What Do Liberals Actually Believe?

Summary

---

What A Day – Episode Summary

Podcast: What A Day (Crooked Media)
Host: Jane Coaston
Episode Title: What Do Liberals Actually Believe?
Air Date: August 25, 2025
Primary Guest: Jerusalem Demsas, CEO and founder of The Argument

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Jane Coaston engages with Jerusalem Demsas—journalist and founder of the new publication "The Argument"—about the current state of American liberalism. Prompted by recent debates around language used by Democrats and the challenge of defining liberal values beyond opposition to right-wing politics, the conversation explores what liberals actually stand for in 2025. Jane and Jerusalem consider whether liberalism still has animating principles, how it differs from other left-leaning ideologies, and why clear articulation of liberal beliefs matters for America’s future.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why This Conversation, Why Now? (00:02–02:22)

• Jane sets the stage: Democrats and liberals are caught in a debate about divisive "buzzwords" and messaging, after think tank Third Way advised against certain terms ("cisgender," "intersectionality," etc.).
• The heart of the episode: What do liberals actually believe today? What do they stand for—if anything?

2. From “Standing For” to “Standing Against” (02:24–04:16)

• Jane references Jerusalem's launch video for The Argument, quoting:

  “Liberals used to stand for things...helping the poor...but now a lot of what liberals do is stand against things.”

• Jerusalem relates this to a historic critique of conservatives—once defined by opposition to liberalism—that now applies to liberals:

  "Now you think about, like, who's yelling stop all the time. Right. And, like, I'm yelling stop too." (Jerusalem, 03:08)

• Liberals are, at times, standing athwart history, reacting to rapid change in culture and technology.

3. The Meaning of Liberalism Today (04:16–05:36)

• Liberalism now often means “anti-Trump”—but it was historically a broader ideology:

  "We have an ideology that used to really animate people...a belief in individualism and respect for human rights and all these different great principles." (Jerusalem, 04:17)

• Liberalism’s dominance led to backlash and overconfidence ("things just felt so obvious") among liberal elites.
• The "arc of history" assumption dulled liberals’ ability to advocate actively for their views.

4. What Is “Liberalism”? (05:36–07:44)

• Jane asks for a precise definition—are we talking about Democrats, progressives, "the left"?
• Jerusalem’s core thesis:

  “Liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to answer the question, how do we live with each other? ...when we’re all really, really different…” (Jerusalem, 05:36)

• Contemporary illiberal movements on both left and right try to erase difference; liberalism says: “We can live in a pluralistic society.”

5. The Reluctance to Speak Up—and Internal Pressure (07:44–09:49)

• Jerusalem notes that left-of-center individuals often censor themselves:

  "...you're constantly afraid of someone to your left telling you that you're insufficiently left leaning. And as a result, you stop articulating anything you believe." (Jerusalem, 07:44)

• This leads to conformity and lack of open debate among liberals and leftists.
• Jane distinguishes: there are real differences between liberals (who may support incremental social change, respect for process, and pluralism) and leftists (often more radical, sometimes anti-liberal).

6. Why Launch a New Liberal Media Outlet? (09:49–12:26)

• Jane asks why Jerusalem started "The Argument" in 2025.
• Jerusalem's rationale:

  "The difference that The Argument can make is the difference that…small ideological media outlets have made…not trying to be mass media organizations. What they're trying to do is change how ideology is conceived of..." (Jerusalem, 10:10)

• Major legacy liberal media are broad and diffuse; smaller outlets shape ideas and offer alternatives to "post-liberalism."
• She references the “abundance movement” (Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson): once-ignored ideas now influence national policy—evidence that persistent argumentation matters.

7. The Power of Articulation

• Jerusalem:

  "…when you make clear arguments for the stuff that you care about, it is the only way that someone could ever end up picking those up in four years, eight years, ten years, and actually using them." (Jerusalem, 11:40)

• Concludes: “You can just do things.”
  Both Jane and Jerusalem encourage active, unapologetic advocacy for one's values.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On what liberalism is:

  "How do we live with each other when we're all really, really different?" (Jerusalem, 05:36)

• On fear of being insufficiently left:

  "You stop articulating anything you believe. Everyone just kind of starts defaulting to…whatever the most radical left thing that's being said, we're all just gonna default towards that norm." (Jerusalem, 07:44)

• Jane, on silos and taboo opinions:

  "Some of these views are like, I think that maybe sometimes some people should go to prison." (Jane, 08:32)

• On the need for ideological clarity and media diversity:

  "I'm very, very worried that these smaller magazines and ideological outfits that exist are not advancing an alternative to post liberalism. And so my goal is to provide that alternative." (Jerusalem, 10:43)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:02 – Episode opening, rundown of the day's news, and framing of the liberalism discussion
• 02:24 – Jerusalem joins, defining the current dilemma of liberal ideology
• 04:16 – Discussing anti-Trumpism vs. proactive liberal values
• 05:36 – Defining liberalism ("How do we live with each other?")
• 07:44 – The dynamic between liberals and leftists; internal pressure
• 09:49 – Motivation for The Argument and small ideological media's impact
• 12:23 – Conclusion of interview with Jerusalem

---

Tone and Language

• Conversational, candid, and self-aware—willing to poke fun at the insularity of liberal discourse and acknowledge internal contradictions.
• Emphasizes nuance, pluralism, and intellectual humility; avoids easy outrage or partisan sloganeering.

---

Concluding Takeaway

This episode offers a substantive, accessible exploration of how—and whether—liberals in America define themselves in 2025. Through Jane and Jerusalem’s discussion, listeners are urged to reflect on the importance of clearly articulating core values, creating space for genuine pluralism, and resisting the temptation to let opposition alone define an ideology. The rise of small, idea-driven liberal media is framed as both a necessary corrective and an invitation: "You can just do things."

Transcript

[A]

It's Monday, August 25th. I'm Jane Coston and this is what a day. The show that is excited for the end of August. Then a deer of culture war nonsense, cracker barrel Sydney Sweeney. Look, let's just get to September and move on. On today's show, President Donald Trump says Chicago is probably the next city to receive some unwanted assistance from the National Guard. And part of the so called Epstein files arrive on Capitol Hill. All while the Department of Justice releases Ghislaine Maxwell's interview clearing the President and a former president. Shocking. But let's start with liberalism. Yes, if you call yourself a liberal, I'm talking about you. On Friday, a center left think tank called Third Way got some press because of a list it made, a list of words it thinks Democrats should stop using as part of an effort to appeal to everyday voters who do not know what an existential threat is. Here's cnn. I want to give people some context on some other words and phrases that were in this memo. Body shaming, cisgender, holding space, incarcerated people, intersectionality, lgbtqia, pregnant people, systems of oppression, the unhoused. Okay, so that's a lot of words I have heard from people who spend a lot of time on Blue sky. And I say that as a Blue sky user. As you might imagine, this list got a lot of attention online and elsewhere. Some saw it as sensible a way to get Democrats to stop using terms that might appeal to college graduates but might not work for voters who aren't. Others argued that the list was papering over the real issue for policy. Personally, even if every elected Democrat on earth stopped saying cisgender, which is just a descriptor, Fox News will still find some Democratic Socialists of America members in Brooklyn using it and argue that they alone represent the Democratic Party. But the entire debate got me thinking. What are Democrats and more broadly, liberals, for? What do we believe a new publication is trying to figure that out? The Argument, founded by former Atlantic staff writer Jerusalem Demzis, consists of a host of left leaning writers and contributors all trying to answer the question, what is a liberal? I talked to Jerusalem about her work, liberalism, and what made her want to start a new media outlet in the year of our Lord 2025. Jerusalem, welcome to what a day.

[B]

Thanks for having me. Excited to be here.

[A]

You said recently in your video announcing the launch of the argument, congratulations, by the way.

[B]

Thank you.

[A]

Liberals used to stand for things, things like the New Deal, voting rights, helping the poor, which I think, you know, most liberals are all pretty into still. But it Seems like now a lot of what liberals do is stand against things. What did you mean by that when you were talking about that? And how did we get here?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I think that this is like, a critique that people used to make of conservatives in the late 20th century all the time, that they were basically defined as being not liberals. Right. When you read Buckley's National Review, I think his opening, like, definition of, like, what conservatism is mostly like, I fucking hate liberals. And that's literally the whole thing.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And then you think about standing a.

[A]

Thwart history yelling stop.

[B]

And it's funny because, like, now you think about, like, who's yelling stop all the time. Right. And, like, I'm yelling stop too. So, like, I get it. Like, we're like, well, it's like, there's just too much going on that we. We feel like culture is moving really quickly in ways we don't like, technology is progressing in ways we don't like, that our institutions are shifting in ways we don't like. And, like, we go to protest and we say we're upset about this, we want it to stop. And like, of course, protest is always a part of the American fabric. But there's a level to which, too, when you think about a lot of my reporting, when it comes to NIMBYism in democratic cities and opposing housing and clean energy construction and opposing, you know, a transit style stops being built in your neighborhoods, you're in Los Angeles. Karen Bass has come out against legislation that would make it easier to build housing near transit. So, like, this has become, I think, an increasing definition of what it means to be a liberal in the modern era is that you're kind of opposed to stuff. And the biggest version of this, of course, is that liberalism largely means you're anti Trump now.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And I'm anti Trump. I think that he is the greatest threat to American democracy. But at the same time, I'm more than that. Like, we have an ideology that used to really animate people across the political spectrum.

[A]

And.

[B]

And liberalism wasn't just being left wing. It was a belief in individualism and respect for human rights and all of these different great principles. And to me, like, we've really lost our way for a few reasons. One is that liberalism became dominant in a way that was always going to inspire backlash from people.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But I think also in many respects, like, liberals got soft at arguing for their point. Things just felt so obvious. Like, of course, there's a consensus that immigration is good for the economy. Of course there's a consensus that we need to be defending individualism and free speech. We felt like there was an elite consensus around these ideas, and then, like.

[A]

The arc of history bent in our direction that this would just all obviously happen. And it's interesting you talk about kind of liberalism being standing against things, because right now you have a swath of the right that is basically, whatever liberals do, we hate it. Which is why they're now sounding like they want to, you know, wax rhapsodic about the magical year of, like, 2003. But I think it's important to establish in this conversation, how are you defining liberalism? Like, we're not necessarily talking about Democrats or progressives, or are we. Are we talking about both? Neither. Who are we talking about?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, this is like the longest Twitter thread in history. Like, moderators are screaming like the Reddit thread.

[A]

Oh, my God.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I mean, to me, I wrote our intro essay on the Argument Mag's website about this, which is liberalism is a political philosophy that seeks to answer the question, how do we live with each other? And that's like, how do we live with each other when we're all really, really different? Like, when my version of a good life could be having a million one night stands and someone else's is that they shouldn't have sex until they get married. Or my version of the good life is that I live in a city and I have public transit and I walk to work, and someone else's is that they live in a rural part of the country and like, they're very religious. I mean, these are, these are big differences that are not just like, stylistic. They often have to do with our fundamental beliefs about what to be a good person and we have to, like, exist together. And I think that the post liberal right, and also, honestly, the post liberal left's answer has often been to say, we can't actually live together. You need to change your mind and be like me. And liberalism says no. Like, we can live in a pluralistic society. And, you know, I think in many respects, the post liberal right in particular, they so thoroughly believe that you can't live with people that are different than you, that they're trying to eradicate that difference as much as possible. And our rejoinder, I think, at the art argument is that no matter how homogenous you think you can make a population, there will always be differences that humans are willing to kill each other over. Like, literally, it doesn't matter.

[A]

The story of Europe for like 800 years was just that I mean, liberalism.

[B]

Comes out of the European wars of religion.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. You have people who are like, you're Protestant, but not the right kind of Protestant.

[B]

Exactly.

[A]

It's also interesting because I feel as if the belief that we can't live together is one of those things where it's like, we have nearly 250 years of evidence in the United States that actually we can live together and people can sort themselves in ways that work best for them. But you said something I thought was really interesting in a conversation with another writer who you're working with at the argument, Kelsey Piper, basically, that liberals are not temporarily embarrassed communists. Can you explain your thinking behind that?

[B]

There are so many reasons we could get into why it's happened, but there is a sense within liberalism and liberal thought in particular, just like anyone who's left of center, that you're constantly afraid of someone to your left telling you that you're insufficiently left leaning. And as a result, you stop articulating anything you believe. Everyone just kind of starts defaulting to, like, okay, whatever. The most radical left thing that's being said, we're all just gonna default towards that norm. And it's created this weird thing where, I mean, I'm in a lot of left spaces where, like, people will secretly say things that I think are just completely reasonable. They are also caring about egalitarianism, inequality. They just are saying, like, oh, like, maybe I have a different way of going about this, or I have questions about how this should go, but they would never say this in public because they're afraid of actually saying these views and getting called out for them.

[A]

Right, right. Which is. I think that that goes also to kind of the siloing effect, because some of these views are like, I think that maybe sometimes some people should go to prison. And so I think that that's a really interesting point, that there is a difference between being a liberal and being a leftist.

[B]

I think, honestly, like, leftists get very upset about this all the time. And I get it why they're so irritated, because they're like, you guys are lying about your actual ideological beliefs. And it's creating this weird friction here where, like, you won't admit the things you believe or stand for them. You're just sort of like, yelling at. We're all just pretending like we're all the same thing. And again, liberalism does not mean that you are a moderate. Right. Like Mills Rawls. These are, like, to me, essentially socialists. Right. Even if they didn't use those words, they're extremely radical. Thinkers. You can also have someone who's a liberal, who wants to find ways to respect individual rights, and who cares about the systems of democracy and governance that would actually make it possible for like different kinds of people to live together. And I think the really big thing that we're trying to do with the argument is just say, like, the most important cleavage in American politics is not whether you're right or left. It's whether you hold these, like, actually like bigger beliefs about how people can live together despite the differences we have.

[A]

I have to ask Jerusalem, why create a new media company in 2025? Like, what do you think is missing from the discourse and what do you think the argument can be doing that's better than what we have?

[B]

Well, no one else had ever created a media company, so I thought that I would be the first.

[A]

Nope, it's never happened.

[B]

It's never happened.

[A]

Nobody's ever done it.

[B]

Well, aside from the novelty bit, I think that the difference that the argument can make is the difference that I think a lot of ideological small media outlets have made in American history. When we look at places like the New Republic or even the National Review, these are small outfits that are not trying to be mass media organizations. What they're trying to do is change how ideology is conceived of in the American both electorate, but also in the American elite. And that to me is the big question right now. All of our liberal media is now, you know, the New York Times, the Atlantic, the New Yorker. These are massive companies that are trying to do general purpose work. And they do great work, they do great reporting, great essays. I'm glad that they exist. But at the same time, like, I'm very, very worried that these smaller magazines and ideological outfits that exist are not advancing an alternative to post liberalism. And so my goal is to provide that alternative. And like, who knows how this all plays out. I mean, largely people who work in the ideas game like we do are at the whim of whatever politician ends up actually winning. But I do think there is a lot of evidence that when we platform these ideas, when you make clear arguments for the stuff that you care about, it is the only way that someone could ever end up picking those up in four years, eight years, ten years, and actually using them. I think that one of the best examples of this is just when I see the nascent abundance movement coming up, which is the book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. These ideas were ones that had been pushed for years by a lot of people and a lot of activists on the ground. And now it's part of a massive national political conversation. And I remember talking to political scientists years ago, like, hey, do you ever think that, like being pro housing in this way could ever really take on a national valence? And they were kind of just like, no, this is like an impossible problem. You can never solve this problem. Like, no one would ever do this. It's so politically unpalatable. And I'm just witnessing now that like, no, a lot of people were like, yes, it's really unpopular and I'm gonna really just fight for the thing I believe in. And now there' there's like a real chance that it becomes a bigger shift in our politics. And I think that everyone who believes strongly in how to make the world a better place should do what they can to say the things they believe in.

[A]

You can just do things.

[B]

You can just do things.

[A]

Jerusalem, thank you so much for joining me.

[B]

Thank you for having me.

[A]

That was my conversation with Jerusalem Demzes. She's the CEO and founder of the Argument. We'll link to it in our show notes. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends. More to come after some ads Whataday is brought to you by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. What do we mean when we talk about freedom of religion? Because lately freedom looks a lot like forcing religion into public schools, mandatory 10 Commandments, school chaplains and vouchers that send public money to private religious institutions. The Freedom From Religion foundation says that's not religious freedom, that's government endorsed faith. And it violates the Constitution. FFRF fights for everyone's right to believe or not without coercion, especially in our schools. Learn more and get involved at FFRF U.S. school or text the word church to 511-511. Go to FFRF U.S. school or text the word church to 511511. Text the word church to 511511. Let's protect a freedom that belongs to everyone. Text Free the 2026 Chevy Equinox is more than an SUV. It's your Sunday tailgate and your parking lot snack bar.

[B]

Your lucky jersey, your chairs and your.

[A]

Big cooler fit perfectly in your even bigger cargo space. And when it's go time, your 11.3-inch diagonal touchscreen's got the playbook, the playlist and the tech to stay a step ahead.

[B]

It's more than an SUV.

[A]

It's your Equinox Chevrolet together.

[B]

Let's [e-mail] we know that connections are at the heart of being human. Whether celebrating life's joys or comforting during tough times, 1-800-Flowers helps you express what words can't for nearly 50 years, millions have trusted 1-800-Flowers to deliver thoughtful gifts that help create lasting bonds. Because it's more than just a gift. It's your way of showing you care. Visit 1-800-flowers.com Pandora and connect today. That's 1-800-flowers.Com Pandora.

[A]

Here's what else we're following today. Head of Lines Kilmar Abrega Garcia returned home to Maryland Friday. You might remember he's a Salvadoran immigrant who entered the US Illegally to escape gang violence. He'd held a work permit since 2019. In March, he was deported to El Salvador despite a court order that was supposed to prevent that. He's been back in US Detention since June, facing human smuggling charges that he's denied. His story's not over, though. Minutes after leaving custody Friday, U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement informed Abrego Garcia's attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda early this week. He's expected to appear in an ICE field office today. Abrego Garcia's lawyers say the Trump administration's threat to remove him to Uganda was designed to force him to plead guilty to the human smuggling charges. According to his lawyers, the Department of Justice offered Abrega Garcia another option, one that would have landed him in Costa Rica, where he could live as a free man if he agreed to plead guilty to the human smuggling charges against him and stay in jail over the weekend. That plea deal, which Abrega Garcia declined, expires today. Plead guilty to a crime you say you didn't commit and go to Costa Rica. Don't plead guilty and go to Uganda. And remember, no option to stay with your family. That's fucked up. We should continue to support local law.

[B]

Enforcement and not simply allow Donald Trump.

[A]

To play games with the lives of the American people as part of his effort to manufacture a crisis and create a distraction because he's deeply unpopular. Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized President Trump Sunday for threatening to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. Jeffries made those comments during an appearance on CNN's State of the Union. So far, Trump has deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. on Friday, Trump had claimed that Chicago residents clamored for troops, too. The people in Chicago, Mr. Vice President, are screaming for us to come. They're wearing red hats just like this, but they're wearing red hats. African American ladies, beautiful ladies are saying, please, President Trump come to Chicago. Sure they are. Every beautiful African American lady is wearing a red hat in Chicago because they just can't get enough of President Trump. And they want the National Guard to come. Sure. Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. pritzker hit back. In a statement released Saturday, he said there is no emergency that warrants the president of the United States federalizing the Illinois National Guard, deploying the National Guard from other states, or sending active duty military within our own borders. It's a yes or no question.

[B]

Mr. Foreign Minister, do you acknowledge Russia invaded Ukraine? I said to you that we started special military operations.

[A]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov set for a sometimes tense interview that aired on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday morning. Lavrov defended Russia's actions in Ukraine. He said Russia is serious about peace and he blamed Ukraine for a lack of progress since President Trump's meeting with President Putin earlier this month.

[B]

We want peace in Ukraine. He wants. President Trump wants peace in Ukraine. The reaction to Anchorage meeting, the gathering.

[A]

In Washington of these European representatives and.

[B]

What they were doing after Washington indicates.

[A]

That they don't want peace, lavrov said. There is no meeting between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky currently planned, at least until Zelensky considers land swaps and a potential pledge to stay out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO. The Russian foreign minister also denied that Russia targeted civilian sites like schools and hospitals in Ukraine, despite many, many reports to the contrary. He also had a fascinating take on an airstrike on an American owned factory in Ukraine.

[B]

This is an electronics factory, though, sir. This is an electronics factory. I've spoken to people on the ground there. It builds coffee machines, among other electronics. This is not a military site.

[A]

Well, I understand that some people are.

[B]

Really naive and when they see a.

[A]

Coffee machine in the window, they believe.

[B]

That this is the place where coffee machines are produced. Our intelligence has very good information.

[A]

Ukraine celebrated its Independence Day Sunday. In a video address, Zelenskyy declared the country, quote, needs a just peace, a peace where our future is decided only by U.S. transcripts and tape from an interview of Ghislaine Maxwell by the Department of Justice were released Friday and have been making their way across the Internet. Maxwell is the former girlfriend and collaborator of disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. She's serving a 20 year prison sentence on sex trafficking charges. In the interview, Maxwell said Trump had been quote, friendly with Epstein in the 1990s and 2000s, but was also a gentleman in all respects. She added that she never saw inappropriate behavior from other former Epstein associates like Bill Clinton, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And Prince Andrew. As for Epstein himself, Maxwell denied hearing of any sexual misconduct committed by Epstein or his acquaintances. In the entire time I was with him or friends with him or had anyone, no one ever reported to me or came to me and said that anything inappropriate happened or was upset by. I never saw tear. I never saw ever any of that. Wow. So Jeffrey Epstein was just a rich guy who did absolutely nothing and nothing ever happened. Wild Family members of one of Epstein's accusers said they were outraged by the Justice Department's decision to release the transcripts, saying the department gave Maxwell a, quote, platform to rewrite history. They have a point. In one section of the interview, Deputy U.S. attorney General Todd Blanche sounds exasperated after feebly pushing against Maxwell's claims. And when you say no one ever reports me, meaning like the masseuses or any of the house staff or the clients or the clients themselves. Okay, hard hitting interview tactics from our Department of Justice. Great job, Todd. And that's the before we go Money, Murder, Betrayal, Revenge. This is the unbelievable true story of the United Mine Workers of America and the son who took on a dangerous union boss to avenge his family's murder. In the newest season of Shadow, Coal Survivor host Niccolo Manoni digs into the rise and fall of the United Mineworkers of America under Tony Boyle, once the most powerful and corrupt labor leader in the country at the height of America's cold wars. It's a political thriller wrapped in a courtroom drama, and every detail is real. The first two episodes are out now. Listen on the Shadow Kingdom feed wherever you get your podcasts. Or better yet, Friends of the Pod. Subscribers can listen to the full season of Shadow Kingdom right now. Join Friends of the [e-mail] friends or subscribe through the Shadow Kingdom Apple feed. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe. Leave a review Congratulate tennis great Venus Williams on returning to the US Open and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just about how Venus Williams debuted at the US Open at the age of 17 in 1997 and is back playing at the US Open tonight at the age of 45. Like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Jane Coston, and I turned 10 three days after Venus Williams appeared in her first first US Open final I am no longer 10. What a day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily Foer. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Shauna Lee and Gina Pollack. Our senior producer is Erika Morrison and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adrienne Hill. We had help with our headlines from the Associated Press. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America.

[B]

East.

[A]

How hard is it to kill a planet? Maybe all it takes is a little drilling, some mining and a whole lot of carbon pumped into the atmosphere. When you see what's left, it starts to look like a crime scene. Are we really safe?

[B]

Is our water safe?

[A]

You destroyed our tub. And crimes like that, they don't just happen. We call things accidents.

[B]

There is no accident.

[A]

This was 100% preventable. They're the result of choices by people. Ruthless oil tycoons, corrupt politicians, even organized crime. These are the stories we need to be telling about our changing planet. Stories of scams, murders and cover ups that are about us and the things we're doing to either protect the earth or destroy it. Follow Lawless Planet Wherever you get your podcasts, you can listen to new episodes of Lawless Planet early and ad free right now in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teen safe. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast.