September 23, 2025 • 11 mins
The episode reviews the excerpt from a review or summary of a New York Times article by Catherine Porter and colleagues, titled "United Nations Global Gridlock: Gaza, Ukraine, and Diplomatic Paralysis," which covers the severe tensions and ongoing humanitarian crises addressed at the United Nations General Assembly. The original article is described as offering a panoramic view of diplomatic paralysis, primarily focusing on the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, which have strained international consensus. Specifically regarding Gaza, the text highlights Secretary-General António Guterres’s stark assessment that famine is a current reality, alongside the repeated use of the veto by the United States to block ceasefire resolutions. The review notes the article’s objective approach, presenting diverging opinions from world leaders concerning Israel's actions and the diplomatic recognition of Palestinian statehood, before briefly broadening its scope to include discussions on the escalating situation in Ukraine and Iran's nuclear program. Ultimately, the article is presented as a fact-driven chronicle of the UN's struggle to translate rhetoric into effective global resolution.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-new-york-times-review--4762002/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-new-york-times-review--4762002/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back to the deep dive. If you've been keeping
an eye on global affairs, well, you know the mood
at the UN General Assembly lately hasn't just been tense.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, not at all.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
It's really felt defined by this deep sense of frustration.
We're really seeing what you could call global gridlock.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
That's a perfect term for it. It really captures what
the source material we've looked at today is showing this
deep dive. It's based on a really comprehensive report. It
chronicles these diplomatic tensions, especially around Gaza and Ukraine, right,
and it's very fact driven, which is helpful. It focuses
squarely on the official statements, the diplomatic context. It helps
(00:40):
you understand exactly where that international consensus has just well
fallen apart.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And our mission here is really to look into that gap.
Isn't it This huge divide between the powerful words sometimes
really fiery rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
We hear definitely fiery sometimes and.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
The actual concrete actions or lack thereof that the UN
manages to achieve. We're trying to peel back the lay
on this global inaction, not you know, taking sides, but
looking at the structure of diplomacy itself exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
We want to get past the headlines and understand the
diplomatic reality on the ground. This analysis, it captures that
moment where you know, symbolic power just slams into institutional paralysis.
And maybe we should start with the crisis that's really
laying bare those structural flaws most starkly.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Right now, you mean the Security Council's response or non
response to Gaza precisely that. Okay, let's unpack that. The
humanitarian paralysis seems to be the dominant theme. The sources
really dig into this key high level meeting. It was
convened by South Korea right as the Council's rotating president.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
That's right, and that detail matters because it shows the
wider un body, you know, trying really trying to force
some kind of action from the Council. But the urgency
it was palpable, oh, absolutely crystallized immediately by the Secretary
General himself and Tony Guterrez Ye. He was completely unflinching
in his statement. What was really striking, I thought was
his choice of words. He didn't just warn about famine, oh,
(02:04):
he said, famine is no longer looming. It is a
present reality. That shift is huge.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
From a future worry to a declared current disaster.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Exactly, it's a devastating thing for the UN's top official
to say. It basically signals that, well, we've missed the
chance to prevent it.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
A truly stark moment. Guturrez called it morally and legally indefensible.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Strong words, but.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Powerful words run straight into that institutional wall, don't they.
This is where the gridlock becomes well almost physical, the
Council's paralysis. Our sources make it crystal clear every significant
attempt at a cease fire, any humanitarian resolution.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Just blocked, repeatedly blocked, vetoed specifically by the United States. Right,
And this is where the sources give us a really
crucial insight into US foreign policy. This veto pattern. It
shows a remarkable continuity.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Continuity across different administration.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Yes, the source really stresses this point, this specific stance,
the willingness to use the VETO on this issue. It
exists across both the Biden and the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Wow, Okay, that is fascinating because it's just this isn't
just about you know, current politics or who's in the
White House.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Exactly. It points to something deeper, maybe more institutionalized within
US policy regarding this conflict.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So if you have this policy continuity across two administrations
that are, let's face it, opposed on almost everything else, right,
it implies that domestic political pressure within the US is
unlikely to shift this particular stance, which effectively locks the
UN Security Council into paralysis on this.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
It certainly seems that way. And if you connect that
back to how the UN is structured, I mean, the
Security Council gives veto power to just five permanent members
the P five P five. So even if say one
hundred and eighty nine other countries agree on something, the
whole system is basically designed for gridlock when those five disagree,
especially on a crisis where one of those five fields
(03:59):
it has such a direct, unwavering interest.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Okay, so the Security Council itself might be stuck, but
the broader diplomatic world, the General Assembly and beyond, it's
still buzzing with activity.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Right nop. Definitely. The report documents this whole spectrum of
diverging responses, and it really shows just how much that
consensus among the wider membership has eroded.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
What kind of responses are we seeing well.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
On one end, you have really strong condemnation reflecting just
deep frustration. The sources explicitly quote leaders from countries like
Turkey and Brazil, and they didn't hold back. They use
the word genocide to describe Israel's military actions.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
That's incredibly strong language in diplomatic terms.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
It is extremely potent, and it raises that question, you know,
does using language that strong actually help build consensus or
does it just harden the opposition a difficult balance. And
then contrasting with that sort of fiery condemnation, you have
other countries taking a different route, more symbolic perhaps, but
still strategically important actions like what the report highlights France
(05:00):
in Saudi Arabia moving ahead with recognizing Palestinian statehood. These
kinds of diplomatic.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Gestures h okay, So formal recognition yes, and.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
That collective action, even if it's not mandated by the
Security Council, it carries real diplomatic weight. The sources give
a specific number here that you really need to grasp.
Over one hundred and fifty UN member states now support
Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Over one hundred and fifty out of one hundred ninety
three members exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That's a massive majority. It's an overwhelming signal of where
broad international opinion actually sits on this.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
So the Council can block legally binding resolutions, but.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It can't block the diplomatic reality of that kind of
isolation signaled by such a huge number.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
It's fascinating to see that frustration playing out through both
know the absolute strongest language possible and these very formal
acts of recognition.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
It is and the report also points to what it
calls the the diplomatic choreography within the Council meetings themselves,
how procedure gets used, almost weaponized.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
What do you mean by choreography there?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Well, analyzing the timing, the positioning is statements. For instance,
you have the Palestinian ambassador Readmance, who are focusing his
statement tightly on dignity and the right to life, very
deliberate framing, okay. But then on the other side, the
US Envoy Mike Waltz criticized the actual timing of the
meeting coincided with ros.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Shashana, arguing it excluded.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Israel precisely, arguing it effectively shut Israel out of participating.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That might seem like a small procedural point.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
But it's not, is it. It's absolutely critical. It's not
just a complaint about scheduling courtesy, it's a procedural attack.
By hitting the timing, the US ambassador uses the calendar
itself to try and delay the discussion or at least
question it's legitimacy. It shows how even scheduling becomes a
tool for creating gridlock.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Everything becomes part of the conflict. Okay, let's zoom out
a bit, because the UN isn't just dealing with Gaza
as overwhelming as that is.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Not even close.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
The source material really shows how the whole organization is
grappling with multiple overlapping crises all at the same time.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
And that's a core realization from the source. The sheer
volume of major issues. It's like a global chessboard where
instability in one square directly impacts resources and attention needed.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Elsewhere, juggling act with far too many balls in the air.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
That's a good way to put it. The U in
general assembly is trying to manage multiple almost existential threats simultaneously.
The report details the address about Ukraine. For instance, the
US Envoy Marco Rubio here warning of escalating consequences. If
peace remains elusive.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
That sounds ominous escalating consequences it does.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It signals that the diplomatic window might be closing, and
the stakes are much higher than just Ukraine's borders.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Absolutely, I mean, the Ukraine conflict keeps rippling outwards, global food, security,
energy prices, the very principle of national sovereignty the UN
stands for.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
It puts immense strain on diplomatic resources, political capital, everything.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
And that's happening at the same time as.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Deep tension surrounding Iran. Yes, the source points out these
kind of mixed signals coming from Tehran. On one hand,
you have Supreme Leader Ayatola Kommene restating the country's official
line against ever developing nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Okay, the official position.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
But at the very same time European powers are seriously
considering reimposing sanctions. Why because of ongoing concerns about Iran's
uranium enrichment activities.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Right, so the technical actions seem to contradict the stated
peaceful intent, at least in the eyes of Europe.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Exactly. You get this classic diplomatic knot a stated goal
no nukes potentially undermined by technical actions. The enrichment, which
then forces a reaction from other powers.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And this whole issue Iran's nuclear program, it pulls critical focus,
doesn't it. It demands attention and political energy that maybe
could have used elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
It absolutely does. It stretches the UN's capacity, it's bandwidth
to it feels like a breaking point. You've got these
three massive simultaneous flash.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Points, Jaza, Ukraine, Iran.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Yes. And what this whole picture really forces is that
central theme from the article we discussed earlier. The United
Nations is visibly struggling, struggling desperately to turn all that
powerful rhetoric, the condemnations, the famine warnings, the threats of
escalation into clear, coordinated actions.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Across multiple fronts at once.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Across multiple major fronts. The sheer breadth of these crises
active famine, a major war in Europe, nuclear proliferation concerns,
it really throws the institution's current limits into sharp relief.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
And that's why this report, the synthesis is so valuable.
I think it acts as this very clear eyed chronicle.
It shows us the world standing at a crossroads, and
it underscores just how fragile international consensus really is right now,
It's not just the countries disagree.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Disagreements are normal, right.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It's that the very system built to manage and resolve
those disagreements seems well structurally overwhelmed by the scale of
the challenges.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
It does feel that way. Sometimes the sources ultimately serve
as both, you know, erect of where we are now
and maybe a bit of a warning to global leaders.
It emphasizes that even if the mechanisms are flawed, diplomacy itself, talking, negotiating,
even arguing within these frameworks, it's still essential, slow.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Imperfect, often frustrating, often very.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Frustrating, Yes, but it remains the only real place these
global issues get discussed collectively.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Okay, So here's where it gets really interesting and maybe
something for you the listener, to chew on after this.
We've just laid out three enormous crises, all hitting peak
intensity pretty much simultaneously. You've got a declared famine and
near total institutional paralysis on Gaza check, you've got warnings
of major military escalation concerning Ukraine, and you have these
(10:43):
critical nuclear proliferation worries surrounding Iran. So the question is,
what does the sheer number and intensity of these simultaneous
major crises tell us about the fundamental capacity and maybe
the limits of our current global institutions, like the UN.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
It really forces you to ask the hard question, doesn't it.
Are these institutions which were largely designed back in the
twentieth century primarily to manage state on state competition a
different era, a very different era, are they now simply overwhelmed?
Overwhelmed by the complexity, the interconnectedness, maybe just the sheer
volume of the chaos we see in the twenty first century.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
A profound thought for what is undoubtedly a deeply complex time.
We really appreciate you joining us for this deep dive
into global gridlock.
Welcome back to the deep dive. If you've been keeping
an eye on global affairs, well, you know the mood
at the UN General Assembly lately hasn't just been tense.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
No, not at all.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
It's really felt defined by this deep sense of frustration.
We're really seeing what you could call global gridlock.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
That's a perfect term for it. It really captures what
the source material we've looked at today is showing this
deep dive. It's based on a really comprehensive report. It
chronicles these diplomatic tensions, especially around Gaza and Ukraine, right,
and it's very fact driven, which is helpful. It focuses
squarely on the official statements, the diplomatic context. It helps
(00:40):
you understand exactly where that international consensus has just well
fallen apart.
Speaker 1 (00:44):
And our mission here is really to look into that gap.
Isn't it This huge divide between the powerful words sometimes
really fiery rhetoric.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
We hear definitely fiery sometimes and.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
The actual concrete actions or lack thereof that the UN
manages to achieve. We're trying to peel back the lay
on this global inaction, not you know, taking sides, but
looking at the structure of diplomacy itself exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
We want to get past the headlines and understand the
diplomatic reality on the ground. This analysis, it captures that
moment where you know, symbolic power just slams into institutional paralysis.
And maybe we should start with the crisis that's really
laying bare those structural flaws most starkly.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Right now, you mean the Security Council's response or non
response to Gaza precisely that. Okay, let's unpack that. The
humanitarian paralysis seems to be the dominant theme. The sources
really dig into this key high level meeting. It was
convened by South Korea right as the Council's rotating president.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
That's right, and that detail matters because it shows the
wider un body, you know, trying really trying to force
some kind of action from the Council. But the urgency
it was palpable, oh, absolutely crystallized immediately by the Secretary
General himself and Tony Guterrez Ye. He was completely unflinching
in his statement. What was really striking, I thought was
his choice of words. He didn't just warn about famine, oh,
(02:04):
he said, famine is no longer looming. It is a
present reality. That shift is huge.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
From a future worry to a declared current disaster.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
Exactly, it's a devastating thing for the UN's top official
to say. It basically signals that, well, we've missed the
chance to prevent it.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
A truly stark moment. Guturrez called it morally and legally indefensible.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Strong words, but.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
Powerful words run straight into that institutional wall, don't they.
This is where the gridlock becomes well almost physical, the
Council's paralysis. Our sources make it crystal clear every significant
attempt at a cease fire, any humanitarian resolution.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Just blocked, repeatedly blocked, vetoed specifically by the United States. Right,
And this is where the sources give us a really
crucial insight into US foreign policy. This veto pattern. It
shows a remarkable continuity.
Speaker 1 (02:57):
Continuity across different administration.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Yes, the source really stresses this point, this specific stance,
the willingness to use the VETO on this issue. It
exists across both the Biden and the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Wow, Okay, that is fascinating because it's just this isn't
just about you know, current politics or who's in the
White House.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
Exactly. It points to something deeper, maybe more institutionalized within
US policy regarding this conflict.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
So if you have this policy continuity across two administrations
that are, let's face it, opposed on almost everything else, right,
it implies that domestic political pressure within the US is
unlikely to shift this particular stance, which effectively locks the
UN Security Council into paralysis on this.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
It certainly seems that way. And if you connect that
back to how the UN is structured, I mean, the
Security Council gives veto power to just five permanent members
the P five P five. So even if say one
hundred and eighty nine other countries agree on something, the
whole system is basically designed for gridlock when those five disagree,
especially on a crisis where one of those five fields
(03:59):
it has such a direct, unwavering interest.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Okay, so the Security Council itself might be stuck, but
the broader diplomatic world, the General Assembly and beyond, it's
still buzzing with activity.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Right nop. Definitely. The report documents this whole spectrum of
diverging responses, and it really shows just how much that
consensus among the wider membership has eroded.
Speaker 1 (04:18):
What kind of responses are we seeing well.
Speaker 2 (04:20):
On one end, you have really strong condemnation reflecting just
deep frustration. The sources explicitly quote leaders from countries like
Turkey and Brazil, and they didn't hold back. They use
the word genocide to describe Israel's military actions.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
That's incredibly strong language in diplomatic terms.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
It is extremely potent, and it raises that question, you know,
does using language that strong actually help build consensus or
does it just harden the opposition a difficult balance. And
then contrasting with that sort of fiery condemnation, you have
other countries taking a different route, more symbolic perhaps, but
still strategically important actions like what the report highlights France
(05:00):
in Saudi Arabia moving ahead with recognizing Palestinian statehood. These
kinds of diplomatic.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Gestures h okay, So formal recognition yes, and.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
That collective action, even if it's not mandated by the
Security Council, it carries real diplomatic weight. The sources give
a specific number here that you really need to grasp.
Over one hundred and fifty UN member states now support
Palestinian statehood.
Speaker 1 (05:20):
Over one hundred and fifty out of one hundred ninety
three members exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
That's a massive majority. It's an overwhelming signal of where
broad international opinion actually sits on this.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
So the Council can block legally binding resolutions, but.
Speaker 2 (05:37):
It can't block the diplomatic reality of that kind of
isolation signaled by such a huge number.
Speaker 1 (05:42):
It's fascinating to see that frustration playing out through both
know the absolute strongest language possible and these very formal
acts of recognition.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
It is and the report also points to what it
calls the the diplomatic choreography within the Council meetings themselves,
how procedure gets used, almost weaponized.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
What do you mean by choreography there?
Speaker 2 (06:02):
Well, analyzing the timing, the positioning is statements. For instance,
you have the Palestinian ambassador Readmance, who are focusing his
statement tightly on dignity and the right to life, very
deliberate framing, okay. But then on the other side, the
US Envoy Mike Waltz criticized the actual timing of the
meeting coincided with ros.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
Shashana, arguing it excluded.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
Israel precisely, arguing it effectively shut Israel out of participating.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
That might seem like a small procedural point.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
But it's not, is it. It's absolutely critical. It's not
just a complaint about scheduling courtesy, it's a procedural attack.
By hitting the timing, the US ambassador uses the calendar
itself to try and delay the discussion or at least
question it's legitimacy. It shows how even scheduling becomes a
tool for creating gridlock.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Everything becomes part of the conflict. Okay, let's zoom out
a bit, because the UN isn't just dealing with Gaza
as overwhelming as that is.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Not even close.
Speaker 1 (06:52):
The source material really shows how the whole organization is
grappling with multiple overlapping crises all at the same time.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
And that's a core realization from the source. The sheer
volume of major issues. It's like a global chessboard where
instability in one square directly impacts resources and attention needed.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
Elsewhere, juggling act with far too many balls in the air.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
That's a good way to put it. The U in
general assembly is trying to manage multiple almost existential threats simultaneously.
The report details the address about Ukraine. For instance, the
US Envoy Marco Rubio here warning of escalating consequences. If
peace remains elusive.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
That sounds ominous escalating consequences it does.
Speaker 2 (07:34):
It signals that the diplomatic window might be closing, and
the stakes are much higher than just Ukraine's borders.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Absolutely, I mean, the Ukraine conflict keeps rippling outwards, global food, security,
energy prices, the very principle of national sovereignty the UN
stands for.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
It puts immense strain on diplomatic resources, political capital, everything.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
And that's happening at the same time as.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Deep tension surrounding Iran. Yes, the source points out these
kind of mixed signals coming from Tehran. On one hand,
you have Supreme Leader Ayatola Kommene restating the country's official
line against ever developing nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Okay, the official position.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
But at the very same time European powers are seriously
considering reimposing sanctions. Why because of ongoing concerns about Iran's
uranium enrichment activities.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Right, so the technical actions seem to contradict the stated
peaceful intent, at least in the eyes of Europe.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
Exactly. You get this classic diplomatic knot a stated goal
no nukes potentially undermined by technical actions. The enrichment, which
then forces a reaction from other powers.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And this whole issue Iran's nuclear program, it pulls critical focus,
doesn't it. It demands attention and political energy that maybe
could have used elsewhere.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
It absolutely does. It stretches the UN's capacity, it's bandwidth
to it feels like a breaking point. You've got these
three massive simultaneous flash.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Points, Jaza, Ukraine, Iran.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Yes. And what this whole picture really forces is that
central theme from the article we discussed earlier. The United
Nations is visibly struggling, struggling desperately to turn all that
powerful rhetoric, the condemnations, the famine warnings, the threats of
escalation into clear, coordinated actions.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Across multiple fronts at once.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Across multiple major fronts. The sheer breadth of these crises
active famine, a major war in Europe, nuclear proliferation concerns,
it really throws the institution's current limits into sharp relief.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
And that's why this report, the synthesis is so valuable.
I think it acts as this very clear eyed chronicle.
It shows us the world standing at a crossroads, and
it underscores just how fragile international consensus really is right now,
It's not just the countries disagree.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Disagreements are normal, right.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
It's that the very system built to manage and resolve
those disagreements seems well structurally overwhelmed by the scale of
the challenges.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
It does feel that way. Sometimes the sources ultimately serve
as both, you know, erect of where we are now
and maybe a bit of a warning to global leaders.
It emphasizes that even if the mechanisms are flawed, diplomacy itself, talking, negotiating,
even arguing within these frameworks, it's still essential, slow.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Imperfect, often frustrating, often very.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Frustrating, Yes, but it remains the only real place these
global issues get discussed collectively.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
Okay, So here's where it gets really interesting and maybe
something for you the listener, to chew on after this.
We've just laid out three enormous crises, all hitting peak
intensity pretty much simultaneously. You've got a declared famine and
near total institutional paralysis on Gaza check, you've got warnings
of major military escalation concerning Ukraine, and you have these
(10:43):
critical nuclear proliferation worries surrounding Iran. So the question is,
what does the sheer number and intensity of these simultaneous
major crises tell us about the fundamental capacity and maybe
the limits of our current global institutions, like the UN.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
It really forces you to ask the hard question, doesn't it.
Are these institutions which were largely designed back in the
twentieth century primarily to manage state on state competition a
different era, a very different era, are they now simply overwhelmed?
Overwhelmed by the complexity, the interconnectedness, maybe just the sheer
volume of the chaos we see in the twenty first century.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
A profound thought for what is undoubtedly a deeply complex time.
We really appreciate you joining us for this deep dive
into global gridlock.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.