A visible law enforcement presence, like the National Guard, may deter crime, but Professor Laura Dugan, of the Ohio State University Department of Sociology, explains that deploying the Garud will not reduce crime in the long term. The first step in reducing crime is to understand the crime dynamics within a city and then make strategic decisions to address not only the crimes themselves but also their underlying causes.

Research has shown that simply increasing patrols or random police presence does not effectively deter crime in the long term. While deploying military personnel with visible weapons might have some immediate effect, it fails to address the root causes of criminal activity.

While some police departments have units dedicated to crime analysis and proactive strategies, most resources are devoted to reactive policing. Problem-solving policing targets the root causes of crime and focuses on small groups or specific neighborhoods responsible for a disproportionate share of criminal activity.

Professor Dugan cites research indicating that providing healthcare, family planning, education, and providing support to low-income pregnant women reduces criminality in the long term. She advocates for meeting the basic needs of vulnerable populations, emphasizing that social services offer alternatives to criminal behavior and provide necessary safety nets. These approaches, however, are often viewed with skepticism by certain political groups, despite their past bipartisan support.

Has President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard had any measurable effect on crime reduction? Professor Dugan is skeptical, noting that crime rates have been declining nationally, echoing patterns seen in the 1990s, and cautions against attributing recent declines to the deployment of the National Guard. She acknowledges that visible law enforcement may be useful for specific events like Mardi Gras but warns that deploying military personnel in communities with existing tensions can exacerbate problems. She underscores the importance of strategic use of resources and building relationships between law enforcement and communities.

Listen to the conversation.

Neil Clark’s perspective as an Ohio lobbyist revealed the pervasive influence of money in politics. By wearing a “DeWine for Governor” t-shirt when he died by suicide, Clark appeared to question why lobbyists and others were being prosecuted for actions that were common throughout Ohio’s political system. The distinction between legitimate lobbying and illegal “pay-to-play” schemes is nearly indistinguishable, a point emphasized in Larry Householder’s appeals.

Today, we talk with Catherine Turcer, executive director, and Mia Lewis, associate director, of Common Cause Ohio about dark money and its role in politics.

Dark money refers to undisclosed or secret financial contributions, often routed through various nonprofits to obscure the funding source. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations and nonprofits were permitted to make campaign contributions under the rationale they were exercising their First Amendment rights. The result is that more money is now poured into campaigns.

Though the Supreme Court recognized the public benefit of disclosure, both federal and state governments have been slow to implement effective transparency measures. The lack of disclosure allows unethical practices to thrive in secrecy, emphasizing the need to identify and reveal the true sources of campaign funds.

Political action committees, also known as PACs, are required to file with governmental agencies like the Secretary of State or the Federal Election Commission and provide official records of their activities. In contrast, other nonprofits can be formed for short-term political advocacy and not register.

Effective disclosure laws can reduce the amount of money in politics and ensure that political advertisements and campaigns are held to higher standards. Corporate donors, for example, might avoid contributing to contentious issues if their support is made public, which can influence the tone and integrity of political messaging. Disclosure empowers voters by revealing who is attempting to sway elections and why, fostering informed decision-making.

The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and both are under attack. These protections apply universally, ensuring that anyone can express themselves without prior restraint, though certain limitations exist through laws addressing harm or falsehoods.

Professional journalists adhere to a clear ethical code: never knowingly publish false information. This principle is at the core of responsible journalism and shapes the profession’s commitment to truth. Intellectual honesty and a commitment to factual reporting are key.

We talk with Marty Schladen, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal, about the challenges the press faces.

With the reduction of local news outlets and mainstream newspapers, a void has emerged, filled by individuals who lack professional training and oversight. This “fog machine” of misinformation makes it challenging for the public to distinguish reliable news from opinion or falsehoods.

In today’s media landscape, anyone can reach a large audience, making it difficult to discern professional journalists from amateurs. The lack of a regulatory body means that the honor system and personal credibility are vital for maintaining standards in reporting. Journalists must rely on their reputation and adherence to ethical guidelines to build trust with the public.

The Trump administration seeks to suppress or delegitimize the press, such as restricting access and publicly shaming specific journalists and outlets. Personal attacks and refusal to answer questions have created barriers to information, both at the national and state levels.

Reporters regularly face personal attacks and efforts to undermine their credibility. Despite these challenges, maintaining professionalism and composure is key, so that journalists can keep politicians and businesses accountable.

Efforts to restrict journalists’ access to government information, such as requiring loyalty pledges or excluding major news organizations, are particularly concerning. These actions undermine the press's role as a public watchdog and threaten the decentralized power structure that is fundamental to American democracy.

There's been a push in recent years by Ohio legislators to accommodate religious education in public schools. We talk with Gary Daniels, lobbyist for the Ohio ACLU, about this movement.

Most recently, Republican state reps. Gary Click and Mike Dovilla introduced Ohio House Bill 486, also known as the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, which promotes teaching in public schools the positive impact Christianity has had in America.

“What it does is it removes the invisible shackles that often hinder a full transparency in the teaching of American history,” Click said during his sponsor testimony. “We are not inviting instructors to teach doctrine or to proselytize … we’re simply affirming what is already in the law that exists.”

Well, maybe, but it's if not as if these legislators are advocating to educate students about the positive impact of all religions or the negative impact of all religions. They'll deny it, but these legislators are promoting Christianity, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

The problem is that legislators are pushing to promote only the positive aspects of Christianity, which means their message is not neutral, and if the message is not neutral, it means the message is promoting a certain religion, and that’s not permitted by the First Amendment.

The bill lists some 20 items that teachers should feel free to teach in their classrooms—all positive, nothing negative such as, how the Bible was used to justify slavery or indigenous children were taken from their families and raised in group homes where they were forced to adopt Christianity.

The New York Times Editorial Board published a piece on October 31, 2025, about a variety of indicators that should alarm everyone about the threat President Trump poses to our democracy.

The first is Trump’s effort to stifle dissent, something we haven’t seen before with other presidents. The Associated Press has been denied access to the White House because the AP prefers the name “Gulf of Mexico” to the “Gulf of America.”

To get access to the Pentagon, journalists have been told they must sign a pledge that limits their access to information. Even Fox refused to sign.

Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain, has been threatened with court martial for stating publicly that service members are not obligated to obey unlawful orders.

Trump has usurped Congress’ right to tax by setting tariffs on just about everything. If you don’t think tariffs are taxes, ask yourself who pays tariffs in the end. Consumers do. All the while, Congress stays quiet; our senators and representatives are more concerned about keeping office then speaking out against Trump and getting primaried.

Same thing for Trump directing the military to sink boats that supposedly running drugs in the Caribbean. What’s going on certainly looks like an act of war that only Congress can declare but, once again, Congress sits by and says nothing.

Trump has turned the Department of Justice into his own personal law firm, something no former president ever did.

And then there’s the matter of misinformation and disinformation that comes from the White House, and Trump always changing the narrative to suit his needs. 

Trump has created a national police force of sorts—ICE agents—that conducts raids and wear masks and rounds up people without explanation simply because of skin color and accent.

And there’s more that is equally frightening. Listen to the conversation.

The term “shadow docket” is a name given to the U.S. Supreme's Court emergency docket and reflects that decisions are made quickly with little explanation.

This isn’t a new concept. Historically, it was used for urgent matters like death penalty appeals, but its use has expanded significantly in recent years. The shadow docket now addresses a variety of urgent issues, many of which have been triggered by unprecedented actions taken by President Donald Trump.

The shadow docket allows the court to issue stays or injunctions, often altering the course of ongoing cases, but with little to no explanation, meaning lower courts are left with little guidance and struggle to interpret the decisions.

Critics argue that the shadow docket lacks transparency, as decisions made through the shadow docket can have lasting effects without the usual scrutiny of full court hearings. This raises questions about accountability and fairness in the legal system.

The Supreme Court has also been moving steadily to the right on a variety of issues and seems to a proponent of the “unitary executive theory” that gives the president broad authority over the executive branch in a way never before exercised.

Listen to our conversation with Mark Brown, professor of constitutional law at Capital Law School, who ends our conversation by predicting how the court will rule on four upcoming cases.

If you’re like us, you’ve had your fill of people saying stupid stuff publicly. Some of it is just so stupid it bears repeating, if only as a reminder for the rest of us that saying stupid stuff accomplishes nothing—except providing a platform for outrage. As if we need more of that.

Let’s begin with Cracker Barrell updating its logo. The C suite execs thought it would be a good idea to ditch the old guy who’s leaning on a barrel. You would have thought Cracker Barrell was promoting sorcery. People were in arms. No surprise that President Trump weighed in. It’s just a logo. Who cares?

How about Sydney Sweeney, lying on the floor in a somewhat provocative pose, zipping up her American Eagle jeans and telling us that it’s our genes that give us our physical characteristics and then telling us her jeans (genes?) are blue. A cute play on words? Absolutely not! This is a reference to eugenics for which much criticism and bitterness are warranted!

Bad Bunny will be doing the halftime show at the Super Bowl. You would have thought from some of the criticism that the NFL had invited Beelzebub himself to dance on stage. It’s just a 20 minute show. Everybody, relax! Apparently, the NFL wants to draw a younger crowd. Maybe next time the NFL will sign up a Lawrence Welk tribute band.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth doesn’t think our military has sufficient warrior “ethos.” How do you fix that? Simple, you change the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War—all at the cost of millions of dollars. That ought to do it! Why didn’t somebody think of this earlier?!  By the way, who says our military doesn’t have a sufficient warrior ethos?

The population of Dearborn, Michigan, is 39 percent Arab, and so the police and mayor—the mayor is of Arab descent and supported President Trump—thought it a good idea to include a brief Arab script on the shoulder patches police wear. You know what that means? Sharia Law is overtaking Dearborn. Just ask right wing and extremely vocal influencer Laura Loomer.

Sometimes, it’s just better to be silent. None of this stuff matters, except to the conflict entrepreneurs who thrive on outrage.

How does a gang member make the transition from life on the streets to earning a doctorate in public policy? It’s not exactly an everyday event.

Terence Lester was born into a two-parent household, but his parents later separated. In search of safety and stability, his mother moved Terrence and his sister from place to place. Carrying the weight of that early trauma, Terence turned to gangs, became a juvenile delinquent, experienced homelessness, and at one point lived out of his car. He dropped out of high school.

But Terence’s story doesn't end there. He eventually returned to school, graduated from college, and defied the odds by earning five degrees, including a Ph.D in public policy.

In “From Dropout to Doctorate,” Terence unveils the realities of educational injustice and the profound impact of unjust policies and systems on Black communities. He shows how poverty disrupts the lives of Black families, leading to homelessness and perpetuating the school-to-prison narrative.

Drawing from his own personal narrative and scholarly research, Terence names the complex challenges faced by Black children in under resourced and socially dense environments. As a public scholar and nonprofit leader, he advocates for equitable access to advanced education and addresses the systemic barriers that limit opportunities for Black people.

Terence’s advocacy encourages us to envision a world rooted in justice and inclusivity. Offering remedies of community involvement and mentorship, Terence charts a hopeful pathway that cultivates potential and provides opportunities for Black youth to thrive.

In his podcast, Imagine Dignity, Terence focuses on homelessness and interviews people who live on the streets. His goal is to spread kindness, inspire empathy and help to create a world where no one is invisible.

Jack and Gonzo talk with Terence his personal experiences and his call on educators, nonprofit leaders, and community influencers to confront educational inequity and inspire systemic change. Listen to the conversation.

  Some people don't believe the Holocaust actually happened or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And some people don’t believe that 26 children and adults were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary school in 2012.

And the man best known for creating the Sandy Hook conspiracy is conflict entrepreneur and InfoWars star, Alex Jones, who called the massacre a “fake” and a “hoax.”

Josh Koskoff, the lawyer for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, who obtained a $73 million settlement, also brought a successful legal action against Jones, who profited from the false narrative he created. Jones is a skilled communicator who knows how to communicate to a certain core of people who see him as the sole truth teller and everyone else as part of the deep state.

Jones isn’t short on charisma, and he isn’t short on showmanship.

The InfoWars stage is flashy and has a high tech look. If you didn’t know better, you would think you were looking at a legitimate major news broadcast system.

Trial testimony showed that Jones relied on a business model that was based on building a belief system with his audience so that he could sell a variety of products—male enhancements, t-shirts and more. He’s a master at seducing people with his talk so that he can get them to buy his wares. Jones couldn’t stop talking about Sandy Hook because of the amount of traffic it drove to his store.

Not surprising, Jones monetized the trial. After every day in court, Jones would be on InfoWars, making belittling comments about the court. Of course, those comments would be used in court against Jones the following day.

Jones created harm beyond his lies. It wasn’t unusual for his listeners to accost the families of the victims in public and accuse them of pretending to have lost a child.

Josh Koskoff, the lawyer for the families of the Sandy Hook victims, did what most thought was impossible. He prevailed in a lawsuit against Remington Arms, the company that manufactured and marketed the AR-15 rifle that was used to murder 20 children, between six and seven years old, and six staff members at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But obtaining justice for the families wasn’t easy.

In part 1 of our conversation with Josh, we talk about the lawsuit. In part 2, we talk with Josh about the lawsuit he brought against Alex Jones of Info Wars, who said the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax.

The massacre occurred on December 14, 2012. Before driving to the school, Adam Lanza, the gunman, fatally shot his mother. He killed himself after killing the 26 students and staff members. The incident is the deadliest mass shooting in Connecticut history and the deadliest at an elementary school in U.S. history.

In December 2014, nine families filed suit in Connecticut against Bushmaster, Remington Arms, Camfour, a distributor of firearms, and the store where Lanza's rifle was purchased. The case was brought as an exemption under the 2005 Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which generally prohibits lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

The families claimed that the AR-15 was suitable only for military and police use and that Remington inappropriately marketed it to civilians. Filing the complaint in Connecticut was the beginning of a seven-year saga. Remington tried to move the case to federal court and to have the case dismissed. There was much legal maneuvering. Eventually, Remington persuaded the trial court to dismiss the case.

The families appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court decided in a 4–3 vote to reverse parts of the trial court's rulings and sent the case back to the trial court for additional hearings. Remington asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, but the Supreme Court declined.  

In July 2021, Remington again asked the trial judge to dismiss the lawsuit. The judge denied Remington’s request. The next day, Remington offered $33 million to be shared by the nine families. In early 2022, Remington agreed to settle for $73 million.