Cato Event Podcast

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included a requirement that Medicare-participating providers use electronic health records by January 1, 2014, or face financial penalties. Passed and signed into law just four weeks after the inauguration of President Obama, this expensive requirement, which had almost no public debate, forced hospitals, doctors, and clinics to move confidential patient information into digital format.Twila Brase, author of the 2018 book Big Brother in the Exam Room: The Dangerous Truth about Electronic Health Records, says the electronic health record (EHR) is not what patients think it is. It interferes with patient care, is being used to violate patient rights, it makes sensitive data vulnerable to hackers, and it is threatening patient safety and medical excellence. She claims that what the government calls privacy rules are actually data-sharing rules. Furthermore, standardized treatment protocols and burdensome data-entry requirements are causing physician burnout and

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Almost 50 years after his death, the legacy of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover remains very much alive, according to 16-year FBI veteran Michael German in his new book, Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy. Just as Hoover exploited fears of communist infiltration of American institutions, his successors at the FBI in the post-9/11 era have exploited fears of Salafist terrorism to “shed the legal constraints” imposed on the bureau in the wake of Hoover-era civil rights abuses. Does Congress have the will to rein in the FBI? How should political activists respond to these increased threats to their constitutional rights?Join us as an expert panel talks with German about his book on FBI domestic surveillance and disruption activities in the era of endless war. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Reforming the immigration visa system is crucial for the future of the United States. In late 2019, Rep. John Curtis (R‑UT), supported by Gov. Gary Herbert, introduced a bill to create a state‐​based visa system. Curtis’s proposal adopts a major component of the Canadian immigration system: visas sponsored by individual states rather than the federal government. Under the legislation, the federal government maintains control over admissions, security checks, and other necessary criteria, while the state governments gain power to select individual migrants and regulate their activity within the state. Each state would get an average of 10,000 visas a year: 5,000 guaranteed for each state and an additional number assigned based on population.With the partisan gridlock that has characterized Washington politics for at least the past two decades, can and should states lead the way on immigration by utilizing a state‐​based visa system? Join the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh for a panel discussion with Represent

A scholarly debate has emerged over trends in global conflict and the future of warfare. Is the international system becoming more peaceful, or is it just as violent and war-prone as it always has been? Is great-power war a thing of the past, or has it merely been dormant under changing technological and institutional conditions? Crafting an appropriate U.S. foreign policy is dependent on accurately measuring the state of war and peace in the world. Please join us for a discussion of these vital issues. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Scientists and citizens often focus on the dark side of our biological heritage, such as our capacity for aggression, cruelty, prejudice, and self‐​interest. But natural selection has also given us a suite of beneficial social features, including our capacity for love, friendship, cooperation, and teaching.Beneath all our inventions—our tools, farms, machines, cities, nations—we carry with us innate proclivities to make such a good society. Indeed, our genes affect not only our bodies and behaviors, but also the ways in which we make societies, and therefore ones that are surprisingly similar worldwide.Using many wide‐​ranging examples— including diverse historical and contemporary cultures, communities formed in the wake of shipwrecks, commune dwellers seeking utopia, online groups of both people and artificially intelligent bots, and even the tender and complex social arrangements of elephants and dolphins that so resemble our own—Christakis demonstrates that, despite a human history replete with violence,

Even before Donald Trump’s election, foreign policy thinkers were beginning to realize that American grand strategy had to change. After more than 15 years of war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, Americans’ enthusiasm for foreign adventures had expired and many believed that public support for traditional American leadership of the liberal international order had expired along with it. The big question was: What would come next?During the third year of the Trump administration, the 2020 Democratic candidates have offered a range of arguments about what’s wrong with U.S. foreign policy today and where it should be headed. Some of these hew fairly close to the traditional, pre‐​Trump approach, while others represent more significant departures from the status quo. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Needle exchange programs are a proven means of reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users. They are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general of the United States, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, needle exchange programs are legally permitted to operate in only 30 states and the District of Columbia. Drug paraphernalia laws make them illegal elsewhere.Critics of needle exchange programs claim they “enable” or “endorse” illicit drug use. “Not-in-my-backyard” attitudes fuel opposition in local communities. Experts will discuss the efficacy and role of this harm-reduction strategy as well as the political challenges to its widespread adoption. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In 2005 John Ioannidis of Stanford University published a paper with the dramatic title of “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” Dismayingly, we now know that he was right. In Scientocracy we explore how science has gone wrong and illustrate it with examples from nutrition, radiation, climate, and other branches of research. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focu

Some political leaders are saying that inequality is at unacceptable levels and should be countered by higher taxes at the top end. But income and wealth inequality are complex issues that are often misunderstood. Scott Winship is a long-time expert on inequality and economic mobility and will discuss income inequality. He will be followed by Chris Edwards, who will discuss wealth inequality data, the role of wealth in the economy, and the possible effects of an annual wealth tax.Winship is executive director of the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), and leads the committee’s Social Capital Project, a research effort aimed at understanding the health of families, communities, and civil society. The chairman’s office recently released a study comparing measures of income concentration. Edwards examined wealth taxation in a recent Cato study and has completed a new Cato study on wealth inequality with Cato scholar Ryan Bourne. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The disease model of drug addiction takes the view that the addict’s brain has been “hijacked” — that the addict has lost autonomy and self-control and has effectively become a zombie who is controlled by the drug. This model of understanding nonmedical drug use informs modern public policy, leading to policies that criminalize drug use and treat addicts with punishment and coerced treatment.Yet many scholars and experts reject this disease model of addiction. Instead, they consider nonmedical drug use a form of learning disorder in which compulsive behavior is an automatized means of coping with stress triggers. Come hear a distinguished panel of experts discuss a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of substance use and addiction that can produce an enlightened public policy. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.