Search Episodes (Interviews with colleagues)

Twitter Bots

Added 12/14/11
0 Views

STEVE JOBS -- ONE LAST THING

Added 10/28/11
9 Views

How School Choice & Privatization Can Help Fix America: Lisa S...

Added 09/27/11
7 Views

Senator Shelby Talks Consumer Protection with Gerri Willis

Added 07/22/11
0 Views

Senator Shelby Talks Consumer Protection with Gerri Willis

Added 07/22/11
2 Views

Al Jazeera Journalist Lotfi Al Messoudi Crosses Border Into Tu...

Added 06/27/11
22 Views

RAY ROMANO at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

Added 06/24/11
13 Views

PATRICIA HEATON at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

Added 06/24/11
5 Views

JEFF GARLIN at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

Added 06/24/11
21 Views

DORIS ROBERTS at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

Added 06/24/11
6 Views

Richard Epstein On Barack Obama His Former Chicago Law Colleague

Added 06/17/11
2 Views

Richard Epstein On Barack Obama His Former Chicago Law Colleague

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:19 06/17/11
Few legal scholars have blown as many minds and had the tangible impact that Richard Epstein has managed. His 1985 volume, Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain is a case in point. Epstein made the hugely controversial argument that regulations and other government actions such as environmental regulations that substantially limit the use of or decrease the value of property should be thought of as a form of eminent domain and thus strictly limited by the Constitution. The immediate result was a firestorm of outrage followed by an acknowledgment that the guy was onto something. As Epstein told Reason in a 1995 interview, "I took some pride in the fact that [Sen.] Joe Biden (D-Del.) held a copy of Takings up to a hapless Clarence Thomas back in 1991 and said that anyone who believes what's in this book is certifiably unqualified to sit in on the Supreme Court. That's a compliment of sorts.... But I took even more pride in the fact that, during the Breyer hearings [in 199X], there were no such theatrics, even as the nominee was constantly questioned on whether he agreed with the Epstein position on deregulation as if that position could not be held by responsible people." Born in New York in 1943, Epstein splits faculty appointments at the University of Chicago and New York University; he's also a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a contributor to Reason. In books such as Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (1992) to Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), and Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism (2003), Epstein pushes his ideas and preconceptions to their limits and takes his readers along for the ride. A die-hard libertarian who believes the state should be limited and individual freedom expanded, he is nonetheless the consummate intellectual who first and foremost demands he offer up ironclad proofs for his characteristically counterintuitive insights into law and social theory. Indeed, Epstein's enduring value may not be any particular legal or policy prescription he's offered over the years but rather his methodology. He believes in robust and unfettered argument and debate as a way of gaining knowledge. If you don't put your ideas out in the arena, you can't be doing your best work, he argues. "The problem when you keep to yourself is you don't get to hear strong ideas articulated by people who disagree with you," he says. Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewed Epstein at NYU's law building in October. The conversation was wide-ranging and high-energy--another Epsteinian virtue. They talked about legal challenges to ObamaCare, the effects of stimulus spending and TARP bailouts, and a former University of Chicago adjunct faculty member by the name of Barack Obama, with whom Epstein regularly interacted in the 1990s and early 2000s. "He passed through Chicago without absorbing much of the internal culture," says Epstein of the president. "He's amazingly good at playing intellectual poker. But that's a disadvantage, because if you don't put your ideas out there to be shot down, you're never gonna figure out what kind of revision you want." Filmed and edited by Jim Epstein with help from Michael C. Moynihan and Josh Swain. Approximately 12.30 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

The Cocktail Napkin 29: How The Sausage Is Made - Video

Added 06/02/11
5 Views

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the governmen...

Added 12/28/10
2 Views

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!

[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:50 12/28/10
I've been astounded by the treatment of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks story by the media ever since it broke. Howard Kurtz called Assange disingenuous for not outing his sources, which is insane. Howard Kurtz allegedly understands journalism, so it's outrageous for Kurtz to take offense when Assange refuses to out his sources, as I explained in a post called: Why are the media so eager to bury WikiLeaks? > > KURTZ: Rick Stengel, let's turn now to your interview with Julian Assange. I found some of his answers to be absolutely disingenuous. For example, you ask whether secrets are ever necessary, and he says, well, his secrets are necessary, protecting his sources, but "our responsibility is to bring matters to the public." What's important is the information contained in the WikiLeaks cables, not Assange himself -- and when we're dealing with whistleblowers, of course their identities have to be protected. Journalism 101 states that you never out your sources, no matter where you get your information. The Beltway Villagers even defended the odious Judith Miller when she went to prison rather than divulge that Scooter Libby was her source in the outing of a Valerie Plame, as I've mentioned before . That was information that led this country into an unjustified war based on lies told by Miller and her leakers. After watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC show such disdain for Assange, I asked a question that really hasn't been asked all that much. > Are folks in the media afraid they might be implicated in Wikileaks cables? > I expected the State Department to speak out against WikiLeaks, but why have the media been so hostile to WikiLeaks and so passive about the people trying to silence his operation without a shred of evidence of him being guilty of a crime? I wonder if they are afraid that either they or their friends might show up in some of these leaked cables in an unfavorable light. Yesterday on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was discussing Assange's bail in the UK and seemed afraid that he might have access to the dreaded "Internet" and destroy the world. I understand that access to D.C. is very precious to the Beltway Village, so outside of fear of what might be found out about their friends and that they'll earn extra credit for bashing Assange by the powers that be, I still don't get their attacks on the whole WikiLeaks story. And as we've seen, cable TV news has turned away from being a deliverer of news and instead focuses on orchestrating battles of opinions with punditshills and ex-GOP Bushies, but the networks for the most part have to turn away from their own stable of journalistic talkers to bring in a differing opinion on the WikiLeaks story, because the Villagers on TV are routinely characterizing Julian Assange as a terrorist. Glenn Greenwald posts today about his CNN interview last night over WikiLeaks and he highlighted four points in his post, The merger of journalists and government officials : > 4) If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal." Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it ( see here as CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is completely befuddled in the middle of his anti-WikiLeaks rant when asked by a guest, Clay Shirky, to differentiate what Woodward continuously does from what Assange is doing)... read on Woodward has been the cleaner for the Washington Post for a long time, and he's held up to a higher level of worship than even David Border. Here's a classic video which has, of all people, Don Imus confronting Andrea and the Beltway elites over their behavior in 2005 on the Plame case: > Imus: It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003--- Mitchell: I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused. Imus: So when you told Alan Murray of CNBC, that it was widely known that his wife worked for the CIA-(interruption)--what, were you drunk? Mitchell: I don't even remember the deal. Imus: What this suggests to me is that you knew she worked at the CIA, but you didn't know what she did there. Isn't that fair-did you know that? Mitchell-(garbled) Imus: Why did you say that Andrea? Mitchell: I messed up...(later) Imus: Russert was a little short with me---almost like he was trying to hide something.... Imus (laughing): I realized -- well this is an unfair thing to say, I was gonna say -- all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another, but that would be an awful thing to say .... I think Imus was right on when he said 'all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another,' and Mitchell knew it. As time goes on it's pretty hard to miss. Digby beats back one of the bigger zombie lies being told by the media about Wikileaks. > There are many fine points in the piece, but he mentions one zombie lie I'd really love to kill --- the one that all of these so-called reporters seem to have absorbed as if it's the received word of God --- the one that says Wikileaks dumped 260,000 cables indiscriminately on the Internet. Here's the truth, from an AP news report from December 3, 2010. There's no excuse for journalists not to know this by this point: Respected news outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks > By The Associated Press 12.03.10 The diplomatic records exposed on WikiLeaks this week reveal not only secret government communications, but also an extraordinary collaboration between some of the world’s most respected news-media outlets and a website that is facing increasing pressure and criticism from governments worldwide. Unlike earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government military records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material.. This is the saddest day for journalism since their guileless acceptance of the WMD boogeyman and giddy cheerleading for the Iraq war. It turns out that journalism is important, but most of these "professional" practitioners of the field are not only failing to practice it, they are hostile to the idea that they should practice it. It's very revealing. It's just another sad and revealing day for all the hacks running around and impersonating real journalists. Not all journos are acting like this. Major props goes to the Ray Odroso of the Village Voice. Read more here .

Why filibuster reform is vital: The Founders' intent was for t...

Added 12/16/10
5 Views

Why filibuster reform is vital: The Founders' intent was for the Senate to be a majority body, not a supermajority

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 21:30:57 12/16/10
[From Fix The Senate Now : Interview with a senator who likes how it dysfunctions.] Quietly behind the scenes in the Senate, Democratic senators are working to prepare a package of filibuster-rules reforms , led in particular by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico . This morning I sat in on a conference call with Merkley and Udall, who explained how they were planning to roll out a framework for other senators to examine soon. (Here's Dave Weigel's report .) Certainly the urgency to do so has only been heightened by events of the past few days, with Republicans using the filibuster to effectively forestall any action by the Senate in the lame-duck session beyond extending the Bush tax cuts -- including approval of the START treaty, DADT repeal and the DREAM Act. Fundamentally, as these events have demonstrated, Republican abuse of the filibuster has rendered the Senate into a body in which only the supermajority rules. Considering that it was clearly never designed to be anything other than a majority-rule body by the Founding Fathers, it's a pretty classic case of hypocrisy for Tea Partying right-wingers who love to parade their love of the Founders whenever possible. So I asked them about whether they intended to use the Founders' intent as a kind of marketing point for their plan. Here's what they said: > Udall: That point is very much talked about. And it was not that long ago that there were major pieces of legislation in which the public discussion always was, 'Can we get 51 votes to pass this?' We had controversial Supreme Court justices -- for example, Clarence Thomas -- who was passed through without a supermajority. There was no cloture process or extended debate requested by those who opposed him. It was considered a privilege to exercised -- that is, the privilege of delaying the Senate so that you could continue to make your points was considered a precious privilege to be exercised upon very rare occasion. That social contract has been eliminated. And members of the Senate are ready to make their objection to the regular order of 51 on everything, and often many times on a single bill, and that has done what you've just described, which is it has turned the Senate into a supermajority body. And for all those who say, do not disrupt the tradition of the Senate, the response is, the tradition of the Senate has never been for it to be a supermajority body. Merkley: To give you one little factoid here: When Lyndon Baines Johnson was in the Senate, the time he was the Majority Leader from 1954 to 1961, in that entire six-year period, he only attempted to cut off debate, filing cloture, one time. The last two years, Harry Reid had to do that 84 times. So we've taken something that was an extraordinary rare expression of opposition -- where you went down to the floor and you did everything you could to persuade the American people and your own constituents as to your point of view -- now we don't do that. Now the only filibuster -- the only filibuster I think I've really seen, a true filibuster in the Senate tradition, in the two years I've been here is what happened with Bernie Sanders in the last couple of days, where he took the floor for approximately eight hours or more to actually talk about the tax package. Most of the time, we see this in a secret way, when you look at C-SPAN2 and you're looking at the Senate, you see a quorum call, the post-cloture debate time -- that time is not being utilized for debate, and that has rendered the Senate a broken institution. Merkley also talked about the dysfunction that occurs after a cloture vote -- that is, a vote to end the debate and thus the filibuster -- fails to reach the 60-vote threshold: > Merkley: You can think of a cloture vote that fails as the following: 41 senators have said they want to continue debate. When that happens, under current rules, we do not have ongoing debate. People just leave the floor and we are let with a quorum call. There's nothing to compel senators to actually engage in the debate that they have said they want to have. There are a number of potential rules that could be used that exist currently, but each of them is trumped by some other procedural mechanism. And that's why you don't see continuous debate after a cloture call. ... The advantage of continuous debate is that it honors the purpose of the cloture vote, which was to have debate. The other advantage is that it says to the American people: 'Here is my position. This is why I'm not ready to have a vote yet. This is what is most important. Here is my case.' In other words, senators stand on the floor, literally stand on the floor and make their case to the American public. And the American public and their colleagues can say, 'You're a hero' or 'You're a bum.' And provide that kind of feedback to all of the senators, who will have to vote on a subsequent cloture vote at some point down the line. And if no one has anything left to say, then the whole purpose of the post-cloture debate is concluded -- that is, if no senator at some point is ready to continue the debate, then we should automatically go to a majority vote. This would get rid of many of the frivolous objections. And just to give you a sense of this -- we just had a food safety bill in which three filibusters were launched, delaying the work of the Senate by three weeks. Each objection to the regular order creates a one-week delay and a 60-vote hurdle. And yet that was on a bill that had substantial bipartisan support, it was not, if you will, one of the bills that has grave national consequences one direction or the other. So if, on a simple, ordinary bill, you can have three cloture motions, you can imagine the type of delay that has resulted in we have no appropriations bills, why we don't have a budget that was debated, and so on and so forth. Why so many House bills come here to die. Aas Greg Sargent reports today, there is some quiet momentum building in support of these reforms, especially given the galling impotency of the past couple of weeks: > The key thing that's happening is that groups pushing to reform the filibuster are now laying down a clear roadmap to action, and are setting their sights on clearly defined common-sense reforms that seem eminently achievable if enough political will gathers to make them happen. For instance, a range of lefty groups and powerful labor unions like AFL-CIO and SEIU recently spelled out a statement of core principles that would form the bedrock of reform. The underlying ideas here are twofold: First, there's Senator Tom Udall's insight that each Congress has the power under the Constitution to set its own rules. And second, Senator Jeff Merkley, one of a new crop of younger reform-minded Senators, is getting traction with a proposal of simple, achievable reforms to encourage as much open debate as possible, mainly by forcing Senators to actually filibuster. Of course, as anyone even casually familiar with the inner workings of the Senate will tell you, the best-intentioned ideas can -- and often do -- disappear without ever getting acted on, for reasons that no one can explain. But it's certainly noteworthy that a real movement seems to be taking shape to prevent that from happening this time around. Tom Harkin is predicting some serious fireworks on Jan. 5 : > Senate Democrats will make a dramatic effort to reform the rules of the chamber when the next Congress begins, one of the body's primary filibuster-reform advocates said Wednesday morning. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has championed a weakening of the procedural mechanism that allows the minority party to hold up legislation, predicted "fireworks" on Jan. 5, 2011 -- the day on which the Senate can, he argued, revamp its rules by a simple majority vote. "There could be some fireworks. There could be some fireworks on January fifth," Harkin said at a pro-reform event sponsored by several like-minded organizations. "I'm going to be there. I'm armed. I'm armed with a lot of history, and I know the rules, and I know the procedures too, so we will see what happens on the fifth." "[Former Sen.] Robert Byrd in 1975, the last time that last time that we changed the rules and [brought the filibuster threshold] from 67 [votes] down to 60, actually stated on the floor that a majority, 51 senators, could change the rules. And that's what we intend to do and that is what we are working on right now. We are coming on the fifth to basically send a motion to the vice president ... that will change the rules and there is a procedure to provide 51 votes to do that. Robert Byrd said that in 1975 and that's what we are going to try to do." Essentially, that path to reform requires Vice President Joe Biden -- who supports weakening the filibuster -- to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules. Republicans, presumably, would immediately move to object, but Democrats could then move to table the objection, setting up a key up-or-down vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which could be approved by a simple majority. Keep your fingers crossed. And call your senators and buck them up.

Video: Feds release report on state police helicopter crash

Added 12/11/10
2 Views

Dr Lorandos Cross Exam Of Freudian Psychoanalysis

Added 12/04/10
0 Views

Dr Lorandos Cross Exam Of Freudian Psychoanalysis

[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 22:19:49 12/04/10
http://www.falsely-accused.net Dr. Lorandos demonstrates a cross examination of Freudian psychoanalysis LORANDOS: It appears that you subscribe to Freudian theory, correct? Witness: To a certain degree, yes. LORANDOS: Alright. Freudian theory assumes that emotional and behavioral problems originate as a result of some significant childhood experiences, correct? Witness: Correct, yes. LORANDOS: And in particular Freudian theory would be interested in 1) a history of family conflict in childhood, correct? Witness: It could be, yes. LORANDOS: And Freudian theory would be interested in 2) the extent to which someone recalls their mother as, being depressed for example, correct? Witness: That might be another issue of interest, yes. LORANDOS: And Freudian theory would be interested in 3) how attached someone felt as a child to their family, correct? Witness: Yes, that could also be an issue of interest LORANDOS: Now previously we talked about journals and I want to ask you if the Journal of Psychological Assessment is a generally accepted and recognized peer review journal in your field. Witness: Yes it is, yes. LORANDOS: And a 1994 study by Henry and his colleagues published in the Journal of Psychological Assessment, titled, On Remembrance of Things Past: A Longitudinal Evaluation of the Retrospective Method, might be relevant to your opinions in this case, correct? Witness: It could be, yes. LORANDOS: Id like you to consider this research study which involved the following 5 steps and Im going to give you a hypothetical. 1) Children were interviewed at the ages of 7, 9, 11, 13, and 19. 2) The mothers of these children were also asked questions regarding a) the extent of conflict in their families and b) the degree to which they felt depressed. 3) At the ages 13 and 15 the children were also asked how attached they felt to their families. And 4) At the age of 18 these children were asked a) between the ages of 7 and 15, how much conflict was there in your family b) when you were between the ages of 7 and 15, how often did your mother seem depressed and c) when you were about 13 to 15 years old, how close did you feel to your parents. Ok? Got that? Witness: I think so, yes. LORANDOS: And the last part of the hypothetical, the childrens responses to these questions at age 18 were correlated with the information obtained when they were younger, ok? Witness: Yes. LORANDOS: In particular, the childrens responses to these questions were expressed in terms of a correlation coefficient and a correlation coefficient can range from zero to one, correct? Witness: Correct. LORANDOS: And a correlation coefficient of one corresponds to an exact one-to-one relationship between previous information and present replies, correct? Witness: Yes, correct. LORANDOS: And a correlation of zero corresponds to no relationship whatsoever between previous information and present replies correct? Witness: Again correct. LORANDOS: Would it surprise you to know that when asked between the ages of 7 and 15 How much conflict was there in your family? the mean correlation between the previous information and the present replies was .19? Witness: Yes it would surprise me. LORANDOS: Because .19, thats not a very high correlation is it? Witness: No. LORANDOS: And a correlation of only .19 indicates that what these 18 year olds thought they remembered about family conflict between the ages of 7 and 15 was not very accurate, correct? Witness: Thats what that study would indicate, yes. LORANDOS: Would it surprise you to know that when asked between the ages of 7 and 15 How often did your mother seemed depressed? the mean correlation between the previous information, that that was taken at the time by the evaluators, and the present replies of the children was .16? Witness: Yes, I am surprised by that. LORANDOS: Indeed. A correlation of .16, thats also not very high is it doctor? Witness: No its not. LORANDOS: And a correlation of only .16 indicates that what these 18 year olds thought they remembered about their mothers being depressed was not very accurate, correct? Witness: Thats what that study indicates. LORANDOS: Would it surprise you to know that when asked while between the ages of 7 and 15 years old, How close do you feel toward your parents? the mean correlation between the previous information and the present replies was only .36? Witness: Yes, I am also somewhat surprised by that. LORANDOS: Indeed, because a correlation of .36; thats not a very high correlation is it doctor? Witness: No.

Sign in to Channels.com!

Search Results

Twitter Bots

STEVE JOBS -- ONE LAST THING

How School Choice & Privatization Can Help Fix America: Lisa Snell & Harris Kenny at FreedomFest

Senator Shelby Talks Consumer Protection with Gerri Willis

Senator Shelby Talks Consumer Protection with Gerri Willis

Al Jazeera Journalist Lotfi Al Messoudi Crosses Border Into Tunisia

RAY ROMANO at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

PATRICIA HEATON at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

JEFF GARLIN at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

DORIS ROBERTS at "EXPORTING RAYMOND" Premiere

Richard Epstein On Barack Obama His Former Chicago Law Colleague

The Cocktail Napkin 29: How The Sausage Is Made - Video

It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!

Why filibuster reform is vital: The Founders' intent was for the Senate to be a majority body, not a supermajority

Video: Feds release report on state police helicopter crash

Dr Lorandos Cross Exam Of Freudian Psychoanalysis