Podcast appearances and mentions of Amy Goldstein

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein on her sixth yahrzeit. "Mom - I miss your knowledge of music, art, and literature. You were gone way too soon."  Further conditions are brought under which the rebellious elder can get killed. Only the High Court in the Temple is allowed to execute the rebellious elder. There is a debate about how his death is publicized - is his death delayed until the next holiday and killed while everyone is in Jerusalem or is he killed immediately and the court sends letters to all the communities? A false prophet, who tells of a prophecy that he either did not hear or was told to someone else, and one who prophesizes in the name of an idol receive the death penalty of strangulation. Three other cases regarding false prophets are subject to death by the hands of God - one who suppresses a prophecy, one who does not listen to the instructions of a prophet, and a prophet who doesn't listen to their own prophecy. The Gemara brings examples from the Tanach for each of these six categories. A difficulty is raised against one who doesn't listen to the words of a prophet - how does the person know that the prophet is a real prophet? The answer is that this would only be true in a case where the person was already proven to be a true prophet. The Gemara brings examples of situations where it was clear that they needed to listen, such as Yitzchak at the akeida, as Avraham was already proven to be a true prophet. Also, Eliyahu at Mount Carmel was trusted already when he told the prophets of Baal to bring sacrifices outside the Temple. The Gemara digresses to the akeida story and brings two explanations to the verse introducing the section "And it was after these matters that God tested Avraham." The first explanation relates it to the celebration of Yitzchak's weaning and introduces the Satan character from Job as pushing God to test Avraham. The second explanation connects it to the circumcision of Yishmael and Yitzchak and to sibling rivalry. Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about which penalty is given to a prophet who tries to sway the people to worship idols and a person who sways an entire city to worship idols. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein on her sixth yahrzeit. "Mom - I miss your knowledge of music, art, and literature. You were gone way too soon."  Further conditions are brought under which the rebellious elder can get killed. Only the High Court in the Temple is allowed to execute the rebellious elder. There is a debate about how his death is publicized - is his death delayed until the next holiday and killed while everyone is in Jerusalem or is he killed immediately and the court sends letters to all the communities? A false prophet, who tells of a prophecy that he either did not hear or was told to someone else, and one who prophesizes in the name of an idol receive the death penalty of strangulation. Three other cases regarding false prophets are subject to death by the hands of God - one who suppresses a prophecy, one who does not listen to the instructions of a prophet, and a prophet who doesn't listen to their own prophecy. The Gemara brings examples from the Tanach for each of these six categories. A difficulty is raised against one who doesn't listen to the words of a prophet - how does the person know that the prophet is a real prophet? The answer is that this would only be true in a case where the person was already proven to be a true prophet. The Gemara brings examples of situations where it was clear that they needed to listen, such as Yitzchak at the akeida, as Avraham was already proven to be a true prophet. Also, Eliyahu at Mount Carmel was trusted already when he told the prophets of Baal to bring sacrifices outside the Temple. The Gemara digresses to the akeida story and brings two explanations to the verse introducing the section "And it was after these matters that God tested Avraham." The first explanation relates it to the celebration of Yitzchak's weaning and introduces the Satan character from Job as pushing God to test Avraham. The second explanation connects it to the circumcision of Yishmael and Yitzchak and to sibling rivalry. Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about which penalty is given to a prophet who tries to sway the people to worship idols and a person who sways an entire city to worship idols. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett on her yahrzeit. "Her strength kept us going and she maintained her dedication to seeking knowledge all the days of her life." How do all the cases in the previous braita accord with Rabbi Meir's opinion that a rebellious elder can only be in a case that can lead to a prohibition of karet? In what way does a rebellious elder need to disagree with the court in order to be convicted? Rav Kahana rules that only if he dares to disagree based on his own logic with a tradition of the rabbis of the court, he is convicted. Rabb Elazar disagrees and says that the purpose of convicting a rebellious elder is to prevent debates and therefore any disagreement of any sort will lead to a conviction.  Two sources (one of them from our Mishna) are brought to raise a difficulty with Rav Kahane's position and the second is left unresolved.  What is the hierarchy of the courts? How were judges chosen? The rebellious elder is convicted only if he either goes back and teaches against the ruling of the High Court and he himself acts according to his ruling or people follow his ruling. A difficulty is raised on the former possibility as if he follows his own ruling, he should already be liable for the death penalty for the action, not for being a rebellious elder. The Gemara offers a few possibilities to resolve this difficulty. The Mishna explains that there is a stringency with Rabbinic law for a rebellious elder - if he tells people to go against Torah law, he is not convicted, but if he differs from the court regarding the rabbinic definition of a Torah law and adds to it, like five compartments in the tefillin, he can be convicted. Rav Oshaya says that this would be the only possible case. Why not the four species? Why not tzitzit?

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett on her yahrzeit. "Her strength kept us going and she maintained her dedication to seeking knowledge all the days of her life." How do all the cases in the previous braita accord with Rabbi Meir's opinion that a rebellious elder can only be in a case that can lead to a prohibition of karet? In what way does a rebellious elder need to disagree with the court in order to be convicted? Rav Kahana rules that only if he dares to disagree based on his own logic with a tradition of the rabbis of the court, he is convicted. Rabb Elazar disagrees and says that the purpose of convicting a rebellious elder is to prevent debates and therefore any disagreement of any sort will lead to a conviction.  Two sources (one of them from our Mishna) are brought to raise a difficulty with Rav Kahane's position and the second is left unresolved.  What is the hierarchy of the courts? How were judges chosen? The rebellious elder is convicted only if he either goes back and teaches against the ruling of the High Court and he himself acts according to his ruling or people follow his ruling. A difficulty is raised on the former possibility as if he follows his own ruling, he should already be liable for the death penalty for the action, not for being a rebellious elder. The Gemara offers a few possibilities to resolve this difficulty. The Mishna explains that there is a stringency with Rabbinic law for a rebellious elder - if he tells people to go against Torah law, he is not convicted, but if he differs from the court regarding the rabbinic definition of a Torah law and adds to it, like five compartments in the tefillin, he can be convicted. Rav Oshaya says that this would be the only possible case. Why not the four species? Why not tzitzit?

Study Guide Sanhedrin 79 Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandfather, Ben Goldstein on his yahrzeit. What type of intent is needed in order for one to receive the death penalty for murder? Rabbi Shimon has a unique approach, that one only gets capital punishment if one intends to kill that particular person. The rabbis disagree but also have their own set of criteria. Rabbi Shimon derives his opinion from the verse in Devraim 19:11, "and he ambushes him and stands up against him and kills him." The rabbis derive a different law from that verse - that if one throws a rock into a group of people and kills one of them, the murderer is not held liable. The Gemara tries to establish the exact case that the rabbis derive and conclude that it must be a case where there were nine Jews in the group and one gentile. The law is lenient here as even though the majority are Jews, if they are fixed, then the doubt is considered 50/50 and we are lenient in cases of capital punishment.  After questioning Rabbi Shimon from a case in Shmot 21:22 when a pregnant woman is accidentally killed and the murderer is killed, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Shimon must hold like Rebbi, that the murderer there is not actually killed, but needs to pay money. A third opinion is brought, of Chizkia, who rules that the murderer is not even obligated to pay, as the laws that we hold by the more severe punishment, and exempt from a less severe punishment apply even in cases where the death penalty could have potentially been there, but is not.  If a murderer gets mixed up with a group of people and there is no way to identify who the murderer is, what can be done? The Mishna brings a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.  Three different interpretations are brought to explain the case that they are debating.

Study Guide Sanhedrin 79 Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandfather, Ben Goldstein on his yahrzeit. What type of intent is needed in order for one to receive the death penalty for murder? Rabbi Shimon has a unique approach, that one only gets capital punishment if one intends to kill that particular person. The rabbis disagree but also have their own set of criteria. Rabbi Shimon derives his opinion from the verse in Devraim 19:11, "and he ambushes him and stands up against him and kills him." The rabbis derive a different law from that verse - that if one throws a rock into a group of people and kills one of them, the murderer is not held liable. The Gemara tries to establish the exact case that the rabbis derive and conclude that it must be a case where there were nine Jews in the group and one gentile. The law is lenient here as even though the majority are Jews, if they are fixed, then the doubt is considered 50/50 and we are lenient in cases of capital punishment.  After questioning Rabbi Shimon from a case in Shmot 21:22 when a pregnant woman is accidentally killed and the murderer is killed, the Gemara concludes that Rabbi Shimon must hold like Rebbi, that the murderer there is not actually killed, but needs to pay money. A third opinion is brought, of Chizkia, who rules that the murderer is not even obligated to pay, as the laws that we hold by the more severe punishment, and exempt from a less severe punishment apply even in cases where the death penalty could have potentially been there, but is not.  If a murderer gets mixed up with a group of people and there is no way to identify who the murderer is, what can be done? The Mishna brings a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda.  Three different interpretations are brought to explain the case that they are debating.

Janesville, in Winsocsin, was once the epitome of the American Dream. But everything changed following the global financial crisis when General Motors, the business that provided the town with most of its wealth, shut its plant. On today's show we have Amy Goldstein, the award winning author of the FT Business book of the year, Janesville. Amy spent 36 years as a journalist at The Washington Post writing widely about social issues. Among her awards, she shared the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. She now works for the Brookings think tank. Amy joined me to discuss the story of Janesville, a town built on the back on one industry, one company. And what happens to the town and the people of that town when the heart of its economy is ripped out. And it's not just about a small town in Wisconsin, this is a larger story of the hollowing out of the middle class and businesses responsibilities to the communities they serve. RUNNING ORDER: 01:17 - Part one: The story of Janesville 14:00 - Part two: The fallout 20:22 - Part three: what makes an award-winning book NEW EPISODES: The Investor Download is available every other Thursday and will be released at 1700 UK time. You can subscribe via Podbean or use this feed URL (https://schroders.podbean.com/feed.xml) in Apple Podcasts and other podcast players. GET IN TOUCH: mailto: Schroderspodcasts@schroders.com find us on Facebook send us a tweet: @Schroders using #investordownload READ MORE: Schroders.com/insights LISTEN TO MORE: schroders.com/theinvestordownload Important information. This information is not an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument or to adopt any investment strategy. Any reference to sectors/countries/stocks/securities are for illustrative purposes only and not a recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument/securities or adopt any investment strategy. Any data has been sourced by us and is provided without any warranties of any kind. It should be independently verified before further publication or use. Third party data is owned or licenced by the data provider and may not be reproduced, extracted or used for any other purpose without the data provider's consent. Neither we, nor the data provider, will have any liability in connection with the third party data. Reliance should not be placed on any views or information in the material when taking individual investment and/or strategic decisions. The views and opinions contained herein are those of individual to whom they are attributed, and may not necessarily represent views expressed or reflected in other communications, strategies or funds. The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well as up and investors may not get back the amounts originally invested. Exchange rate changes may cause the value of any overseas investments to rise or fall. Past Performance is not a guide to future performance and may not be repeated. The forecasts included should not be relied upon, are not guaranteed and are provided only as at the date of issue. Our forecasts are based on our own assumptions which may change. Issued by Schroder Investment Management Limited, 1 London Wall Place, London EC2Y 5AU. Registered No. 1893220 England. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

talkSPORT builds-up to England v Greece in The Nations League. Hear from Jack Grealish and Dom Solanke. Plus, Amy Goldstein questions set-piece coaches! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Children with Neurological complaints represent a significant portion of what we see in the Peds ED. From Status Epilepticus to febrile seizures to the child who (maybe) had a seizure at home. This is a discussion I had with Dr. Amy Goldstein, a Pediatric Neurologist at CHOP.   Please consider contributing to PEM Rules at https://ko-fi.com/pemrules And check out www.pemrules.com  Copyright PEM Rules LLC DISCLAIMER By listening to this podcast, you agree not to use these resources as medical advice to treat any medical conditions in either yourself or others, including, but not limited to, patients that you are treating. Consult your own physician for any medical issues that you may be having. This entire disclaimer also applies to any guests or contributors to the podcast or website. Under no circumstances shall PEM Rules, the PEM Rules podcast or any guests or affiliated entities be responsible for damages arising from their use. This podcast should not be used in any legal capacity whatsoever, including, but not limited to, establishing “standard of care” in a legal sense or as a basis for expert witness testimony. No guarantee is given regarding the accuracy of any statements or opinions made on the website or in the podcast.  

The GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, closed during the financial crisis in 2008, ending decades of production – and 3,000 steady, highly paid jobs. Journalist Amy Goldstein wrote about the town as the plant's workers hurried to make new lives. Her book, ‘Janesville: An American Story', won the Financial Times and McKinsey Book of the Year in 2017. This summer, Goldstein returned to town for the FT, and now joins Soumaya Keynes to talk about what Janesville lost and what it has gained in the years following the closing of the plant. To take part in the audience survey and be in with the chance to win a pair of Bose QuietComfort 35 wireless headphones, click here. Click here to find T&Cs for the prize draw.Soumaya Keynes writes a column each week for the Financial Times. You can find it hereSubscribe to Soumaya's show on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you listen.Read a transcript of this episode on FT.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 4th yahrzeit. "He was gone too soon, and his presence and good counsel are missed by many of his friends and family."  How does the braita previously quoted raise a difficulty with Shmuel on two counts? Another statement of Shmuel is brought explaining the rabbi's position - that even if a document doesn't say that the property is liened to the loan, the property is still liened to the loan, as we assume the scribe forgot to add it. Rava bar Itai raises a contradiction between that statement of Shmuel's and another statement of Shmuel's in a different context. The Gemara then distinguishes between the cases - one was a loan and the other was a sale.  A story is brought to support this distinction. Abaye mentions a few laws about liened property. If a creditor collects from liened property, the debtor can get involved to bring a claim against the creditor even though the creditor seized it from the one who purchased it from the debtor, as the debtor is still considered an involved party. Can one back out of a deal if rumors are circulating that the land doesn't belong to the "owner"? At what stage, and does it depend if the land was sold with a guarantee?  If one sold a field that he/she stole, when the owner takes back the land and the buyer returns to the seller to retrieve the money from the sale, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not the seller needs to reimburse the buyer for improvements to the field. Shmuel does not allow the buyer to collect the money for improvements as it looks like an interest payment. Rava raises a difficulty with Shmuel but it is resolved. A further difficulty is raised against Shmuel but it is resolved as well. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 4th yahrzeit. "He was gone too soon, and his presence and good counsel are missed by many of his friends and family."  How does the braita previously quoted raise a difficulty with Shmuel on two counts? Another statement of Shmuel is brought explaining the rabbi's position - that even if a document doesn't say that the property is liened to the loan, the property is still liened to the loan, as we assume the scribe forgot to add it. Rava bar Itai raises a contradiction between that statement of Shmuel's and another statement of Shmuel's in a different context. The Gemara then distinguishes between the cases - one was a loan and the other was a sale.  A story is brought to support this distinction. Abaye mentions a few laws about liened property. If a creditor collects from liened property, the debtor can get involved to bring a claim against the creditor even though the creditor seized it from the one who purchased it from the debtor, as the debtor is still considered an involved party. Can one back out of a deal if rumors are circulating that the land doesn't belong to the "owner"? At what stage, and does it depend if the land was sold with a guarantee?  If one sold a field that he/she stole, when the owner takes back the land and the buyer returns to the seller to retrieve the money from the sale, Rav and Shmuel debate whether or not the seller needs to reimburse the buyer for improvements to the field. Shmuel does not allow the buyer to collect the money for improvements as it looks like an interest payment. Rava raises a difficulty with Shmuel but it is resolved. A further difficulty is raised against Shmuel but it is resolved as well. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, on her 5th yahrzeit. "She was passionately dedicated to the Jewish People and the arts. We miss her larger-than-life presence every day, and struggle to understand that she is gone." Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz’s daughter-in-law, Sigal Spitzer Flamholz and her two granddaughters Nitzan and Orlie Flamholz in honor of Abby's birthday. "Thanks for paving the way for Talmud Torah in our family!" If one recognizes items belonging to them in someone's house and the owner of the house claims they purchased them, the owner of the house takes an oath about the purchase price and returns the item to the original owner for the value of the item. But this is only if it is known that the person was robbed. If not, there is a concern that the claimant sold the item and now regrets the sale and wants the item back. The Gemara asks why knowing the person was robbed is enough to allay the fear that they are just trying to renege on a sale? Rav explains that there needs to be some sort of circumstantial evidence that the item in question was stolen. If a thief sells a stolen item, can the one who was robbed demand the item back from the buyer or only from the thief? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree. Four explanations are brought to explain the basis of their debate. The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers. The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but they need to reimburse the buyer the amount that they paid so that the buyer does not need to find the thief who sold him/her the item. In what cases does the takana apply/not apply? If two people are walking and one has honey in a jar that is breaking, and the other has wine (less expensive than honey) and the wine owner dumps the wine to help save the honey, what compensation does the wine owner receive? The Gemara questions why we do not assume that the honey was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew it would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it in which case it can be considered acquired by the wine owner, as can be inferred from braita? to resolve this, they limit the case in the Mishna. The Gemara then questions the halakha in the braita based on a different braita which seems to contradict. How are they reconciled?

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, on her 5th yahrzeit. "She was passionately dedicated to the Jewish People and the arts. We miss her larger-than-life presence every day, and struggle to understand that she is gone." Today's daf is sponsored by Abby Flamholz’s daughter-in-law, Sigal Spitzer Flamholz and her two granddaughters Nitzan and Orlie Flamholz in honor of Abby's birthday. "Thanks for paving the way for Talmud Torah in our family!" If one recognizes items belonging to them in someone's house and the owner of the house claims they purchased them, the owner of the house takes an oath about the purchase price and returns the item to the original owner for the value of the item. But this is only if it is known that the person was robbed. If not, there is a concern that the claimant sold the item and now regrets the sale and wants the item back. The Gemara asks why knowing the person was robbed is enough to allay the fear that they are just trying to renege on a sale? Rav explains that there needs to be some sort of circumstantial evidence that the item in question was stolen. If a thief sells a stolen item, can the one who was robbed demand the item back from the buyer or only from the thief? Rav and Rabbi Yochanan disagree. Four explanations are brought to explain the basis of their debate. The rabbis instituted takanat hashuk to protect buyers. The takana is that if someone claims that the item is theirs, they can take it back but they need to reimburse the buyer the amount that they paid so that the buyer does not need to find the thief who sold him/her the item. In what cases does the takana apply/not apply? If two people are walking and one has honey in a jar that is breaking, and the other has wine (less expensive than honey) and the wine owner dumps the wine to help save the honey, what compensation does the wine owner receive? The Gemara questions why we do not assume that the honey was already hefker (ownerless) as the owner knew it would be gone in a minute and gave up ownership of it in which case it can be considered acquired by the wine owner, as can be inferred from braita? to resolve this, they limit the case in the Mishna. The Gemara then questions the halakha in the braita based on a different braita which seems to contradict. How are they reconciled?

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett, on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was dedicated to the Jewish People and was a lifelong Zionist, and we miss her every day."  Rava brings another law that relates to non-Jewish courts - a Jew cannot testify about a monetary case against a Jew if the court accepts the testimony of one witness as that is against Jewish law. One who does this is excommunicated. One is also excommunicated for selling a property to a gentile if it borders on the property of a Jew. For what reason is this prohibited? The Mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, or if a tax collector seized an item and replaced it with another, one can keep the item as one can assume that the original owner despaired of ever getting it back (had ye'ush), as ye'ush with a change of domain (shinui reshut) is effective to make one the owner of the item. But in other cases, the Mishna mentions that only if we know the owner despaired, then the item is acquired. How can we reconcile the difference between these two lines in the Mishna? The Mishna doesn't distinguish between genieva and gezeila and it can be derived from the first line in the Mishna that if we don't know that the owners despaired, we assume they have, in either case. This (and a braita) seem to contradict Raba's reading of a different argument in Masechet Keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between genieva and gezeila in this issue (each in a different way). Various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the genieva and gezeila. Does Rebbi hold that they are the same regarding ye'ush and follow Rabbi Shimon's view on gezeila or the rabbis' opinion? The two sources brought before (our Mishna and the braita) are brought to answer the question but are rejected. A third source is brought where it proves that Rebbi holds that genieva and gezeila have the same law - like gezeila according to Rabbi Shimon and we can assume the owner despaired. A woman and minor are believed to testify about who is the owner of a swarm of bees. However, this is limited to the case where they did not testify in court but mentioned it in the context of a conversation (mesiach lefi tumo). When else can people be believed when saying something in the context of a conversation? 

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett, on her 13th yahrzeit. "She was dedicated to the Jewish People and was a lifelong Zionist, and we miss her every day."  Rava brings another law that relates to non-Jewish courts - a Jew cannot testify about a monetary case against a Jew if the court accepts the testimony of one witness as that is against Jewish law. One who does this is excommunicated. One is also excommunicated for selling a property to a gentile if it borders on the property of a Jew. For what reason is this prohibited? The Mishna says if someone steals and gives you a different item in return, or if a tax collector seized an item and replaced it with another, one can keep the item as one can assume that the original owner despaired of ever getting it back (had ye'ush), as ye'ush with a change of domain (shinui reshut) is effective to make one the owner of the item. But in other cases, the Mishna mentions that only if we know the owner despaired, then the item is acquired. How can we reconcile the difference between these two lines in the Mishna? The Mishna doesn't distinguish between genieva and gezeila and it can be derived from the first line in the Mishna that if we don't know that the owners despaired, we assume they have, in either case. This (and a braita) seem to contradict Raba's reading of a different argument in Masechet Keilim between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis who each think that there is reason to distinguish between genieva and gezeila in this issue (each in a different way). Various answers are brought, among them they introduce a new opinion of Rebbi who equates the genieva and gezeila. Does Rebbi hold that they are the same regarding ye'ush and follow Rabbi Shimon's view on gezeila or the rabbis' opinion? The two sources brought before (our Mishna and the braita) are brought to answer the question but are rejected. A third source is brought where it proves that Rebbi holds that genieva and gezeila have the same law - like gezeila according to Rabbi Shimon and we can assume the owner despaired. A woman and minor are believed to testify about who is the owner of a swarm of bees. However, this is limited to the case where they did not testify in court but mentioned it in the context of a conversation (mesiach lefi tumo). When else can people be believed when saying something in the context of a conversation? 

Have you yearned for a community of therapists who know what your challenges feel like? How can you lean on fellow colleagues to find ways to overcome persistent challenges? Is it possible to find true professional friendships that you can count on? In this podcast episode, I am so excited to talk with Laurel Roberts-Meese, Amy Goldstein, and Courtney Glashow. Join us as we talk about how high-achieving women can leverage mastermind groups for personal and professional growth Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interview with Washington Post's Amy Goldstein on the announcement of the first 10 prescription drugs subject to Medicare price negotiation (5), AFL-CIO President Shuler on 'State of the Unions', Gov. DeSantis & FEMA Admin Criswell on Hurricane Idalia, Gold Star families of 13 U.S. servicemembers killed in 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan testify before Congress. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we go behind the music with the organizers of the Uptown Porchfest, aka Wedgestock Music Festival. John talks to Lisa Martelly and Amy Goldstein about how they managed to book 29 bands for one day of free musical performances happening on porches, yards, and driveways across the Wedge neighborhood -- and the steps they're taking to make sure nobody's yard gets peed in. We talk about how the idea developed; arranging for portapotties; getting the required city approvals and making sure they aren't breaking any laws; recruiting bands, porches, and sponsors; and how they've been inspired by John's groundbreaking leadership of the Wedge LIVE Cat Tour. Uptown Porchfest is happening August 19, 2023 from 1 pm - 5 pm in the Wedge neighborhood (which is technically not Uptown). Visit uptownporchfest.com for more information. Watch: https://youtube.com/wedgelive Join the conversation: https://twitter.com/wedgelive Support the show: https://patreon.com/wedgelive Wedge LIVE theme song by Anthony Kasper x LaFontsee

President Joe Biden made good on a campaign promise this week with a proposal to limit short-term health plans that boast low premiums but few benefits.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's decision to outlaw affirmative action programs could set back efforts to diversify the nation's medical workforce.Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs of Stat join KFF Health News' chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, to discuss these issues and more.Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News' Bram Sable-Smith, who reported the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about how a hospital couldn't track down a patient, but a debt collector could. Click here for a transcript of the episode.Plus for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too: Julie Rovner: KFF Health News' “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely,” by Brett KelmanRachel Cohrs: ProPublica's “How Often Do Health Insurers Say No to Patients? No One Knows,” by Robin Fields, and Stat's “How UnitedHealth's Acquisition of a Popular Medicare Advantage Algorithm Sparked Internal Dissent Over Denied Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob HermanAmy Goldstein: The New York Times' “Medicare Advantage Plans Offer Few Psychiatrists,” by Reed AbelsonAlice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal's “America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables,” by Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, and Thomas Gryta Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Everyday Vegan Stories!  A brand new series where I interview people just like you to find out what led them to begin their plant-based vegan journey.  Reading other people's success stories has always inspired me.  In today's episode,  Amy tells us how she reversed a whole "laundry list" of chronic conditions including type 2 diabetes and cancer! Also mentioned in this episode:Dr. Joel Fuhrman: https://amzn.to/3lCR47nDr. Brooke Goldner: https://amzn.to/40UErENDr's Sherzai:  https://amzn.to/3IoksHnDr. Neal Barnard: https://amzn.to/3Ka0stgDr. Michael Greger: https://amzn.to/3Yy3sUyDr. Caldwell Esselstyn:  https://amzn.to/40WMKQnSupport the show

As of April 1, states were allowed to begin reevaluating Medicaid eligibility for millions of Americans who qualified for the program during the covid-19 pandemic but may no longer meet the income or other requirements. As many as 15 million people could lose health coverage as a result.Meanwhile, the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is projected to stay solvent until 2031, its trustees reported, taking some pressure off of lawmakers to finally fix that program's underlying financial weaknesses.Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post join KHN's Julie Rovner to discuss these issues and more.Also this week, Rovner interviews Daniel Chang, who reported the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about a child not yet old enough for kindergarten whose medical bill landed him in collections. Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too:Julie Rovner: New York Magazine's “The Shared Anti-Trans and Anti-Abortion Playbook,” by Irin Carmon.Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Los Angeles Times' “Horrifying Stories of Women Chased Down by the LAPD Abortion Squad Before Roe vs. Wade,” by Brittny Mejia.Rachel Roubein: KHN's “‘Hard to Get Sober Young': Inside One of the Country's Few Recovery High Schools,” by Stephanie Daniel of KUNC.Amy Goldstein: The Washington Post's “After Decades Under a Virus's Shadow, He Now Lives Free of HIV,” by Mark Johnson.Visit our website to read the transcript. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

At a time of high misinformation and confusion, Americans need to count on journalists for getting the facts about the state of health care. Reporters are busy covering the top stories including the legal challenges to Affordable Care Act and medical abortion. Join Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter as they talk with three leading health care journalists: Amy Goldstein with The Washington Post; Joyce Frieden with MedPage Today; and Jessica Bartlett with The Boston Globe. The post Top Reporters on Big Health Care Stories Right Now appeared first on Healthy Communities Online.

At a time of high misinformation and confusion, Americans need to count on journalists for getting the facts about the state of health care. Reporters are busy covering the top stories including the legal challenges to Affordable Care Act and medical abortion.Join Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter as they talk with three leading health care journalists: Amy Goldstein with The Washington Post; Joyce Frieden with MedPage Today; and Jessica Bartlett with The Boston Globe. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

At a time of high misinformation and confusion, Americans need to count on journalists for getting the facts about the state of health care. Reporters are busy covering the top stories including the legal challenges to Affordable Care Act and medical abortion. Join Mark Masselli and Margaret Flinter as they talk with three leading health care journalists: Amy Goldstein with The Washington Post; Joyce Frieden with MedPage Today; and Jessica Bartlett with The Boston Globe.

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her dear mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, Chayah bat Modechai ve-Chanah, on her fourth yahrzeit. “I love you and miss you, Your love of Judaism, art and music lives on in all of your family.” Today's daf is sponsored by Yiska and Shaul Weisband in memory of Menachem Yunitzman HaKohen ben Esther V'Tzvi. Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Mrs. Devorah Cohn, Devorah Breina bat Harav Yaakov Zundel ve-Toibe Alta, whose 10th yahrzeit was this week. “Mrs. Cohn was a student of Sarah Schenirer in Poland, as well as a beloved and revered teacher in Boston's Maimonides School for over 40 years. Her warmth and wisdom inspired generations of children and endeared her to all who knew her. Yehi Zichrah Baruch.” Abaye explains that a zav tvul yom (the sun hasn't yet set on the day he purified himself) can't go into the Levite camp (Temple mount) since he is both a tvul yom and he is mechusar kipurim, as he did yet bring his sacrifices. If, however, it is only one of those issues, he can enter into the Levite camp (up until the Nicanor gate) but not into the Shechina camp, the azara. From where does Abaye derive this? After which sacrifice does the nazir do the shaving of the hair - there is a debate about whether it is after the peace offering or the sin offering. The verse says that the nazir shaves at the entrance to the ohel moed (tent of meeting). Is this to be understood literally does this mean something else, as how can the nazir shave there - is it not an embarrassment? Only according to one opinion does a male nazir shave there (not a female nazir) but the others explain the verse is referring to something else. The hair of the nazir goes in the fire under the pot where the peace offering is cooking. However, if it was put under the sin or guilt offering, it would be valid as well. Also, some of the gravy from the peace offering is put on the hair before burning. These two laws are derived from the same word in the verse - how can that be? At what point in the process is the nazir permitted to drink wine and become impure to dead people? There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon.  

Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her dear mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein, Chayah bat Modechai ve-Chanah, on her fourth yahrzeit. “I love you and miss you, Your love of Judaism, art and music lives on in all of your family.” Today's daf is sponsored by Yiska and Shaul Weisband in memory of Menachem Yunitzman HaKohen ben Esther V'Tzvi. Today's daf is sponsored by Medinah Korn in memory of Mrs. Devorah Cohn, Devorah Breina bat Harav Yaakov Zundel ve-Toibe Alta, whose 10th yahrzeit was this week. “Mrs. Cohn was a student of Sarah Schenirer in Poland, as well as a beloved and revered teacher in Boston's Maimonides School for over 40 years. Her warmth and wisdom inspired generations of children and endeared her to all who knew her. Yehi Zichrah Baruch.” Abaye explains that a zav tvul yom (the sun hasn't yet set on the day he purified himself) can't go into the Levite camp (Temple mount) since he is both a tvul yom and he is mechusar kipurim, as he did yet bring his sacrifices. If, however, it is only one of those issues, he can enter into the Levite camp (up until the Nicanor gate) but not into the Shechina camp, the azara. From where does Abaye derive this? After which sacrifice does the nazir do the shaving of the hair - there is a debate about whether it is after the peace offering or the sin offering. The verse says that the nazir shaves at the entrance to the ohel moed (tent of meeting). Is this to be understood literally does this mean something else, as how can the nazir shave there - is it not an embarrassment? Only according to one opinion does a male nazir shave there (not a female nazir) but the others explain the verse is referring to something else. The hair of the nazir goes in the fire under the pot where the peace offering is cooking. However, if it was put under the sin or guilt offering, it would be valid as well. Also, some of the gravy from the peace offering is put on the hair before burning. These two laws are derived from the same word in the verse - how can that be? At what point in the process is the nazir permitted to drink wine and become impure to dead people? There is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon.  

Study Guide Nazir 44 Today's daf is dedicated in memory of our fellow Hadran learner, Miriam Kerzner. In her eighties, Miriam was drawn into the world of Gemara’s intricacies and excitements, enchanted by Rabbanit Michelle’s teachings and enthralled with the intellectual challenges. Talmud became an integral and vibrant part of her life during the long days of Corona and nurtured her during her illness. She joined us in learning up to her last days. Yehi Zichra Baruch, with much comfort to her family from the Hadran Zoom family. Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett. "Eishet Chayil who embodied qualities from each of the 4 Imahot. Your legacy lives on in your great-granddaughter." Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky. Of the three prohibitions of nazir, there are stringencies in some that don't exist in the other(s). Impurity and shaving are strict as they cancel the previous days, whereas drinking wine does not. The prohibition to drink wine is stricter than the others as there is no situation in which drinking wine is permitted, whereas a nazir who becomes a leper can shave and if there is a met mitzva, the nazir can become impure. Another stringency of impurity over shaving is that impurity cancels all the days and requires a sacrifice, whereas shaving only cancels thirty days and there is no sacrifice. There is a long discussion in the Gemara full of many suggestions of why we wouldn't learn laws from one to the other, in the style of: "If this one is more lenient than this one in this way and yet more stringent in another, why isn't the other one that is stringent in the first way, also stringent in the second way!" Or the reverse. Each answer provides is either based on a verse or some other clear explanation as to why the logical inference is not followed. The Mishna explains what is the process for a nazir who becomes impure to a dead body. The shaving is to be done on the seventh day. But is it part of the purification process and therefore one can only bring the sacrifices on the following day, even if one pushed off the shaving to the eighth day, or not? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree. After Rabbi Akiva's explanation that it is different from the leper, does Rabbi Tarfon concede? A zav cannot go into the Levite camp on the seventh day or purification even after going to the mikveh (status of a tvul yom) as is derived from a verse. Abaye questions this drasha as the same thing appears by nazir and yet the halacha is not the same.

Study Guide Nazir 44 Today's daf is dedicated in memory of our fellow Hadran learner, Miriam Kerzner. In her eighties, Miriam was drawn into the world of Gemara’s intricacies and excitements, enchanted by Rabbanit Michelle’s teachings and enthralled with the intellectual challenges. Talmud became an integral and vibrant part of her life during the long days of Corona and nurtured her during her illness. She joined us in learning up to her last days. Yehi Zichra Baruch, with much comfort to her family from the Hadran Zoom family. Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her grandmother, Ann Barnett. "Eishet Chayil who embodied qualities from each of the 4 Imahot. Your legacy lives on in your great-granddaughter." Today’s daf is sponsored anonymously in memory of Shmaryahu Yosef Chaim ben Yaakov Yisrael, Rav Chaim Kanievsky. Of the three prohibitions of nazir, there are stringencies in some that don't exist in the other(s). Impurity and shaving are strict as they cancel the previous days, whereas drinking wine does not. The prohibition to drink wine is stricter than the others as there is no situation in which drinking wine is permitted, whereas a nazir who becomes a leper can shave and if there is a met mitzva, the nazir can become impure. Another stringency of impurity over shaving is that impurity cancels all the days and requires a sacrifice, whereas shaving only cancels thirty days and there is no sacrifice. There is a long discussion in the Gemara full of many suggestions of why we wouldn't learn laws from one to the other, in the style of: "If this one is more lenient than this one in this way and yet more stringent in another, why isn't the other one that is stringent in the first way, also stringent in the second way!" Or the reverse. Each answer provides is either based on a verse or some other clear explanation as to why the logical inference is not followed. The Mishna explains what is the process for a nazir who becomes impure to a dead body. The shaving is to be done on the seventh day. But is it part of the purification process and therefore one can only bring the sacrifices on the following day, even if one pushed off the shaving to the eighth day, or not? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon disagree. After Rabbi Akiva's explanation that it is different from the leper, does Rabbi Tarfon concede? A zav cannot go into the Levite camp on the seventh day or purification even after going to the mikveh (status of a tvul yom) as is derived from a verse. Abaye questions this drasha as the same thing appears by nazir and yet the halacha is not the same.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning. Today’s daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit. Today’s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. "Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. “Only now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways.” The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi's position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad. This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn't this nolad? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim, there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim. Beit Hillel’s language in the Mishna is difficult as he says “The one who’s words do not come to be is a nazir.” Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read “The one whose words come true.”  

Today’s daf is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi in honor of her sister Hasya and her love of learning. Today’s daf is sponsored by Hinda Herman in memory of her dear mother Ethel Bat Chaim on her yahrzeit. Today’s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in memory of her father Leon Pultman on his 8th yahrzeit. Husband of Thelma Pultman and father of Linda, Sheila and Gwen. "Dad had a special love of learning about Jewish history and our people. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in memory of her father, Melvyn Goldstein, on his third yahrzeit. “Only now that you are gone am I understanding the wisdom of your ways.” The Mishna says that if one drank wine while being a nazir, those days still count as their nazirite days. This does not seem to follow either the rabbis or Rabbi Yosi's position as the rabbis require one to add as many days as one spent drinking wine while a nazir, and Rabbi Yosi requires a minimum of thirty days without drinking wine, regardless of how long the nazirite period was supposed to be. However, the Gemara explains that one can explain the Mishna according to each opinion. From the fact that Beit Shamai hold hekdesh by mistake is hekdesh and yet one who dissolved his nazirite vow, the sacrifices are no longer sanctified, we can learn to Beit Hillel that even though substitution by mistake is sanctified, if one dissolved the sanctity of the first animal, the sanctity would be canceled as well. In animal tithes, if one calls the 9th or 11th animal tenth by mistake, the animal is sanctified. Is this true as well if one intentionally called the 9th or 11th the tenth? Can we infer the answer to this question from our Mishna which makes reference to this law? If one vowed to become a nazir, assuming the animal in their possession would be used for the sacrifice, but it gets stolen, can one dissolve the vow on that basis? It depends upon whether the animal was stolen before or after the vow as if it was only stolen later, that is nolad (something unexpected that was not in existence at the time) and one cannot dissolve a vow using nolad. This is what confused Nachum HaMadi when he permitted nezirim who came to Israel after the destruction and when they realized there was no Temple in which to bring their sacrifices, they tried to dissolve their vows and he dissolved them based on the fact that had they realized the Temple would have been destroyed and they would have no way to finish their nazirite term, they never would have vowed. Isn't this nolad? Rav Yosef raises a question on the Mishna because of a verse from Yirmiyahu 7:4 that alludes to the fact that the temple will be destroyed and therefore the nezirim should have known! If two people are walking and see someone from afar and bet on who it is by taking upon being a nazir and then others take a bet and take on being a nazir if one of them, both of them, or neither of them are nezirim, there are three opinions in the Mishna about which of them are nezirim. Beit Hillel’s language in the Mishna is difficult as he says “The one who’s words do not come to be is a nazir.” Shouldn’t it be the opposite? Rav Yehuda suggests changing the language to read “The one whose words come true.”  

Mitochondrial Medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is emerging as the premiere center in the world for multidisciplinary clinical care, advanced diagnostics and therapies, and individualized basic, translational, and clinical research programs dedicated to improving the health of patients of all ages living with mitochondrial disease. The program is part of the Division of Human Genetics. The Frontier Programs are unique, cutting-edge programs that will forge important new discoveries, deliver novel therapies, and help children and adults thrive. Please join us for an informational session to guide your visit and care through the CHOP Mitochondrial Medicine Program. Dr. Amy Goldstein, the Clinical Director, and Genetic Counselor James Peterson will answer your questions.

In his proposed budget, President Joe Biden called for a boost in health spending that includes billions of dollars to prepare for a future pandemic. But that doesn't include money he says is needed immediately for testing and treating covid.Also this week, federal regulators authorized a second booster shot for people over age 50 yet gave little guidance to consumers about who needs the shot and when.Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post, Jennifer Haberkorn of the Los Angeles Times, and Rachana Pradhan of KHN join KHN's Mary Agnes Carey to discuss these issues and more.Plus, Julie Rovner interviews KHN's Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” episode about a very expensive air ambulance ride.For extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:Mary Agnes Carey: The New Yorker's “A Freelancer's Forty-Three Years in the American Health-Care System,” by David OwenAmy Goldstein: Stat's "NIH's Identity Crisis: The Pandemic and The Search for a New Leader Leave the Agency at a Crossroads," by Lev FacherJen Haberkorn: The New York Times' "F.D.A. Rushed a Drug for Preterm Births. Did It Put Speed Over Science?" by Christina JewettRachana Pradhan: The Washington Post's "‘Is This What a Good Mother Looks Like?'” by William WanClick here for a transcript of the episode. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

AboutWage inequality in the United States is approaching the extreme level that prevailed prior to the Great Depression, creating new social classes: the precariat (those on short term or zero hours contracts without benefits) and the one percent. With disparity widening––and anger building among some of the dispossessed––can the American Dream endure?Panelists: Sarah Anderson, Amy Goldstein, and John Freeman. Chaired by Tope FolarinMusic: Quantum Jazz — "Orbiting A Distant Planet" — Provided by Jamendo.

President Joe Biden spent a large portion of his first State of the Union address talking about foreign affairs, but he also spent time on an array of health topics, including mental health, nursing home regulation, and toxic burn pits. Also this week, the administration unveiled a strategy to address the covid pandemic going forward.Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet join KHN's Julie Rovner to discuss these issues and more.Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:Julie Rovner: The Wall Street Journal's “Why Is Everyone Standing So Close? Personal-Space Boundaries Shifted During the Pandemic,” by Alex Janin.Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times' “Time Is Running Out to Avert a Harrowing Future, Climate Panel Warns,” by Brad Plumer, Raymond Zhong and Lisa Friedman.Amy Goldstein: The Washington Post's “Ukraine Conflict Could Spark Surges of Covid, Polio, Other Diseases, Say Experts,” by Loveday Morris and Dan Diamond.Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN's “Covid Expert Joins Exodus Into Business, Where Science Parlays Into Profits,” by Jay Hancock. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Shakdiel for the refuah shleima of Nili bat Esther and Moshe Tzvi. Today’s daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Mollie Pollack and Toby Sasnowitz yahrzeit. “They would have shepped much nachat from the family's commitment to Torah, and today's vort of their great-granddaughter (our granddaughter) Chavi Sommer to Zecharya Runge (Runge).”  Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother.  Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding whether or not the chagigah can be bought from maaser sheni money or not. Ulla explains Beit Hillel to be referring to adding on to the unsanctified money spent on the sacrifice. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this can be done by adding maaser sheni money to unsanctified money to purchase the chagigah sacrifices or by or adding animals for chagigah sacrifices bought from maaser sheni money in addition to animals bought from unsanctified money (each one holds that one is permitted and the other is not). Braitot are brought to support each position. From where do we derive that in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on the holiday, one needs to bring animal sacrifices? Two different possibilities are brought. The Mishna distinguishes between different types of people with different financial means and different numbers of people in their family and how that affects whether they should bring more burnt offerings (for appearing) or more chagigah peace sacrifices. One who doesn’t have a lot of money and has a lot of mouths to feed brings more peace offerings and few burnt offerings. But how does he have money even for the chagigah peace offerings? Rav Chisda explains that one can use one’s maaser sheni money to get a bigger animal. Since he uses the example of adding money to get a bigger animal and not adding on additional animals, Rav Sheshet asks why he didn’t give the option to add other animals since the rabbis permit that. The Gemara tries to understand this question in light of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya but in the end, suggest that Rav Sheshet didn’t agree fully with either of them as he permitted both adding money to buy an animal and adding more animals with maaser sheni money. If one separates ten animals and only brings five on the first day and five on the second day, is that permitted or not? There is a debate on this issue, but the Gemara explains that they do not actually disagree but are each describing a different situation.  

Today’s daf is sponsored by Leah Shakdiel for the refuah shleima of Nili bat Esther and Moshe Tzvi. Today’s daf is sponsored by Meryl and Harold Sasnowitz in loving memory of their mothers, Mollie Pollack and Toby Sasnowitz yahrzeit. “They would have shepped much nachat from the family's commitment to Torah, and today's vort of their great-granddaughter (our granddaughter) Chavi Sommer to Zecharya Runge (Runge).”  Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her mother.  Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding whether or not the chagigah can be bought from maaser sheni money or not. Ulla explains Beit Hillel to be referring to adding on to the unsanctified money spent on the sacrifice. Chizkiya and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about whether this can be done by adding maaser sheni money to unsanctified money to purchase the chagigah sacrifices or by or adding animals for chagigah sacrifices bought from maaser sheni money in addition to animals bought from unsanctified money (each one holds that one is permitted and the other is not). Braitot are brought to support each position. From where do we derive that in order to fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on the holiday, one needs to bring animal sacrifices? Two different possibilities are brought. The Mishna distinguishes between different types of people with different financial means and different numbers of people in their family and how that affects whether they should bring more burnt offerings (for appearing) or more chagigah peace sacrifices. One who doesn’t have a lot of money and has a lot of mouths to feed brings more peace offerings and few burnt offerings. But how does he have money even for the chagigah peace offerings? Rav Chisda explains that one can use one’s maaser sheni money to get a bigger animal. Since he uses the example of adding money to get a bigger animal and not adding on additional animals, Rav Sheshet asks why he didn’t give the option to add other animals since the rabbis permit that. The Gemara tries to understand this question in light of the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya but in the end, suggest that Rav Sheshet didn’t agree fully with either of them as he permitted both adding money to buy an animal and adding more animals with maaser sheni money. If one separates ten animals and only brings five on the first day and five on the second day, is that permitted or not? There is a debate on this issue, but the Gemara explains that they do not actually disagree but are each describing a different situation.  

A new documentary takes a look at the 2019 crisis at Hampshire College, which at the time considered not enrolling a new freshman class. The film "The Unmaking of a College" follows the students who took action as well as interviewing professors, whistleblowers, and alumni, such as documentarian Ken Burns. Director Amy Goldstein joins us to discuss her new film, and its timely conversation on the struggles small, experimental, liberal arts colleges face. "The Unmaking of a College" is currently playing in select theaters.

Study Guide Chagigah 6 Today’s daf is sponsored by Eva Schweber in loving memory of her father, Ken Schweber on his yahrzeit. “His Talmud study was the inspiration for me to study daf yomi. My daily learning makes me feel deeply connected to him and that is a daily blessing to me.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother.  On the subject of Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel’s debate regarding a child, how could a child so young have gotten to Jerusalem? It must be the mother brought the child as she is obligated in simcha, even though she does not need to go to the Temple, she does go to Jerusalem. If young children went with their mothers to Jerusalem, why did Chana stay at home with Shmuel? If a young lame or blind child obligated according to Beit Shamai since they anyway are carried by their fathers? In what situation is this question asked? What is the root of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel whether one should spend more money on the burnt offering of seeing or the peace offering of Chagigah. Each brings two arguments and explains why they don’t agree with the other’s claims. Part of the debate revolves around what type of burnt offerings were sacrificed at Har Sinai when the Torah was given - were they burnt offerings of seeing or burnt offerings of the Tamid sacrifice. Abaye mentions other tanaim who held like Beit Shamai and others who held like Beit Hillel regarding the identity of the burnt offering at Har Sinai. Their statements where this is evident are brought.

Study Guide Chagigah 6 Today’s daf is sponsored by Eva Schweber in loving memory of her father, Ken Schweber on his yahrzeit. “His Talmud study was the inspiration for me to study daf yomi. My daily learning makes me feel deeply connected to him and that is a daily blessing to me.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her grandmother.  On the subject of Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel’s debate regarding a child, how could a child so young have gotten to Jerusalem? It must be the mother brought the child as she is obligated in simcha, even though she does not need to go to the Temple, she does go to Jerusalem. If young children went with their mothers to Jerusalem, why did Chana stay at home with Shmuel? If a young lame or blind child obligated according to Beit Shamai since they anyway are carried by their fathers? In what situation is this question asked? What is the root of the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel whether one should spend more money on the burnt offering of seeing or the peace offering of Chagigah. Each brings two arguments and explains why they don’t agree with the other’s claims. Part of the debate revolves around what type of burnt offerings were sacrificed at Har Sinai when the Torah was given - were they burnt offerings of seeing or burnt offerings of the Tamid sacrifice. Abaye mentions other tanaim who held like Beit Shamai and others who held like Beit Hillel regarding the identity of the burnt offering at Har Sinai. Their statements where this is evident are brought.

New York rocker Willie Nile has a new album out, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" and is here to talk about supporting it. Also documentary filmmaker Amy Goldstein with her new film "The Unmaking of a College", which opens today.

THE UNMAKING OF A COLLEGE delves into the 2019 crisis at Hampshire College when students led a 75-day sit-in – the longest in American college history – at the new president's office to thwart her underhanded attempt to shut down one of the most experimenting colleges in the United States. Hampshire College was founded 50 years ago based on the seminal book “The Making Of A College" to radically reimagine liberal arts education. Inspired by this philosophy of critical thinking, a collection of dedicated and charismatic students went on a rescue mission with a coalition of undergrads, faculty, staff, and alumni to find out who was leading the threat to their college, and why. The thrilleresque unfolding of this singular story goes beyond a single school, and foretells a looming crisis in higher education at a time when many colleges are failing. If Hampshire were to close, what would that mean for colleges and universities throughout the country? This is also a story of young people moved to action, how they were changed forever by their choices and how they are becoming our future leaders. THE UNMAKING OF A COLLEGE is constructed from a mix of video captured by the students and their social media threads, traditional observational footage, press conferences, news footage, and radio broadcasts. Hampshire alum, Amy Goldstein, weaves their powerful documentation with interviews with students, professors, whistleblowers, and alumni including filmmaker Ken Burns, into a suspenseful and raucous ode to democracy in action. Director Amy Goldstein (Kate Nash: Underestimate the Girl) joins us for a spirited conversation on the importance a Hampshire-like education can have on the future of students attuned to their approach, following her storytelling instincts, and the potential of all of us to collectively impact the world toward a better future. For news and updates go to: unmaking-of-a-college

It has now been almost two years since covid began. Employers who pre-pandemic didn't have a work-from-home & flexible strategy have realized the benefits. Employers have realized cost savings by reducing their real estate footprint and have increased their talent pool. Employers have enjoyed the perks of hybrid work some of which include improved productivity, reduction of commute, and better work-life balance. In this episode of The Click-Down, we invite Amy Goldstein, Field Sales Engineer, to talk about Remote and Flexible work. We share personal stories on the pros and cons of this new normal. We discuss the challenges that IT administrators have had to overcome and how they have been able to do so. Follow us on Twitter, we would love to hear from you!Ana Ruiz: @mobileruizDan Feller: @djfeller

Study Guide Moed Katan 23 Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie Gevir and her husband Yossi, in memory of Shimon ben Feiga Rayzel and Chaim Aryeh who passed away just as last Shabbat ended. “My uncle Shimmy was brilliant and talented with a strong love for Judaism, classical music, boating...and a great zest for life. He chose a different path than his orthodox family, becoming a prominent Reform Rabbi. He and his wife Judy -שתיבדל לחיים ארוכים always remained ever so respectful loving and close to his parents, sister- my mother, and to us. I already miss you, Uncle Shimmy and will always treasure the time we spent together throughout my life.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 2nd yahrzeit. “We miss him. He was taken from us too swiftly. May his neshama have an aliyah.” What are the rules of mourning for the community when a nasi dies? When a mourner finishes shiva, what are the stages one goes through week by week gradually getting life back to normal? How long after one’s wife dies can one remarry? On what does it depend? One doesn’t wear ironed clothes during shloshim. What clothes are included/not included in this prohibition? There is a debate about whether private mourning practices can be observed on Shabbat. How does each one prove his opinion from the wording of the Mishna? Is this debate between Amoraim also a tannaitic debate between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel?

Study Guide Moed Katan 23 Today's daf is dedicated by Debbie Gevir and her husband Yossi, in memory of Shimon ben Feiga Rayzel and Chaim Aryeh who passed away just as last Shabbat ended. “My uncle Shimmy was brilliant and talented with a strong love for Judaism, classical music, boating...and a great zest for life. He chose a different path than his orthodox family, becoming a prominent Reform Rabbi. He and his wife Judy -שתיבדל לחיים ארוכים always remained ever so respectful loving and close to his parents, sister- my mother, and to us. I already miss you, Uncle Shimmy and will always treasure the time we spent together throughout my life.”  Today's daf is sponsored by Amy Goldstein in loving memory of her father, Melvyn Sydney Goldstein, on his 2nd yahrzeit. “We miss him. He was taken from us too swiftly. May his neshama have an aliyah.” What are the rules of mourning for the community when a nasi dies? When a mourner finishes shiva, what are the stages one goes through week by week gradually getting life back to normal? How long after one’s wife dies can one remarry? On what does it depend? One doesn’t wear ironed clothes during shloshim. What clothes are included/not included in this prohibition? There is a debate about whether private mourning practices can be observed on Shabbat. How does each one prove his opinion from the wording of the Mishna? Is this debate between Amoraim also a tannaitic debate between the rabbis and Rabban Gamliel?

It's been a little over a month since the unemployment benefits programs that were established by the CARES Act expired, so we're taking a look at how well they worked. Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein and Elliott Morris, a data journalist at The Economist, deliver the facts to Jessyn and Paul.  Amy Goldstein is a staff writer at The Washington Post, where much of her work has focused on social policy. She is the author of Janesville: An American Story.  Twitter: @goldsteinamy Elliott Morris is a data journalist at The Economist.  Twitter: @gelliottmorris Further reading: Poverty fell overall in 2020 as result of massive stimulus checks and unemployment aid, Census Bureau says: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/09/14/us-census-poverty-health-insurance-2020/  Welfare rolls decline during the pandemic despite economic upheaval: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/08/01/welfare-roles-during-the-pandemic/ Why now is the time to fix the UI system: https://www.epi.org/publication/introduction-why-now-is-the-time-to-fix-the-ui-system/  The racial disparity in unemployment benefits: https://www.rand.org/blog/2020/07/the-racial-disparity-in-unemployment-benefits.html  Unpacking Inequities in Unemployment Insurance: https://www.newamerica.org/pit/reports/unpacking-inequities-unemployment-insurance/introduction/  Ending pandemic unemployment aid has not yielded extra jobs—yet: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/08/28/ending-pandemic-unemployment-aid-has-not-yielded-extra-jobs-yet   Janesville: An American Story: https://bookshop.org/books/janesville-an-american-story-9781508283966/9781501102264  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com/ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

Watching the chaotic end of America's longest war, we've been thinking a lot about the terrorist attack that set it in motion. We interviewed colleagues who covered 9/11 to try to make sense of how that day changed the country and the world.Read more:“Where were you on September 11th?” Most Americans over a certain age have a 9/11 story — of the moment they heard the news of the terrorist attacks, or of anxiously calling family members to make sure they were okay. In the 20 years since the attacks, that day for some may feel like a slowly fading memory. But the direct consequences of that Tuesday in 2001 are still playing out in the news in front of us every day.Today on Post Reports, we're telling the story of 9/11 through the eyes of our newsroom. We spoke with Post colleagues who covered it — from senior editors, to reporters at the Pentagon, to an intern.“It changed everyone's lives,” says Post reporter Juliet Eilperin, who was covering Congress that day, “not only in terms of those who lost people that they cared about that day, but what it meant for the commitment of our military and what it meant for people living in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East.”As the Afghanistan war comes to a harrowing close, we look at how the 9/11 terrorist attacks shaped our world and how the consequences of that day are still with us. This story was produced by Ariel Plotnick and Emma Talkoff. It was edited by Maggie Penman, Renita Jablonski and Martine Powers.It was scored and mixed by Ted Muldoon, who wrote original music for this show. Reena Flores and Rennie Svirnovskiy were also a huge help with this story.In this story, you'll hear the voices of Leonard Downie, Arthur Santana, Juliet Eilperin, Valerie Strauss, Amy Goldstein, Amy Argetsinger, Marc Fisher, Katie Shaver, Karen DeYoung, Mike Allen, Rosalind S. Helderman, Chuck Lane, Debbi Wilgoren and Matt Vita. Thank you to WTOP News for sharing its 9/11 archive.We talked to so many people for this story who helped shape our understanding of that day, including Tracy Grant, Freddy Kunkle, Dana Milbank, Ellen Nakashima, Ann Gerhart and Dudley Brooks. And a big thank-you to Joe Heim, who pitched this idea to our show.The Post has many other stories reflecting on the anniversary of 9/11 and how our country has changed 20 years later.Listen to “America's Song,” a special podcast series from The Post about how a singing police officer comforted a grieving nation after 9/11 — and why the moment couldn't last.9/11 was a test. Carlos Lozada writes that the books of the past two decades show how America failed.

The music business is RARELY all sunshine and rainbows...it's often a struggle just to get PAID...On this episode we are diving into the highs and the lows that are on display in 'Kate Nash: Underestimate The Girl' which is on VOD platforms now.Kate Nash reaches the stratosphere of pop music at 18. Ten years later she is nearly homeless: dropped by her music label and defrauded by her manager, Kate rises from the darkness through her music, fighting back.We got the unique pleasure of sitting down with not only director Amy Goldstein but Kate Nash herself to talk about the highs and lows of it all while still being the best documentary subject that a filmmaker could have possibly asked for...

Study Guide Pesachim 99 Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Eva Schweber, in loving memory of their father, Ken Schweber, who are learning daf yomi in honor of his own Talmud studies. And by Amy Goldstein in memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein. "In honor of her 2nd Yahrtzeit, we miss her artistic spirit, wealth of knowledge, and joy for life." If the animal for the Pesach sacrifice got lost and the original group divided into two and each group said to the other that if they found the animal or sacrificed another in its place, they should include the other in the slaughtering, if they both slaughtered and do not know who slaughtered first, no one can eat from the sacrifice and the whole animal is burned. And they are all exempt from Pesach Sheni. If they said nothing to each other, everyone fulfills their obligation with the animal they slaughtered and they can eat it. The gemara quotes a braita that concludes from this case that silence is preferable and quotes an verse from Proverbs to strengthen this claim. The mishna described a case in which the two Pesachs of two individuals got mixed up with each other. Each one will take one of the animals and bring someone else to join him and then will go with the other and stipulate, "If this one is my Pesach, then you will join with me and if this is not my Pesach, I will join with you." The Gemara discusses the connection between this mishna and the dispute between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda over whether one of the original members of the group must stay with the animal. The tenth chapter begins with a description of Passover eve - there is a prohibition to eat from close to the time of mincha. One needs to ensure that the poor people get four glasses of wine. Why did the mishna only talk about the prohibition of eat on the eve of Pesach and not mention all other erev Shabbats and Yom Tovs that also have a prohibition to eat from the time of the mincha. The gemara bring two answers - either the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi only, who holds that there is no prohibition to eat on erev Shabbats and holidays, only on Pesach because of the mitzva to eat matza or that there is a difference in the prohibitions - on the eve of Pesach is is a half hour before mincha and the others are from mincha. The gemara brings a braita that contradicts the second possibility, however Mar Zutra suggests that perhaps the braita is inaccurate.

Study Guide Pesachim 99 Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Eva Schweber, in loving memory of their father, Ken Schweber, who are learning daf yomi in honor of his own Talmud studies. And by Amy Goldstein in memory of her mother, Carolyn Barnett-Goldstein. "In honor of her 2nd Yahrtzeit, we miss her artistic spirit, wealth of knowledge, and joy for life." If the animal for the Pesach sacrifice got lost and the original group divided into two and each group said to the other that if they found the animal or sacrificed another in its place, they should include the other in the slaughtering, if they both slaughtered and do not know who slaughtered first, no one can eat from the sacrifice and the whole animal is burned. And they are all exempt from Pesach Sheni. If they said nothing to each other, everyone fulfills their obligation with the animal they slaughtered and they can eat it. The gemara quotes a braita that concludes from this case that silence is preferable and quotes an verse from Proverbs to strengthen this claim. The mishna described a case in which the two Pesachs of two individuals got mixed up with each other. Each one will take one of the animals and bring someone else to join him and then will go with the other and stipulate, "If this one is my Pesach, then you will join with me and if this is not my Pesach, I will join with you." The Gemara discusses the connection between this mishna and the dispute between Rabbi Yossi and Rabbi Yehuda over whether one of the original members of the group must stay with the animal. The tenth chapter begins with a description of Passover eve - there is a prohibition to eat from close to the time of mincha. One needs to ensure that the poor people get four glasses of wine. Why did the mishna only talk about the prohibition of eat on the eve of Pesach and not mention all other erev Shabbats and Yom Tovs that also have a prohibition to eat from the time of the mincha. The gemara bring two answers - either the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yossi only, who holds that there is no prohibition to eat on erev Shabbats and holidays, only on Pesach because of the mitzva to eat matza or that there is a difference in the prohibitions - on the eve of Pesach is is a half hour before mincha and the others are from mincha. The gemara brings a braita that contradicts the second possibility, however Mar Zutra suggests that perhaps the braita is inaccurate.

How ordinary investors, spurred on by a Reddit message board, took on the big Wall Street funds and sent GameStop share prices soaring. Plus, how President Biden is using the pandemic to try to expand access to health coverage. Read more:Business reporter Hamza Shaban explains what you need to know about GameStop’s stock price chaos. On Thursday, President Biden signed two executive actions, one of which was designed to expand access to health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. Health-care policy reporter Amy Goldstein on how the action is a direct response to the pandemic. If you value the journalism you hear in this podcast, please subscribe to The Washington Post! We have a deal just for podcast listeners — two years of unlimited access to everything The Post publishes for just $59 total. That comes out to about $2.46 per month. To sign up, go to washingtonpost.com/subscribe

How President Biden plans to combat the pandemic in his first 100 days. Where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention went wrong with testing, and what it cost us. And what the U.K. coronavirus variant means for you.Read more:Just ahead of President Biden’s inauguration, the United States reached a grim milestone — 400,000 people have died of the coronavirus, a quarter of them in the past month. Health policy reporter Amy Goldstein lays out the new administration’s plan for wrangling in the pandemic.The CDC’s response to what has become the nation’s deadliest pandemic marked a low point in its 74-year history. Investigative reporter David Willman explains why the agency squandered valuable time designing its own test when others were available earlier on. The highly contagious variant of the coronavirus first seen in Britain may become the dominant strain in the United States, per the CDC. Science writer Joel Achenbach reports.If you value the journalism you hear in this podcast, please subscribe to The Washington Post! We have a deal just for podcast listeners: two years of unlimited access to everything The Post publishes for just $59 total. That comes out to around $2.46 per month. To sign up, go to washingtonpost.com/subscribe

In this hour Stephen Henderson speaks with Shikha Dalmia of The Week, who is a prominent voice in the Libertarian political movement. Plus, Amy Goldstein, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who is currently covering health care policy for the Washington Post.

President-elect Joe Biden’s names his administration’s top health officials. The toll the pandemic has taken on nursing home employees. And an inauguration unlike any other. Read more: Health reporter Amy Goldstein examines the president-elect’s picks for top health officials, including the unorthodox choice of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The pandemic has taken a heavy toll on nursing home workers. “The problem is that there have been a number of nursing home employees who have either quit or fallen ill or died,” says business reporter Will Englund. “And in a business that has a traditional or a chronic problem with short staffing, that's gotten even much worse.”National political reporter Matt Viser on what you need to know about Joe Biden’s inauguration. Today is the 40th anniversary of John Lennon’s death. Listen to a previous episode, where arts reporters Geoff Edgers revisits his last album. Subscribe to The Washington Post: https://postreports.com/offer

Join MitoAction and David Keane from GeneDX for our December Monthly Mito Expert Series presentation titled: Mito Genetic Basics: Disease, Testing and Financial. About the Speaker: David Keane has been involved with Neurogenetics since 1998 when he started working for Athena Diagnostics. He has attended over 50 Mitochondrial Disease Grand Rounds Presentations by Dr. Bruce Cohen, Sumit Parikh, Fran Kendall, Amy Goldstein, among others. David was hired by GeneDx in 2011 to help build the Neurogenetics team and currently serves as a Senior Genetic Testing Consultant specializing in Neurology and Mitochondrial Genetics. Accompanying slides can be found by clicking here.

Dr. Amy Goldstein provides an update on the Mitochondrial Medicine Society. Areas of discussion include: Transplantation in Mito patients Stroke protocol for MELAS Standards of care for Mito patients Centers of Excellence and the need for community involvement/input About the Speaker Dr. Amy Goldstein, a member of the Board of Trustees of UMDF, is on faculty at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC in the Division of Pediatric Neurology. She is board certified in pediatrics, neurology, and psychiatry with Special Qualifications in Child Neurology. She is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. She began a multidisciplinary Mitochondrial Disease clinic in 2007 and is now the Director of Neurogenetics & Metabolism and the site Principle Investigator for NAMDC (the North American Mitochondrial Disease Consortium). She is also President of the Mitochondrial Medicine Society. Her clinical research interests include improving fatigue and exercise intolerance as well as developing common patient-centered outcome measures for clinical trials. To view the accompanying slides, click here.

This episode features my interview with Amy Goldstein, the director behind Kate Nash: Underestimate The Girl. I also talk about my love for that documentary, which is currently available via Alamo On Demand. My movie picks this week are the aforementioned film as well as the Penelope Spheeris flick Suburbia. Support CinemAddicts on Patreon Help […]

Amy Goldstein’s wildly entertaining documentary, KATE NASH: UNDERESTIMATE THE GIRL, chronicles the meteoric rise and years-long struggle of musician / artist Kate Nash to re-establish a thriving career on her own terms. At 18, Nash reached the stratosphere of pop music, vaulting from a working-class family in North London into worldwide tours, a platinum record, and a season dominating the music charts. Fast forward to ten years later: Kate is breaking down, nearly homeless. Defrauded by her manager, she is forced to take odd jobs--like hosting a QVC show in a comic bookstore--and must sell off her clothes. After hitting bottom, she rises out of the darkness by crowd-funding her third album, using the uplifting power of online culture and her own authentic voice. From pop wonder, to riot grrrl, to TV wrestling queen, Kate's journey is an inspiring call to the creative heart in all of us: be fearless. Blending performance footage with verité style sequences, KATE NASH: UNDERESTIMATE THE GIRLis both a no-punches-pulled look at an artist in flux who manages to come out on top, and at an industry that proves its own gender bias at every opportunity. The film is structured around songs and lyrics, as they are written and performed by Kate Nash, to tell its unfolding story. Director Amy Goldstein joins us to talk about Kate Nash, her work ethic, determination, sense of humor and how that has served her over the many years of struggle. For news and updates go to: thehoopinglife.com/kate-nash-underestimate-the-girl KATE NASH: UNDERESTIMATE THE GIRL will be released nationally on Friday May 22 via the groundbreaking virtual cinema platform ALAMO ON DEMAND. Following the Saturday, May 23 6:00 PST / 9:00 EST there will be an interactive performance and Q&A with Kate Nash.The exclusive release will then hit a limited traditional theatrical rollout in August. Watch tonight: On Demand.drafthouse.com/film/kate-nash-underestimate-the-girl Social Media facebook.com/katenashfilm instagram/katenashfilm facebook.com/TheHoopingLife twitter.com/katenashfilm twitter.com/katenash

Everyone’s favorite human library, Paul Constant, is back with a review of ‘Janesville, An American Story’ by Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Amy Goldstein. Pair with a Wisconsin-brewed beer.   Buy Janesville on IndieBound: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781501102233 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nick Miroff and Kevin Sieff on the policies causing further uncertainty for asylum seekers. Plus, Amy Goldstein explains another threat to the ACA. And Rick Maese on the 10-year-old hoping to skateboard into the Olympics.

Amanda Browder's "Land of Hidden Gems" on display on the HFA building at UNLV In Las Vegas, Nev. on April 5, 2019. Born in Missoula, MT in 1976, Amanda Browder received an MFA/MA from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and taught at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. She currently lives and works in Brooklyn, New York producing large-scale fabric installations for building exteriors and other public sites. She works primarily with the community, and sources all of her material from donations. She has shown nationally, and internationally including at the New Museum, Ideas City Festival, SPRING/BREAK Art Fair, FAB Fest in New York City; The Dumbo Arts Festival, Brooklyn; University of Alabama at Birmingham AAHD, Birmingham, AL; Nuit Blanche Public Art Festival/LEITMOTIF in Toronto; Mobinale, Prague; Allegra LaViola Gallery, NYC; Nakaochiai Gallery, Tokyo; White Columns, NYC; No Longer Empty, Brooklyn. She has been published in books such as Unexpected Art: Chronicle Books and Strange Material; Arsenal Pulp Press. This year she will create a large-scale work as part of Art Prize: Project 1 and was named a Transformation Fellow at UNLV. In 2016, she received her first National Endowment for the Arts grant and worked with the Albright Knox Art Gallery to drape three buildings in Buffalo, NY. Photos and reviews have appeared in New York Times to Fibers Magazine and she is a founder of the art podcast, badatsports.com. Book mentioned during the interview were The Art of Gathering: How we Meet and Why it Matters by Priya Parker and Janesville: An American Story - Book by Amy Goldstein. Spectral Locus: Clifton Hall and a Public Sewing Day at Starlight Studios in Buffalo, NY, 2016 - Albright Knox Art Gallery + AK Public Art; photo by Tom Loonan Spectral Locus: Richmond and Ferry Church and 920 Broadway in Buffalo, NY, 2016 - Albright Knox Art Gallery + AK Public Art; photo by Tom Loonan

Ça nous intéresse avec Thomas Leblanc; Le 60e anniversaire du Petit Nicolas. Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny et Ginette Chenard ont lu pour nous Janesville: Une histoire américaine, de Amy Goldstein. Michelle Labrèche-Larouche et Caroline Morin on lu Avoir le courage de ne pas être aimé: comment accéder à la véritable liberté pour transformer sa vie et atteindre le bonheur, d'Ichiro Kishimi, Illustrateur : Shoichi Haga, Guy Trédaniel. On répond à vos questions avec Claudia Larochelle. Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny et Ginette Chenard ont lu Janesville: Une histoire américaine, de Amy Goldstein. 1 heure en compagnie de Raphaël Enthoven, essayiste, animateur de radio et de télévision français, auteur de Nouvelles morales provisoires aux Editions de l'Observatoire.

American writer Amy Goldstein joins Cheryl Akle to discuss her 2018 book, Janesville, a compelling and insightful portrait of one town in America's heartland, struggling to regain its footing after the closure of its General Motors plant in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Together, Amy and Cheryl discuss the hollowing of the American middle class, the decline of the American Dream, and what Amy learnt from her time in Janesville. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Zach McKenney appreciates Janesville: An American Story by Amy Goldstein, calling it "a harrowing account of the human consequences of plant shutdowns and the rippling effects that they have throughout affected communities." In Janesville, Wisconsin, the nation’s oldest operating General Motors assembly plant shut down in the midst of the Great Recession. With intelligence, sympathy, and insight into what connects and divides people in an era of economic upheaval, Goldstein shows why it’s so hard in the twenty-first century to recreate a healthy, prosperous working class. "Janesville is not so much an economic treatise on deindustrialization as it is a stunning ethnography of the tragedy and resiliency of a small Midwestern town," McKenney said. McKenney is a lecturer at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville where he received his doctorate in sociology with a concentration in political economy and globalization. Music credit: "https://www.sessions.blue (Blue Dot Sessions)," CC BY-NC 4.0

Sarah Smarsh's live event at BookPeople Bookstore Austin, Tx Finalist for the National Book Award* Finalist for the Kirkus Prize* Instant New York Times Bestseller* Named a Best Book of the Year by NPR, New York Post, BuzzFeed, Shelf Awareness, Bustle, and Publishers Weekly* An essential read for our times: an eye-opening memoir of working-class poverty in America that will deepen our understanding of the ways in which class shapes our country and “a deeply humane memoir that crackles with clarifying insight”.* Sarah Smarsh was born a fifth generation Kansas wheat farmer on her paternal side, and the product of generations of teen mothers on her maternal side. Through her experiences growing up on a farm thirty miles west of Wichita, we are given a unique and essential look into the lives of poor and working class Americans living in the heartland. During Sarah’s turbulent childhood in Kansas in the 1980s and 1990s, she enjoyed the freedom of a country childhood, but observed the painful challenges of the poverty around her; untreated medical conditions for lack of insurance or consistent care, unsafe job conditions, abusive relationships, and limited resources and information that would provide for the upward mobility that is the American Dream. By telling the story of her life and the lives of the people she loves with clarity and precision but without judgement, Smarsh challenges us to look more closely at the class divide in our country. Beautifully written, in a distinctive voice, Heartland combines personal narrative with powerful analysis and cultural commentary, challenging the myths about people thought to be less because they earn less. “Heartland is one of a growing number of important works—including Matthew Desmond’s Evicted and Amy Goldstein’s Janesville—that together merit their own section in nonfiction aisles across the country: America’s postindustrial decline...Smarsh shows how the false promise of the ‘American dream’ was used to subjugate the poor. It’s a powerful mantra” *(The New York Times Book Review).

This encore program originally was broadcast in March, 2018.

One of Barack Obama’s top reads of 2017, Janesville: An American Story, traces the lives of workers and their families, and the response of public and private sectors in the wake of General Motors’ decision to close its Wisconsin assembly plant in 2008. Written by Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post journalist Amy Goldstein, it is essential reading for “anyone who wants to understand the economy of the Rust Belt – and its implications for America’s onceproud middle class” (The Philadelphia Inquirer). The Financial Times McKinsey Book of the Year, Janesville is an intimate human account of postindustrial decline, and a meditation on the future of work. Goldstein discusses the telling of the story with Toby Manhire. Session presented with the assistance of an Embassy of the United States of America Cultural Grant.

 Job hunting can feel a bit overwhelming at times. Does your resume really showcase who you are? Are you doing enough networking? Should you work with a recruiter? We are excited to have Amy Goldstein, the Founder of Grayson Allen, a boutique search firm that specializes in attorney placement and career consulting, to talk all about job hunting realities so many of us can relate to. Listen to the episode, share it with a friend, and join the conversation by sharing your comments below!----more----   Who is Amy Goldstein?    She brings more than 20 years of combined legal and recruiting experience to her role as a search and career consultant.  Before transitioning to legal recruiting, Amy was a litigator with a New Jersey-based law firm.  She is a graduate of Rutgers College and Tulane Law School.  Amy's mission is to help attorneys acquire the skills and knowledge they need to navigate the job market, broaden their employment options and increase their chances of a happy, fulfilling work life and career.  Stay in Touch with Amy Goldstein via LinkedIn or Email Music Credits: Music Intro/Outro: “Thoughts” by Killah Smilez Music Outro: “Explained” by Killah Smilez Make sure you check out the Killah Smilez song on Amazon  Catch the music video by Killah Smilez HERE Want to share the episode? Please share the episode on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Soundcloud Don’t forget to subscribe to WokeNFree on iTunes, Stitcher, TuneIn, iHeartRadio, and Google Play Do you want to join the show as a guest on an upcoming episode? Contact us HERE Don't forget to submit a scenario to us for SCENARIO TIME!    SCENARIO TIME: How would you respond to these scenarios in SCENARIO TIME? Let's chat HERE!  Have you reviewed our show yet? Pick your platform of choice HERE      Do you want to start a podcast? We are here to HELP! Schedule a FREE consultation with us HERE This post contains affiliate links. That means if you click on a link and buy something, WokeNFree will earn a small commission from the advertiser at no additional cost to you.

On The Gist, the pomposity and circumstantial evidence of the State of the Union. Janesville, Wisconsin, had the oldest operating GM assembly plant in the country until 2008. The factory’s closure left thousands of employees in the lurch. Amy Goldstein’s book Janesville: An American Story describes the choices facing three families as they pick up the pieces of a busted local economy.  In the Spiel, the right things to say when you’re being nuked and the right way to say them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On The Gist, the pomposity and circumstantial evidence of the State of the Union. Janesville, Wisconsin, had the oldest operating GM assembly plant in the country until 2008. The factory’s closure left thousands of employees in the lurch. Amy Goldstein’s book Janesville: An American Story describes the choices facing three families as they pick up the pieces of a busted local economy.  In the Spiel, the right things to say when you’re being nuked and the right way to say them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When we talk about the current realities of work and how it’s changing, there’s one thing we can all agree on: to survive, learning new skills — or switching jobs entirely — will likely be essential.  And as daunting as that prospect may sound, this isn’t the first time the American worker has had to adapt to get ready for the workforce of the future. With that in mind, what lessons can we learn from the Great Recession to help everyone rebound more quickly?  This week, we hear from Amy Goldstein, a staff writer at The Washington Post and the author of Janesville: An American Story. Her book focuses on the closing in late 2008 of the oldest-operating GM plant in the country and how workers in the area fared in the five years that followed. One of her findings is that workers who went through retraining programs often ended up worse financially than those who didn’t. Chip and Caroline dig in to what went wrong and what lessons can be learned.

To celebrate the FT’s Business Book of the Year Award, the team talk to the six shortlisted writers. In this third episode, Helen Barrett, work and careers editor, and Andrew Hill, management editor, hear from Amy Goldstein, author of Janesville, about the impact on a Wisconsin community of General Motors’ decision to close its assembly plant See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Washington Post writer Amy Goldstein discusses how the closure of a GM automotive plant in Janesville in 2008 shook the city to its core. Support the show.

Janesville, Wisconsin, was one of the towns hardest hit by the economic collapse of the late 2000s. When the local GM plant closed, thousands of jobs that supported the entire city evaporated, leaving residents struggling to stay above water. That’s where journalist Amy Goldstein began following their story. The Washington Post reporter started profiling various residents of the town, following them over the course of several years as their fortunes shifted and changed, and as one Janesville split into two Janesvilles — one that recovered from the recession and one that didn’t. Amy joins Todd to talk about why it’s still so hard to look at the effects of the recession, how she reported a massive story over a massive period of time, and why it’s important to tell big stories like this through the lens of individual human beings. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What can a president do to revive an industry in decline? Amy Goldstein, author of “Janesville: An American Story,” tells us what happens to people when factories close. Plus, Scott Paul of Alliance for American Manufacturing on how to help the industry.

    Amy Goldstein is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who spent years documenting the aftermath of the economic meltdown in Janesville, Wisconsin in the wake of the closure of its long standing General Motors plant.  It's a familiar story with consequences that seep into every crevice of the community.  She tells it through personal … Continue reading EP 33 JANESVILLE: A METAPHOR FOR AMERICAN COMMUNITIES IN DECLINE

The life and times of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui 郭文贵 reads much like an epic play, so it is fitting that we have included with this podcast a dramatis personæ to explain the many characters in Guo’s story. Scroll to the bottom, below the recommendations, to follow along with them in order of appearance. New York Times journalists Mike Forsythe and Alexandra Stevenson have spent over a dozen hours with the turbulent tycoon at the New York City penthouse overlooking Central Park where he resides in exile, listening to his stories and carefully investigating his most scandalous claims. Mike has for years been a leading reporter on the intersection of money and power in elite Chinese politics, first at Bloomberg and then at the Times. Alex, as a reporter at the Financial Times and now the New York Times, has focused on covering hedge funds, emerging markets, and the world of finance. Are Guo’s myriad corruption allegations, which go as high as China’s anti-corruption chief, Wang Qishan 王岐山, credible? Is even Guo’s own life history verifiable? Who is he really, and why is he on this quest to unveil the shadowy world of Chinese elite politics? Mike and Alex don’t have all the answers, but they are two of the best people in the world to shed light on what is profound and what is puffery in Guo’s version of events. Recommendations: Jeremy: The Skeptics Society, a website that publishes articles to debunk pseudoscientific, health-related, and religious myths. Alex: Janesville: An American Story, by Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post. It tells how a town in Wisconsin had the General Motors plant leave in 2008, despite Obama’s promise that jobs would stay there. Mike: Betraying Big Brother, an upcoming book by his wife, Leta Hong Fincher, explains what happened to the Feminist Five and what their stories say about the rise of feminism and the control of women in China. Leta’s last book, Leftover Women: The Resurgence of Gender Inequality in China, published in 2014, was on a similar subject. Kaiser: Beasts of No Nation, a Netflix special by Cary Fukunaga based on the book of the same title by Uzodinma Iweala. The story follows the life of a child soldier in an unnamed West African country.   Dramatis personæ: To read more on Guo Wengui himself, see our narrative explainer and a compilation of more recent news on Guo from SupChina and beyond. In order of mention in the podcast: Yue Qingzhi 岳庆芝, Guo Wengui’s wife, lives in New York, according to Guo. Yet she has not been seen in public nor by Mike and Alex, even though they have spent entire days at Guo’s penthouse.  Wang Qishan 王岐山, the leader of Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign, secretary of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI). Li Keqiang 李克强, the current premier of China’s State Council, formerly a Party secretary in Henan Province where Guo claims to have met him. Wu Yi 吴仪 served in top ministerial positions negotiating trade and managing public health in the early 21st century. Guo claims to have developed a relationship with her back in Henan. Wu Guanzheng 吴官正 served as secretary for CCDI from 2002 to 2007. Ma Jian 马建, the now-jailed close associate of Guo who served as vice minister of State Security from 2006 to 2015. Liu Zhihua 刘志华, the former vice mayor of Beijing who was dismissed in 2006. Liu received a suspended death sentence for taking bribes of over 6 million yuan ($885,000) in October 2008. He Guoqiang 贺国强, the predecessor to Wang Qishan as secretary of the CCDI. Guo alleges that his son He Jintao 贺锦涛 had a financial stake in Founder Securities at the time Guo tried to muscle his way into the company (the Times has confirmed this). HNA Group, formerly Hainan Airlines, a politically connected business conglomerate that burst onto the public scene in 2016, scooping up foreign companies left and right. Hu Shuli 胡舒立, the editor-in-chief of business news and investigative outlet Caixin (disclosure: Caixin partners with SupChina on the Business Brief podcast). Li You 李友, Guo’s former business partner. In 2016, he was sentenced to four and a half years in prison and fined 750 million yuan ($110 million) for insider trading.   Yao Mingshan 姚明珊, the wife of Wang Qishan. Meng Jianzhu 孟建柱, the current secretary of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, which controls the police and security services.   Xiao Jianhua 肖建华, another billionaire tycoon who had experience dealing at the top levels of the Chinese government. Xiao was apparently abducted by Chinese authorities in Hong Kong in late January 2017 and has not been seen in public since then. Zhang Yue 张越, a former provincial Party secretary in Hebei Province. Meng Huiqing 孟会青, a now-jailed former CCDI official. Fu Zhenghua 傅政华, the deputy minister of Public Security. Yao Qing 姚庆, grandson of revolutionary and former vice premier Yao Yilin 姚依林, and nephew-in-law of Wang Qishan. Guo’s two children, his son, Mileson Kwok 郭强 (Guo’s English name is Miles!), and his daughter, Guo Mei 郭美, whom Guo claims went to New York University with Ma Jian’s daughter. A “dissident-minder from Guobao” (Ministry of Public Security 国保 guó bǎo), identified later in the podcast as Sun Lijun 孙立军, one of two people Guo claims to have met with in Washington, D.C., in late May 2017. Amanda Bennett, the director of Voice of America (VOA), which aired an interview with Guo on April 19 that Guo and some VOA journalists complained was cut short.

Today’s guest is Amy Goldstein, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Washington Post and author of Janesville, An American Story. Goldstein sits down with Gary Almeter to discuss the time she spent in Janesville, Wisconsin, issues middle class communities face when work disappears, and the resilience she witnessed firsthand during her research process. Learn more about Amy Goldstein by visiting her official website or following her on Twitter @goldsteinamy.

WisPolitics.com's Jeff Mayers talks with Amy Goldstein about her new book "Janesville: An American Story." April 25, 2017.

Amy Goldstein, Patrick Gallagher

When GM idled its plant in Janesville, Wisconsin in 2008, the town became emblematic of a crisis facing many communities in middle America. When traditional manufacturing leaves – for whatever reason – economies are turned upside down, the collective identity changes, and very often depression sets in. While it may seem outdated to some that a community will identify with a corporation, that’s just what happened for decades. Losing the plant left many in Janesville searching for a future. This week, President Trump signed an executive order to bring jobs back to towns like Janesville, but the question is -- is it too little too late? On this episode of Indivisible, host Kerri Miller talks with Amy Goldstein, author of “Janesville, An American Story,” and Linda Tirado, author of “Hand to Mouth: Living in Bootstrap America,” about the realities of the company town and what the future holds. Here's the @AliaHanna story from Buzzfeed that @KerriMPR just mentioned on #indivisibleradio: https://t.co/avchqTimnj — Jeff Jones (@JeffMPR) April 21, 2017 Here are some Tweets from this episode: Indivisible Week 13: How Do We Get America Back To Work?

Former Congressman Tom Price is our new Secretary of Health and Human Services, making him the chief law enforcement officer of health care policy in the United States. In this episode, hear highlights from his Senate confirmation hearings as we search for clues as to the Republican Party plans for repealing the Affordable Care Act. We also examine the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law in December. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD048: The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) CD123: Health or Profits Bill Outline H.R. 34: 21st Century Cures Act Bill Highlights Title I: Innovation Projects & State Response to Opioid Abuse Authorizes funding for research programs, if money is appropriated Authorizes $1 billion for grants for States to deal with the opioid abuse crisis The effects of this spending on the Pay as you Go budget will not be counted Title II: Discovery Creates privacy protections for people who participate as subjects in medical research studies Orders the Secretary of Health and Human Services to a do a review of reporting regulations for researchers in search of regulations to cut, including regulations on reporting financial conflicts of interest and research animal care. Allows contractors to collect payments on behalf of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Title III: Development Gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services additional data options for approving drug applications Expedites the review process for new "regenerative advanced therapy" drugs, which includes drugs "intended to treat, modify, reverse or cure a serious or life-threatening disease or condition" or is a therapy that involves human cells. Allows antibacterial and antifungal drugs to be approved after only being tested on a "limited population" The drugs will have have a "Limited Population" label Speeds up the FDA approval process for new medical devices that help with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions and that have no existing alternatives. Devices addressing rare diseases or conditions are allowed be approved with lower standards for effectiveness; this provision expands the definition of "rare" by doubling the number of people affected from 4,000 to 8,000. Each FDA employee involved in drug approvals will get training for how to make their reviews least burdensome. Title IV: Delivery The new Secretary of Health and Human Services will have to develop a strategy to "reduce regulatory and administrative burdens (such as doucmentation requirements) relating to the use of electronic health records" Prohibits health information technology developers from certification if their system allows information blocking. Developers, networks, or exchanges caught blocking information can be fined $1 million per violation. "Public-private partnerships" will develop the rules for exchanging health record information. Creates a job in the Medicare & Medicaid Services department for an investigator of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer complaints. Title V: Savings Reduced funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund Sells more oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Title VII: Ensuring Mental and Substance Use Disorders Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Programs Keep Pace With Technology Authorizes money to be used for mental health services and substance abuse treatment Title IX: Promoting Access to Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Care Creates a telephone and online service to help people locate mental health services and substance abuse treatment centers. Title XIV: Mental health and safe communities Creates a pilot program to test the idea of having court cases with mentally ill defendants heard in "drug or mental health courts" Title XVII: Other Medicare Provisions Prevents the government from canceling contracts with Medicare Advantage organizations due to their failure to achieve a minimum quality rating before 2019. Additional Reading Article: Trump's HHS Nominee Got A Sweetheart Deal From A Foreign Biotech Firm by Jay Hancock and Rachel Bluth, Kaiser Health News, February 13, 2017. Article: Tom Price belongs to a doctors group with unorthodox views on government and health care by Amy Goldstein, The Washington Post, February 9, 2017. Article: New stock questions plague HHS nominee Tom Price as confirmation vote nears by Jayne O'Donnell, USA Today, February 8, 2017. Article: HHS Pick Price Made 'Brazen' Stock Trades While His Committee Was Under Scrutiny by Marisa Taylor and Christina Jewett, Kaiser Health News, February 7, 2017. Article: Tom Price, Dr. Personal Enrichment by David Leonhardt, The New York Times, February 7, 2017. Article: Donald Trump's Cabinet Pick Invested in 6 Drug Companies Before Medicare Fight by Sam Frizell, TIME, January 17, 2017. Article: First on CNN: Trump's Cabinet pick invested in company, then introduced a bill to help it by Manu Raju, CNN, January 17, 2017. Publication: How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums, Congressional Budget Office, January 17, 2017. Article: Under 21st Century Cures legislation, stem cell advocates expect regulatory shortcuts by Kelly Servick, Science, December 12, 2016. Article: Highlights of Medical Device Related Provision in the 21st Century Cures Act by Jeffrey K. Shapiro and Jennifer D. Newberger, FDA Law Blog, December 8, 2016. Article: Republicans reach deal to pass Cures Act by end of year, but Democrats pushing for changes by Sheila Kaplan, STAT, November 27, 2016. Article: Introduction to Budget "Reconciliation" by David Reich and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 9, 2016. Article: PhRMA companies push hard on House bill to ease testing of new drugs by Alex Lazar, OpenSecrets.org, June 16, 2015. References Financial Disclosure: Periodic Transaction Report: Thomas Price, United States House of Representatives, September 6, 2016. OpenSecrets: Senator Mitch McConnell 42 U.S. Code: Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Cornell University Law School. Senate Vote: H.R. 34: 21st Century Cures Act Innate Immunotherapeutics:Top 20 Shareholders Innate Immunotherapeutics: Company Overview GovTrack: H.R. 4848 (114th): HIP Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Health and Human Services Secretary Confirmation, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, January 18, 2017 (Part 1) and January 24, 2017 (Part 2). Watch on CSPAN Part 1 Part 2 Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 47:45 Senator Patty Murray: I want to review the facts. You purchased stock in Innate Immunotherapeutics, a company working to develop new drugs, on four separate occasions between January 2015 and August 2016. You made the decision to purchase that stock, not a broker. Yes or no. Tom Price: That was a decision that I made, yes. Murray: You were offered an opportunity to purchase stock at a lower price than was available to the general public. Yes or no. Price: The initial purchase in January of 2015 was at the market price. The secondary purchase in June through August, September of 2016 was at a price that was available to individuals who were participating in a private-placement offering. Murray:It was lower than was available to the general public, correct? Price: I don’t know that it was. It was the same price that everybody paid for the private-placement offering. Murray: Well, Congressman Chris Collins, who sits on President-elect Trump’s transition team, is both an investor and a board member of the company. He was reportedly overheard just last week off the House floor, bragging about how he had made people millionaires from a stock tip. Congressman Price, in our meeting, you informed me that you made these purchases based on conversations with Representative Collins. Is that correct? Price: No. What I— Murray: Well, that is what you said to me in my office. Price: What I believe I said to you was that I learned of the company from Congressman Collins. Murray: What I recall our conversation was that you had a conversation with Collins and then decided to purchase the stock. Price: No, that’s not correct. Murray: Well, that is what I remember you hearing it—say—in my office. In that conversation, did Representative Collins tell you anything that could be considered “a stock tip?” Yes or no. Price: I don’t believe so, no. Murray: Well, if you’re telling me he gave you information about a company, you were offered shares in the company at prices not available to the public, you bought those shares, is that not a stock tip? Price: Well, that’s not what happened. What happened was that he mentioned—he talked about the company and the work that they were doing in trying to solve the challenge of progressive secondary multiple sclerosis which is a very debilitating disease and one that I— Murray: I’m well aware of that, but— Price: —had the opportunity to treat patients when I was in practice. Murray: I’m aware— Price: I studied the company for a period of time and felt that it had some significant merit and promise, and purchased the initial shares on the stock exchange itself. Murray: Congressman Price, I have very limited time. Let me go on. Your purchases occurred while the 21st Century Cures Act, which had several provisions that could impact drug developers like Innate Immunotherapeutics, was being negotiated, and, again, just days before you were notified to prepare for a final vote on the bill. Congressman, do you believe it is appropriate for a senior member of Congress actively involved in policymaking in the health sector to repeatedly personally invest in a drug company that could benefit from those actions? Yes or no. Price: Well, that's not what happened. 1:06:50 Senator Bernie Sanders: The United States of America is the only major country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right. Canada does it; every major country in Europe does it. Do you believe that healthcare is a right of all Americans, whether they’re rich or they’re poor? Should people, because they are Americans, be able to go to the doctor when they need to, be able to go into a hospital, because they are Americans? Tom Price: Yes. We’re a compassionate society— Sanders: No, we are not a compassionate society. In terms of our relationship to poor and working people, our record is worse than virtually any other country on earth; we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any other major country on earth; and half of our senior, older workers have nothing set aside for retirement. So I don’t think, compared to other countries, we are particularly compassionate. But my question is, in Canada, in other countries, all people have the right to get healthcare, do you believe we should move in that direction? Price: If you want to talk about other countries’ healthcare systems, there are consequences to the decisions that they’ve made just as there are consequences to the decision that we’ve made. I believe, and I look forward to working with you to make certain, that every single American has access to the highest-quality care and coverage that is possible. Sanders: “Has access to” does not mean that they are guaranteed healthcare. I have access to buying a ten-million-dollar home; I don’t have the money to do that. Price: And that’s why we believe it’s appropriate to put in place a system that gives every person the financial feasibility to be able to purchase the coverage that they want for themselves and for their family, again, not what the government forces them to buy. Sanders: Yeah, but if they don’t have any—well, it’s a long dissert. Thank you very much. Price: Thank you. 1:46:34 Senator Michael Bennet: So, I ask you, sir, are you aware that behind closed doors Republican leadership wrote into this bill that any replacement to the Affordable Care Act would be exempt from Senate rules that prohibit large increases to the deficit? Tom Price: As you may know, Senator, I stepped aside as chairman of the budget committee at the beginning of this year, and so I wasn’t involved in the writing of— Bennet: You have been the budget committee chairman during the rise of the Tea Party; you are a member of the Tea Party Caucus; you have said over and over again, as other people have, that the reason you’ve come to Washington is to reduce our deficit and reduce our debt. I assume you’re very well aware of the vehicle that is being used to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is not— Price: Yes. Bennet: —some small piece of legislation. This is the Republican budget. Price: Yes, I'm aware of the bill. Yes. Bennet: But do you support a budget that increases the debt by $10 trillion? Price: No. What I support is an opportunity to use reconciliation to address the real challenges in the Affordable Care Act and to make certain that we put in place at the same time a provision that allows us to move the healthcare system in a much better direction— Bennet: Do you support the budget that was passed by the Senate Republicans— Price: I support— Bennet:—to repeal the Affordable Care Act that adds $10 trillion of debt to the budget deficit? Price: Well, the reconciliation bill is yet to come. I support the process that allows for and provides for the fiscal year ’17 reconciliation bill to come forward. 2:38:37 Senator Chris Murphy: But do you direct your broker around ethical guidelines? Do you tell him, for instance, not to invest in companies that are directly connected to your advocacy? Because it seems like a great deal: as a broker, he can just sit back, take a look— Tom Price: She. Murphy: —at the positions that you’re taking— Price: She. She can sit back. Murphy: She can—she can sit back— Price: Yeah. Murphy: —in this case—look at the legislative positions you’re taking, and invest in companies that she thinks are going to increase in value based on your legislative activities, and you can claim separation from that because you didn’t have a conversation. Price:Well, that’s a nefarious arrangement that I’m really astounded by. The fact of the matter is that I have had no conversations with my broker about any political activity at all, other than her— Murphy: Then why wouldn’t you tell her— Price: —other than her congratulating— Murphy: Why— Price: —me on my election. Murphy: But why wouldn’t you at least tell her, “Hey, listen; stay clear of any companies that are directly affected by my legislative work”? Price: Because the agreement that we have is that she provide a diversified portfolio, which is exactly what virtually every one of you have in your investment opportunities, and make certain that in order to protect one’s assets that there’s a diversified arrangement for purchase of stocks. I knew nothing about— Murphy: But you couldn’t have— Price: —those purchases. Murphy: But you couldn’t have a diversified portfolio while staying clear of the six companies that were directly affected by your work on an issue? Price: Well, as I said, I didn’t have any knowledge of those purchases. Murphy: Okay. 2:54:20 Senator Elizabeth Warren: One of the companies—it’s the company raised by Mr. Franken, Senator Franken—and that is Zimmer Biomet. They’re one of the world’s leading manufacturers of hip and knees, and they make more money if they can charge higher prices and sell more of their products. The company knows this, and so do the stock analysts. So on March 17, 2016 you purchased stock in Zimmer Biomet. Exactly six days after you bought the stock, on March 23, 2016, you introduced a bill in the House called the Hip Act that would require HHS secretary to suspend regulations affecting the payment for hip and knee replacements. Is that correct? Tom Price: I think the BPCI program to which I think you referred I’m a strong supporter of because it keeps the decision making in the— Warren: I’m not asking you about why you support it. I’m just asking, did you buy the stock, and then did you introduce a bill that would be helpful to the companies you just bought stock in? Price: The stock was bought by a direct—by a broker who was making those decisions. I wasn’t making those decisions. Warren: Okay, so you said you weren’t making those decisions. Let me just make sure that I understand. These are your stock trades, though. They are listed under your name, right? Price: They’re made on my behalf, yes. Warren:Okay. Was the stock purchased through an index fund? Price: I don't believe so. Warren: Through a passively managed mutual fund? Price: No. It’s a broker— Warren: Through an actively managed mutual fund? Price: It’s a broker-directed account. Warren: Through a blind trust? So, let’s just be clear. This is not just a stockbroker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork. This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to buy and sell. Price: Not true. Warren: So when you found out that— Price: That’s not true, Senator. Warren: Well, because you decide not to tell them—wink, wink, nod, nod—and we’re all just supposed to believe that? Price: It’s what members of this committee, it’s the manner of which— Warren: Well, I’m not one of them. Price: —members of this committee—Well, I understand that— Warren: So, let me just keep asking about this. Price: —but it’s important to appreciate that that’s the case. Warren:Then, I want to understand. When you found out that your broker had made this trade without your knowledge, did you reprimand her? Price: What—what I did was comply— Warren: Well, you found out that she made it. Price: What I did was comply— Warren: Did you fire her? Did you sell the stock? Price: What I did was comply with the rules of the House in an ethical and legal and— Warren: I didn’t ask whether or not the rules of the House— Price: —above-board manner— Warren: —let you do this. Price: —and in a transparent way. Warren: You know, all right. So, your periodic transaction report notes that you were notified of this trade on April 4, 2016. Did you take additional actions after that date to advance[audio cuts out] the company that you now own stock in? Price: I’m offended by the insinuation, Senator. Warren: Well, let me just read what you did. You may be offended, but here’s what you did. Congressional records show that after you were personally notified of this trade, which you said you didn’t know about in advance, that you added 23 out of your bill’s 24 co-sponsors; that also after you were notified of this stock transaction, you sent a letter to CMS, calling on them to cease all current and future planned mandatory initiatives under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; and just so there was no misunderstanding about who you were trying to help, you specifically mentioned— Unknown Speaker: Your two minutes are up, Senator Warren. Thank you. Warren: —hip and knee replacement. 2:58:20 Senator Johnny Isakson: This is very important for us to all understand under the disclosure rules that we have and the way it operates, any of us could make the mistakes that are being alleged. I’m sure Senator Franken had no idea that he owned part of Philip Morris when he made the statement he made about tobacco companies, but he has a WisdomTree Equity Income Fund investment, as disclosed in his disclosure, which owns Philip Morris. So, it’s entirely possible for any of us to have somebody make an investment on our behalf and us not know where that money is invested because of the very way it works. I don’t say that to, in any way, embarrass Mr. Franken but to make a point that any one of us who have mutual funds or investment managers or people who do that, it’s entirely possible for us not to know, and to try and imply that somebody’s being obfuscating something or in otherwise denying something that’s a fact, it’s just not the fair thing to do, and I just wanted to make that point. Senator Al Franken: This is different than mutual funds. Isakson: It’s an investment in Philip Morris. Unknown Speaker: Alright. Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Warren: And my question was about what do you do after he had notice. Unknown Speaker: Senator Warren, your time has been generously… Senator Kaine. 3:21:09 Senator Tim Kaine: Do you agree with the president-elect that the replacement for the Affordable Care Act must ensure that there is insurance for everybody? Tom Price: I have stated it here and— Kaine: Right. Price: —always that it’s incredibly important that we have a system that allows for every single American to have access to the kind of coverage that they need and desire. Kaine: And he’s— 3:31:52 Senator Patty Murray: You admitted to me in our meeting that you, in your own words, talked with Congressman Collins about Innate Immuno. This inspired you to you, in your own words, study the company and then purchase its stock, and you did so without a broker. Yes or no. Tom Price: No. Murray: Without a broker. Price: I did not. Murray: You told me that you did this one on your own without the broker. Yes? Price: No, I did it through a broker. I directed the broker to purchase the stock, but I did it through a broker. Murray: You directed the broker to purchase particularly that stock. Price: That's correct. Murray: Yeah. 3:34:42 Senator Patty Murray: Will you commit to ensuring all 18 FDA-approved methods of contraception continue to be covered so that women do not have to go back to paying extra costs for birth control? Tom Price: What I will commit to and assure is that women and all Americans need to know that we believe strongly that every single American ought to have access to the kind of coverage and care that they desire and want. 3:36:38 Senator Patty Murray: The Office of Minority Health was reauthorized as part of the ACA. So will you commit to maintaining and supporting this office and its work? Tom Price: I will commit to be certain that minorities in this country are treated in a way that makes certain—makes absolutely certain—that they have access to the highest-quality care. Murray: So you will not commit to the Office of Minority Health being maintained. Price: I think it’s important that we think about the patient at the center of all this. Our commitment, my commitment, to you is to make certain that minority patients and all patients in this country have access to the highest-quality care. Murray: But in particular—so you won’t commit to the Office of Minority— Price: We—Look, there are different ways to handle things. I can’t commit to you to do something in a department that one, I’m not in—I haven’t gotten it yet— Murray: But you will be. Price: —and— Murray: You will be, and— Price: Let me put forward a possible position that I might find myself in. The individuals within the department come to me and they say, we’ve got a great idea for being able to find greater efficiencies within the department itself, and it results in merging this agency and that agency— Murray: I think—I think that— Price: —and we’ll call it something else. Murray: Yeah. I—okay. Price: And we will address the issues of minority health— Murray: I just have a minute left, and I hear your answer. Price: —in a big, big way— Murray: You’re not committed, okay. Price: —and make certain that it is responsive to patients. Part 2 14:50 Senator Ron Wyden: Congressman Price owns stock in an Australian biomedical firm called Innate Immunotherapeutics. His first stock purchase came in 2015 after consulting Representative Chris Collins, the company’s top shareholder and a member of its board. In 2016 the congressman was invited to participate in a special stock sale called a private placement. The company offered the private placement to raise funds for testing on an experimental treatment it intends to put up for FDA approval. Through this private placement, the congressman increased his stake in the company more than 500 percent. He has said he was unaware he paid a price below market value. It is hard to see how this claim passes the smell test. Company filings with the Australia’s stock exchange clearly state that this specific private placement would be made at below-market prices. The treasury department handbook on private placement states, and I will quote, they “are offered only to sophisticated investors in a nonpublic manner.” The congressman also said last week he directed the stock purchase himself, departing from what he said was typical practice. Then, there’s the matter of what was omitted from the congressman’s notarized disclosures. The congressman’s stake in Innate is more than five times larger than the figure he reported to ethic’s officials when he became a nominee. He disclosed owning less than $50,000 of Innate stock. At the time the disclosure was filed, by my calculation, his shares had a value of more than $250,000. Today his stake is valued at more than a half million dollars. Based on the math, it appears that the private placement was excluded entirely from the congressman’s financial disclosure. This company’s fortunes could be affected directly by legislation and treaties that come before the Congress. 30:49 Senator Orrin Hatch: First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Tom Price: I do not. 51:36 Senator Ron Wyden: Will you commit to not implementing the order until the replacement plan is in place? Tom Price: As I mentioned, Senator, what I commit to you and what I commit to the American people is to keep patients the center of healthcare, and what that means to me is making certain that every single American has access to affordable health coverage that will provide the highest-quality healthcare that the world can provide. 1:24:34 Senator Richard Burr: Are you covered by the STOCK Act, legislation passed by Congress that requires you and every other member to publicly disclose all sales and purchases of assets within 30 days? Tom Price: Yes, sir. Burr: Now, you’ve been accused of not providing the committee of information related to your tax and financial records that were required of you. Are there any records you have been asked to provide that you have refused to provide? Price: None whatsoever. Burr: So all of your records are in. Price: Absolutely. Burr: Now, I’ve got to ask you, does it trouble you at all that as a nominee to serve in this administration that some want to hold you to a different standard than you as a member of Congress, and I might say the same standard that they currently buy and sell and trade assets on? Does it burn you that they want to hold you to a different standard now that you’re a nominee than they are as a member? Price: Well, I—we know what’s going on here. Burr: Oh, we do. Price: I mean— Burr: We do. Price: It’s—and I understand. And as my wife tells me, I volunteered for this, so… 1:26:49 Senator Richard Burr: As the nominee and hopefully—and I think you will be—the secretary of HHS, what are the main goals of an Obamacare replacement plan? Tom Price: Main goals, as I mentioned, are outlined in those principles, that is imperative that we have a system that’s accessible for every single American; that’s affordable for every single American; that is incentivizes and provides the highest-quality healthcare that the world knows; and provides choices to patients so that they’re the ones selecting who’s treating them, when, where, and the like. So it’s complicated to do, but it’s pretty simple stuff. 1:34:58 Senator Johnny Isakson: Any one of us can take a financial disclosure—and there’s something called desperate impact, where you take two facts—one over here and one over there—to make a wrong. Any one of us could do it to disrupt or misdirect people’s thoughts on somebody. It’s been happening to you a lot because people have taken things that you have disclosed and tried to extrapolate some evil that would keep you from being secretary of HHS when, in fact, it shouldn’t be true. For example, if you go to Senator Wyden’s annual report, he owns an interest in BlackRock Floating Rate Income Fund. The major holding of that fund is Valeant Pharmaceuticals. They’re the people we jumped all over for 2700 percent increases last year in pharmaceutical products. But we’re not accusing the ranking member of being for raising pharmaceutical prices, but you could take that extrapolation out of that and then indict somebody and accuse them. Is that not true? 1:51:30 Senator Michael Bennet: I wonder whether you also believe that it’s essential that there be a floor for insurance providers. You know, some of the things that the Affordable Care Act require for coverage include outpatient care; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; prescription drugs; rehab services; lab services; preventative care, such as birth control and mammograms; pediatric services, like vaccines; routine dental exams for children younger than 19. I’m not going to ask you to go through each one of those, but directionally, are we headed to a world where people in rural America have to settle for coverage for catastrophic care; are we headed to a place where there is regulation of insurance providers that say if you are going to be an insurance market, you need—particularly if we’re in a world where your son had crossed state lines —there has to be a floor of the services you’re willing to pay for? Tom Price: I think there has to be absolutely credible coverage, and I think that it’s important that the coverage—that individuals ought to be able to purchase this coverage that they want. 1:56:45 Senator Pat Toomey: When we talk about repeal, sometimes I hear people say, well, we’ve got to keep coverage of pre-existing conditions because, you know, we’ve got to keep that. And when I hear that, I think that we’re missing something here, and here’s what I’m getting at. There’s obviously a number of Americans who suffer from chronic, expensive healthcare needs. They’ve had these conditions sometimes all their lives, sometimes for some other period of time. And for many of them the proper care for those conditions is unaffordable. I think we agree that we want to make sure those people get the healthcare they need. Now, one way to force it is to force insurance companies to provide health-insurance coverage for someone as soon as they show up, regardless of what condition they have, which is kind of like asking the property casualty company to rebuild the house after it’s burned down. But that’s only one way to deal with this, and so am I correct: is it your view that there are other perhaps more effective ways—since, after all, Obamacare’s in a collapse—to make sure that people with these pre-existing chronic conditions get the healthcare that they need at an affordable price without necessarily having the guaranteed-issue mandate in the general population? Tom Price: I think there are other options, and I think it’s important, again, to appreciate that the position that we currently find ourselves in, with policy in this nation, is that those folks, in a very short period of time, are going to have nothing because of the collapse of the market. 2:18:05 Tom Price: Every single individual ought to be able to have access to coverage. 2:29:45 Senator Tim Scott: My last question has to do with the employer-sponsored healthcare system that we’re so accustomed to in this country, that provides about 175 million Americans with their insurance. In my home state of South Carolina, of course, we have about two and a half million people covered by their employer coverage. If confirmed as HHS secretary, how would you support American employers in their effort to provide effective family health coverage in a consistent and affordable manner? Said differently, there’s been some conversation about looking for ways to decouple having health insurance through your employer. Tom Price: I think the employer system has been absolutely a remarkable success in allowing individuals to gain coverage that they otherwise might not gain. I think that preserving the employer system is imperative. That being said, I think that there may be ways in which individual employers—I’ve heard from employers who say, if you just give me an opportunity to provide my employee the kind of resources so that he or she is able to select the coverage that they want, then that makes more sense to them. And if that works from a voluntary standpoint for employers and for employees, then it may be something to look at. Scott: That would be more like the HRA approach where— Price: Exactly. Scott: —employer funds an account, and the employee chooses the health insurance, not necessarily under the umbrella of the employer specifically. Price: Exactly. And gains the same tax benefit. 2:58:00 Tom Price: What I’m for is making certain, again, that the Medicaid population has access to the highest-quality care possible, and we’ll do everything to improve that because right now so many in the Medicaid population don’t have access to the highest-quality care. 3:20:50 Tom Price: Our goal is to make certain that seniors have access to the highest-quality healthcare possible at an affordable price. Senator Bob Menendez: Well, access without the ability to afford it, and I’ll end on this— Price: That's what I said, affordable price. 3:28:45 Senator Sherrod Brown: If you and he are working together, are you going to suggest to him that we find a way in repeal and replace to make sure there is guaranteed healthcare for our nation’s veterans? Tom Price: Well, I think it’s vital, again, as I’ve mentioned before, that every single American have access to affordable coverage that’s of high quality, and that’s our goal, and that’s our commitment. 3:30:52 [regarding a disabled child coverd by Medicaid] Tom Price: We are absolutely committed to making certain that that child and every other child and every other individual in this nation has access to the highest-quality care possible. Senator Bob Casey Jr.: Okay, so not an access—he will have the medical care that he has right now or better—if you can come up with a better level of care, that’s fine—but he will have at least the coverage of Medicaid and all that that entails that he has right now. And that’s either a yes or no; that’s not— Price: No, it’s not a yes or no because the fact of the matter is that in order for the current law to change, you all have to change it— Casey: No, but here’s— Price: —and if I’m given the privilege of leading at the Department of Health and Human Services— Casey: Here’s why it’s yes— Price: and I respond to— Casey: You should stop talking around this. You have led the fight in the House, backed up by Speaker Ryan, for years— Price: To improve Medicaid. Casey: —to block grant Medicaid, okay? Price: To improve Medicaid. Casey: To block grant Medicaid. What that means is, states will have to decide whether or not this child gets the Medicaid that he deserves. That’s what happens. So you push it back to the states and hope it works out… Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

Dr. Amy Goldstein provides an update on the Mitochondrial Medicine Society.Areas of discussion include: Transplantation in Mito patientsStroke protocol for MELASStandards of care for Mito patientsCenters of Excellence and the need for community involvement/input