refuted yourself because you made an argue. and an argue. is based on reason. so you can't even do that. how do we know that science and reason works? because it works. you can cure diseases with it. you can send up tesla model roadster to mars or wherever it's going or what i called the which theory of causeilate. the moral arc i talk about how moral progress is made the same way other problems solved, applying science and reason. when people thought that the causal explanation of diseases and accidents and plagues and famines were women cav voting with demons in the middle of the night, they were wrong and therefore their application of their causal theory to burning women at the stake as a solution was wrong. so we solved that problem and we don't have to go back. and that is how science and reason are tools that lead towards all kinds of progress. just call it human progress but the moral arc i talk about moral progress. so let's look at some specific propositions and think but how to think about these because there's diffe

a lot of scientists argue to them. scientists have given us a germ theory and vaccines am in no way argues that science is better than religion. science is good for what science does. it's not good for the things that science doesn't do. >> we are out of time. where to take a quick vote. how many of you are still on the affirmative side of faith being compatible with reason? how many on the negative side? i declare a type you have a good afternoon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

and i would argue that world war ii is the same! that the sailor or the soldier becomes the heroic figure, juxtaposed to the zoot suiter, the male or the female zoot suiter. you have the female zoot suiter projecting these female-masculine characteristics, wearing men's clothes, roaming the streets in ways that young women weren't supposed to be doing, or you have the male zoot suiters paying too much attention to their hair, trying to act too pretty, acting too womanly, too feminine. so, you had female masculinity, but you also had masculine femininity, and what zoot suiters in part were challenging what a young american man or woman could be when it came to their gendered identity. i would argue that they're also challenging what they could be when it came to their racial identity. that as i've already said, a big part of the zoot suit was its multiracial quality. when it came to the music and dancing, zoot suiters weren't just listening and dancing to anything, but they were big into the jazz and big band scene. so black jazz art

and i was arguing generically here. that seems to me very similar that i'm going out to the notion that life has a purpose and that there's some divine overarching goal. you can make it go to the opposite way. both leaps go beyond the absolute evidence. and we had time equip time for another question please. i was listening to this. i wonder if each of you could explain what do you mean by compatible. c alright good luck gentlemen. charles darwin made a list. for and against. most people don't do that. this idea of rapid cognition. we are doing these subconscious calculations in our head that were not even aware of.ns this is the whole point of the speed dating. i never want to see this person again. you actually have a whole set of criteria you're not even aware of..it it's already in there. i wouldn't call it fate that faith either. making decisions with uncertainty.tetellsh there is a lot going on that is calculated in your head. >> i believe every rational human being either has to believe in god if you believe in t

a lot of scientists argue to them. scientists have given us a germ theory and vaccines am in no way argues that science is better than religion. science is good for what science does. it's not good for the things that science doesn't do. >> we are out of time. where to take a quick vote. how many of you are still on the affirmative side of faith being compatible with reason? how many on the negative side? i declare a type you have a good afternoon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this week, booktv is in prime time. wednesday at 8:00 p.m., michael eric dyson with his book, what truth sounds like. rfk, james baldwin and our unfitness conversation about race in america. microsoft president brad smith with the future computed. artificial intelligence and its role in society. on friday at 8:00 p.m., adam bello talks about publishing authors from both the political right and left. watch booktv this week in prime townon time on c-span2. booktv is live at the mississippi book festival for their fourth an

i would argue no. the diagnostic label of post-traumatic stress disorder was caudified by the american psychiatric association in 1980. but the words post-traumatic stress and disorder have all been negotiated and debated and reconstructed over the last 100 years. i would argue the experience of the american military psychiatry and mental professionals in each of the wars over the last 100 years have led to acceptance of one of these words, and we can talk more about that in the q ask and a, if that interests you. and one of these words we're still negotiating even to this day. so words matter when it comes to understanding the history of mental illness, and this is especially true in the ways we talk about the psychological breakdown during war. the ways of this breakdown changed during the 20th century because the understanding of mental illness changed. in an early example, this can be seen in the civil war. it led to professional interests in psychological breakdown during combat. mental health sig

yet, i would argue this is the exact place if are it to happen. as the army and larger military as a hole was what is happening to a society. arguments about race relations and fears about changing gender roles as well. by 1966 when the u.s. army opened up it's ranks and regular army for male nurses the army nurse corp could be race and sex inclusive organize. this isn't really a straightforward processive -- progressive story. that's one thing i would like to stress today. this reviews an organize bound reluctantly and interly to social justice activism. it was shaped by war and military preparedness. years after roosevelt's order deeming a place for all in americans defense. that being an equality of treatment in the armed forces. black female nurses continued to deal with race discrimination. female nurses continued to push back against the expectance of male nurses while challenging is unequal treatment of men and women in the armed forces. male nurses were reviewed with is suspension. by the mid 1970s the u.s. army would be charged with nurse

you are arguing your case. have a colleagues who have studied very hard on a case who may have very fixed views or they may be tentative, depending on how they put the case through , and i have to give my point of view and hopefully persuade them. and i feel a sense of anticipation, whether it's an adrenaline rush are auto know what they call it, but this is a big day for us. we sometimes have as many as six cases and i have to present the arguments on maybe for cases got cases, and iour have to be professional and accurate and fair, so there is tension and excitement in the room, but we are delighted. the job is no good if you can't argue. host: how did he prepare for conference day? first, explain what is conference day? ishan: after the justices hear the cases, they go to a conference room, just the nine of them to discuss the cases that have been heard. they also discuss the petitions , but what court justice kennedy was talking about here in this clip was the process of how each of them was going to vote a

in these-i would argue, powerful ways. this is a shot of two black zoot suitors in detroit, shot from behind, walking down the sidewalk. if any of you has seen the denzel washington and spike lee film, malcolm x, you will recall that the opening scene from that film is dan zell, playing malcolm little before he becomes malcolm x. and spike lee playing his sidekick shorty , decked out in their zoot suits in boston in the early years of world war ii, walking down the street, literally, like this. hunched over, arms out, swinging their arms. occupying public space. their watches, their hats, their feathers, their tails, their ballooned out pants. a spectacle to be seen. people having to hop off the sidewalk to let them pass. there bodies and public space were mobilized and occupied, to be seen. to be heard. to challenge this dehumanization that many of them faced up to, as a part of everyday life. in wartime, american society. my point here is that what they were, in fact doing, was making an argument that there is a differen

so you're arguing about -- you're arguing about the cia. and then it brings in, you're working with david ike and the underground lizard people. someone goes, we don't want underground liz saturdard peoplr conspiracy so we want you out. by what metric? we have moved past the idea of introducing rational evidence and how do we make these choices, so we're in a community and i introduced the david ike's ideas of the reptilian race or grays in to the conversation and it can spin rapidly out of control. and i want to show you, the not-not not -- nazi flat earthers, aren't you surprised? on storm front, a nazi page, dedicated to the hoaxicaust saying that the holocaust was not real. and then you watched the white liberty, the guy posting who says, science is the acquisition of knowledge capable of being reproduced. you can't reintroduce big bang. there is multiple evidence that points in the same direction. you can't land on a lightning bolt. you can't land on the sun or the stars or the planets if they are electromagnetic plaza formations. we d

that's what i'm arguing. >> i understand. the president is looking at the message of the interview. he was very firm on how the investigation should go forward. and yet the sound bite that was used was used to out line and predicate that the president fired comey over the russia investigation. >> which is what he said. >> it wasn't an honest assessment. >> he never said after wards -- he never until now said after that interview he talked about it a lot. did he say where it says i fired him because of russia. i didn't mean that. that's out of context. why not? >> right. i have to tell you, my family and i look back on the interview. the time frame from firing comey to getting a special counsel. which is put my family in so many others in harms way. i really regret that interview. my wife and in particular rm regrets it. it was taken out of context. the interview was more honest. i really wish he had never done it. so much came out of that this was really bad. i think that's why he's looking bag on it now. he's starting to loo

i would argue that is in fact the story of hugh hefner with sex. i say this as someone who watched, it was my wife's idea, multiple seasons of the girls next door, the reality show that depicted hugh hefner's final years in which to the very end he organized his life around making sure he had as many viagra fuels quaaludes influenced orgies with as many attractive 22-year-olds as possible even as the society around him in many ways mirrored those excesses. even the libertarian who believes the initial liberation was necessary, the libertarian who believes you can't have a good society unless people are free to read playboy and look at internet porn in the same way a person might say the legacy, the initial thing was good but the world he made in the way he lived his life shouldn't be celebrated. we should be able to say the same thing about hugh hefner even if you think his initial intervention in american life was a good and necessary thing. i will end there. thank you so much. [applause] >> apparently the taller people always win elections and de

against a values because he was arguing againsta ban values because he was arguing against a ban on clear he would not be apologising. the question is, what happens then? if he will not apologise, will the party take disciplinary action against him? that was a question theresa may did not answer this evening. thank you. our home editor, mark easton, is here. by by all accounts, mrjohnson has dismissed the criticism, saying it is ridiculous. given the words he used and the language he used, is that fair? i think there are two separate issues, one whether it is legitimate to have a debate about whether women should be free to wear the burqa in public and i remember jack straw raising this issue over a decade ago after he revealed he refused to seems muslim constituents who wore a burqa to his constituency surgery who wore a burqa to his constituency surgery also i personally attended public debates in which muslim women have argued this issue from both sides of the argument and that debate continues. it seems that the remarks of mrjohnson has remained another and separate issue, wheth

i argue no. postiagnostic label of traumatic stress disorder was caused by the american psychiatric association in 1980. the word posttraumatic stress and disorder have all been negotiated over the last 100 years. to experienceou -- have led to acceptance of one of these words and we can talk more about that in the q&a. one of these words is one we are still negotiating to this day. it comes matter when to understanding the history of mental illness and this is true when we examine the ways different people talk about psychological breakdown during war. the labels for this breakdown changed throughout the 20th century because the understanding of mental illness changed. an early example of this can be seen in the civil war where limited understanding lead to little professional interests and psychological breakdown during combat. and to help sinus was in its infancy at this time. psychiatrist had little by way of formal training and the most part, they were building administrators. understanding

instead of arguing to win, you can argue to learn, and then y have to acknowledge when your opponent has a made a good point. i think most of us are terrible at hearing criticism.t think abat happens to you physically, your shoulders start to tense, your body tightens up, your heart raises and you just feel like yoalre being phys attacked. there's an experiment i love about how to give criticism so that other people really hear it and it only take about 19 words. you open by saying "i'm givingts you these commecause i have very high expectations of you and i'm confident you can reach th." it changes the conversation, instead of saying "oh no, this person's about to attack me." the person receiving the feedback says "oh, this person is trying to help me i spend a lot of time working with sheryl sandberg the c.o.o. of facebook and i've learned a lot from watching her lead. one of the things that shery sandberg noticed was that she climbed up the hierarchy in her career. people stopped giving herti ne feedback. sheryl's obsess with feedback in fact she's been told that she ask for too m

the press argued -- attacked him for arguing that the cia started the crack epidemic. now, it wasn't exactly what he said. he didn't say, necessarily -- he wasn't even arguing that the cia was bringing in the crack and selling it on the streets as much as they were aligned with people who were selling drugs to finance their paramilitary activities, and the cia looked the other way. now, the question is, is this true or not? i mean, it's hard to imagine saying, again, we'd love to say the u.s. government wouldn't do this. i actually think there's a really strong argument that the claims of african-american people in particular, latino people as well, their claims that are legitimate are dismissed as conspiracies because they sound like the other conspiracies. right? so i think that there is a sense in which you can attack spike lee or ignore spike lee and say, flooding the ninth ward or medical experiments or tuskegee, like, at some point in tuskegee, if that had come out in the late '60s as an accusation, people would have said, that's absolutely, 100% not true. it can

you want to argue about whether it would be a gender 21 as part of it. the real argument, do we believe that the book of revelations is telling a future story with a government chair on the antichrist and we are at the end of times which will be happening soon? if you believe christ will come again in the next 40 years and this is the narrative of the future and we are only waiting for the world to get in line with what we know will occur. knowing about agenda 21 is it is only a tiny bit of a giant world of you coming through and the conversation you are having. this is a illuminated reading of the dollar, how to beget this eagle, this is the obsession of the 13, 13 colonies, who knows. these are the layers of brick tied into the 27 powers of god and the kabbalah. we have the all seeing eye, this is depicted as lucifer, it is strange that on our money, if you look at other countries money there are birds or a poet and madame curie. ours has a masonic symbol of the all seeing eye. it happened in roosevelt with who was a mason, or redesigning the money was

the job is no good if you can't argue are you host: how did he -- argue. host: how did he prepare for a conference day. the first explain what conference day is for those who don't know. will hearhe justices oral arguments in the case and then later in the week as well. they all preparedness incredible room, the conference room that is connected to the chief justice chambers. this to discuss all the cases that are being heard. they also discuss the petitions that have been wild by the courts. it's also part of the court process to decide what they hear. but what the justices talking about here is the process of talking about how each will vote and how the opinion will be assigned and if the chief justice is in the majority, the chief will sign the opinion and if the justices not in the majority the most senior justice in the majority will assign it and the only person -- to officially keeps notes was a junior justice. i guess right now justice gorsuch is doing it. as for how he prepares for the conference, he took this extremely seriously. even in cases wh

i would argue no. the diagnostic label of post-traumatic stress disorder was codified by the american psychiatric association in 1980. but the words post-traumatic stress and disorder have all been debated, negotiated, and constructed over the last 100 years. i would argue that the experience of american military psychiatrists and mental health professionals in each of the wars of the last 100 years have led to acceptance of one of these words. we can talk more about that in the q&a if that interests you. at least one of these words, disorder, is one we are still negotiating even today. words matter when it comes to understanding the history of mental illness. this is especially true when we examine the ways different people talk about psychological breakdown during war. the labels for this breakdown changed throughout the 20th century because the understanding of mental illness changed it an -- changed. an early example can be seen in the civil war, when the minute understanding of mental illness left

-- and one would argue up until today. because of the involvement at the time, when he produced work at the same time as the show, he was involved in the community arts center and art and soul, a collaborative art space initiated in chicago in an unusual partnership with the conservative vice lords, a manifestation of a westside gang. a faculty member has written extensively on arnold's connection. in some ways, this work photo collages commenting on gender sexuality, race, and politics, demonstrated how focused and in some ways limited my inquiry is. i am looking at predominantly white male artists in high-end galleries with tons of commercial viability in established collections. still had questions about the efficacy of art being able to intervene in current conflicts. if the events of 1968 could infiltrate that tightly controlled context, things must have been really bad. show and other protest exhibitions demonstrates a tenuous relationship between the gallery and what is happening in the street. while we often preten

davis, was a great lawyer who had just argued, just argued two months earlier brown v.board of education on behalf of the state of south carolina, pleading with the court nod to desegregation -- not to desegregate. and so according to warren, eisenhower said that he's a great man. and, first of all, warren was very uncomfortable with john w. davis being at that stag dinner. and, of course, thurgood marshall was not at that stag dinner, the chief attorney for the naacp. but warren -- eisenhower, in warren's view, compounded his, the unethical judgment by taking warren aside when they went as men in the 1950s at stag dinners do, went more their brandy and cigars, and said that, you know, these, these white parents are not so bad. they just don't want their little girls to go to school with overgrown black boys. very racist comment. and, in fact, one of warren's biographers said he didn't really say black boys, he said black bucks, which is even worse. so the question is at the time he said this, and this is while the court was deliberating on brown v. board of education,

they agree to reargue and it is re argued in october 1972. t: there it was a presidential election going on. the court always positions itself as being distant from the political process. in case after case, we have learned there are influences about the politics that really do find their way into the court and its proceedings. what about in this case? nixon-mcgovern election is the backdrop against which the court is doing all of this. nixon is an interesting figure because he actually is in favor accessralizing abortion during one point but then has he takes on the mcgoverns he began to play up his own anti-abortion he elaborates those are his stance on crime also becomes more articulated and -- he begins to position himself as the anti-mcgovern. speculated under strong evidence for it on burger , the chief justice, delays releasing the opinion in roe versus wade until after the election and after nixon is inaugurated. released onn is generate 22, 1973 after the inauguration. host: shades of dred scott where there was a decision delayed bec

that's what i'm arguing. it is in context. >> i understand.n, chris, i think the president's looking at the totality of his message of that interview, where he was very firm on how this investigation should go forward, and yet the sound bite that was used was used to outline and to predicate that the president fired comey over the russia investigation. >> right, which is what he said. >> i don't think that was an honest assessment. >> he never said afterwards, by the way -- he never -- he never, until now, he never said after that interview -- and he talked about it a lot -- did he say, hey, by the way, where it says i fired him because of russia, i didn't mean that. that's taken out of context. why not? >> right. chris, i got to tell you, my family and i look back on that interview, that whole time frame there where we went from firing comey to getting a special counsel, which has put my family and so many other families in harm's way, and i really regret that lester holt interview. my wife in particular really regrets it. i think it was take

lawyers argue in the alternative.w it isfully cased, but why would i say something that is not true? >> well, he said two completely different things. let's discuss with jim hymes of connecticut. >> i know this from having read the memos, that jim comey was pressured by the president in a one on one dinner in the white house to go easy on flynn. now did he use the exact words drop the investigation? i don't think necessarily. maybe that is where julianny is working this, but he is contradicting himself. he is the president of the united states, in the white house, being pretty clear with the director of the fbi about what he wanted. so i don't know where where his stories are coming from high pressure. >> his new story appears to be that no conversation happened, period. another is that james comey's version is not the president's version of the story. he could argue that the president has a different memory of what was discussed. he seems to be arguing that nothing was discussed. >> two things to remember, john. ther

there is, many would argue, a war raging on the home front. a war for some of the very same principles that folks were fighting overseas for. a war for american democracy, for first class membership and citizenship. we're going to talk mainly about the war on the home front today. and the lens than i want to use to talk about this for the first half of class today is youth culture, popular fashion, and more specifically the zoot suit. how many of you have ever seen or perhaps worn a zoot suit? anyone? where have you seen it or worn it? where? in your doc class, of course. this is topic often covered in doc as well as a few other classes on campus. anyone else seen or heard of the zoot suit? one of the things i want you to consider about the zoot is it has a long life. we're going to talk about it in the context of world war ii, but it has appeared in recent years in the late '90s and early 2000s when high school kids were wearing it to prom. when it became the topic of popular fashion in music by the cherry poppin' baddies, this resurgence of

in fact, the attorneys argued it. sarah weddington and the texas attorneys in roe versus wade, but there are the arguments of transcripts in doe v. bolton. dorothy, who was the assistant general for georgia, argued old -- argued both rounds of arguments. she is regularly touted to be t of all thelis attorneys in both cases, in both rounds of arguments. to the hear and listen argument online. she made arguments about the constitutionality, but also about fetal development and a very strong element in support of the georgia statute. up is marvin in los angeles. hello, marvin. caller: i want to ask the question, is roe v. wade established law, or is there any case that comes through the lower court system that could overturn roe v. wade? one of the issues in the current presidential campaign is, if you vote for candidate x, or candidate y, the supreme court might be changed by voting for that particular person who might appoint certain justices. so is it established, is it safe, or is there a case coming might overturn i

so you're arguing about you're arguing about cia and then they bring in well it's because they're working as david ike says with the under ground wizard people. someone says we don't want under ground wizard people we want you out. by what metric. we moved past the idea that we introduced rational evidence. we're in a community and we introduced ike's idea of a reptilian race. or i bring in race and it rapidly spins out of control. this is nazi flag earthers right-hand turn you -- earthers aren't you surprised. they are on storm front which is a nazi page dedicated to the hoax-o-caust. claiming the holocaust was not real. and there are flat earthers who wanted to be part of this conversation. there's white liberty posting, science is the opposition. you can't reproduce big bang. there are ultimate lines of science that point in the same direction. globe planes you can't land on a lightning bolt. you can't land on the sun or stars or planet but they are electromagnetic plasma formation. we don't normally deal with plasma or understand its properties. this is the reason why nasa had to fake

you're arguing your case. i have eight colleagues who have on the case.hard they may have some very fixed views and may be tentative on how they felt the case through. point of view my and hopefully to persuade them. i feel a sense of anticipation, adrenaline as an rush, i don't know what they call it. us, is a big, big day for we sometimes have as many as six the and i have to present argument as well in four cases to be ave been professional and accurate and fair and each of my colleagues feels the same way. little tension and excitement in the room but we love it. we're designed to do that. no good if you can't argue. did he prepare for conference day, explain for don't know what is conference day? hear after the justices oral argument in the cases and week lso late during the as well, they go to the conference room which is to the chief justices chambers, they'll sit the nine of them to discuss all of the that have been heard. they discuss the petitions that have been filed by the courts. part of the proce

i would argue there is a much greater chance that argentina has bottomed.key has more structural things to do. the system might be under stress. is, turkey is an opportunity but not a long-term yet. vonnie: you mentioned brazil. anything going on? hans: just looking at corporate opportunities. shery: how do your calculations get affected by what is happening in the political sphere? it is mostly about politics. what is happening with the venezuelan immigration crisis, but brazil, heading to another election in october which seems risky. hans: thank goodness it is all about politics otherwise i would not be able to run the portfolio. we are in this stage of the market cycle now where it is not about analyzing spreadsheets. the probability of political reactions and you're right, the outcomes are going to be dictated by politics. the imf stepping in for argentina, the rational for that is political. , i would argue there were structural problems before but this is a political issue. he has been trying to consolidate power and has been sacrificing the economy.

and soft argues that the revulsion expressed by many around the world is sheer hypocrisy. we don't know if your in even your. wars they don't tell you. may lead us with. these bloody. wars. and yet it is not just the international community that has condemned the war even within israel there are many who believe that it isn't serving any useful purpose it was miniscule difference yal diane is deputy mayor of tel aviv that's probably better known for being the daughter of moshe dyan the hero of the one nine hundred sixty seven war in which israel alec's the west bank this current war she argues is not the answer. it's not effective. because instead of being an obstacle to tell wastes it became another obstacle to peace into sensitivities a provocation it's not a peaceful path. it became a political statement and it's a sea. bed to deep feelings of additional patients. a speaking it doesn't have legality from anybody in displaced. population. yet the israeli public went along with the idea of highly decorated army pilot believes they allowed themselves to be duped with catas

moreover, to argue for them on the basis of the rule of law is to argue that the enforcement of bad laws increases respect for law. that is ridiculous. moreover, the conservatives suggest that we have a constitutional duty toen enforce these laws. i would ask them to find in the constitution the words "immigration and customs enforcement." [laughter] i can tell them they not find it. -- they will not find it. we have rules allowed by the constitution for naturalization, and it is true that we should limit citizenship to those that show they can join productively in our national life, who have joined our culture. but i would ask them if they believe that illegal immigrants who risk every day being grabbed and thrown from the life that they have chosen in this country and that they have -- and to be taken from there and taken back to their country which they have sol haven tearily left do not value america. >> thank you both. [applause] for the fourth section of the debate, we're going to dial up the persuasion a little bit more, so we're going to start with the conservatives this time. an

he argues they even slammed the investigation as a, quote, witch hunt or hysteria.rald ford described the whole investigation as nothing but a cloud of doubt. >> a cloud of doubt hangs over washington as we are gathered here this evening. it is a cloud that must be cleared away for the sake of our country. >> the tone may be different, but the substance is similar, cleared away is him calling for an end of the probe, something we've heard from trump's legal team and many republican allies in congress. >> i think the mueller investigation has got to stop. >> we should now spend our time protecting ourselves instead of having this witch hunt on the president. >> i've been pushing for a year to end this investigation. i thought it was basically corrupt from the very beginning. >> put up or shut up, mueller. >> it's all about timing. conway arguing that what you just heard largely does match what many nixon era republicans initially did in reacting to the probe. and they only started to break with nixon after those smoking gun tapes came out, far later than the moment w

arguing for the first time. part of what is going on here is a question of constitutional avenues, and one of the things parties focus on is whether the texas law is constitutionally vague area there is little discussion of other times of constitutional theories that might have been used. ande is an interesting funny if not misogynistic moment when jay floyd arguing for the state of texas wrote to the court that with these two pretty young ladies, they are sure to get the last word. he plays this for a laugh and it fails miserably. he is greeted with stony silence. one person wrote that were in burger looksren like he is going to come down from on high and punish floyd himself. >> some play that tape for students on how not to argue for the supreme court. >> on twitter, how could he have thought a sexist joke was the best way to start? was he the best they had? >> obviously not because they're a place in with another attorney for the second argument. j floyd starts out with a bad joke and the argument goes downh

oh the people or the arguing going for example you if you look at the newspapers in two thousand and twelve two thousand and thirteen two thousand and fourteen certainly there would be all these because they meant in independent get along yet. you will not be able to be their pensions. that's a misstatement and then you see because the state does have all the pensions cut alone you would lose it i'll think think about yourself you think you are the only imagine that i. hold my morning in the bank if i become independent of all the money that they have been saving over time in order to pay for my retirement so we're going to lose it all or bill you tell that to people and people will become what it about. but this is a lie because pensions are not paid by funds that were collected in the past the now are put into investment and so on the pensions that are being paid today i based on the taxes that are being collected today for the pensions of my parents receive basically are based on the taxes on my celebes if the one year becomes independent the waters will remaining at the la niña a

choose the right policy is the rate of regulations the right investment few people seriously would argue that an economy the size of catalonia couldn't be a perfectly viable country indeed many economists would argue as the perfect size and all the gold in size between five and fifteen million all of evidence for that but is there really an argument that it would be worth the candle the the improvement the economic improvement would be such that it would justify the all the bother of setting up an independent state the size argument is completely silly i mean the size argument is when i worked for the world economic forum you know the competitiveness index in the global competitiveness jointly devised. exactly how the person who arrived at the. for the forum ok i still run i still help them run the program nobody in their right mind can tell me that smaller countries perform worse than larger countries during the twentieth century the forces that would help your if you are a large country are these appearing right markets are no longer countries market is the world or group of countries

i wouldn't argue with him! starting with christopher robin. p&g, and i am fascinated about whether this is really children's film. what is this --? really children's film. what is this ——? only eight pg. really children's film. what is this --? only eight pg. ijust came from a screening, children there with their merchandise, thinking, great, iam going their merchandise, thinking, great, i am going see a winnie—the—pooh movie. they are not. what they will see is very cute. he is famously a bear of little brain but a very big heart. this is ewan mcgregor as an aduu heart. this is ewan mcgregor as an adult christopher robin, though i stress not the real christopher robin, referring to a film earlier this year about the real—life christopher robin had. this one is miserable, working in post—war london for a luggage firm, too much work on his plate, can't spend enough time with his wife, and his child, played by the wonderfully deliberate wonderful child british actress, very posh, but very beatable. very stressed out and can't work out what is ha

if you would argue that your example and the was the parts part of the inspiration why so many cattlean economist took part in the constitutional debate and that was the fact that you'd been a political practitioner encourage members of academia to get involved no i doubt that the look of half the population in colonial. or. independence. soul. the logic says that half of the economists and got the money are independents there are many economists. many good economists need a profession. profession which is where international lights lots of us from everywhere cash one question about how an economist estimates the effects of catherine and the pandas presumably you have to trade off the potential short disruption depending how a settlement was reached against a potential medium term benefit from perhaps improved decision making is violence. we estimated the some of the. some of the issues is one. to contemplate leaving. leaving the. union for me a scenario in your scenario involving independents who have to be in a scenario there for some coming of mediation the mediation of. because we

so, for example, they could argue..., violates twitter content policy repeatedly, but in order to get around having to ban him they instituted a "newsworthy policy". things like that make it seem as though they want to look as though they're fighting toxicity but not actually fight toxicity by banning very prominent people. so if you take that into account when you look at alex jones, the logic that they gave was that he hadn't actually violated their content policies, which is really, really false. like, that was debunked by many media outlets after they made this announcement. and because of that, they then had to suspend him temporarily. yet, briefly if you can, aja, if social media networks accepted their responsibility really, employed the number of people they would need to police their content adequately, doesn't their business model become unmanageable entirely? well, there are arguments that that's true and that basically if we want social media, we have to have all of the toxic stuff and the detritus of the int

this time, they argued against the terminology that was being deployed. in fact, they went so far as they contacted george creole who was the head of the committee on public information, which was the organizational body that sort of led issues of censorship. they asked him to make it illegal for newspapers to use the word "shell shock". and he did. but it was very limited. interests hated this terp. it was not ford any effort by the medical community that we still think of shell shock today but because it was popularized by the public and popularized by the soldiers. what did american psychiatrists do to meet this challenge? the first world war seemed to be an important challenge. neutrality may have kept the american soldier from entering the war when it first began but did not stop american doctors observing the types of casualties occurring over the ocean. as the editors effort boston medical and surgical journals noted, one the most often effective effort of reversing an evil is to take intelligent measures for counter it. one surgeon says, it's impo

we're arguing whether or not this is a cup instead of arguing policy. >> yes.cks a lot of oxygen out of the room. when people say this must be a really exciting time for you. i often say i'm sad for all the things we don't talk about. the important policy discussions we don't have because we are fact checkers full time. >> he keeps lying or misleading or exaggerating. >> have a good rest of your day. >>> safe, kind and supportive. that's facebook's commitment as it rules out new tools for healthier social media initiative, as the company again faces withering criticism on capitol hill. where lawmakers, intel officials and experts are struggling to figure out how to stop the russian influence campaign that is undermining america's democracy. the president, on the other hand, is busy with his own influence campaign. before noon today in a span

lawyers argue like this -- we call it arguing in the alternative. >> is that it?> it's clear to me now. so let me -- >> i laugh because i'm quite confused. you are greater legal minds and minds in general. is this -- what did he call it? arguing the alternative. that's a thing. is it what we are looking at? >> we see arguing in the alternative in court all the time. what it usually -- let me use a murder trial. the defense will say my client did not kill the victim. if he did, he did it in self-defense. that doesn't play well. i don't think this nonsense we hear from mr. giuliani will play well with the american public or if we end up in impeachment hearings in the house. let me tell you about my experience with bob mueller and what i have drown from it. when he was my chief of homicide at the united states attorneys office for the district of columbia and i was one of his prosecutors. you don't negotiate with bob mueller. if you need a question answered, guidance, approval, you stand outside his door at 6:30 in the morning. he gives you three minutes to explain t

i don't think we should be arguing about whether he meant should or must. i think he intended clearly to disrupt this investigation. in the same way he sent messages to the jury in the manafort trial that his friend was a good man who had worked for ronald reagan and was a darling, i think he used the word darling. i think these are things that should not be allowed. there is a judge in new york, judge bu judge -- who has ruled the twitter account is a public domain and he cannot block people from it. >> which speaks to the idea it is official and when he says things on it, it's no the mere opinion. now that mueller has apparently agreed to marrow the range of topics and offer trump the chance to give written answers, what do you think the strategy is? >> i don't know that the president will ever actually sit down. this may all be for show for his audience that oh, i really want to do this. and that he will ever actually agree to sit down. but i also don't really think the prosecutors need him, because he is obstructing in plain sight. he is communicating o

conservatism and conservative foreign-policy -- we will not argue with every point of history and argued that every decision made by a president with an r next to his name is absolutely right and should be taken in line with the entire tradition of conservatism. but we argue that a conservative foreign-policy and an active role in the world has resulted in, under this administration, the complete destruction of isis. a foreign-policy that keeps america strong helps preserve peace. thank you. [applause] can each of you address the question of unfettered corporate cronyism and whether it amounts to social welfare for the rich and whether it constitutes true -- whether it jeopardizes a true free market economy? >> let's start with the libertarians. >> any sort of government support or craft legislation of business is something libertarians would not support. it is something we have done a lot to combat since the gilded age. we have seen a lot of improvement since then because our work against it. it is something we continue to fight against. >> cronyism is a problem. i would point out that

another surgeon argued differently. he thought nostalgia was caused by dissatisfaction, low morale, and what he considered to be an overall lack of manliness. him possibleffered solutions, he suggested that soldiers have more access and the theory that a soldier who was at home cannot be homesick. he called upon military doctors to exert any influence that will make a soldier more manly. he prescribed risk you -- ridicule and thought the soldier could be laughed out of it. perhaps the strongest recommendation was to find a battle as quickly as possible. combated that because allowed them to fight, they were now men and soldiers once again. they would not have the chance to develop nostalgia. really there are few conditions around this -- a few confusions around this condition. what is interesting is the general consensus of what does not cause nostalgia. leaving home caused a nostalgia, being in war does not. going to war, not being in war could cause this breakdown. wasr this logic more war actually the way to cure sol