EP 899 Animal Festivals and Other Human Behaviors: When Do the Animals Have Their Say?
As a dog parent, I bristle at doggie dress-ups at the local pet supply store, yet I still eat meat. Call me a hypocrite. I accept the critique. And yet when it comes to animals, there is a stratification as to how we treat them and the title of a book published a few years back most aptly put it, “Some We Love, Some We Hate and Some We Eat.” Our guest, Elizabeth Melampy, author of “Forget the Camel: The Madcap World of Animal Festivals and What They Say About Being Human,” and an animal rights attorney, tries to answer in the book the profound question of what makes humans different from animals, since as we are reminded early on in it that our origin story must start with accepting the fact that humans are animals. The modality she uses to expertly delve into the subject are the dozens of festivals around the country that use animals as the central theme. It becomes clear, like the doggie dress ups shows, how we often disregard the needs of the animals even as we host events seemingly in their honor. We go on to discuss a range of animal rights issues in this compelling podcast.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Let’s start with the basics. What are ‘forever chemicals?’ And so this podcast begins with Professor Matt Simcik, an environmental chemist from the University of Minnesota, trying to explain to me, a layman, what they are. They have been in the news lately and there are now efforts around the country to limit their use and our exposure to them. They are otherwise referred to as PFAS chemicals which have been around since the 1940’s. They are manufactured and engineered to be strong, with a durable carbon-fluorine chemical bond. Like many other industrial developments, PFAS chemicals were created with good intentions–to keep people safe, offer convenience and spur economic growth. Much later, we find that their use brings with it health risks particularly in our food and water. Let’s leave it there and allow our guest to bring his expertise to the subject. Stay until the end when he describes what each of us can do to minimize our risks with ‘forever chemicals.’
Pneumatic drilling from building sites. The dull roar of planes overhead. Your fellow worker’s phone conversations in an otherwise silent office. The suburban drone of lawn mowers and blowers. Noise seems to be everywhere, and it can disrupt our sleep, ratchet up our stress, destroy our concentration–yet it’s a problem we shrug off once the immediate annoyance passes. In truth, noise is one of the most pervasive pollutants in our daily lives. It can cause health problems for people and wildlife, both on land and sea. For humans it can, of course, cause hearing loss, and this is a growing problem for young people as they accessorize with devices early on to amplify their music. It can lead to high blood pressure and have impacts on longevity overall. Chris Berdik, our guest and the author of “Clamor: How Noise Took Over the World and How We Can Take It Back” joins us to discuss an issue we pay too little attention to.
While both parties have long histories with gerrymandering Congressional districts for partisan advantage, it’s fair to say Republicans have taken it to a new low by interrupting the every ten -year process, based on the census, and doing it at halftime of this cycle. In the process, they are encouraging Democrats to do the same. The problem is that many states controlled by Democrats in the Governor’s office and the state legislature, have assigned this responsibility of redistricting to independent commissions or more elaborate bipartisan processes. The concept of carving up districts for clearly partisan advantage has made our politics more radical and divisive. To explain what gerrymandering is, the Supreme Court’s acquiescence, the stakes involved and the impact on governing is David Daley, of FairVote (fairvote.org), and author of three books related to our electoral process. He is considered by many to be our leading writer on this subject. His latest book is called “Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections.”
When political discussions take place, they are often focused on how Democrats or Republicans, conservatives versus liberals or red in relation to blue look at an issue. They leave out a component of the electorate which grows in number and importance year after year–the independent or unaffiliated voter. In fact, if you really analyze the results of the 2024 presidential election, Democrats came out for Kamala Harris at a 95 percent clip while Republicans came out for Donald Trump at a 91 percent figure. So why did he win? First 6 million fewer Democrats came out than in the 2020 campaign but, perhaps more importantly, independent voters supported Trump by an eight percent margin. In an era when the parties have grown more partisan and ideological, those voters, often in the middle, who do not look at issues in those terms, but rather individually, start their voting lives as independents and make it very difficult for pollsters to predict their behaviors. Lura Forcum, president of the Independent Center (independentcenter.org) discusses the role of the independent voter and how they scramble the way we should look at our current day politics.
Can your star quarterback on a powerhouse Division 1 football program get paid as it stands today? After the recent $2.8 billion settlement in House v. NCAA, which enables universities to directly pay college athletes for their athletic participation, the answer is yes. First came the NIL ruling in which college players could get paid for their ‘name, image and likeness’, then the transfer portal and now the floodgates are opening as legislative proposals in Congress would augur in a completely new way of looking at the college athlete. In one proposed piece of legislation, they would be considered employees who can collectively bargain. Another legislative proposal in the House of Representatives provides an alternative to this approach. Nevertheless, the NCAA’s old guard the door approach suggests a very different future is barreling through. What this will look like and its impact on many schools, women’s programs and niche sports is very uncertain. Roger Noll, Stanford professor emeritus of economics, who is considered the ‘Godfather’ of sports economics (a title he eschews) joins us to discuss a very fluid situation. There’s no one better in the country to explain it.
The U.S. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)in 1977 with the key objective of ending redlining, the decades-old practice of neighborhood discrimination by banks against African Americans and others based on race and income. The race-based rejection of loans to creditworthy residents of redlined neighborhoods delayed the American dream of homeownership for generations. Our guest, Josh Silver, author of “Ending Redlining Through a Community-Centered Reform of the Community Reinvestment Act” offers us a comprehensive analysis of a half century of CRA-related legislation and banking regulation which is a bulwark of tangible differences in communities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and Birmingham. And while he feels changes need to be made to modernize CRA in an era of online lending and continued racial wealth gaps, his defense of the measure is full-throated almost 50 years since its passage.
There is irony in a man determined to use the powers of the presidency and the administrative state capacity to disassemble the administrative state, aka ‘the deep state.’ Yet that is what we are seeing with the Trump Administration. The military, Department of Justice, homeland security and ICE are all aspects of the administrative state. And the administrative state is a symbol of the evolution and expansion of our federal government ever since the 1930’s and FDR’s New Deal. Since, at least 1980, the Republicans key project has been to try to take it apart because its goals have also trended along progressive lines. However, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes never tried to accumulate massive authority, as strongmen, in the way that Donald Trump is now attempting…and succeeding at doing. The Imperial Presidency has to crown its champion, despite the founders attempts to limit the powers of the executive. To discuss this timely subject is Terry Moe, co-author with William Howell, of the book, “Trajectory of Power: The Rise of the Strongman Presidency.”
Attorney Ira Shapiro is a man who has seen it all in Washington. As a long-time U.S. Senate staffer, he has written three books about the upper chamber. The collection has been described by one scholar as an ‘epic trilogy’, capturing sixty years of Senate history. He was the chief U.S. trade negotiator with Japan and Canada in the Clinton Administration and now he shares his vast knowledge of the affairs of the U.S. Capitol on Substack with a post titled “Truth Be Told.” I wanted Attorney Shapiro to come back because I have interviewed him twice before and felt that with norms being shattered by this Administration he would have a lot to say on a range of issues. I was not disappointed.
Many lawsuits have been brought against the second Trump Administration on the basis of overreach of its authority in trying to enact policies. President Trump declared victory over ‘radical left wing judges’ when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the concept of the ‘universal’ injunction, wherein one lower federal court can make a ruling which then becomes the law of the land. This process has been used by courts to address issues of presidential power under this and previous administrations. However, the Supreme Court justices did say that they would consider cases that came back to them as part of a class action or under the Administrative Procedure Act. Professor David Marcus, of UCLA Law School, explains what the Court is looking to see in order to rule on such cases, such as the one dealing with birthright citizenship, known as Trump vs. CASA. The Supreme Court vacated the “universal” injunction and encouraged the plaintiffs to come back using other methods. They did offer a caveat that the formation of a class for the class action suit would have to meet rigorous standards. Professor Marcus will explain what’s happening here. Take note because this is a big deal, particularly given the proclivities of this Administration.