Відео

Brother do you really really believe in your educated intelligent rational non-delusional mind that COLONIZED America has an aristocracy built on merit. My god.

-It is interesting that VDH talks eloquently about Universities not giving students practical education but yet he decries the questioning of teaching classics in Universities. -VDH's incredible command of language and ideas are probably a result of the 24 books he's written and hundreds he has read, as well as the thousands of lectures he's given.

I’m sad there is not more commentary on this. Maybe because it’s a long interview? We need to fix this system!! Thank you for interviewing this knowledgeable woman.

23:00 sounds like the organisation of the dutch army.

So in the end who is right about language?? Chomsky or Hinton ?

Suddenly more relevant by half: New York and Wisconsin murders. I just got Behave by luck at most critical time. Hope to see more UA-cams on this.

If you think about "assessing risks" you are going to see that the subjective "linger effect" matters the least. I expect Mr. Trump knows that sort of thing.

Great interview.... a poetic way to express his idea is from Emil Cioran - strange his books are not translated in english anymore

28:00 sounds like as the use of history gets more politicised & activist that historians do, indeed, need training in ethics. 35:00 to heal a society after recent warlike events, not talking about them while those involved are still alive seems as important part of that as bringing the main war criminals to justice. Its a kind of forgiveness of the 'minorly guilty'. 54:00 'Empire Studies' focus on European Empires very much does look to be a politisised abuse of history to try to discredit the record of Western countries in bad faith - most likely because this could not be done with accurately assessed. proven facts.

I am puzzled at around 46.40 La Blanc scoffs at a student suggestion that a ripple effect is a causal model. Why not? There is a single cause (e.g.,dropping a stone in a pond) causing the outward transmission of energy which can have many effects. The term could be used metaphorically in many contexts. Why isn't it a causal model?

Have you talked to anyone about meta ethics? I’d be curious what your stance is on the realist/anti-realist debate when it comes to morality.

Great conversation. Thank you for introducing me to new ideas.

As an engineer the assertion by the speaker that gas turbines have reached their Carnot limit seemed a bit off. I checked and the typical efficiency of a gas turbine is a whopping 37% to 40%. However the actual Carnot limit is around 51%. while there may be diminishing returns on future engine enhancements, it would be untrue to state that gas engines have in fact reached a physics based roadblock of their Carnot limit.

John playing it far too safe again. Ultimately all currently introduced measures to reduce bias can be rigged. The problems as I see them after many years of careful analysis are a nexus of success tied to default measures of prestige from titles to impact factor to ranked institutions all tied to the motivating impetus of corporate profits. For example big data sets can generate highly significant but trivial or unenlightening findings. Or large collaborations can turn into non transparent cabals very quickly. Or Bayesian priors can be disingenuously simplistic or tautological

This is excellent!!❤

I guess he will have to update the book!

wage gap and pay gap is not the same thing... the wage gap exists because men work more hours than women even within the same job same qualification no matter if fulltime or parttime and all variables adjusted... we can look at policies from countries with a wage gap of lower than 1% to see what is effective "mainly parental leave + decent working conditions" to close the gap and to prevent misleading math -> conclusions... the nurse salary report + A higher proportion of male nurses (8%) hold an APRN license than female nurses (5%). + 91% of male nurses work full time vs. 80% of female nurses. This aligns with 2019 BLS data that shows 89% of employed men work full time vs. 77% of employed women. + Male nurses are more likely to work the night shift than female nurses Working hours and health in nurses of public hospitals according to gender - PMC (nih.gov) The sum of the professional working hours reported by the interviewee generated a continuous variable named “working hours”, categorized according to the tertile of the distribution according to gender5. For the male group, we adopted the values “< 49.5 h/week”, “from 49.5h to 70.5h”, and “> 70.5 h/week” for short, average, and long working hours, respectively. For the women, the values adopted were “< 46.5 h/week”, “46.5h to 60.5h”, and “> 60.5 h/week”. Male vs. female nurses by the numbers (beckershospitalreview.com) Average workweek length Female nurses: 38.5 hours Male nurses: 41.4 hours the pay gap is about an employer breaking the law and a legal issue to protect employees but people interchange both which creates confusion because of how it gets "specially by the media" presented... there is also an adjusted and unadjusted gender pay gap but the issue of what gets taken into account remains with both... -the adjusted gender pay gap compares fulltime vs fulltime but not the exact hours worked as you see above with various sources and this leads to misleading math -> conclusions... -The unadjusted pay gap is a straightforward calculation of the percentage difference between the average pay of each gender. As we mentioned earlier, the adjusted pay gap is calculated using regression analysis. -The major distinction between 'pay' and an hourly 'wage' is that 'pay' is a fixed sum of money that both the employer and the employee have agreed upon in an employment contract. On the other hand, 'wages' can change based on performance and the number of hours worked.

We can be certain this isn't boosted by the UA-cam algorithm.

Global warm8ng is a scam. Shame on you!!!

I see Graziano i click

This was a great conversation!

Brooooo, it took so long to get to any actionable content here. You’ve got way too much preamble and “here’s what people shouldn’t do.”

hello there

Erica I wish you could advocate for parental leave for moms in the USA. We need it so much and your knowledge is what can back it up. The man seems a little confused in this video.

Women were not disadvantaged. An example - one of the so called employment gaps is in aviation. Somewhere about 90% or more of pilots are male. Sounds like discrimination? Well no, we had absolute equality in pilot positions for centuries 0% of pilots were female and 0% of pilots were male. Then men invented flying and all of a sudden there were job opportunities for pilots. Job opportunities that only existed because men created them. So why didn't women invent flying machines and corner the pilot job market? No I don't know why not either - most probably just not interested. They rely on the men who were interested enough to work to invent aircraft to make these positions available. We can tell a similar story for almost every other job role - truck driver, banker, IT worker, electrical linesman, fisherman, miner etc etc. All these job opportunities only exist because men created these job opportunities. That is that reason women are under represented in jobs - women create near zero industries, major companies etc. If women want equal opportunities, then create 50% of the job opportunities - our current system is not equality but parasitism!

Spending gap is what matters, not wage gap! Why do we go to work? To earn money or to have money to spend? None of us has piles of cash at home, we spend most of what we earn. So spending is the real aim of working. And Who spends more - Men or women? Go to your local mall. There are many more stores and the majority of floor space dedicated to women's purchases, and much less for men's. Why do the store owners do this? Because women spend more than men. How is this economic miracle achieved? Earn less spend more! Women are spending some of the money men earn as well as their own earnings. So who is more oppressed? The man working to earn money he will never spend or the woman spending money she did not earn?

I haven’t heard the whole thing, but I’m going to jump in here and talking about the effect of the phone. I would want to see data on when the phone was introduced into the child’s life. When I was becoming an educator, we all had to take a class on human development. The professor emphasized that the first four years of life is when a very important cycle happens by the child bond with the caregiver, then pulls away from the caregiver and then gets enough of a sense of autonomy that it doesn’t feel as threatened and then returns to the bond. There were very important brain mechanisms involved in this, and getting reinforcement from the adults in infancy and toddler time. Giving basically babies and toddlers a phone that gives them dopamine hits all day long rather than getting their reinforcement from the human interaction I believe has greatly interrupted that Cycle and you get a lot more of a sense of alienation and lack of connection. There’s no way to conduct the experiment, but I would bet that there would be better outcomes and children who had not been allowed to use any kinds of devices in the first four years of their life, and probably during the next several years unless it was in a supervised situation. When I was an educator, I could not believe that we were not hearing that pediatricians were warning parents not to use these devices. I know, probably some of them thought it was more like war against television, but this is so much more powerful. And now we just have to live through the consequences

Maybe that quote at the beginning was not accurate, but I know when I was in college that we read some Roman poetry in which parents were lamenting the behavior of their teenage children and it sounded very similar to modern complaints.

Your being shadow banned I almost guarantee it.

thank you for the knowledge sharing ❤❤❤

A year later and I'm the fifth thumbs up. C'mon, America!

I have a saved video of Dr Peter McCullough, who categorically said the Covid virus was not asymptomatic, you need symptoms to spread the virus.

Science isn't a belief and skepticism is good.

This talk resonates deeply with my life experience as an artist; including with my 'very practical' family. It stirred memories of my 'angst' as a young girl/ teen, that there must be something deeper to life than all the superficial stuff everyone focused on. I remember in particular, one day, talk by my step mom of how many eggs to put on the potato salad for the big community picnic, & I felt ready to lose it, that nothing ever went deeper. But I could not express this & didn't totally understand (yet). In time, I found this was my true inner self stirring; & that there is indeed a deeper, true reality to life & being human, found in my very real spiritual life; walk with God/ Jesus, & in my life calling to art (neglected much of my life, & finally being literally spiritually led, through stunning means, to get on track). This talk boosted my appreciation for art & for my life calling. I love people like you guys; this talk gave me great joy. Being in the process (aka struggle) of looking at the contemporary art world & pursuing development of my personal style, as an older person, just out of basic art college, I so deeply appreciated insights given into this process; including how your true artist voice is found by a lot of effort + courage + curiosity (an engaged/ open/ seeking/ looking mind); it is not just instant flow out of you. (I once heard a truth: you can create an "uninspired mess" that unrealistic route). I'm finding this 'struggle' / 'effort' aspect very true. I feel what you shared is the secret knowledge of being a true artist. I loved this point: Speaking through your own soul, into your art, how you see/ the deeper, even non-verbal things of life, is valuable. I loved this: the idea of art itself going beyond the 'superficial': e.g. why is it covered in the entertainment section (e.g. newspapers). I loved this statement: "An encounter with good art leads you to look at things in a new way:" hearing what the artist is communicating. I wish yall could do a reality tv show on this aspect of being human, with some of my family as your project, to awaken them out of the superficial: factory work/ sports/ video games (+ the deeper aspect of being a parent). I feel an ache in this disconnect. But I am thankful that somehow, I was blessed to be awakened in living. (I've found, we are socialized beings as well; yet something was stirring in me from childhood). Love wins. Blessings. Peace

Why is she wearing a crazy straw on her face? He seems to be having a hard time getting started as I feel he is trying to suppress deep laughter. She looks ridiculous.

what a fabulous podcast. Thankyou

a good listen

A lot of companies these days say they don't care much about educational qualifications. They want people who can learn on the job, work hard and have real-world experience. University education is overpriced and overrated. Men should focus on career and finances. Once you are financially free, the system can no longer screw you (as much).

What is the name or author of the reformer's books cited by Mr. Zannoni?

Greg Le Blanc is quite ingenous by ignoring the DoD and NIH funding, and the exact proposal submitted by Baric to create a virus in a Wuhan lab exactly as covid. Moving on, as I am ashamed by Greg's lack of cognitive ability. 2024

That explain why SARS COV2 is ,, temperature sensitive,, ?? At TWiV 659 at min29 german virologist Christian Drosten indicate that to replicate SARS COV2 in different tissues must decrease incubator temperature to 34C. Theoretically higher mucoseal and body temperature protect against Covid19. Maybe surgical mask wearing maintain higher mucoseal respiratory temperature. Maybe at some Covid19 patients cryoglobuline higher level are the main patogenic factor If long temperature decrease secondary to excesive oxigenoterapy with cold oxigen mix ? If cryoglobuline IgM level increase,or If ,,cold agglutinine,, occur ,pulse oximetry at finger level was low, secondary of reversibile ischemia at that level where blood temperature decrease. At that patients low blood temperature increase tendency of erytocite to aggregate. When I used warmed oxigen mix at body temperature, oxigen saturation increased more and rapidly (on ambulance ,warming water in barbotor)

This Episode is once of the best Videos on UA-cam

If the ancient Greek philosophers like Socrates and Plato were to assess Victor Davis Hanson, they would likely be blunt, critical, and unwavering in their disapproval. Here’s how these thinkers and others from ancient Greece might respond to Hanson’s approach to truth, rhetoric, and philosophy: Socrates Socrates was known for his relentless pursuit of truth through dialogue and questioning. He would likely be appalled by Hanson’s tendency to lean on sensationalist and ideological rhetoric rather than objective inquiry. Socrates valued questioning assumptions, dismantling biases, and arriving at conclusions only after thorough reasoning. Hanson’s unsubstantiated assertions on topics like immigration and his manipulation of history for ideological ends would have been seen by Socrates as intellectual dishonesty and moral cowardice. Socrates might say Hanson engages in sophistry-the ancient Greek term for using rhetoric to deceive or manipulate rather than to illuminate truth. Socrates despised sophists because they prioritized persuasion over wisdom, often using fear and prejudice to manipulate public opinion. For Socrates, Hanson would represent the very opposite of a true philosopher, someone more interested in inflaming opinions than in seeking understanding. Plato Plato, Socrates’ most famous student, believed in the importance of “philosopher-kings” - wise rulers guided by reason and the pursuit of the good. He argued in The Republic that true leaders must seek truth and prioritize the well-being of the polis (city-state) over personal gain or fame. Hanson’s apparent embrace of divisive rhetoric and his willingness to distort facts for political ends would likely disgust Plato, who viewed truth as paramount and would be alarmed by Hanson’s apparent disdain for intellectual integrity. Plato might consider Hanson’s work a form of demagoguery - using rhetoric to appeal to base emotions like fear, rather than guiding people towards rational thought and ethical values. In Plato’s view, Hanson’s approach could destabilize society by encouraging tribalism and resentment rather than unity and truth-seeking. Aristotle Aristotle, Plato’s student, would critique Hanson’s lack of ethos (character) and logos (logic) in his arguments. Aristotle emphasized balanced rhetoric, which should be grounded in reason, ethics, and an understanding of the audience’s values. Hanson’s divisive and fear-based messages would likely be seen by Aristotle as lacking virtue and failing to promote a healthy society. Aristotle believed in the concept of the “golden mean,” a balanced approach to every issue. Hanson’s extreme and biased rhetoric would be seen as a dangerous deviation from reason. The Historians: Herodotus and Thucydides Ancient Greek historians like Herodotus and Thucydides valued factual accuracy and objective reporting. Herodotus aimed to document events as they happened, avoiding judgmental language. Thucydides emphasized critical analysis and impartiality, particularly in his account of the Peloponnesian War. Hanson’s manipulation of history to fit modern ideological narratives would be an anathema to them. They would view his selective interpretations and alarmist statements as corruptions of historical truth, meant to mislead rather than educate. In short, Greek scholars would likely condemn Hanson as a sophist, demagogue, and ideologue-someone who uses his knowledge not to enlighten but to manipulate. His approach would be considered antithetical to Greek philosophical and historical values: a betrayal of reason, truth, and the public good.

Victor Davis Hanson has become one of the most extreme mouthpieces for far-right rhetoric, consistently spreading distortions and outright lies to defend Trump and push a narrative that reeks of authoritarianism and fearmongering. Here’s a rundown of Hanson’s most misleading statements and manipulations: Framing Trump as a "Tragic Hero": In The Case for Trump, Hanson ludicrously paints Trump as a heroic defender of American values, comparing him to figures from ancient tragedy. This narrative is laughable given Trump’s well-documented corruption, disregard for democratic norms, and constant bending of the truth. Hanson ignores Trump's authoritarian tendencies, his admiration for dictators, and his incitement of violence-all characteristics that stand in stark contrast to any notion of “heroism”​ HOOVER INSTITUTION . Racist and Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric: Hanson has a long history of pushing anti-immigrant lies, claiming immigrants are causing a “cultural decline” in America. He uses loaded language to portray immigration as an "invasion" without addressing the economic benefits immigrants bring to the U.S. His rhetoric mirrors white nationalist talking points that demonize minority communities, stoking fear rather than relying on facts​ THE NEW CRITERION . Distortion of History to Serve Far-Right Ideology: As a historian, Hanson has weaponized his knowledge to rewrite American history in ways that suit a far-right agenda. He promotes the idea that America is in a state of moral decay due to progressive values, conveniently ignoring the strides made toward civil rights, equality, and social justice. His selective use of history distorts reality, pushing a doom-and-gloom narrative that caters to the far-right’s obsession with returning to a mythological “better” past​ HOOVER INSTITUTION . Demonizing the "Elites" While Ignoring Trump's Elite Ties: Hanson loves to rail against so-called “elites,” portraying them as the root of all problems in America. Ironically, he defends Trump, who was born into wealth, wields vast power, and embodies elite privilege. Hanson’s “anti-elite” rhetoric is a thinly veiled excuse to push a populist message that vilifies anyone who challenges Trump’s authoritarian behavior while ignoring the real power structures that enable figures like Trump to exploit the system. Conspiratorial Thinking: Hanson frequently dives into conspiracy theories about left-wing elites attempting to "undermine" American values. He often presents these claims without evidence, painting progressives as part of a shadowy plot against the country. This baseless paranoia isn’t just divisive-it’s dangerous, as it fuels resentment and mistrust, paving the way for more authoritarianism. Hypocrisy on Law and Order: Hanson champions Trump as a law-and-order figure while ignoring Trump's repeated obstruction of justice, disregard for the rule of law, and incitement of the January 6th insurrection. This is blatant hypocrisy, as Hanson condemns the very lawlessness that Trump himself promotes. By dismissing Trump’s clear violations, Hanson reveals his commitment not to principle but to defending Trump at all costs. Victor Davis Hanson’s so-called “analysis” is nothing more than propaganda, bending facts to serve a far-right narrative. His rhetoric is riddled with fearmongering, hypocrisy, and misleading historical comparisons that have more in common with authoritarian propaganda than with objective scholarship. This is not about truth-it’s about feeding the lies and distortions that keep a dangerous political cult alive.

Victor Davis Hanson is a divisive figure, especially among legitimate historians, many of whom see him as a conservative provocateur who’s abandoned serious scholarship for partisan commentary. Originally recognized for his expertise in classical history, Hanson has since morphed into a Trump loyalist and far-right propagandist, using his historical knowledge to justify deeply reactionary views. Historians who once respected his work on Greek history and warfare now view his shift into political punditry as a serious compromise of intellectual integrity. Here's what Hanson does that has led many historians to consider him intellectually dishonest: Politicizing History to Serve a Far-Right Agenda: Hanson has twisted historical analogies to fit a hardline nationalist agenda, often drawing flimsy comparisons between ancient societies and modern America in ways that exaggerate threats to “Western civilization.” His narratives consistently present progressive values as corrupting forces, reminiscent of far-right figures who cherry-pick history to prop up authoritarian ideas. Promoting Alarmist and Divisive Rhetoric: Instead of providing balanced historical analysis, Hanson paints a picture of cultural apocalypse, depicting liberals, immigrants, and “elites” as existential threats to American values. His commentary borders on conspiracy theory, with critics accusing him of stoking paranoia rather than contributing meaningful insights. Scholars see this as manipulative fearmongering rather than legitimate historical interpretation. Hypocrisy and Elitism: Hanson rails against “elites” and portrays himself as a defender of the “common man,” but he’s as embedded in elite circles as anyone. He’s leveraged his academic background to gain credibility in conservative media while ignoring actual evidence or balanced analysis. This hypocrisy has drawn criticism from historians who see his "anti-elite" posturing as both opportunistic and dishonest. Selling Out Scholarship for Partisan Influence: Historians who once respected Hanson’s scholarship now see him as a figure who has sold out to become a mouthpiece for far-right ideology. His unchecked support of Trump and attacks on “liberal intellectuals” have led many in the academic world to view him as little more than a propagandist hiding behind a façade of scholarship. Hanson’s transformation from a respected classicist to a far-right ideologue exemplifies the dangers of intellectual dishonesty in academia. He’s using his knowledge to validate partisan extremism rather than seeking truth, making him a polarizing figure who’s viewed with contempt by mainstream historians

Thank you for sharing this, I really appreciated you questions and conversation with Elisabeth. Very eye-opening discussion- we have got to keep talking about this.

Excellent interview.

Elaborate on the reality of life is not fair. Fantastic show

I believe that the reason why people generally tend to gravitate towards the extremes in this and other political matters is the recognizability of them. Most people know nothing more than they learnt in grade school about the fundamentals of these two viewpoints. Therefore they look for the states that are immediately recognizable and familiar. People who tend to be a bit leftist and in defence of the underdog and the beauty of love and kindness, love the thought of helping the opressed and the fight for love and the underdog. People who tend to be a bit righitist (righteous?) tend to look to the Bible and defence of Life and Law, and they love the thought of law and tradition and basic familylife. So the most recognizable standpoints in the media are seen on the extremes. The middle point, as described by Mrs. Lambelet Coleman is much more difficult and demanding to see, and to fathom the finer details and the science. So, we get the well known 51-49-spread of opinons either way, that we also know all too well from the presidential campaign. An old Eurpean saying: "Common sense is not so common."

What a SAD SHAME, some of your statements above.... 'Insulin MIGHT be right for Type 1 Diabetics...so you have no idea if you are giving insulin to patients who are making too much insulin, or too little insulin. First of all, MIGHT BE RIGHT for Type 1's, Try withholding insulin from Type 1's, you WILL kill them, slightly important detail worth more than the 1 sentence/comment you gave it.. Secondly, with basic testing, a competent doctor can test to find out whether the person is type 1 or type 2 diabetic. Do you realize that that Type 1 and type 2 are COMPLETELY different diseases? The symptom, high blood sugar is the same, but the causes are completely differ. As another example - patient 1 might present with chest pain - after a few tests his/her diagnosis is indigestion. Patient 2 presents with chest pain, after a few tests his/her diagnosis is an ongoing heart attack. Same symptom, VERY different disease. Does that help you understand that the same symptom, high blood sugar, can signify 2 very different and unrelated diseases, that require total and completely different types of treatment. DID you make that clear to the listener that is new to this field of medicine? You bring up your diet. It's a great diet to follow, for anyone that wants to be healthy, it will improve most anyone's health. I can put Type 2 Diabetes in remission, pretty much anyone knows that. It can help Type 1's be healthier, like anybody else, but will not put type 1 into remission..., or that Type 1 is anywhere near the same disease as Type 2. After listening to you, people are more misinformed than they were if they never heard this podcast,