Cato Events Podcast

Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that the earth belongs to the living. His letter to James Madison is often quoted for the proposition that we should not be bound to the “dead hand of the past,” suggesting that the Constitution should instead be interpreted as a living, breathing document. Less well known is Madison’s response, in which he said that the Constitution forms a debt against the living, who take the benefit of it. This debt, Madison claimed, could only be discharged by a kind of originalism. Who is right? Thomas Jefferson or James Madison? Please join us for a conversation with Ilan Wurman, author of the forthcoming book A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism, to discuss this and many other questions. Stanford law professor and former federal judge Michael W. McConnell has described the book as the first “to explain to the ordinary citizen—free from what the late Justice Antonin Scalia called ‘jiggery pokery’—what it means to understand the Constitution as enduring law rather than politics by a different name.” All are welcome, but interns, law students, and potential law students may be particularly interested.

One basis of modern medicine is that low doses of many chemicals are beneficial, while higher ones are toxic. And yet a great disparity has evolved with the regulation of many entities — including carcinogens, ionizing radiation, and toxics. Their regulation is based on the notion that that a single molecule or photon is as capable of inducing cancer as the billionth one. How has this disparity happened — with low, beneficial doses being treated and regulated the same way as higher ones? What is correct?One highly compelling look at this subject has emerged from Dr. Edward Calabrese’s painstaking and voluminous research. Using recently declassified Atomic Energy Commission documents, Calabrese details the establishment of the linear no-threshold model at the height of the Cold War, when thermonuclear bombs were routinely detonated in the atmosphere, resulting in radioactive fallout. His is a spellbinding story of what is often called “noble cause corruption” of science, and of how difficult it is to correct when backed by the might of the federal government.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One basis of modern medicine is that low doses of many chemicals are beneficial, while higher ones are toxic. And yet a great disparity has evolved with the regulation of many entities — including carcinogens, ionizing radiation, and toxics. Their regulation is based on the notion that that a single molecule or photon is as capable of inducing cancer as the billionth one. How has this disparity happened — with low, beneficial doses being treated and regulated the same way as higher ones? What is correct?

One highly compelling look at this subject has emerged from Dr. Edward Calabrese’s painstaking and voluminous research. Using recently declassified Atomic Energy Commission documents, Calabrese details the establishment of the linear no-threshold model at the height of the Cold War, when thermonuclear bombs were routinely detonated in the atmosphere, resulting in radioactive fallout. His is a spellbinding story of what is often called “noble cause corruption” of science, and of how difficult it is to correct when backed by the might of the federal government.

Political communication can be described as the use of three separate “languages”: progressive, conservative and libertarian. Each serves to reinforce the validity of the positions of its constituent members while at the same time maligning the views of their opponents.By identifying and understanding the language that each group employs, we can discuss politics while minimizing miscommunication, break down barriers to real connection, and create space for a less fractious exchange of ideas.Join us for a timely introduction to Kling’s new and updated version of this modern classic.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Political communication can be described as the use of three separate “languages”: progressive, conservative and libertarian. Each serves to reinforce the validity of the positions of its constituent members while at the same time maligning the views of their opponents.

By identifying and understanding the language that each group employs, we can discuss politics while minimizing miscommunication, break down barriers to real connection, and create space for a less fractious exchange of ideas.

Join us for a timely introduction to Kling’s new and updated version of this modern classic.

Ayn Rand’s first novel, We the Living, is a captivating story set in 1920s Russia about students trapped in a communist state. As Rand said, “We the Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time.” With new authoritarian challenges to liberal democracy arising throughout the Western world, its ideas are as timely as ever. The theatrical company Austin Shakespeare will present a staged reading from The Unconquered, Rand’s play from the book edited by Robert Mayhew. A panel discussion on its themes of individualism, authoritarianism, and threats to liberty will follow.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ayn Rand’s first novel, We the Living, is a captivating story set in 1920s Russia about students trapped in a communist state. As Rand said, “We the Living is not a story about Soviet Russia in 1925. It is a story about Dictatorship, any dictatorship, anywhere, at any time.” With new authoritarian challenges to liberal democracy arising throughout the Western world, its ideas are as timely as ever. The theatrical company Austin Shakespeare will present a staged reading from The Unconquered, Rand’s play from the book edited by Robert Mayhew. A panel discussion on its themes of individualism, authoritarianism, and threats to liberty will follow.

“Discrimination” has a terrible connotation — excluding or treating people differently for ultimately superficial reasons — and fear that choice programs would allow schools to discriminate in admissions has been widespread. But is “discrimination” always and inescapably wrong? Could it reflect a school’s capabilities or sense of mission? Join us for a very open discussion — including opinions from the audience — of this highly sensitive issue.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“Discrimination” has a terrible connotation — excluding or treating people differently for ultimately superficial reasons — and fear that choice programs would allow schools to discriminate in admissions has been widespread. But is “discrimination” always and inescapably wrong? Could it reflect a school’s capabilities or sense of mission? Join us for a very open discussion — including opinions from the audience — of this highly sensitive issue.

According to a recent New York Times analysis, drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under age 50. Driving this trend, which shows no sign of abatement, is a surge in opioid-related overdoses. These types of deaths have occurred with such frequency that Maryland, Florida, and now Arizona, have declared medical states of emergencyWhat to do? Solutions range from requiring more federal intervention in the practice of medicine, increasing punishing actions on heroin production in Central America and Afghanistan, and enhancing domestic law enforcement efforts to crack down on street-corner dealers and their supply networks. Other ideas involve an increase in public education, medical intervention, and monitoring, as well as deregulation and legalization.Join us for a clarifying examination of the issues and learn what Congress should and should not do to remedy the situation.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.