Podcasts about beez

Want to request a song? Tell us your rating? Send us a Text Message right now! This week the boys dive into “Beez in the Trap” by Nicki Minaj and 2 Chainz — a track that somehow manages to be about money, slang, drug spots, and absolutely zero bees. And yet we spend half the episode talking about bees anyway.Chibs tries to decode the meaning of “I bees in the trap,” Gav has a full meltdown about the song never dropping a proper beat, Bevo accidentally turns into an apiarist, and Dan goes deep on what the hell is on your biscuit. We question geography verses, the clickiest finger snaps in hip-hop history, and whether 2 Chainz actually knows what a Lexus is.There's net worth chaos, setlist shock, and one of the most unhinged YouTube comment sections we've ever found.Another absolute fever dream of an episode. Enjoy.DUBBY DUBBY is declaring WAR on big Energy! Use the promo code "1001songs" at checkout for 10% off! Buzzsprout - Let's get your podcast launched!Start for FREEBlessington Support the podcast when you buy a Blessington watch! Use the promo code “1001songs” at checkout. DUBBYDUBBY is declaring WAR on big Energy! Use the promo code "1001songs" at checkout for 10% off! Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showFollow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/1001songsthatmakeyouwanttodie/Follow us on TikTok: @the1001crew

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

On this week's episode Dena and Catalina catch up quickly before turning to the latest trends gracing their FYPs. Dena continues to get Group 7 and Group 7 inspired content from @simply_krys86 and @evarosemusic as well as soup season videos (@sweatsmcapeman), a bean soup theory from @mckennaraygilmer, and Halloween content from @stoopandthecity. Catalina shares a video about bird theory (@totalmomfriend), @hayleepagemusic's monster mash, and an excellent summation of the new Lily Allen album from @james_jelin. @patrickrenna, @almayduh, and @countessluann participate in the Beez in the trap audio trend and the content creator of the week is @alexwhoisalex. They close with @mattplaysspiritisland's perfect idea for a season of Traitors featuring NYC mayoral candidates.    Check out all the videos we mention and more on our blog (2old4tiktok.com), Instagram (@2old4tiktokpod), and TikTok (@2old4tiktok_podcast). 

Beez. Enough said. Okay, well, it should be enough, but you deserve a real description. This week, we were joined by New Mexico United legend Chris Wehan. Nothing was off limits in our discussion about his time with the club and the time after. This one means a lot to us, and we hope it does to you, too. Recorded LIVE on Tuesday, August 26. Find out more at https://somosmas.pinecast.co

The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 4 features: 1.Ask BMitch Anything 2.Beez joins the show 3.Heard It Here First

The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 1 features: 1.Last Nights's Sports Recap 2.Charles Mann On The Commanders Return To DC 3.Hurricanes Name Game The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 2 features: 1.Talking Commanders With PFT Commenter 2.Is The Commanders' Wide Receiver Depth Enough 3.Which DC Sports Team Had The Best Season The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 3 features: 1.Talking NBA With Chris Miles 2.What are the Commanders biggest post draft roster hole. 3.Would you want to go get Jalen Ramsey The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 4 features: 1.Ask BMitch Anything 2.Beez joins the show 3.Heard It Here First

PGA caddy and co-founder of Trap Golf, Wayne Birch joins us this week to talk golf, life, and to teach us what it really means to be in the trap...

The Headbangers Vault along with special guest, the Bones discuss one of the most underrated bands of the late 80's who never got the recognition they deserved, Sleeze Beez.

The episode explores the themes of renewal and transformation as Richard and Jean Bernard reflect on the significance of the New Year. They emphasize the importance of embracing one's new identity in Christ, moving beyond past burdens, and celebrating the potential for growth in the year ahead.• Reflecting on personal New Year's experiences and celebrations• The emotional weight of Auld Lang Syne and other traditions• Understanding the concept of being a new creation in Christ• The impact of biblical teachings on personal transformation• Emphasizing the importance of practical steps to live from renewal• Encouragement to embrace the new identity in 2025Revisit your identity in Christ, and step boldly into the new year!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!! And Happy Friday!!! Join us this week as it's a special edition with some very special things to talk about, we get you all caught up with the stats and leaders plus set you up for the weekend and Christmas Week plus a Top list in the Meat and so so much more it's the Best Breakfast Wrestling & Sports Podcast on your Fridays it's the Eeez N Beez Podcast!!Support the show

Working and Staying in Japan Illegally Interview: Lost Without Japan Season 4 Episdoe 2 (Explicit) Welcome to a very special episode of Lost Without Japan, in which we sit down with Jim and discuss how he ended up working and living illegally in Japan. Website: https://www.hokkaidonaturetours.com/  Email: hokkaidonaturetours@gmail.com  Beez.Neez (Sam's Youtube) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WKE65eUKR8&list=LL&index=11  Lost Without Japan Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/lostwithoutjapan/  Please Consider Kindly Supporting Our Crowd Funded Show By Supporting Us Through Our Shows Patreon: https://patreon.com/lostwithoutjapanpodcast?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator As always, the link to our shows Google Resource doc can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WEVbRmvn8jzxOZPDaypl3UAjxbs1OOSWSftFW1BYXpI/edit#

Talk about the Jahan Dotson trade dominates today's show but there's also some great guests including Steve Palazzolo of the Check The Mic Podcast, "The Rooster" Chris Russell and Craig Hoffman (plus Beez calls in with his MLB picks!). Jeff and BMitch are out, Metal Chris is in with a slew of technical problems, and the phones are red hot!

Hour 3: Steve Palazzolo joins the show to talk about the Dotson trade and then "The Rooster" Chris Russell stops by the studio to talk to JP about Dotson and other Commanders headlines. Finally Beez calls in with his baseball picks for this weekend.

On this week's trip through the Mind of the Meanie, The Blue Meanie and Adam Barnard talk Meanie's unwanted guests in his siding, the passing of Afa from the Wild Samoans, Jesse Ventura, AJ Francis vs. MuscleManMalcolm, Jacob Fatu, plus another installment of #AskMeanie on the first episode broadcasting on One True Sport!Mind of the Meanie is an official Brand Partner of WWE Shop! Click this link here to shop WWE Shop and support your favorite WWE Superstar today: https://wwe-shop.sjv.io/eK26drGet 25% OFF your entire order using promo code MEANIE at GreenRoads.com - Own The Day with Green Roads CBD and Wellness Products!It's Collar and Elbow - The WRESTLING brand! Use #COLLARxELBOW coupon code MIND to get 10% off these awesome @COLLARxELBOW shirts!Take control of your physical AND mental health well-being today by signing up for The Feinberg Method - consultations are free! Use promo code GOOBER and get 20% off your order when you sign up for a program with Brad Feinberg.For more information and exclusive updates, follow Mind of the Meanie on Social Media.Website | Facebook | Twitter | InstagramBECOME AN OFFICIAL POD SQUAD MEMBER: www.Patreon.com/mindofthemeanie About The Blue Meanie:Since 1994, Brian Heffron, known to wrestling fans as "The Blue Meanie", has been one of the most fun loving and mischievous characters in wrestling. He's been in ECW, WWE, various independent wrestling promotions and several independent films. He is perhaps best known for his comedy and wrestling parodies with the bWo, KISS, Col. DeMeanie, Sir Meanie, The Fabulous Ones and BlueDust. Now, he meaniesaults into the world of streaming audio, sharing his experiences in and out of the ring as well as his views on the world of professional wrestling and anything else he is passionate about.About Adam Barnard:Adam Barnard is a photographer, podcaster, and an award winning writer from Downingtown, PA. Since 2019, he has hosted Foundation Radio, a weekly podcast series with new episodes every Tuesday, focusing on in depth conversations and interviews. Now, Adam brings his unique perspective and incredibly dry sense of humor to Mind of the Meanie each week.Hosts/Executive Producers: The Blue Meanie and Adam BarnardEngineer: Carl PannellExecutive Voice: Sam KreppsIntro music: Swamp CandlesOutro music: ChikaraMusical Accompaniment: EnrichmentA Butts Carlton Media Production. Butts Carlton, Proprietor.

Beez and Caryn courageously share their journey from the depths of a sexless marriage to discovering their true worth and identity through the love of Jesus Christ. Their heartfelt stories and experiences provide a beacon of hope and encouragement, shedding light on how understanding God's love can dismantle feelings of inadequacy. Join us as we revisit their transformative journey and explore the profound impact of embracing your identity as a cherished child of God.Bernard opens up about a traumatic childhood experience of sexual abuse over the phone and its lasting effects on his physical intimacy with Caryn. Through the rawness of his prayers and the healing journey through EMDR therapy, we delve into the powerful intersection of faith, therapy, and personal growth. Bernard's story highlights the breakthroughs achieved and the inner conflict between faith and trauma, offering listeners a deeper understanding of the healing process and the role of divine intervention.From unexpected pregnancies to dealing with miscarriage and personal losses, this episode is a testament to resilience and the transformative power of faith. Bernard and Karen's journey through adversity, supported by their church community and friends, showcases the importance of trusting God's provision and timing. We also invite you to join our Wednesday morning Bible study group, where we dive deep into the book of Romans, fostering a sense of community and shared learning. Tune in for an inspiring episode filled with hope, healing, and the enduring impact of the gospel.0:00 - From Death to Life9:36 - Healing Journey Through EMDR Therapy18:43 - Transformation Through Healing and Faith27:53 - Journey Through Healing and Restoration34:34 - Navigating Spiritual Growth Through Adversity47:06 - Trusting God Through Life's Challenges52:44 - Embracing the Parenthood Journey With Faith1:01:12 - Journey Through Pregnancy Loss1:06:19 - Hope and Healing Through Trials

Barstool talk from the biggest sipper in Philly with some of the most innovate people in the world, Sammie is the one to sit and sip wit if you wanna enjoy conversation. 00:00 TRAILERS 00:40 INTROS 03:00 COMING HOME IN 2014 05:45 TOUCH MONEY 07:00 BEEZ & KABOOM 09:00 BECOMING AN A/R 11:00 TOP CLASS & TOUCH MONEY 15:00 DVD ERA 17:15 THEY PULLED UP 18:00 FROM THE MUSCLE DVD 19:45 THE TALENT SCOUT 26:00 FIND AN OL' HEAD 32:00 STAY GROUNDED 34:00 BATTLE RAP MEDIA 37:30 STEAM MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MONEY 40:00 VIDEO GAMES 44:00 GIVING BACK 46:45 PHILLY FOLKS TO WATCH FOR 51:00 ADAPTING 55:00 ALL EYES ON PHILLY 1:04:00 OUTROS @TOUCHMONEYNATV @TOUCHMONEYNA IG: @sippinwitsammie Join the discord: https://discord.com/invite/RqwUmApa?fbclid=IwAR2T4lGoXtLv6N4WgZZ5ZIq72Z6J2v3yyV4vv6-aSwBbaDJURERsCjPthJk #sippinwitsammie #letstalkaboutit #hiphop #phillyhiphop #phillyentertainment #phillymusic --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sippinwitsammie/support

Today, Jay is joined by Beez, a seasoned entrepreneur and investor, to explore a spectrum of strategies for financial growth and independence.  In this episode, they delve into leveraging buyouts and acquiring businesses to generate cash flow, highlighting a mindset shift from sole ownership to collaborative partnerships as a path to wealth creation. Beez also shares insights on finding compatible partners for success and using media services to scale businesses effectively across diverse industries, including oil and gas.  Tune in as Jay and Beez exchange valuable perspectives on entrepreneurship and the pursuit of both monetary success and personal freedom. EPISODE HIGHLIGHTS - On leveraging buyouts and acquiring businesses with cash flow - Mindset shift: From owning everything to acquiring a percentage of businesses - Wealth creation strategies and financial independence  - On finding a compatible partner for success  - Utilizing media services to grow business - Entrepreneurship and making money in various industries  - Investment strategy (such as in oil and gas) and ways to reduce business risks QUOTABLES  “My ultimate goal is having the money. My ultimate goal is just having time.” - Beez  “It doesn't matter which level you are – One thing to keep money is [through] your insurance policy. A lot of times, people feel that insurance policy is just somebody will get the money.” - Beez  “A jack of all trades is a master of many, but oftentimes better than a master of none, right? That's what the actual coach is. And in my business, I don't need to be the master of the finances. I don't need to be the master of the marketing. I don't need to be the master of the sales team. - Beez  RESOURCES Jay Monopoly  IG | @jay.monopoly 

Mike Beezley from MGM National Harbor shares his best bets for the US Open.

Hour 3 Features:  What are the worst sports team names? Beez calls in with his picks for the weekend The Rooster steps in and is quizzed on various state trivia

Mike Beezley calls in to give BMitch and Finlay his picks for this weekend.

Mike Beezley from MGM calls in with some winners for your Memorial Day weekend.

This is an unofficial podcast about Veefriends Compete & Collect Gameplay. On this show, we're diving deep into the immersive universe of Veefriends Compete & Collect, exploring gameplay strategies, existing gameplay mechanics, and uncovering those hidden rule suggestions that can give you the edge you need. Whether you're a seasoned C&C competitor or a hobbyist looking to enhance your skills, this podcast is for you!We'll be tapping into the expertise of fellow C&C enthusiasts and top-tier competitors, who will share their invaluable deck-building strategies, tactics, and insights. You'll learn the secrets to outwitting your opponents and achieving victory.But that's not all - stay tuned as we bring you the latest updates on Veefriends Compete & Collect TCG sales from EBAY and other cool news from the world of Veefriends. This podcast is your one-stop shop for all things C&C, and we promise to keep you in the loop with everything happening in this ever-evolving universe.So grab your cards, put on your thinking caps, and join us at Ron's Roundtable as we embark on this epic adventure of Veefriends Compete & Collect Gameplay! Don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform to stay updated with each exciting episode. Until next time, may your strategies be sharp and your decks ever victorious!The new Trading Card Game or "TCG" captivated us all at the National Sports Card Conference in Chicago 2023. The Veefriends Compete & Collect Zerocool Cards came out in 2022 as a free gift for all Veefriends Series 2 NFT Holders. This was the first time an NFT granted a physical gift to its holders like this in the history of the blockchain.Brett's X: https://twitter.com/brett_devitoVeefriends: https://veefriends.com/tcgVeefriends Vending: https://vending.veefriends.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

JP and Beez try to find the best named horse in the Kentucky Derby

On today's 4-30-24 Tuesday show: Gypsy Rose is back with her ex, Graham exposes the ladies for not tipping their hairstylist appropriately, Revolve is creating some controversy for the million followers entry to an after party, Diddy claims he can't be sued for a specific reason, Drake has taken down is Tupac AI diss track, another edition of ‘What the Bleep', Travis Kelce is the highest paid tight end in the NFL, Jason Kelce got a new gig as a broadcaster, a woman in Oakland got her bees stolen, we debate if we gave Britney Spears too much freedom, Kendrick Lamar has officially responded to Drake's diss, and so much more!  

On this episode of ClockingOut Podcast we sit down with Brett, a rising star in the Vee Friends community and passionate live streamer. Brett shares his journey into live streaming, his inspirations, and his exciting plans within the Vee Friends universe. Discover what drives Brett's creativity and learn about his current plans aimed at making a splash in the Vee Friends community ! Brett also shares valuable insights into community engagement and offers advice for aspiring creators looking to break into the world of content creation. Whether you're a fan of Vee Friends or interested in the art of live streaming, this episode offers a fascinating glimpse into Brett's ambitions and strategies for success. Tune in and be inspired by Brett's passion for content creation in the Vee Friends space! Instagram: @the_beez1976  Twitter / X : @brett_devito  Twitch: https://twitch.tv/thebeez1976 Be sure to follow and subscribe to ClockingOut Podcast !

Hour 3 - 00:00 - 12 Best Fast Food Restaurants 20:00 - Masters Update 29:11 - Masters Picks With Beez

Mike Beezley from MGM calls in with his Masters picks

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Commanders Talk With John Keim 20:47 - Sweet 16 Picks For Tonight 31:48 - Nats Futures With Beez

“Funding Your Business Acquisitions Xposed”Welcome to the EntrepreneurshipXposed Podcast with Beez (IG: @BusinessBuilderBeez) where we Xpose the ins and outs of Entrepreneurship.....with a twist of Business Acquisitions!In today's Episode, It's discusses the process of funding business acquisitions. The Beez & Donte McGaughy (@donte_mcgaughy)  talk about their own experiences and provide insights into different strategies for acquiring businesses, such as leveraging assets, raising equity, and seller financing. They emphasize the importance of industry experience and creative deal structuring. The video highlights the potential for acquiring businesses from retiring Baby Boomers and the significant transfer of wealth that is occurring. The speakers also mention the need to analyze multiple deals and engage in numerous conversations before finalizing an acquisition.

Almighty Suspect, Poetik Flakko & Dejon Paul break down the latest music, headlines, beefs & more... Follow Almighty Suspect   / almightysuspect__   Follow Poetik Flakko   / poetikflakko   Follow Dejon Paul   / dejonpaul_   --- 0:00 - Intro 0:03 - Mickey truth, the queen of paperwork, Flakko says they've met on Clubhouse, Flakko says Wack said that Mickey is the new 1090 2:10 - Flakko says 1090 proved that even if the rapper is a nobody if you expose them for snitching your going to do numbers, cites 1090's King Yella video 5:29 - Mickey says FBG butta is her biggest OP 7:30 - Flakko says the people are sick and tired of the Chicago interviewers 8:20 - FBG made 10k from the Vlad interview, Riemoh doesn't think Vlad is paying everybody 10k 9:55 - King Yella did a Vlad interview recently, Flakko says Riemoh took DJ U's wave now Vlad is taking Riemoh's wave, Flakko explains why he doesn't f*** with Dj U 13:03 - Flakko went to Figgmunity world Friday, Flakko says TRell sold the stream as it wouldn't be a bash session 14:12 - Flakko says Duh BOF Reunion episode was a F NJ Session 15:10 - Flakko was asked by TRell if he's reached his ceiling at NJ 18:58 - Flakko says he doesn't want to have a BET job or be on TV or care to be a socialite 21:41 - Riemoh brings up the mole that Gina talked about that was sending her screenshots of the NJ group chat after she left 22:36 - Almighty says he couldn't have going to BOF reunion episode because he couldn't dodge questions like Flakko 24:17 - Flakko ask if he's a b**** a** n*gga for going on BOF, Riemoh says Flakko threw Dejonl under the bus 31:20 - AD says he doesn't want to invite Riemoh to Figgmunity because he's leaving him out the drama 35:00 - Flakko calls for Justice for Mackwop, says Keem took Mackwop's spot as a figgmunity higher up 37:51 - Flakko says BOF and Keem have a silent beef over Heather and Covid episode and Keem hasn't been back on since 40:03 - Almighty says Friday's NJ show with Compa Raidher and Beez was the worst podcast ever 45:58 - Flakko says it's weird that Company Raidher is a multi millionaire but it's getting so drunk at NJ 47:03 - Superchats 48:40 - Flakko says Beez is funnier than Dave Chappelle 51:31 - Riemoh went live on IG with Tay savage, Rico reckless and more 53:24 - Riley & Yuri 1:06:46 - Guys play Clip of Yuriy finding video of Riley on Youtube 1:18:06 - Guys watch clip of Yuri vs Riley argument over old Youtube video he was sent, guys say the clip is a mild clip considering Yuri's streams 1:32:58 - Dejon vs Flakko 40yd dash race, Flakko says Dejon got sick after getting on elliptical bike earlier today 1:38:57 - Diddy's Miami and LA homes were raided 1:45:46 - Flakko says Diddy's jet was grounded in Antigua after it was headed to Cape verde 1:49:30 - Almight's lawyer gets on the phone to confirm that flying a woman is legal or npt Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Beezley from MGM calls in with some weekend winners

Mike Beezley calls in with his weekend picks

Hour 4 - 00:00 - Ask BMitch Anything 15:49 - Weekend Winners With Beez 28:45 - Heard It Here First

Michael Beezley from MGM is betting on Joe Gibbs in the Daytona 500

NEW ZEALAND! The Land of the Long White Cloud! WE MADE IT!!! This was one of the Smugglers most exciting and fulfulling touring destinations in our many years on the road and in the air. Shows were packed, songs were shouted, Kiwi friends and lovers made. All this even though Beez barely made it into the country despite our endless internal crossing-borders training. 

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Torrey Smith on NFL Championship Weekend 19:03 - How Close Are The Commanders To Hiring Ben Johnson? 30:53 - Weekend Winners With Beez

Mike Beezley from MGM calls in with his weekend picks

Beez tries to end the NFL regular season on a hot streak

Today's guest is Liz Simmie, co-founder Honeytree Investment Management, which recently launched an actively managed, ESG-focused ETF, BEEZ.  In today's episode, Liz dives into the strategy of BEEZ, which focuses on responsibly growing companies that are stakeholder governed, purpose driven, and make a net positive impact on the world. Then she shares some hot takes on the state of both ESG and active management.  As we wind down, Liz talks about the process of launching an ETF with our friends at Alpha Architect and shares advice for anyone thinking about launching one themselves.  ----- Follow Meb on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube For detailed show notes, click here To learn more about our funds and follow us, subscribe to our mailing list or visit us at cambriainvestments.com ----- Sponsor: Today's episode is sponsored by The Idea Farm. The Idea Farm gives you access to over $100,000 worth of investing research, the kind usually read by only the world's largest institutions, funds, and money managers. Subscribe for free here. Follow The Idea Farm: Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | Tik Tok ----- Interested in sponsoring the show? Email us at Feedback@TheMebFaberShow.com ----- Past guests include Ed Thorp, Richard Thaler, Jeremy Grantham, Joel Greenblatt, Campbell Harvey, Ivy Zelman, Kathryn Kaminski, Jason Calacanis, Whitney Baker, Aswath Damodaran, Howard Marks, Tom Barton, and many more.  ----- Meb's invested in some awesome startups that have passed along discounts to our listeners. Check them out here!  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mike Beezley call in from Disney World with his weekend picks

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Eric Bieniemy Speaks To The Media 20:14 - Reacting To Eric Bieniemy 30:30 - Weekend Winners With Beez

Michael Beezley calls in with his Thanksgiving weekend winners

Michael Beezley gives us some weekend winners  

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Eric Bieniemy Talks To The Media 21:44 - Jack Del Rio Talks To The Media 31:59 - Vegas Boys With Beez

Tonight we will talk about our latest videos with the Beez Gat Wrap and the Zeiss Thermal. Plus we can talk a bit about the new Podcast Jason started with Everyman's Arsenal.

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Eric Bieniemy Talks To The Media 17:22 - Jack Del Rio Talks To The Media 30:19 - Vegas Boyz With Beez

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Eric Biemiemy Talks To The Media 19:21 - Jack Del Rio Talks To The Media 30:24 - Vegas Boyz With Beez

Beez gives us his weekend winners

Mike Beezley calls in with his weekend winners

Hour 3 - 00:00 - Eric Bieniemy Talks To The Media 19:32 - Did You Like What You Heard From EB? 31:44 - Weekend Winners With Beez