There are state flags everywhere, but they are seldom investigated. In this episode of Decisions at the Fulcrum, I focus on Maryland's state flag, a quartered design that seems to be contrasting a lot with itself. The tension was a decision though about a state sense of place and identity.

Let's be clear: The Civil War was not a conflict of equal moral standing, and acknowledging division or later reconciliation amongst divided parties is not the same as legitimizing both positions during the conflict. The question today is how a state constructs a shared civic future without pretending the past never happened.

Using Communication Theory of Identity (Hecht et al.), I explore how Maryland’s Calvert and Crossland imagery shifted from civic war symbolism to an official state flag in 1904 all the way to today.

I examine Maryland's evolution from the diffused early symbols from the 17th and 18th centuries to a flag the retains the original houses in Maryland before independence. Maryland has managed to hold an identity infrastructure that moved history ahead and allowed for a civic future. That's what I'm getting into today on decisions at the fulcrum.

Maryland.gov source:

https://sos.maryland.gov/Pages/Services/Flag-History.aspx

Part II of the DuPont episodes begins after the armistice following World War I. The episode begins in November 1918, when the explosions cease, contracts disappear, and a munitions-based firm determines what to become afterwards.

This episode follows DuPont's postwar shift from an explosives firm to a materials empire, beginning with nylon. Nylon was that material in American department shops. We start there, but the episode concludes with the lengthy and unresolved narrative of PFAS. Along the way, we look at how industrial risk shifted from a loud, visible threat to something far more difficult to perceive, assess, and regulate.

Rather than portraying DuPont as an antagonist or an unlikely hero, the current episode investigates how companies react to uncertainty, how innovation becomes framework, and the ways that harm might come from duration, magnitude, and latency.

Drawing on organizational sensemaking, regulatory precedent, and social context, this tells a story about what happens when materials perform thoroughly enough — and remain effective long enough — that their consequences exceed the decisions that formed them.

In this episode of Decisions at the Fulcrum, we look at BrightSide Produce, a produce distributor that works in impoverished parts of San Diego County, and discover that food availability isn't only a matter of supply, demand, or good intentions.

It's a complex situation with coordination, not optimization.

Let's follow BrightSide Produce through forecasting discussions, uncertain delivery trajectories, and the hushed aftermath of decisions that never prove to be right or wrong. Along the way, I explain how uncertainty in food distribution is not a mistake to be corrected, but rather a reality that organizations must learn to live with.

Using principles from communication studies, notably the premise that organizations are formed through communication, this episode investigates how inventory models, explanations, and common interpretations keep fragile systems together. I investigate how judgments about waste, stockouts, and risk do more than just allocate produce: they define what accountability, access, and success mean in practice.

Cited Case: Pyke et al. (2024) Sage

In this episode of Decisions at the Fulcrum, I map out one of the more complex disputes in international resource policy: the seabed mining near Nauru. We'll look at the issue by going from the depth seabed floor to the brightly-lit world of international governance. I employ Paul Wehr's conflict mapping approach to comprehend how conflict arises when parties have disparate "maps" of the same terrain that have different interpretations of what constitutes proof, harm, benefit, urgency, and fairness. To start, we explore Nauru, a small Pacific country that has been influenced by the lengthy history of phosphate extraction. Thanks to the ISA's much-discussed "two-year" procedural trigger, Nauru is now a major driver in speeding up international discussion. The episode then maps the conflict background, including draft exploitation laws, the International Seabed Authority, UNCLOS, and institutional constraints that condense nuance into positions that must be met by a certain date. The stakeholders and their opposing legends are then highlighted: Nauru as a sponsoring state; contractors and supply-chain narratives; the ISA's legitimacy challenge; member states divided between caution and pace; scientists navigating uncertainty; NGOs promoting risk thresholds; and Pacific regional voices whose ocean relationships don't neatly fit into regulatory templates. By the conclusion, we go back to the ocean itself and pose the central question of the episode: Whose map becomes the guide when the world discusses the ocean floor, and what maps remain obscured? Note: For the show to keep going all the way through next year, please share the show with one person if this episode gave you a better understanding of the problem. The show can continue in its current form entirely through word-of-mouth, which is what makes lengthy, extensively researched episodes like this one possible. Happy New Year!

Music credit: "Lafa" David Charrier References: The New Yorker 2022; UNCLOS, 2025; World Bank, 2025; Reuters, 2023

Music & Audio Notice:

This project includes music licensed through Canva. All rights remain with the original creators. No copyright infringement is intended.

This episode of Decisions at the Fulcrum starts with the Brandywine River, instead of inventiveness, innovation, or even chemical synthesis. This is an account of how a few generations of refugees taught in European scientific disciplines morphed into an institution much bigger than a company. Instead, this institution gradually became a kind of infrastructure the United States grew to rely on, from the War of 1812 through the First World War due to timing, partnerships, regimen, and the predisposition of an emerging nation that was also unprepared to exert control over its own threats.

Following DuPont's development from gunpowder manufacturer to biochemical organization, this episode explores why nineteenth-century science, grounded in the criteria of reliability, rather than inventiveness, was the primary fulcrum point. Gunpowder was infrastructure in 1802, not an item of goods. Political, tumultuous, and heavy, it revealed the operational vulnerability of American independence. DuPont was the only arrangement that met all of the demands simultaneously but not the most suitable one, as imports failed, domestic producers were insufficient, and government control was still ideologically untenable. When an arrangement solved a shortcoming, despite the fact it was not flawless, the state continued to construct it on that answer.This was not inevitable; rather, it was dependency on the path.

This episode, which speaks directly to a Wilmington audience, contends that DuPont was not a chemistry legend in its entirety by the time of World War I. This recounted a story of how private organizations balance public susceptibility while staying entirely insoluble, and how modern institutions absorb responsibility without absorbing visibility. DuPont's history, from the Brandywine to a world conflict, is not filled with surging patriotism or heroic entrepreneurship, but rather the careful, reliable establishment of stability in an environment that was increasingly realizing how vulnerable it was. Part One of a longer analysis of how empires are subtly constructed on risky theories is presented herein.

A note:

This episode discusses topics that could be close and unsettled for many people. This work isn’t meant as an allusion to events in the present (i.e., the time you listen to it), though the information could be examined in that way. Nothing in this episode is meant to sensationalize harms, minimize dangers, or draw parallels across time. It’s an attempt to understand how societies organize and how decisions persist long after the moment that produced them.

Part II shifts focus from federal legislation to the marketplace, revealing the painful truth that, after years of expansion, the CBD business in 2025 remains fundamentally unstable, poorly regulated, and dominated by bulk isolates and white-label manufacture. Laboratory tests, including JAMA's 2020 review, continue to demonstrate considerable mislabeling, with products having considerably less or significantly more CBD than promised, as well as detectable THC that should not be present in officially compliant hemp.

Against this backdrop, a few companies stand out as exceptions, impressively! With vertically integrated, whole-plant, solvent-free extraction technology, one company called Sunsoil in Vermont shows us that reliability is action, and those activities do the marketing for them. The disparity between what is standard practice and what is necessary for systemic legitimacy is apparent in this case study.

Vertical integration and lab reporting aren't glamorous, but they're remarkable decisions. They are remarkable in that they center their work on quality standards while unintentionally exposing the greater reliance on bulk processing and marketing marshmallows.

Part II looks at Sunsoil as a comparison to demonstrate that CBD's credibility dilemma is the market's current operational situation, and it doesn't have to be this way. Integrity is not a branding effort in this context; it is an organizational decision at the fulcrum.

Part I investigates the federal hinge that enabled today's CBD scenario via a minor provision: Section 7606 of the 2014 Farm Bill.

This section enabled universities and state agricultural agencies to grow hemp for research purposes, unwittingly establishing the first legal road for contemporary cannabinoid study in more than 70 years.

It created the structural circumstances that would ultimately sustain a multibillion-dollar market.

This episode discusses the distinction between legality and legibility.

CBD's early legitimacy was established by clinical data arising from pediatric neurology, including efficacy evidence for Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. These reports provided a very strong therapeutic signal for cannabinoids in 21st century U.S. medicine, resulting in Epidiolex, the FDA's first cannabis-derived treatment. However, as we'll see in part 2, the scientific data is not broadly understood by the wellness industry.

Part I establishes the foundation: a federal research provision, a scientific signal strong enough to resist regulatory examination, and the ambiguity that would characterize what followed it from 2018 to 2025.

In this episode, we plunge headfirst into calamity from a stormy weather event. Using everything from wandering caribou herds to turbulent typhoons, we delve into how scientists truly forecast the atmosphere and why that process is more chaotic than my sleek weather apps being refreshed in a frenzy.

I explain why contemporary forecasts depend on ensembles—multiple parallel model runs that chart a comprehensive range of possibilities—rather than a singular, overly confident declaration of “it will snow tomorrow.” The episode is also a peek backward at the 2019 Amman “snowstorm that never happened,” when a forecast came to nothing except a downpour of disappointment, closed shops, and some dip in optimism regarding our institutions as a whole. That kicks off a discussion about forecasting and image repair strategies. For image repairs, I am getting into the specifics of crisis communication, looking at what organizations do when a forecast or a quarterly projection or an algorthimic model goes sour. I look at why the reason saying “we meant well” fails to qualify it as an appeal, and why accepting responsibility acknowledging uncertainty is in fact a strength. It’s a matter of building credibility.

I will compare physics-based forecasting techniques in tandem with most recent AI systems, asking why the AI systems fail when it comes to uncommon or exceptionally severe storms—particularly typhoons that make unexpected U-turns as if they left something behind. We dive into the reasons behind AI's tendency to create a misleading aura of confidence, and how that deception can turn perilous when crucial real-world choices: evacuations, closures, and disaster preparedness, all hinge on it.

If you’ve ever questioned the discrepancies in weather predictions, the lack of trust that result from faulty projections, or how extreme storms continually put human beings and technology in a quandary, this segment points out the whole scope of atmospheric ambiguity, with confidence intervals, institutional anxieties, and even the delightful bakery-themed bread runs.