Podcasts about Barnard

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

On this episode, I chat with Dr. Maggie Barnard, an ortho from Nova Scotia who went from managing two large practices to creating a side business that solves one of the biggest pain points in modern orthodontics: Invisalign clinchecks. After spending years doing dozens of setups every night—not just for herself, but for her associates too—Maggie realized something: she was really good at it, and even better, she actually enjoyed it.So she launched MGC Align, a boutique clincheck service where she handles each case herself—no AI, no assistants, just another orthodontist with experience, precision, and obsessive attention to detail. In this episode, we explore her startup journey, the origin of the hilariously named “MGC Align,” her post-practice career, and what it takes to stay sharp—on and off the court (yep, she's also a competitive tennis player).Whether you're burned out by clinchecks or curious how another doctor is creating value with a side hustle, this one's a gem.QUOTES“I literally spent two hours every night doing clinchecks—for myself and all the associates. That's when I realized… this is what I want to offer others.”— Dr. Maggie Barnard“I think orthodontists forget—we're problem solvers at heart. Clinchecks are just puzzles. And I happen to love solving them.”— Dr. Maggie BarnardKey TakeawaysIntro (00:00)Maggie's origin story: from GP to ortho practice owner (02:44)Growing two big offices through mentorship and opportunity (04:19)Selling to an OSO and transitioning out (06:30)The clincheck problem: why she launched MGC Align (07:00)What makes her service unique (17:41)How she tailors setups to each doctor's preferences (18:49)Why she never uses AI or techs—just her own hands and brain (19:20)The training and CE behind her protocols (20:00)How to get started and turnaround time (22:32)Clincheck setups in 2–3 days—including revisions (23:13)Additional ResourcesIf clinchecks are eating up your nights—or causing friction in your practice—stop doing them yourself. Maggie's service, mgcalign.com, lets you hand off your setups to someone who actually enjoys the work and knows what excellent outcomes look like.

Watch the Q&A session here: https://youtu.be/v0RoRG2YA-0Why has automation anxiety – the fear that new technologies cause mass unemployment – proven wrong over the centuries? This lecture explores how technology affects the labour market. While new technologies can substitute for workers, reducing demand for their efforts at certain activities, they can also complement them, increasing demand for them to do activities that haven't been automated. Historically, people have focused on the former, harmful force and underestimated – or ignored – the latter helpful force. Today, headlines all too often make the same mistake.This lecture was recorded by Daniel Susskind on the 10th October 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonDr Daniel Susskind is a writer and economist. He explores the impact of technology, and particularly AI, on work and society. He is a Research Professor at King's College London, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University, a Digital Fellow at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, and an Associate Member of the Economics Department at Oxford University. The transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/economics-workGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham College's mission, please consider making a donation: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-today Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukX: https://x.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/greshamcollege.bsky.social TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@greshamcollegeSupport Us: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todaySupport the show

We don't talk trapping much...because there aren't many left. But retired Bemidji Area Fisheries Supervisor Gary Barnard is one of them...so we actually talk trapping today. Plus, Gary shares his thoughts on the proposed statewide 4 walleye limit and discusses key initiatives and projects during his time in the Bemidji office.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How might we change the way we – and all our leaders think – so that we never go to war? The war between Russia and Ukraine, as well as the conflict in Gaza, have galvanised thinking about, and action by, the bodies administering, the laws of war. National court processes - applying ‘universal jurisdiction' for example – may bring international war criminals to justice. Informal processes can provide material capable of developing national laws and of providing evidence to assist the formal courts. But do these processes do anything to protect from future wars?This lecture was recorded by Professor Geoffrey Nice on 21th October 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.Sir Geoffrey Nice KC has practised as a barrister since 1971.  He worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – the ICTY – between 1998 and 2006 and led the prosecution of Slobodan Milošević, former President of Serbia.Much of his work since has been connected to cases before the permanent International Criminal Court – Sudan, Kenya, Libya – or  pro bono for victims groups – Iran, Burma, North Korea – whose cases cannot get to any international court.  He works for several related NGO's and lectures and commentates in the media in various countries on international war crimes issues.  He has been a part-time judge since 1984 sitting at the Old Bailey and has sat as judge in other jurisdictions, tribunals and inquiries.  Between 2009 and 2012 he was Vice-Chair of the Bar Standards Board, the body that regulates barristers.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/whither-warGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

Discover how your diet affects memory, focus, and long-term brain health in this powerful conversation with Dr. Neal Barnard and host Chuck Carroll on The Exam Room Podcast.   Learn which foods fuel your brain — and which ones damage it. Dr. Barnard reveals the surprising truth about dairy, red meat, coconut oil, and fish oil, and shares which plant-based foods can lower your risk for Alzheimer's, dementia, and depression.   ✅ What You'll Learn: • How saturated fat and heme iron accelerate cognitive decline • The best plant-based omega-3 sources for brain performance • Why "eating the rainbow" boosts memory and mood • New research showing a vegan diet may reverse dementia • Three easy habits for seniors to sharpen memory starting today  

How often does something break that you know could be fixed, but you don't know how and there are no places to fix it? I remember repair stores all over the place, but the field doesn't exist any more. We all know about planned obsolescence and how products are designed to break. Now we feel we have to throw things away and replace them (after avoiding buying things when possible, which is far more than most of us practice).Enter Sandra Goldmark, as a member of a growing movement to fix things and make things fixable. She's also an Ivy League professor at Barnard and the Columbia Climate School, so, no, professors don't have to be out of touch.I met Sandra before the pandemic, at a shop she set up down by the South Street Seaport to repair things. Besides her own book Fixation, she was mentioned in a book (The Repair Revolution) in my sustainability leadership workshop alumni book club.Lest you think people have to be born fixers or educated as engineers, a preconception that I find still holds me back, she shares her background not growing up with those things. On the contrary, she found she enjoyed it and found community.Listen for a basic human approach to fixing things and changing culture.Sandra's home pageHer book, FixationHer page at Barnard Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

   In this episode, Scott talks with Edward Barnard about his column in PHP Architect magazine and his current series on using N8N with PHP to create reusable workflows. Links: N8N – https://n8n.io/ Beyond Prompt Engineering – https://leanpub.com/beyond-prompt-engineering Lean Startup Book – https://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous-Innovation-ebook/dp/B004J4XGN6/ displace.tech – https://displace.tech/ Our Discord – https://discord.gg/aMTxunVx Buy our shirts – […] The post Community Corner: N8N With PHP With Edward Barnard appeared first on PHP Architect.

Si siempre has estado interesado en el espacio exterior, aquí hay noticias para ti: ¡los astrónomos han encontrado recientemente un planeta potencialmente habitable! Se llama Barnard´s Star B. Tiene un poco más de 24 horas en un día, y siempre hace sol, no importa qué. En realidad, hace mucho frío allí, ¡pero las formas de vida simples pueden desarrollarse y sobrevivir en estas condiciones! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Watch the Q&A session here: https://youtu.be/3LrIEG26m78War's environmental legacies disproportionately burden the civilian populations left behind. While research focuses on combatant exposures, civilians face chronic contamination from heavy metals, chemical residues, unexploded ordnance, and asbestos, often exacerbated by disrupted infrastructure and psychological trauma. Framed through the exposome, this lecture highlights the need for greater research and policy focus on these long-term, low-level exposures and their impact on civilian health, advocating for remediation, care, and environmental justice.This lecture was recorded by Dr Ian Mudway on 14th October 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonIan is Visiting Professor of Environmental Health.He is a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at Imperial, a member of the MRC Centre for Environment and Health; MRC & Asthma UK Centre in Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma and the NIHR-PHE Health Protection Research Units in Environmental Exposures and Health and Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/toxic-warGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeThe transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

The High-Risk Sealing Expedition of the Nanina Eric J. Dolan Left for Dead: Shipwreck, Treachery, and Survival at the Edge of the World Sealing was a lucrative industry, particularly for the China market, valued for its high-quality fur seal pelts and elephant seal blubber. Charles Barnard, a veteran sealer, proposed a high-risk expedition on the brig Nanina to the Falkland Islands, which Murray and Son backed despite the impending War of 1812. Many merchant vessels remained in port, but Barnard and Murray viewed this as an opportunity to meet pent-up demand. Barnard's crew included four captains, notably diarist Barzillai Pease, and his 63-year-old, infirm father, Valentine Barnard, who was meant to captain the Nanina on its return voyage to New York laden with cargo. They departed from New York just as an embargo took effect. 1833 FALKLANDS

The Fight for the Nanina and Charles Barnard's Return to the Sea Eric J. Dolan Left for Dead: Shipwreck, Treachery, and Survival at the Edge of the World Barnard and his party survived 534 days in wretched conditions, primarily thanks to their sizable dog, Scent, who hunted wild hogs. When rescued by British whale ships and taken to Lima, Peru, Barnard regretfully gave Scent to a British whaling captain, believing the dog deserved a better life than an arduous two-year voyage home. Barnard returned home bankrupt, but Murray and Son successfully appealed the prize court's initial decision. The court ultimately sided with the Americans, awarding them the value of the brig—a ruling Danda resented for the rest of his life. Though initially vowing to quit the sea, Barnard resumed sealing and later became a port warden and light ship captain, publishing his account in 1829.

The Collapse of the Humanitarian Deal and Barnard's Abandonment Eric J. Dolan Left for Dead: Shipwreck, Treachery, and Survival at the Edge of the World Charles Barnard offered the British castaways a humanitarian deal: he would transport them to South America in exchange for salvage rights to the Isabella wreck. Although the British learned the War of 1812 had commenced, they accepted the terms. However, one of the British captains, Brooks, secured a rescue mission from Buenos Aires commanded by Lieutenant William Peter Danda aboard the HMS Nancy. Danda was driven by the prospect of personal financial gain offered by the prize system and disregarded the Americans' humanitarian assistance to British citizens. Danda seized the Nanina as a prize of war, imprisoned most of the American crew, and deliberately marooned Barnard and a hunting party who were ashore gathering food for the castaways.

How is mathematical knowledge recorded and preserved across generations? Contrary to the idea that mathematics itself is somehow ‘permanent', in this talk we will explore heritage-making in mathematics, that is the people, institutions, and material objects that can give mathematical ideas longevity. We will explore the heritage-making found in two very different types of French nineteenth-century libraries: those of famous mathematicians and those of secondary schools. We will especially focus on how the recording – and forgetting – of mathematical ideas is influenced by their publishing, political, and intellectual contexts.This lecture was recorded by Professor Caroline Ehrhardt on 8th October 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.Caroline Ehrhardt is Professor of History of Science and Deputy Director of IDHE.S at Université Paris 8 professor in history of science at the Université Paris 8 (France). Her research concerns the history of mathematics in France and Europe (1789–1914). She has published on Evariste Galois, on Galois theory and on mathematics education.Caroline is currently coordinating a collective project funded by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, entitled ‘Heritage and patrimonialisation of mathematics, 18th-20th centuries'. She also focuses on the practice of mathematics within French life insurance companies, on interactions between the mathematical and actuarial communities, and the production of mortality tables.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/heritage-mathsGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

Your thyroid could be the hidden key to your energy, mood, and metabolism. What you eat may be making or breaking it.   In this episode of The Exam Room Podcast, Chuck Carroll sits down with Dr. Neal Barnard to uncover the powerful connection between thyroid health and diet.   Discover how eating certain foods and reducing stress can help restore hormone balance, boost metabolism, and reduce inflammation. Dr. Barnard also reveals how dairy, iodine, selenium, and soy all play surprising roles in thyroid function — and what you can do starting today to protect and restore this vital gland.  

Pianist, composer, and vocalist Clay Barnard of Disney Cruise Line continues his discussion with host Brett Nachman about what it's like to play for DCL. On the last episode he shared his career origins, whereas on this episode Clay details the process of creating piano sets on the Disney ships, his interactions with guests, and more. This is the second episode of a two-part conversation with Clay. Follow Clay on Instagram (@composerclay). Hear his music on SoundCloud. Feel free to reach out to Brett via Bluesky @drnachman and Instagram @drnachman, subscribe to the podcast, and send your feedback to notablydisney@gmail.com  New episodes of Notably Disney debut on the first and third Tuesday of each month.

In this timely and insightful episode, Joe Fier sits down with SEO industry pioneer Jason Barnard, who brings 27 years of experience in search optimization to the table. As AI-driven platforms like Google, ChatGPT, and TikTok play an increasingly decisive role in how businesses are found online, the discussion dives deep into how to take real control of your digital identity, build trust with AI, and position yourself for the next era of search. Jason breaks down the importance of knowledge panels, the rise of walled gardens, and the urgent need for brands to become understandable and credible—before it's too late.Topics DiscussedThe New Age of Search: Why traditional SEO tactics are no longer enough and how AI-powered engines now guide users down the decision funnel.AI's Role in Brand Discovery: How platforms like Google, ChatGPT, and TikTok are shaping who gets found online—sometimes knowing more about your business than your own customers.Building a Walled Garden: Strategies to keep users engaged on your website and nurture them through your own content funnel, not just Google's or TikTok's.The Importance of Knowledge Panels: What they are, why they're a KPI for algorithmic understanding, and how to structure your website and online presence to earn one.Content Creation for the Future: Why up-to-date information and unique data (“information gaps”) will be more valuable than ever as AI saturates standard topics.Bot Traffic and the Bot Economy: The surprising reality of how much bot traffic comes from TikTok, Meta, Amazon, and even mysterious newcomers (like Petalbot).Protecting & Optimizing Your Content: How to use tools like Cloudflare to control which bots can access your content—balancing visibility with site performance and business goals.Action Steps for Digital Understandability: How to create an effective “About” page and build an infinite loop of self-corroboration across the web to make your brand machine-readable.Resources MentionedKalicube – https://kalicube.com/guides Jason Barnard - https://jasonbarnard.com/Google Search Results for Jason Barnard - https://www.google.com/search?q=jason+barnardCloudflare – https://www.cloudflare.com/Scott Duffy – https://scottduffy.com/Gert Mellak - https://gertmellak.com/ Connect with Joe Fier

Recorded at the BASICS Pre-Hospital Care Conference at Sketchley Grange, this episode explores one of the most experimental tools in civilian trauma care — the abdominal aortic and junctional tourniquet. Dr Ed Barnard joins us to discuss why this device was developed, how it works, and where it might — just might — save lives when all other options have failed. The conversation traces the problem of non-compressible haemorrhage, the leading cause of potentially survivable trauma death. Conventional limb tourniquets, pelvic binders and packing can't reach these deep bleeding sites. The AAJT offers a radical alternative: external aortic compression to buy a few crucial minutes until surgical control or REBOA is possible. Ed explains the mechanism — an inflatable, ratcheted belt that can occlude the aorta or major junctional vessels — and the evidence so far. Laboratory and volunteer data show that it can stop flow, but pain and tissue ischaemia make it difficult to tolerate for long. Clinical experience remains limited to small case series, mostly in military or research settings, and no human trials yet demonstrate a survival benefit. The discussion is candid about risk and realism. The AAJT is a last-resort device, to be used only within strict governance, with clear time limits and immediate plans for definitive haemorrhage control. It's not something you reach for on a normal shift — it's something you might need once in a career, and only if every other option has failed. Ed shares insights from ongoing research, including its potential role as a bridge to REBOA, and the governance frameworks that should surround any trial use. The episode ends with a look to the future: how civilian and military collaboration might refine indications, training, and data collection for this rare but potentially life-saving intervention. Surgeon Captain Ed Barnard Surgeon Captain Ed Barnard is a Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, and a Professor of Emergency Medicine with the Defence Medical Services. He also serves with East Anglian Air Ambulance as a HEMS doctor (having had many years as a BASICS responder). His academic work focuses on prehospital and military trauma care, with a portfolio spanning clinical trials, blood product innovation, and trauma system development. Ed's academic work focuses on improving survival from catastrophic bleeding, particularly non-compressible and junctional haemorrhage. He has published and presented widely on trauma resuscitation, traumatic cardiac arrest, and the evolving role of devices such as the abdominal aortic and junctional tourniquet (AAJT) and REBOA. He is a co-author of the 2025 BMJ Military Health systematic review examining the utility of the AAJT-S in military practice. He is also an experienced educator, contributing to trauma training for BASICS, HEMS, and Defence Medical Services, and continues to combine clinical work with research aimed at translating lessons from military to civilian trauma care. About BASICS: The British Association for Immediate Care (BASICS) is a UK charity uniting clinicians dedicated to pre-hospital emergency medicine. Founded in 1977, it supports regional immediate-care schemes, delivers national training, and hosts the annual BASICS Pre-Hospital Care Conference, bringing together experts in trauma, retrieval, and critical care — like this conversation with Dr Ed Barnard.

It's not every day that you can call a cruise ship as your home, but in the case of Clay Barnard, that's a reality. Clay is a pianist, composer, and vocalist who has entertained numerous guests on Disney Cruise Line. Recently host Brett Nachman had the opportunity to listen to Clay in action when sailing on the Disney Treasure in the Aristocats-themed Scat Cat Lounge, and now Clay joins Brett on Notably Disney to lead us on his incredible path to performing on a Disney vessel. This is the first of a two-part conversation with Clay. Follow Clay on Instagram (@composerclay). Feel free to reach out to Brett via Bluesky @drnachman and Instagram @drnachman, subscribe to the podcast, and send your feedback to notablydisney@gmail.com  New episodes of Notably Disney debut on the first and third Tuesday of each month.

“Scary”, “Worried”, “Dangerous” were some of the most frequent words to describe AI in a recent UK Government public survey. Do you fear, as many do, that AI will lead to us becoming second-class entities? In this first lecture, we will explore this ascendency, considering how notions of intelligence, sentience, perception, consciousness and reasoning are being framed and challenged in an AI-centred world; and surface the social, economic and ethical implications of these developments.This lecture was recorded by Professor Dominic Broomfield-McHugh on 23rd September 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.Matt Jones is a computer scientist at Swansea University - and a Fellow of the British Computer Society - who works alongside colleagues from many other disciplines and directly with everyday folk across the world to explore the future of digital technologies. Over the last 30-plus years, this human-centred approach has led to novel approaches for, amongst other things,  mobile phone-based information searching and browsing, pedestrian navigation, voice assistants and deformable displays.  The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/ai-betterGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

Charles's Return and the Fate of the Prize Guest: Eric Jay Dolin Barnard and his marooned men were eventually rescued by two British whaling ships and taken to Lima, Peru. Before starting his arduous, uncertain two-year return journey to New York, Barnard regretfully gave his beloved dog, Cent, who was critical to their survival, to a British whaling captain, believing Cent would have a better life. Barnard returned home virtually bankrupt, having signed a $5,000 bond. The "lawfare" over the Nanina eventually concluded when Murray and Son successfully appealed the prize court's initial decision favoring D'Aranda. Murray and Son received payment for the brig's value, leaving D'Aranda with nothing. Though initially vowing to quit the sea, Charles returned to sealing, later becoming a port warden, and published a book about his experiences in 1829.

Commerce, Conflict, and the High-Risk Sealing Voyage Guest: Eric Jay Dolin Left for Dead is set during the War of 1812, documenting a collision between young America and Britain in the contested Falkland Islands. The narrative begins with the highly lucrative sealing commerce, which involved gathering millions of seal skins and sea otter pelts for sale primarily in China. American sealer Charles Barnard proposed a high-risk voyage aboard the brig Nanina to Murray and Son, aiming to exploit the projected pent-up demand due to reduced competition. Despite the imminent war, they left New York Harbor just as an embargo was placed. The crew included Barnard's elderly, infirm father, Valentine, who was intended to sail the initial cargo back to New York. The presence of four experienced sealing captains among the crew, including diarist Barzillai Pease, created a potential "recipe for disaster."

Prize Greed and the Abandonment of Barnard Guest: Eric Jay Dolin Charles Barnard offered the British castaways a humanitarian deal: rescue them in exchange for salvaging the Isabella. This accord was shattered when HMS Nancy, commanded by Lieutenant William Peter D'Aranda, arrived. D'Aranda, seeking personal fame, immediately disregarded the agreement, prioritizing personal financial gain through the prize system, which was widely viewed as "semi-piracy." D'Aranda seized the Nanina as a prize and declared the Americans prisoners of war. Crucially, D'Aranda callously abandoned Barnard and four others (including three British) who were ashore hunting food for the entire group. Marooned for 534 days, Barnard's survival hinged on the help of his dog, Cent, who was vital for hunting powerful, four-tusked wild boars.

If you've ever wondered how your personal brand shows up online, you've probably focused on Google. But the game is changing. The rise of AI search means we need a new way to think about our digital presence. Getting this right is no longer just an option; it's essential for anyone looking to build, market, and monetise their expertise.In this episode, I speak with Jason Barnard about the monumental shift from traditional search to AI-assistive engine optimisation. We explore the unique opportunity this presents for experts and small businesses to take control of their narrative and build a powerful digital legacy.Here are some of the key areas we discussed:

In the shadow of quiet towns and forgotten streets, the most ordinary places hide the darkest secrets. Tonight on “Horror Hill,” host Erik Peabody invites you into the world of J.C. Barnard, where childhood dares and small missteps open doors that should never be crossed. A new shop has appeared in town, its glowing sign promising wonders within—but its bargains come at a terrible price. Once inside, there is no turning back, and every choice echoes with consequences far more sinister than anyone could imagine. Step inside, if you dare. Just remember: all purchases are final. To watch the podcast on YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://bit.ly/ChillingEntertainmentYT⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Don't forget to subscribe to the podcast for free wherever you're listening or by using this link: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/HorrorHillPodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If you like the show, telling a friend about it would be amazing! You can text, email, Tweet, or send this link to a friend: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/HorrorHillPodcast⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Most Graphic Designers think the way to get noticed is by chasing likes, posting tutorials, or following design formulas. But James Barnard has lived both sides...the viral design influencer and the working designer. And he's here to tell you the hard truth: clout doesn't pay your bills, legacy client work does.In this Live from Creative South episode of The Angry Designer Podcast, we sit down with James Barnard to talk about the future of design careers, how to win client trust, and why presenting logos is more about storytelling than style.In this episode, you'll discover:Why follower count means nothing without engagement or authorityHow to present and defend your logos so clients can't say noWhy your last impression with a client may matter more than your firstThis isn't theory. This is the real-world playbook from one of design's most trusted voices. Lessons every designer can use to turn influence into income, and content into credibility.Stay Angry our Friends –––––––––––Join Anger Management for Designers Newsletter at https://tinyurl.com/mr4bb4j3Want to see more? See uncut episodes on our YouTube channel at youtube.com/theangrydesigner Read our blog posts on our website TheAngryDesigner.comJoin in the conversation on our Instagram Instagram.com/TheAngryDesignerPodcast

This lecture looks at the evolution of Guantánamo Bay, first as a focal point of Haitian immigration in 1991 (Gitmo 1.0), to the more famous detention of terror suspects in 2002 (Gitmo 2.0), and back to immigration in 2025. We will explore how Gitmo 3.0 is probably already over, and how we were able to head it off so quickly through legal challenges. However, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the U.S. is “actively searching” for countries to accept migrants deported from the U.S., with both El Salvador and Rwanda under consideration. We will discuss how lessons from legal action around Guantánamo Bay might translate to other settings.This lecture was recorded by Clive Stafford Smith on 18th September 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.Clive is the Gresham Professor of LawHe is the founder and director of  the Justice League a non-profit human rights training centre focused on fostering the next generation of advocates.  He also teaches part time at Bristol Law School and Goldsmiths as well as running a summer programme for 35 students in Dorset, his home. He has received all kinds of awards in recognition of his work, including an OBE by Queen Elizabeth II for “services to humanity” in 2000. He has been a member of the Louisiana State Bar since 1984.The transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/guantanamoGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todayWebsite:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport Us: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todaySupport the show

If you've ever tried to lose weight, you know how challenging it can be. We are constantly looking for easy, effective ways to take off the pounds and keep them off. According to Dr. Neal Barnard, certain foods actually cause weight loss, like a weight-loss medication without a prescription. He discusses the power foods diet, which he contends results in easy weight loss, with no calorie counting and no portion limits. Dr. Barnard is an adjunct faculty member of the George Washington University School of Medicine and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, where he heads a research team investigating scientific issues in nutrition and health. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes, Power Foods for the Brain, The 21-Day Weight-Loss Kickstart, and Your Body in Balance, among many others. His new book is, The Power Foods Diet: The Breakthrough Plan That Traps, Tames, and Burns Calories for Easy and Permanent Weight Loss.

The reflection of my right hand in a mirror is a left hand that looks similar yet is very different from the right. Many natural structures such as proteins, climbing vines, and seashells exhibit the same property known as chirality. Some of these objects are clearly left-handed, some are right-handed, some are both. The ultimate origin of chirality is one of Nature's great mysteries. In this talk, I will discuss the general problem of determining the chirality of an object and how it impacts all branches of science.This lecture was recorded by Alain Goriely on 16th September  2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London.Professor Alain Goriely FRS is Gresham Professor of Geometry.He is also a mathematician known for dynamical systems, mathematical biology, and mechanics. He developed the mathematical theory of biological growth and is Director of the Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. His work spans plant tendrils, seashells, umbilical cords, brain modelling, and applied mathematics outreach.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/shape-handsGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: https://gresham.ac.uk/support/Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukTwitter:  https://twitter.com/greshamcollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeSupport the show

In this episode of NHA Today, presented by the National Health Association, our guest host is Chuck Carroll, who leads a powerful conversation with Dr. Neal Barnard, founder and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). Together, they explore the fascinating connection between plant-based nutrition, depression, and brain health. From reducing inflammation to protecting against Alzheimer's, Dr. Barnard shares groundbreaking research and practical strategies showing how what we eat can dramatically influence how we feel—both mentally and physically. Topics include:

Managing teen stress is crucial because adolescence is a formative periodmarked by significant physical, emotional, and social changes. High stress levels can negatively impact a teen's academic performance, relationships, and mental health, potentially leading to anxiety, depression, or risky behaviors. By teaching teens effective coping strategies—such as time management, mindfulness, and healthy communication—they can build resilience and develop lifelong skills for handling pressure. Supporting stress management early helps teens thrive both in the moment and as they transition into adulthood. Coach Chuck Barnard is an author (he has written 5 books), speaker, champion's mindset mentor, and a father of four. He has a master's degree in special education, is certified in Advanced Behavioral Modeling, is a Master NLP, Time-Line Therapy®, and Hypnotherapy Practitioner. Chuck has been a skier for 56 years, has walked across burning coals with Tony Robbins on three different occasions, and loves traveling. He has been a baseball player or coach for 50 years. Chuck's greatest passion is to see teenagers become champions not only on the athletic field and in the classroom, but most importantly in life. He is also the founder of Success Institutes and knownas the Champion's Mindset Mentor, and we are proud to have him as a Diplomate for The American Institute of Stress.

Planet Earth is an intricate and interconnected system, with some fundamental rules that we usually ignore. But we are part of our planet, not separate to it or just perched on top of it. This lecture will consider the two primary rules of Earth: that energy continually flows through the system (in from the Sun and then out again to space) and that matter/atoms must be continually recycled and use these to build up an outsider's view of our planet.This lecture was recorded by Helen Czerski on the 11th of September 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonDr Helen Czerski is a physicist and oceanographer with a passion for science, sport, books, creativity, hot chocolate and investigating the interesting things in life. She is an Associate Professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at University College London and her research focus is the physics of breaking waves and bubbles at the ocean surface. These bubbles change underwater sound and light, help transfer gases from ocean to atmosphere (helping the ocean breathe) and also eject ocean material into the air. She has spent months working on research ships in the Antarctic, the Pacific, the North Atlantic and the Arctic, and is an experienced field scientist. The transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/life-supportGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham College's mission, please consider making a donation: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-today Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukX: https://x.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/greshamcollege.bsky.social TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@greshamcollegeSupport Us: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todaySupport the show

A few weeks before recording this episode, Sparta Chicks Radio celebrated its 4th birthday. And there is no-one I'd rather share that celebration with than Lucy Barnard! Lucy is attempting to become the 1st woman to walk the length of the world.She set off in February 2017 from Tierra Del Fuego in Argentina to walk to Barrow, Alaska; a journey of 30,000km /20,000mi across 15 countries she anticipated would take her 5 years. Yes, years.Lucy was first on the podcast in March 2018.When I was preparing to speak to Lucy for that episode, I realised we share a unique connection; we both started our respective journeys - Lucy started walking and I published the first podcast - on the very same day in 2017.That conversation turned into our first anniversary / birthday celebration and we agreed to catch up each year for an update on her progress! This is our 4th annual episode and Lucy joins me to share how 2020 unfolded for her.

A few weeks before recording this conversation in 2022, Sparta Chicks Radio celebrated its 5th birthday. And there is no one I'd rather share that celebration with than this week's return guest, Lucy Barnard! Lucy is attempting to become the 1st woman to walk the length of the world.She set off in February 2017 from Tierra Del Fuego in Argentina to walk to Barrow, Alaska; a journey of 30,000km /20,000mi across 15 countries that she anticipated would take about 5 years. When Lucy first joined me on the podcast in March 2018, I realised we share a unique connection; we both started our respective journeys - Lucy started walking and I published the first podcast - on the very same day in 2017.That conversation turned into our first anniversary / birthday celebration and we agreed to catch up each year for an update on her progress! Needless, the pandemic has interrupted her plans again in 2021. But that wasn't going to stop us from talking - and in fact, this could be my favourite of all our conversations! It's very different from our previous conversations. In this wide-ranging conversation, we discuss everything from what happens when you're derailed or blindsided by things outside your control to identity, goal setting, values, fear, comparison, self-reflection and the power of community.------This episode also included the announcement that I was taking a sabbatical from Sparta Chicks Radio. Since then, I made the decision to close the door on my coaching and the podcast. A bittersweet decision for me - yet there is no one I would have rather ended the podcast with than Lucy. Thanks for listening and for your support over the years,With love, Jen xx

Ever since modern economic growth began three centuries ago, people have suffered from periodic bursts of anxiety about the technologies of the time taking on the work that they do. This opening lecture explores the history of ‘automation anxiety' – from the Luddites who smashed framing machines at the start of the Industrial Revolution in Britain to the protestors who set driverless cars on fire on the streets of San Francisco today. Time and again, their main worry – that there would not be enough work for people to do – turned out to be wrong. But they did have legitimate grievances as well.This lecture was recorded by Daniel Susskind on the 9th of September 2025 at Barnard's Inn Hall, LondonDr Daniel Susskind is a writer and economist. He explores the impact of technology, and particularly AI, on work and society. He is a Research Professor at King's College London, a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford University, a Digital Fellow at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, and an Associate Member of the Economics Department at Oxford University. The transcript of the lecture is available from the Gresham College website: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/automation-anxietyGresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham College's mission, please consider making a donation: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-today Website:  https://gresham.ac.ukX: https://x.com/GreshamCollegeFacebook: https://facebook.com/greshamcollegeInstagram: https://instagram.com/greshamcollegeBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/greshamcollege.bsky.social TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@greshamcollegeSupport Us: https://www.gresham.ac.uk/get-involved/support-us/make-donation/donate-todaySupport the show

Overtime with Outland is Action Catalyst host Adam Outland's reflections and commentary on discussions with each of his esteemed and accomplished guests. In this segment, Adam dissects Episode 493, with Hattingh Basson and Werner Barnard, Senior Partners at Southwestern Talent.

Hattingh Basson and Werner Barnard, Senior Partners at Southwestern Talent, explain the unique career history that spawned the business, the professional services gap that they are filling and why it exists, why offshoring isn't really offshoring anymore, how the South African people create a world-class talent pool, overcoming start-up pain points, and why sometimes the low-tech solution is the winning one.Mentioned in this episode:Learn more at SouthwesternTalent.comSouthwestern TalentLearn more at SouthwesternConsulting.com/Coaching/StudentsSouthwestern Student Coaching

10 days before recording this conversation, Sparta Chicks Radio celebrated its 3rd birthday. And there is no-one I'd rather share that celebration with than Lucy Barnard!Lucy is attempting to become the 1st woman to walk the length of the world.She set off in February 2017 from Tierra Del Fuego in Argentina to walk to Barrow, Alaska; a journey of 30,000km /20,000mi across 15 countries she anticipated would take her 5 years.Yes, years!Lucy was first on the podcast in March 2018. When I was preparing to speak to Lucy for that episode, I realised we share a unique connection; we both started our respective journeys - Lucy started walking and I published the first podcast - on the very same day in 2017.That conversation turned into our first anniversary / birthday celebration and we agreed to catch up each year for an update on her progress! This is our 3rd annual episode and Lucy shares how her expedition has unfolded over the last 12 months.

At the time of recording this conversation in 2019, Sparta Chicks Radio celebrated its 2nd birthday (or anniversary).And there is no-one I'd rather share that celebration with than this week's return guest, Lucy Barnard!Lucy is attempting to become the 1st woman to walk the length of the world.She set off in February 2017 from Ushuaia, Tierra Del Fuego in Argentina to walk all the way to Barrow, Alaska; a journey of 30,000km /20,000mi across 15 countries that will take her about 5 years.Yes, years.Lucy was first on the podcast back in March, 2018 (you can find that episode here).And in preparing to speak to Lucy for that episode, I realised we share a unique connection; we both started our respective journeys - Lucy started walking and I published the first podcast - on the very same day in 2017.That conversation turned into our first anniversary/birthday celebration and we agreed to catch up for a yearly update throughout her expedition.In this episode, we cover everything that has happened during the 2nd year of Lucy's expedition, including her experience of crossing the Atacama Desert (the oldest, driest and hottest place on Earth).

Jason Barnard is the CEO and Founder of Kalicube, a digital brand consultancy operating in France and the US. Kalicube helps business leaders, entrepreneurs, and decision-makers understand how search engines and AI platforms interpret and display online information. With over 20 years of experience in digital marketing, Jason is a serial entrepreneur, keynote speaker, and best-selling author. In this episode… AI-generated summaries and chatbot answers are quickly changing how people search, sparking debate over whether SEO is becoming obsolete.  Some business leaders fear the rise of AI will wipe out traditional strategies, while others believe the fundamentals of digital visibility remain unchanged for now. What does this massive shift mean for businesses trying to get found online? Jason Barnard, a digital brand management expert, believes you can — but only if you adapt. He shares why keyword-first SEO strategies are no longer effective and how to instead focus on expanding human knowledge through content. Jason explains how machines perceive online credibility, why citations and mentions are the new backlinks, and how companies can restructure their sites to better serve AI bots. From reducing friction for crawlers to reframing personal branding stories, Jason outlines a roadmap for digital success in the AI era. Tune in to this episode of the Smart Business Revolution Podcast as John Corcoran interviews Jason Barnard, CEO of Kalicube, about how generative AI is transforming SEO and online reputation. Jason dives into reframing brand narratives, optimizing for AI comprehension, and the importance of educating algorithms to build trust and visibility. He also shares strategies for utilizing AI as a writing partner and provides tips on minimizing technical friction on your site.

Long before the arrival of today's artificial intelligence, a different kind of AI was born with the help of NASA's Ames Research Center in California.

Randy Leavitt, whose family has been in East Barnard for 10 generations, is building an outhouse with a composting toilet outside the village church. It will be open to the public.

In Imperial Creature: Humans and Other Animals in Colonial Singapore, 1819-1942 (National University of Singapore Press, 2019), Timothy Barnard explores the more-than-human entanglements between empires and the creatures they govern. What is the relationship between the subjugation of human communities and that of animals? How did various interactions with animals enable articulations of power between diverse peoples? This book is one of the first to tackle these questions in the context of a Southeast Asian colonial city. Drawing from rich, archival material and with an attentiveness to visual sources, this study analyses the varied and messy positioning of animals in a city – as sources of protein, vectors of disease, cherished pets and impressed labor. The book's deliberate focus on everyday animals such as dogs and horses – common in growing cities worldwide at the time – connects the history of colonial Singapore to a broader urban history, addressing what modernity means in terms of human-animal relationships. In our conversation, we discuss more-than-human-imperialism, the question of animal agency, the performative aspects of animal welfare and a few exciting, related reading recommendations by the author. Faizah Zakaria is an Assistant Professor of History at Nanyang Technological University. She is completing her first monograph on dialectical relationships between landscape and religious conversions in maritime Southeast Asia. You can find her website here or on Twitter @laurelinarien Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Imperial Creature: Humans and Other Animals in Colonial Singapore, 1819-1942 (National University of Singapore Press, 2019), Timothy Barnard explores the more-than-human entanglements between empires and the creatures they govern. What is the relationship between the subjugation of human communities and that of animals? How did various interactions with animals enable articulations of power between diverse peoples? This book is one of the first to tackle these questions in the context of a Southeast Asian colonial city. Drawing from rich, archival material and with an attentiveness to visual sources, this study analyses the varied and messy positioning of animals in a city – as sources of protein, vectors of disease, cherished pets and impressed labor. The book's deliberate focus on everyday animals such as dogs and horses – common in growing cities worldwide at the time – connects the history of colonial Singapore to a broader urban history, addressing what modernity means in terms of human-animal relationships. In our conversation, we discuss more-than-human-imperialism, the question of animal agency, the performative aspects of animal welfare and a few exciting, related reading recommendations by the author. Faizah Zakaria is an Assistant Professor of History at Nanyang Technological University. She is completing her first monograph on dialectical relationships between landscape and religious conversions in maritime Southeast Asia. You can find her website here or on Twitter @laurelinarien Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

This is a re-release of the legendary interview by Michael Barnard of Pr Bent Flyvbjerg on our sister show ”Redefining Energy Tech” Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, an expert on megaprojects and author of How Big Things Get Done, shares insights from a database of over 16,000 projects, revealing that 99.5% fail to meet expectations in budget, timeline, or benefits.He stresses the value of learning from successful projects, especially in renewable energy, where solar, wind, and transmission projects outperform nuclear power, which suffers from regulatory hurdles and skill shortages.Flyvbjerg introduces key concepts like modularity, repeatability, and the “window of doom”—the critical early phase when delays can derail projects. He contrasts fast, modular successes like the Tesla Gigafactory with slow, complex projects like nuclear plants and the Olympics.The episode also compares pumped hydro and battery storage, highlighting the role of risk management, stakeholder alignment, and using data-based heuristics to guide project decisions. Listeners are encouraged to understand base rates, study variance charts (especially Chapter 9 of Flyvbjerg's book), and develop their own heuristics for better megaproject outcomes.

Barnard 68 is one of the darkest objects in our section of the galaxy. It’s a small cloud that absorbs the light of the stars behind it, so it looks like a dark “hole” in the Milky Way. Before long, though, that void may shine with the warmth of newly forming stars. Barnard 68 is a Bok globule – a small, dark sphere of gas and dust. It’s about 500 light-years away, half a light-year wide, and about three times the mass of the Sun. It’s part of a complex of dark clouds that stands in front of the glowing band of the Milky Way. Barnard 68 is so dark because it’s quite cold – temperatures at its center are close to absolute zero. But that may be about to change. The globule has been stable for millions of years. But there’s evidence that it’s recently been hit by a cosmic “bullet” – a smaller clump of gas and dust. That appears to be causing Barnard 68 to collapse. As it collapses, the cloud will get denser and hotter, and perhaps split into several smaller clumps. Within a few hundred thousand years, the clumps could be well on their way to becoming new stars – glowing balls of gas born from a dark “hole” in the Milky Way. Barnard 68 is in Ophiuchus, the serpent bearer, which is in the southern sky at nightfall. The Milky Way runs through a corner of the constellation. Several clouds darken the Milky Way – birthplaces of future stars. Script by Damond Benningfield

The brutal abuse and murder of 3-year-old Emily Barnard Thank you to Whitney for suggesting this week's story. It's listeners like YOU that keep the podcast going. To suggest a story you want more attention brought to, please email, DM or comment in the suggestion post in the Facebook group. Discuss this episode in the Stolen Lives Facebook discussion group Share this episode on your social media of choice and subscribe on your favourite podcast app. Facebook /stolenlivespodcast Instagram /stolen_lives_podcast Email stolenlivespodcast@gmail.com Research and script writing by Ali Hosting and production by Ali Music by Myuu    

Saturated fat -- not eggs -- is the key culprit behind high LDL cholesterol, which can lead to cardiovascular disease And in fact, a diet low in saturated fat and high in dietary cholesterol, such as that found in eggs, can lower blood cholesterol levels. This -- according to a new study from researchers at the University of South Australia.   But what are we to make of this study, which received funding from an offshoot of the American Egg Board, an organization focused on marketing and promoting eggs?   Dr. Neal Barnard joins Chuck Carroll on this episode of The Exam Room to tell us what he makes of these findings, and to answer your questions about saturated fats, dietary cholesterol and eggs.   In this episode of The Exam Room, you'll learn:   - Whether eggs raise cholesterol for everyone - Whether eggs egg whites and free-range eggs are healthier options - Dr. Barnard's favorite egg substitutes - Whether eggs or meat and dairy have a greater impact on cholesterol - How many eggs are safe to eat per week - How saturated fat influences cholesterol absorption - How quickly eggs can raise cholesterol - Genetic factors that influence cholesterol   This episode is sponsored by The Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund, which supports organizations like the Physicians Committee that carry on Greg's passion and love for animals through rescue efforts, veganism, and wildlife conservation.   — — SHOW LINKS — — Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund https://gregoryreiterfund.org — — — Shelfy Refrigerator Purifier https://vitesy.com/shelfy — — — Egg Cholesterol Study https://bit.ly/eggstudy2025 — — EVENTS — — International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine Where: Washington, DC When: August 14-16, 2025 Tix & Speakers: https://www.pcrm.org/icnm Use code NUTRITION50 to save $50 — — — Fit Vegan Workshop Where: Vancouver, BC, Canada When: Sept. 20-21, 2025 Tix: https://fitvegancoaching.com/vancouver-2025 Use code CHUCK to save $112 — — — Wellness Weekend Where: Canaan Valley Resort - Davis, WV When: Sept. 26-27, 2025 Tix & Speakers: https://www.brendaworkmanspeaks.com/wellness-weekend   — —EXAM ROOM — — Newsletter: https://www.pcrm.org/examroomvip Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theexamroompodcast — — — Dr. Neal Barnard Books: https://amzn.to/3HhVlrF Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drnealbarnard Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NealBarnardMD X: https://x.com/DrNealBarnard — — — Chuck Carroll Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ChuckCarrollWLC Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ChuckCarrollWLC X: https://www.twitter.com/ChuckCarrollWLC — — — Physicians Committee Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/physicianscommittee Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PCRM.org X: https://www.twitter.com/pcrm YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/PCRM Jobs: https://www.pcrm.org/careers — — SUBSCRIBE & SHARE — — 5-Star Success: Share Your Story Apple: https://apple.co/2JXBkpy​​ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2pMLoY3 — — — Please subscribe and give the show a 5-star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or many other podcast providers. Don't forget to share it with a friend for inspiration!

Are processed foods unhealthy? A new study suggests we're divided on how to answer that question.   Dr. Neal Barnard of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is one of the authors of that study.   He joins Chuck Carroll on The Exam Room to dive into the results -- and why it matters that Americans are so conflicted about which class of foods are healthy, and which will make you sick.   Dr. Barnard will review the most purchased processed foods and identify which are the most and least healthy.   He will also go over the results of a PCRM survey showing Americans' opinions on processed foods. Many are unaware that the majority of food that they're eating is ultra processed. But not all processed foods are created equally.   This episode is sponsored by The Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund, which supports organizations like the Physicians Committee that carry on Greg's passion and love for animals through rescue efforts, veganism, and wildlife conservation.   — — SHOW LINKS — — Processed Foods Survey https://bit.ly/procfoodsurvey — — — Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund https://gregoryreiterfund.org — — EVENTS — — International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine Where: Washington, DC When: August 14-16, 2025 Tix & Speakers: https://www.pcrm.org/icnm — — — Wellness Weekend Where: Canaan Valley Resort - Davis, WV When: Sept. 26-27, 2025 Tix & Speakers: https://www.brendaworkmanspeaks.com/wellness-weekend — —EXAM ROOM NEWSLETTER — — Sign up: https://www.pcrm.org/examroomvip — — THIS IS US — — The Exam Room Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theexamroompodcast — — — Chuck Carroll Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ChuckCarrollWLC Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ChuckCarrollWLC X: https://www.twitter.com/ChuckCarrollWLC — — — Physicians Committee Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/physicianscommittee Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PCRM.org X: https://www.twitter.com/pcrm YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/PCRM Jobs: https://www.pcrm.org/careers — — SUBSCRIBE & SHARE — — 5-Star Success: Share Your Story Apple: https://apple.co/2JXBkpy​​ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2pMLoY3 — — — Please subscribe and give the show a 5-star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or many other podcast providers. Don't forget to share it with a friend for inspiration!  

New research reveals that what you eat during the day directly impacts how well you sleep at night — and it's not what you think.   Dr. Neal Barnard breaks down a new study showing that fruits, vegetables, and complex carbohydrates can significantly improve sleep quality, while high-protein diets, red meat, and even that “harmless” evening glass of wine may leave you feeling exhausted.   In this episode of The Exam Room with Chuck Carroll, you'll learn:   - The best foods for a good night's sleep - The top foods for natural melatonin production - What NOT to eat before bed (including some surprising ones) - Dr. Barnard's 5 research-backed rules for better sleep - Whether sugar is really the enemy of a good night's sleep   This episode is sponsored by The Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund, which supports organizations like the Physicians Committee that carry on Greg's passion and love for animals through rescue efforts, veganism, and wildlife conservation.   — — SHOW LINKS — — Support PCRM https://www.pcrm.org/match All donations doubled through July 10 up to $500,000 — — — Fruit & Veg Sleep Study https://bit.ly/FruitVegSleep — — — Gregory J. Reiter Memorial Fund https://gregoryreiterfund.org — — EVENTS — — International Conference on Nutrition in Medicine Where: Washington, DC When: August 14-16, 2025 Tix & Speakers: https://www.pcrm.org/icnm — — BECOME AN EXAM ROOM VIP — — Sign up: https://www.pcrm.org/examroomvip — — THIS IS US — — The Exam Room Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theexamroompodcast — — — Chuck Carroll Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ChuckCarrollWLC Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ChuckCarrollWLC X: https://www.twitter.com/ChuckCarrollWLC — — — Physicians Committee Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/physicianscommittee Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PCRM.org X: https://www.twitter.com/pcrm YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/PCRM Jobs: https://www.pcrm.org/careers — — SUBSCRIBE & SHARE — — 5-Star Success: Share Your Story Apple: https://apple.co/2JXBkpy​​ Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2pMLoY3 — — — Please subscribe and give the show a 5-star rating on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or many other podcast providers. Don't forget to share it with a friend for inspiration!