The answer has to do with shifting ideas about bikes and the proper way to mourn the dead.
50 Things That Made the Modern Economy - The Plough
The plough was a simple yet transformative technology. It was the plough that kick-started civilisation in the first place – that, ultimately, made our modern economy possible. But the plough did more than create the underpinning of civilisation – with all its benefits and inequities. Different types of plough led to different types of civilisation.
Presenter: Tim Harford
Producer: Ben Crighton
(Photo: Farmer ploughing field, Credit: Shutterstock)
The Gist - Marc Maron and Brendan McDonald
Marc Maron says he “didn’t know anything about anything” when he began working in radio. But producer Brendan McDonald can tell you the moment he knew Maron could be a radio star. It was during a morning show on the ill-fated Air America network, and then-host Maron was ranting about overcooked lentils. “The phones lit up,” said McDonald. The two went on to create WTF With Marc Maron, the podcast now known for intense interviews with comedians, many of whom Maron quarreled with in the past. Maron’s latest book, Waiting for the Punch, is a collection of interview excerpts.
In the Spiel, a few things Mike doesn’t understand about other people.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
More or Less: Behind the Stats - WS More or Less: Are US millennials more politically engaged online?
Did the 2016 US election galvanise young people to become more engaged in politics?
CrowdScience - Is There Proof of Life After Death?
Is there any scientific proof of an afterlife? Six months ago, CrowdScience tackled a question from a listener who wanted to know whether there was life after death. But following more listener emails, presenter Marnie Chesterton returns to the subject to investigate the world of ghosts, souls and parapsychology. She meets Professor Susan Blackmore, who studies out-of-body experiences and has spent decades hunting for scientific proof of life after death. And she visits the woman who, despite dying in the 1950s, is alive and thriving on a cellular level and helping scientists find cures for cancer, Parkinson’s and other diseases, in laboratories across the world…
Do you have a question we can turn into a programme? Email us at crowdscience@bbc.co.uk
Produced and Presented by Marnie Chesterton
Bay Curious - Wildfires: You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Answers
What does containment mean? How are wildfires named? What happens after your house burns?
Reported by Lindsey Hoshaw, Jessica Placzek, Sukey Lewis and Olivia Allen-Price. Technical director is Paul Lancour. Theme music by Pat Mesiti-Miller. Many songs in this episode were by Petaluma artist Gio Benedetti, and proceeds from their sale will benefit wildfire survivors. Find and buy his music here: https://giobenedetti.bandcamp.com/
Ask us a question at BayCurious.org.
Follow Olivia Allen-Price on Twitter @oallenprice.
SCOTUScast - Gill v. Whitford – Post-Argument SCOTUScast
On October 3, 2017, the Supreme Court heard argument in Gill v. Whitford, a case involving claims of partisan gerrymandering. In Wisconsin’s 2010 elections, Republicans won the governorship and acquired control of the state senate. In 2011, the Wisconsin legislature adopted a redistricting plan, Act 43, for state legislative districts. With Act 43 in effect Republicans expanded their legislative control in subsequent elections, reportedly winning 60 of 99 seats in the State Assembly with 48.6% of the statewide two-party vote in 2012, and 63 of 99 seats with 52% of the statewide two-party vote in 2014. In 2015 twelve Wisconsin voters sued in federal court, alleging that Act 43 constituted a statewide partisan gerrymander in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment were denied, and following trial a divided three-judge district court panel invalidated Act 43 statewide. Act 43, the majority concluded, impermissibly burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters by impeding their ability to translate their votes into legislative seats even when Republicans were in an electoral minority. The court enjoined further use of Act 43 and ordered that a remedial redistricting plan be enacted, but the United States Supreme Court stayed that judgment pending resolution of this appeal.
The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
The questions before the Supreme Court are as follows: (1) Whether the district court, in holding that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis, ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Vieth v. Jubelirer; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
To the discuss the case, we have David Casazza, Associate at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.
The NewsWorthy - Budget Talk, Spain Crisis & World Series – Friday, October 20th, 2017
All the news you need to know for Friday, October 20th, 2017!
Today we're talking about everything from a budget proposal & tax plan to the big action happening this weekend in Spain. Plus, what to know about more Hollywood drama, self-driving cars, and the World Series.
All that and more - in less than 10 minutes!
Award-winning broadcast journalist and former TV news reporter Erica Mandy breaks it all down for you.
Subscribe now to get new episodes each weekday! Visit https://www.theNewsWorthy.com for all the links to stories referenced in this episode.
Cato Daily Podcast - The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves
What does Alexis de Tocqueville have to offer Americans today? James Poulos explains in his new book, The Art of Being Free: How Alexis de Tocqueville Can Save Us from Ourselves.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Opening Arguments - OA114: Presidential Powers – Obamacare and the Travel Ban
Today's rapid-response episode begins with an update on the Allergan patent licensing scheme discussed in Episode 107. What does a federal judge think of this One Weird Trick to avoid certain legal proceedings? Listen and find out! Next, our main segment looks at Donald Trump's efforts to undermine Obamacare from the Oval Office. Does this violate the Constitution? Is there anything we can do about it? The answer might surprise you! After that, we continue the theme by looking at the two recent injunctions handed down by U.S. District Courts in Hawaii and Maryland regarding the third iteration of President Trump's Travel Ban. Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #46 about prenuptial agreements. Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was on Episode 60 of the "Atheists on High" podcast; give it a listen! Show Notes & Links
- We first discussed the Allergan patents for Restasis back in Episode 107, along with no other controversial things at all.
- The court's opinion regarding Allergan's joinder of the native American tribe can be found here; and the main opinion on the validity of the patent can be found here.
- This is a link to the Vox article by Prof. Gluck alleging that Trump has violated the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution.
- The Nixon-era case we discuss is Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35 (1975).
- This is the text of Presidential Proclamation 9645 ("EO-3").
- Here is a link to the Hawaii opinion; and here is a link to the Maryland opinion.