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.”
03:56second year and I don’t think we excitethat love of learning to make themalways come back to become historymajors now that’s interesting you’relooking in the mirror for part of theexplanation here so what are you eitherdoing or not doing that you think iscontributing to this fall off yeah Imean I think what Chris was talkingabout you know we’re losing theeducation pathway we’re losing the lawpathway that’s fine but I look at artsand say we’re losing majors more thanother arts disciplines why is that wellI think part of it is that we sometimeswe try to sell histhey come into our clusters and we tryto say come here for critical thinkingcome here for writing skills come herefor your communication skills and that’sfine but that doesn’t really get to thecore of what makes history special andthe core is to me the core is anunderstanding of ambiguity andunderstanding of context the ability totake scattered isolated data pointsfound in an archive or a library hereand weave it together into a reallycompelling story that fires up studentsfires up audiences what do you when youlook in the mirror what whatresponsibilities do you think the wayyou teach and your professors teachright there’s two elements to theirsthey’re the objective conditions we cansay and I’m speaking now like a storyand I guess the financial crisisgenerally the the mood of especiallyNorth America of focus on identitypolitics etc and then there are thesubjective elements of what shouldadministration’s history departments oreven individual faculty members – Ithink that this this crisis or minicrisis could be a blessing in disguisebecause it could shake us a bit and makeus really consider how we’ve beendealing with teaching history andattracting students there’s a number ofthings I think that we can do we can Imean I hate to use this word but in thecommercial mindset that we’re all in wecan mark it history a little bit betterwe don’t know the exact figures here inCanada the Canadian HistoricalAssociation hasn’t done a good study onreally how well do history mate how welldo is how well do history majors do inthe in the market after they graduateand they actually do very well very wellexceptionally well in fact they evencompete with some of these sciencemajors in terms of getting jobs there’sa rather low unemployment among historymajors they tend to earn good payingjobs and it’s an excellent criticalthinking yesterday in fact the AmericanHistorical Association has documentedthat there’s a large number of employersof stem majorswho lament the fact that they wish theirtheir employees knew a bit more abouthistory about liberal arts etc I meanthat’s that’s one thing we can marketourselves a bit better the other thing Ithink is that we really need to takeanother look at the way we teach andthat is also rather complex well let’sget into that here chris is theresomething about the way you and yourcolleagues stand at the front of a classand teach 18 19 year old young peoplethat’s not resonating today in a way itmight have 25 or 30 years ago so maybe Imean I I’m 46 so I don’t know really anymore but I think that you know thisacademic specialization is a problemright we specialized we company butespecially that specialization happenseverywhere in every field I think whatmatters in history is that when wespecialize we tend to assume thatstudents are going to are going to beinterested in the particular niches thatwe’re interested in and you know thatthe essence of history is what happenedwhen did it happen and we all want totalk about the why and get aget argueabout it you know but students coming inat 17 18 years old they don’t have thewhat and win and we just have to focuson what happened when did it happen andhave some confidence that the historywe’re gonna teach it matters and theyneed to know this I want to follow up onthat Ian how difficult is it to engageyoung people in history in the
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 1896, 1900, 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”.
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 election, Republican 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.
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.