The Secret Plot to Bring the U.S. into WWII

At the outset of the Second World War, the Allies were desperate to have Americans fight alongside them. So, they enlisted Canadian M16 officer William Stephenson to help sway them, kicking off a large-scale, state-sponsored influence campaign. Author Henry Hemming joins The Agenda to discuss his book, “Agents of Influence: A British Campaign, a Canadian Spy, and the Secret Plot to Bring American into World War II.”

The Undoing of History: Steve Paikin Interview

second year and I don’t think we excite
that love of learning to make them
always come back to become history
majors now that’s interesting you’re
looking in the mirror for part of the
explanation here so what are you either
doing or not doing that you think is
contributing to this fall off yeah I
mean I think what Chris was talking
about you know we’re losing the
education pathway we’re losing the law
pathway that’s fine but I look at arts
and say we’re losing majors more than
other arts disciplines why is that well
I think part of it is that we sometimes
we try to sell his
they come into our clusters and we try
to say come here for critical thinking
come here for writing skills come here
for your communication skills and that’s
fine but that doesn’t really get to the
core of what makes history special and
the core is to me the core is an
understanding of ambiguity and
understanding of context the ability to
take scattered isolated data points
found in an archive or a library here
and weave it together into a really
compelling story that fires up students
fires up audiences what do you when you
look in the mirror what what
responsibilities do you think the way
you teach and your professors teach
right there’s two elements to theirs
they’re the objective conditions we can
say and I’m speaking now like a story
and I guess the financial crisis
generally the the mood of especially
North America of focus on identity
politics etc and then there are the
subjective elements of what should
administration’s history departments or
even individual faculty members – I
think that this this crisis or mini
crisis could be a blessing in disguise
because it could shake us a bit and make
us really consider how we’ve been
dealing with teaching history and
attracting students there’s a number of
things I think that we can do we can I
mean I hate to use this word but in the
commercial mindset that we’re all in we
can mark it history a little bit better
we don’t know the exact figures here in
Canada the Canadian Historical
Association hasn’t done a good study on
really how well do history mate how well
do is how well do history majors do in
the in the market after they graduate
and they actually do very well very well
exceptionally well in fact they even
compete with some of these science
majors in terms of getting jobs there’s
a rather low unemployment among history
majors they tend to earn good paying
jobs and it’s an excellent critical
thinking yesterday in fact the American
Historical Association has documented
that there’s a large number of employers
of stem majors
who lament the fact that they wish their
their employees knew a bit more about
history about liberal arts etc I mean
that’s that’s one thing we can market
ourselves a bit better the other thing I
think is that we really need to take
another look at the way we teach and
that is also rather complex well let’s
get into that here chris is there
something about the way you and your
colleagues stand at the front of a class
and teach 18 19 year old young people
that’s not resonating today in a way it
might have 25 or 30 years ago so maybe I
mean I I’m 46 so I don’t know really any
more but I think that you know this
academic specialization is a problem
right we specialized we company but
especially that specialization happens
everywhere in every field I think what
matters in history is that when we
specialize we tend to assume that
students are going to are going to be
interested in the particular niches that
we’re interested in and you know that
the essence of history is what happened
when did it happen and we all want to
talk about the why and get aget argue
about it you know but students coming in
at 17 18 years old they don’t have the
what and win and we just have to focus
on what happened when did it happen and
have some confidence that the history
we’re gonna teach it matters and they
need to know this I want to follow up on
that Ian how difficult is it to engage
young people in history in the

William Jennings Bryan

William Jennings Bryan (March 19, 1860 – July 26, 1925) was an American orator and politician from Nebraska. Beginning in 1896, he emerged as a dominant force in the Democratic Party, running three times as the party’s nominee for President of the United States in the 18961900, and 1908 elections. He also served in the United States House of Representatives and as the United States Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson. Just before his death, he gained national attention for attacking the teaching of evolution in the Scopes Trial. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was often called “The Great Commoner”.[1]

Born and raised in Illinois, Bryan moved to Nebraska in the 1880s. He won election to the House of Representatives in the 1890 elections, serving two terms before making an unsuccessful run for the Senate in 1894. At the 1896 Democratic National Convention, Bryan delivered his “Cross of Gold speech” which attacked the gold standard and the eastern moneyed interests and crusaded for inflationary policies built around the expanded coinage of silver coins. In a repudiation of incumbent President Grover Cleveland and his conservative Bourbon Democrats, the Democratic convention nominated Bryan for president, making Bryan the youngest major party presidential nominee in U.S. history. Subsequently, Bryan was also nominated for president by the left-wing Populist Party, and many Populists would eventually follow Bryan into the Democratic Party. In the intensely fought 1896 presidential electionRepublican nominee William McKinley emerged triumphant. Bryan gained fame as an orator, as he invented the national stumping tour when he reached an audience of 5 million people in 27 states in 1896.

Bryan retained control of the Democratic Party and won the presidential nomination again in 1900. In the aftermath of the Spanish–American War, Bryan became a fierce opponent of American imperialism and much of his campaign centered on that issue. In the election, McKinley again defeated Bryan, winning several Western states that Bryan had won in 1896. Bryan’s influence in the party weakened after the 1900 election and the Democrats nominated the conservative Alton B. Parker in the 1904 presidential election. Bryan regained his stature in the party after Parker’s resounding defeat by Theodore Roosevelt and voters from both parties increasingly embraced the progressive reforms that had long been championed by Bryan. Bryan won his party’s nomination in the 1908 presidential election, but he was defeated by Roosevelt’s chosen successor, William Howard Taft. Along with Henry Clay, Bryan is one of the two individuals who never won a presidential election despite receiving electoral votes in three separate presidential elections held after the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment.

After the Democrats won the presidency in the 1912 election, Woodrow Wilson rewarded Bryan’s support with the important cabinet position of Secretary of State. Bryan helped Wilson pass several progressive reforms through Congress, but he and Wilson clashed over U.S. neutrality in World War I. Bryan resigned from his post in 1915 after Wilson sent Germany a note of protest in response to the sinking of Lusitania by a German U-boat. After leaving office, Bryan retained some of his influence within the Democratic Party, but he increasingly devoted himself to religious matters and anti-evolution activism. He opposed Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds, most famously in the 1925 Scopes Trial. Since his death in 1925, Bryan has elicited mixed reactions from various commentators, but he is widely considered to have been one of the most influential figures of the Progressive Era.

Money and Debt and Digital Contracts – Brewster Kahle at Devcon 5

The dreams of cryptocurrencies tend to focus on money and seem to avoid the topic, repercussions, and significance of debt. In fiat currencies, 95% of all money is matched with debt — in other words, debt creates 95% of all money. This talk aims to bring the impact of debt into the Ethereum conversation, specifically focusing on debt with interest. Let’s consider this side of crypto coins and Ethereum in particular since it provides the ability to encode obligations as contracts and therefore can encode debt obligations.