The Epitome of Patriotism: An Iranian Americans Story
I listen to a lot of podcast. Few are as moving as the story told on The Moth Radio Hour about a young Iranian American who travels back to her homeland during the 2009 Iranian elections. Her story demonstrate how truly lucky we are to be American. Although all of the stories on this edition of The Moth Radio Hour were superb, the Iranian American story is segment three starting at around 49:40.
The most recent episode of the Planet Money podcast discusses a new book by Yale historian Paul Sabin entitled The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future. In 1980, economist Julian Simon challenged biologist Paul Ehrlich to a bet. Ehrlich came to fame by writing The Population Bomb, which argued that unchecked population growth would led to the end of mankind. Economist Simon believed Ehrlich’s assertions were unfounded. The two devised a debate to test the proposition.
Here is a description of the podcast from the Planet Money website:
A famous biologist predicts overpopulation will lead to global catastrophe. He writes a bestselling book and goes on the Tonight Show to make his case.
An economist disagrees. He thinks the biologist isn’t accounting for how clever people can be, and how shortages can lead to new, more efficient ways of doing things.
So the economist, Julian Simon, challenges the biologist, Paul Ehrlich, to a very public, very acrimonious, decade-long bet. On today’s show: The story of that bet, and the ugly precedent it set.
Is Football Destroying America?
Okay, that is not quite a fair title. However, a recent episode of The Diane Rehm Show really hammers football. A lot has been written recently about the concussion crisis in football. This episode of The Diane Rehm Show not only discusses concussions but also how tax payers subsidize the NFL, since it is currently operated as a nonprofit (i.e. no taxes). I must admit as a football fan there were aspects of the interview (of Gregg Easterbrook, author of “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America“) that made me think, “What did you expect an NPR show would think of football?” However, on the whole, it is worth a listen. For anyone interest in the intersection between sports and public policy, this show discusses all of the major policy issues surrounding football on all levels.
Here is a description of the interview:
Monday Night Football. Super Bowl Sunday. The big homecoming day game. New Year’s college bowls. It’s hard to imagine a sport more American than football. The game hasn’t been embraced anywhere in the world quite like it has in the United States. Gregg Easterbrook, author of the new book, “King of Sports,” says without football “there would still be 50 stars on the flag … but America wouldn’t be quite the same.” But Easterbrook argues the game is in serious need of reform at all levels. Diane discusses football’s impact on America and what it will take to clean up the sport.
Guests
Gregg Easterbrookauthor, “The King of Sports: Football’s Impact on America”. He is a contributing editor of “The Atlantic Monthly” and “The Washington Monthly”, and a columnist for ESPN.com.
Give Directly: Evidence and Poverty Alleviation
I first heard about GiveDirectly, a charity that simply gives money to people in extremely poor villages in Africa, on an episode of This American Life several months back. GiveDirectly has challenged other charities to show that their donors that are getting their bang for their buck.
Here is a description of that story, cleverly titled “Money for Nothing and Your Cows for Free”:
Planet Money reporters David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein went to Kenya to see the work of a charity called GiveDirectly in action. Instead of funding schools or wells or livestock, GiveDirectly has decided to just give money directly to the poor people who need it, and let them decide how to spend it. David and Jacob explain whether this method of charity works, and why some people think it’s a terrible idea. (28 minutes)
More recently, the Freakonomics Radio Podcast discussed some of the data coming in on GiveDirectly as well as poverty alleviation more broadly.
Here is a description of the Freakonomics show, entitled “Fighting Poverty With Actual Evidence”:
But one case study can’t definitively answer the larger question: what’s the best way to help poor people stop being poor? That’s the question we address in this new podcast. If features a discussion that Stephen Dubner recently moderated in New York City with Richard Thalerand Dean Karlan. Thaler is an economist at the University of Chicago, and a co-author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. (Both the British and U.S. governments now have “nudge” units, focused on using behavioral economics for policy improvements.) Karlan is a professor of economics at Yale and founder of the nonprofit Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), which hosted the New York event. IPA, which Karlan founded, is trying to figure out how to best alleviate poverty. The answer, as you might expect, isn’t so simple.
In some situations, giving money directly to poor people works well; in others, less so. IPA studied the efficacy of a cash-transfer experiment in Kenya run by the nonprofit GiveDirectly. For background, you might want to see how The Economist described the experiment, and also what NPR’s Planet Money had to say.
That was the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared squared podcast.
Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and University of Texas Law and Governmet Professor Sanford Levinson, who argued for the motion; and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and David Kopel– Research Director, Independence Institute & Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, who argued against the motion.
Here is description of the debate:
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” –2nd Amendment
Recent mass shooting tragedies have renewed the national debate over the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and homicide rates are higher in the U.S. than in any other developed nation, but gun violence has decreased over the last two decades even as gun ownership may be increasing. Over 200 years have passed since James Madison introduced the Bill of Rights, the country has changed, and so have its guns. Is the right to bear arms now at odds with the common good, or is it as necessary today as it was in 1789?