Montan Bitcoin Services Daily News

Satire is a powerful force for political and cultural change. But is it even possible in a world that outstrips our imagination on a daily—or even hourly—basis? https://reason.com/podcast/2025/04/02/leigh-stein-and-julius-taranto-did-wokeness-and-trump-kill-literary-satire/ --- Today's guests are two young novelists who are redefining satire in the 21st century. Leigh Stein is the author of Self Care, which is set at a women's wellness startup where things go very wrong. Her next novel, If You're Seeing This, It's Meant for You, takes place at a social media hype house and comes out in August. Julius Taranto is the author of How I Won a Nobel Prize, which is set at a secretive university funded by a reclusive billionaire and staffed exclusively by faculty who have been canceled elsewhere. His reviews and essays have been published in The Washington Post, The New York Review of Books, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and elsewhere. Reason's Nick Gillespie talks with them about the widely pronounced post-election vibe shift by which artists feel emboldened once again to slay sacred cows with impunity. And they explore whether contemporary markets for books, movies, plays, music, and other forms of creative expression are actually capable of supporting a new era of satire, parody, and self-examination. This interview was recorded at The Reason Speakeasy, a live monthly event in New York City that doubles as a live taping of The Reason Interview. Go here for more information on upcoming Reason events. 1:30—What is the purpose of a novel? 4:49—What is the function of satire? 9:03—Philip Roth declared satire impossible in 1961 12:30—How culture has fractured 15:17—Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and figures beyond satire 18:31—Class dimensions of satire 22:52—How Stein's feminist activism inspired Self Care 23:58—Tom Wolfe and satirical realism 31:25—Is the world becoming post-literate? 32:54—Has the novel been feminized? 34:25—Joe Rogan as the successor to Marcel Proust? 35:28—How women dominate the publishing industry 47:43—Stein's cultural criticism and poetry

Champagne is made in France, so when the importer brings it to the U.S., they’d get slapped with a 200 percent charge just for bringing it into the United States. And because it’s alcohol, it would face a bunch of other state and local taxes on top of the tariff. #alcohol #champagne #cocktails #drinks

In 2003, Jakarta wanted to reduce traffic so they implemented a 3-in-1 rule which requires private vehicles carry three people in order to drive on main roads. Turns out, people like driving and money which led to professional passengers known as car jockeys. #Indonesia #history #historyfacts #cars #car

You've probably heard that President Donald Trump is prepared to slap some huge tariffs on nearly all imports from Canada and Mexico this week. But you might also be wondering: How is it that the president can unilaterally decide what tariffs get charged on which imports? And if he's determined to make everything from Canadian whisky to Mexican avocados more expensive, can anyone stop him? https://reason.com/video/2025/03/31/the-hidden-politics-of-whiskey-prices/ --- "It absolutely should not be one person making these decisions," Rep. Suzan DelBene (D–Wash.) tells Reason. She's sponsored a bill that would require Trump—and any other future president—to get permission from Congress before using emergency economic powers to levy new tariffs on American consumers. To understand why that matters, it might help to first know a bit about how tariffs work. Say you want to buy a bottle of whisky from a distillery in Canada. Since the 1990s, nearly all products have been able to cross into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico without paying any tariffs—thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Now, Trump wants to tear up those rules and impose a 25 percent tariff on almost everything that crosses the border. So, imagine a bottle of whiskey that costs $20 at the store. Under Trump's tariff plan, that bottle would have to pay an additional $5 tariff just to get into the U.S., and that higher cost gets passed along to you. It's a tax. If a president wants to raise taxes, typically he's got to get approval from Congress. So how is it that Trump can raise taxes on whisky and lots of other products simply with an executive order? DelBene says that shouldn't be allowed. "When we talk about taxes and whether or not we raise or lower taxes, Congress has the authority there," she says. "Congress is an independent, co-equal branch of government. Congress needs to say these are not things that the executive gets to decide unilaterally." The Constitution gives Congress the final say over not just taxes but trade policy too. However, lawmakers have given away that authority in bits and pieces since the 1940s. It was assumed that presidents would be more willing to look out for the nation's best interest and less likely to support protectionism for specific industries. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way. Now, the president has vast power over trade, and Trump is taking advantage of that. The law that Trump is using to put tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). To activate its powers, a president has to declare a state of emergency, and Delbene says that's where Trump is overstepping. Until now, the law has only been used to impose sanctions on foreign countries. DelBene's bill would explicitly prevent a president from using IEEPA to impose tariffs. She's also sponsored a resolution to block the tariffs and cancel the economic emergency that Trump declared in early February. "First of all, these are allies. These are not hostile foreign nations. And so we have a trade agreement with both of these nations," DelBene told Reason. "If the president, any president, wants to put in place such broad tariffs, they have to come to Congress and get approval from Congress. That's what the Constitution says." Photo Credits: JT Vintage/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Everett Collection/Newscom; Schulmann-Sachs/picture alliance / Schulmann-Sac/Newscom; Schulmann-Sachs/picture-alliance / dpa/Newscom; Dennis Brack/Newscom; Arnie Sachs - CNP/Newscom; Arnie Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom; Ron Sachs - Pool via CNP/Newscom; William Foster/ZUMA Press/Newscom; 2009 Black Star/Newscom; Jim LoScalzo - Pool via CNP/Newscom; Annabelle Gordon - CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom; Carol Guzy/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Erin Combs/ZUMA Press/Newscom; SIPA USA-KT/SIPA/Newscom; Shealah Craighead/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Ron Przysucha/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; CNP/AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom; Martin Falbisoner, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Abaca Press/Gripas Yuri/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Sipa USA/Newscom; Francis Chung - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom; Aaron Schwartz - CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom; JEMAL COUNTESS/UPI/Newscom Music Credits: “Rabbit Hole” by Ilona Harpaz via Artlist; “Outrun” by WEARETHEGOOD, Lynnea via Artlist; “In Love with Emi” by Fabien Fustinoni via Artlist; “Life’s Journey Begins” by idokay via Artlist; “Ain’t Looking Back” by Richard Farrell via Artlist Producers: Eric Boehm and Adam Sullivan Video editor: Danielle Thompson Graphics: Regan McDaniel Audio Production: Ian Keyser Color Correction: Cody Huff

Why did politicians send war plans on Signal? They didn’t. Those were W.A.R schematics which are different. 🤪 #politics #comedy #satire

Authors James Fadiman and Jordan Gruber discuss their new book "Microdosing for Health, Healing, and Enhanced Performance". reason.com/podcasts -- You've probably heard about microdosing, which involves taking a small, "sub-perceptual" dose of psychedelics like LSD or psilocybin on a regular basis to ward off depression, anxiety, and chronic pain—or to optimize focus and boost energy. Today's guests are James Fadiman and Jordan Gruber, authors of the new book Microdosing for Health, Healing, and Enhanced Performance. Fadiman, a Stanford-trained research psychologist who has been working with psychedelics since the early 1960s, popularized the concept of microdosing over a decade ago. They talk with Reason's Nick Gillespie about the mechanics of and theory behind microdosing, its promise and limits, and how it fits into the larger psychedelic renaissance that has been flowering for most of the 21st century. And they discuss the prospects for legalization and cultural normalization of psychedelics under the Trump administration. 1:19 — New book: Microdosing for Health, Healing, and Enhanced Performance 5:12 — How Fadiman discovered microdosing 8:10 — How Gruber began microdosing 8:57 — Microdosing is similar to a vitamin protocol 11:17 — MDMA, ketamine, and cannabis work differently 12:50 — Microdosing for depression 16:02 — Other conditions microdosing could help alleviate 19:09 — Is microdosing for life? 21:17 — How to quantify the efficacy of microdosing 30:14 — Psychedelics and drug law 37:30 — Psychedelic-assisted therapy 39:40 — Psychedelics and their benefits are nonideological 46:15 — Fadiman and Gruber's 2020 book: Your Symphony of Selves 53:45 — Drug legalization under Donald Trump

In a lab in Japan, scientists transformed cells from the tails of male mice into eggs. They fertilized the eggs with ordinary mouse sperm and implanted them in surrogate mouse moms. The experiment was repeated 630 times. Although most of the pregnancies failed, seven healthy mice were born. Each of those seven baby mice had two biological dads. https://reason.com/video/2025/03/25/this-mouse-has-two-biological-dads/ --- The experiment has staggering implications for the future of human reproduction. Biologist Katsuhiko Hayashi, who led the project, predicts that within a decade, a human skin cell could be used to create a viable human egg. The biotech companies Conception Bio and Gameto are already working on this technology. This would allow same-sex couples to have natural offspring. Perhaps even solo reproduction will be possible, with one man generating both the sperm and the egg. Some conservatives are alarmed. "The global fertility industry seeks to erase women from procreation one manufactured egg at a time," Jordan Boyd wrote at The Federalist. Actually, this technology would be empowering for women who want to have children but can't produce viable eggs—or for older women who have already gone through menopause. Younger women would also benefit. If a piece of skin can be turned into a viable egg, women doing IVF will be saved from daily hormone injections and from needles in their vaginas, both of which are part of the standard retrieval process today. Ben Hurlbut, a bioethicist at Arizona State University, told USA Today that this technology is "a perversion of the sanctity of procreation as a fundamental aspect of human life." It's not a perversion of anything. Procreation is a fundamental aspect of human life—and with this technology, more people would be able to take part. Just ask the 9 percent of men and 11 percent of women of reproductive age in the United States who have experienced fertility problems. Marcy Darnovsky, head of the left-wing Center for Genetics and Society, warned on NPR that this technology could have dystopian consequences, noting that "this could take us into kind of a Gattaca world." Darnovsky was referencing the 1997 sci-fi movie in which a eugenicist state is ruled by people born with genetically enhanced abilities. It's true that this technology could allow parents to test their embryos before implantation and select the traits of their future offspring. But IVF already makes this possible. Today, parents routinely test embryos for heritable conditions and for gender. In the future, they may be able to select for more qualities. And there's nothing wrong with that. As Stanford University bioethicist Hank Greely correctly observes, we should rely on "parental choices to make decisions about how people wish to create families." This follows from the reasonable presumption that parents generally seek to provide the best lives for their kids. The sorry history of eugenics in the U.S., where tens of thousands were forcibly sterilized during the 20th century, should make anyone cautious about government meddling in people's reproductive choices. The ability to turn mouse tails into mouse babies could become the latest technology to give humans more freedom to have the lives they choose with the families of their dreams. This video is based on the essay "What if Men Could Produce Their Own Eggs?," from our February 2024 issue. Graphics producer: Lex Villena Narration: Katherine Mangu-Ward Photo credits: K. Hardy (CC BY 4.0), National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases NIH (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), Atdoan0 (CC BY-SA 4.0), Internet Archive Book Images (CC0 1.0), Bada Bing (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0), Peter Hermes Furian, Zurijeta, 7active Studio, Srckomkrit Music credits: "Movements," by Skygaze. Licensed by Artlist.

City University of New York professor Peter Beinart and AEI's Michael Rubin debate Israel and Palestine. https://reason.com/podcasts/the-soho-forum-debates/ Jewish Currents' editor-at-large Peter Beinart and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Michael Rubin debate the resolution, "The oppression of Palestinians in non-democratic Israel has been systematic and profound." Arguing for the affirmative is Beinart, a professor of journalism and political science at the Newmark School of Journalism at the City University of New York. He's a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, editor-at-large for Jewish Currents, and a political commentator for MSNBC. Beinart has authored several books, including Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning, which was released in January of this year. Arguing for the negative is Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he specializes in the Middle East and Africa, and director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. He's the author of Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes. The debate was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein. Chapters: 00:00 Coming up... 01:06 The resolution reads... 01:46 Beinart’s opening statement 12:27 Rubin’s opening statement 29:00 Beinart’s rebuttal 33:46 Rubin’s rebuttal 40:36 Q&A 1:12:53 Beinart’s closing statement 1:16:13 Rubin’s closing statement 1:21:14 Announcements 1:25:58 Results