods a teenage drug addict and came out sober. Was it worth it?” Vox, July 7, 2016 https://www.vox.com/2016/7/7/12081150/wilderness-therapy  “Second Nature Uintas.” Breaking Code Silence https://www.breakingcodesilence.org/second-nature-uintas/  “Seen N' Heard (October 2001).” Struggling Teens.com, October 1, 2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20170502063301/http://www.strugglingteens.com/artman/p Staff reports, "Carlbrook School closes; students asked to be out by Sunday." YourGV, October 28, 2020 https://www.yourgv.com/news/local_news/carlbrook-school-closes  "Wilderness Therapy Works: Why Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness is an Industry Leader in Student Care." Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness, February 8, 2024 https://blueridgewilderness.com/blog/wilderness-therapy-works-why-blue-ridge-therapeutic-wilderness-is-an-industry-leader-in-student-care "Woodbury Reports Visits Carlbrook School." Struggling Teens.com, May 29, 2014 https://strugglingteens.com/artman/publish/printer_CarlbrookSchoolBN_140529.shtml