Unpleasant man-made noise is something that disturbs many of us and even damages our health. But as millions more people move into crowded cities around the world, it's a cacophony that we almost unavoidably create ourselves. CrowdScience listener Diana from New York City in the USA got in touch to ask how we can temper the din and live a more peaceful life. Presenter Anand Jagatia heads to an acoustics lab at the University of Salford in Manchester, UK, to meet the researchers and engineers investigating the best ways to make cities more pleasant for our ears whilst still maintaining the ‘buzz’ of city life. And reporter Chhavi Sachdev takes us to Mumbai in India, where we discover how sound mapping is being deployed on the city’s streets as the first step to improve the life and health of its citizens.
Do you have a question we can turn into a programme? Email us at crowdscience@bbc.co.uk
Presenter: Anand Jagatia
Producer: Jen Whyntie
(Image: Children cover their ears as the truck convoy front passes. Credit: Getty Images)
How did Hong Kong rise to prominence as a hub of global commerce? Neil Monnery is author of Architect of Prosperity: Sir John Cowperthwaite and the Making of Hong Kong.
Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91. Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links
Can you be scared to death? Can your hair go white from fear? This sounds like a job for “Is That Bullshit?” with Maria Konnikova, our favorite BS detector. Konnikova writes for the New Yorker and is the author of The Confidence Game.
In the Spiel, the never-ending baseball game and a bothersome T-Mobile ad.
Who's Blacker: Oprah or Sojourner Truth? Producer Kate Parkinson-Morgan tells Brittany and Eric about a new game that asks players to argue what makes one person Blacker than another.
Trump’s former campaign chairman is indicted for money laundering, his former foreign policy advisor pleads guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts with Russian nationals, and the race in Virginia tightens in the homestretch. Former Department of Justice communications director Matt Miller joins Jon, Jon, and Tommy to talk about the Mueller investigation, and Golden State Warriors Coach Steve Kerr talks to Dan Pfeiffer about sports and politics in the Trump Era.
Katy Waldman, Meghan O'Roark, and Emily Bazelon discuss Hilary Clinton's memoir, What Happened. Next month's book will be Manhattan Beach by Jennifer Egan.
On October 11, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, a case regarding the proper jurisdiction of federal circuit courts of appeals with respect to rules issued under the Clean Water Act. In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Agency (the “Agencies”) issued a final rule intended to clarify the definition of “waters of the United States” as used in the Clean Water Act (the “Clean Water Rule”). Petitioner associations and companies filed suit in various federal district and appellate courts to challenge the Clean Water Rule, claiming that the definitional changes improperly expanded the Agencies’ regulatory jurisdiction and dramatically altered the existing balance of federal-state collaboration on water resource concerns. Many of the suits were eventually consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Clean Water Rule, Petitioners contended, is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and was improperly adopted without satisfying the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Petitioner National Association of Manufacturers (“NAM”), which had brought its challenge in federal district court, then intervened in the Sixth Circuit litigation and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that judicial review must first take place in district court and that this case did not fall within the judicial review provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Sixth Circuit ultimately rejected this argument and concluded that it could exercise jurisdiction over requests for review of the Clean Water Rule under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1369(b)(1)(F). That provision provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the federal circuit courts of appeals to review an action “issuing or denying any permit under section 1342, [the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System]....” The question presently before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that it had jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F) to assess a Clean Water Rule that did not actually “issu[e] or den[y] any permit,” but rather defined the waters that fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act. To discuss the case, we have Jonathan Adler, Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
