Podcasts about The Boston Globe

When thinking of something spooky or creepy in New England, most people’s mind might go either right to Salem, MA during Halloween or the Lizzie Borden House in Fall River, but there’s a good handful of other equally creepy places around Massachusetts and New England that you might not have heard of…Boston Globe reporter Emily Sweeney checked in with Bradley to shine a light on those uniquely creepy locations!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Kimberly Atkins Stohr of the Boston Globe join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the end of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, affordability becoming a focus in Washington and new developments regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Kimberly Atkins Stohr of the Boston Globe join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the end of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, affordability becoming a focus in Washington and new developments regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

The Boston Globe's Nancy Barnes and Shirley Leung join for “Press Play" media analysis. The talk about AI in journalism, new polls about Americans' trust in media, and the 2025 Globe Summit. GBH's Callie Crossley discusses a bill on book banning, new lousy polling numbers for President Trump and Cheryl Hines' new memoir.Shelter Music Boston performs for Live Music Friday. They're celebrating 15 years of performing in local homeless shelters. We talk with founder Julie Levin, founding violist Rebecca Strauss and managing director Carrie Eldridge-DicksonNBC10 Boston's Sue O'Connell recaps her trip to Canada reporting on the Christmas tree cutting ceremony. Plus, SCOTUS declining to hear case to overturn same-sex marriage and an alligator in the Charles River.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Tim Draper, Senior Vice President, Navigant Credit Union Charitable Foundation to discuss their Season of Giving initiative.Support the show

Former Mass. state Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz and Boston Globe political reporter James Pindell join WBUR's Morning Edition to discuss how likely the strategy is to pay off — and who gets hurt if it doesn't.

New York Times columnist David Brooks and Kimberly Atkins Stohr of the Boston Globe join Amna Nawaz to discuss the week in politics, including the end of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, affordability becoming a focus in Washington and new developments regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Rhode Island is the only state with its own official coral. Astrangia poculata, also known as Northern Star Coral, isn't like those colorful reefs down in the tropics, but it might play an important role in protecting its more vibrant cousins. To find out more, host Edward Fitzpatrick met with Roger Williams University Professor Koty Sharp, a champion of using Rhode Island's official state coral for marine research. Tips and ideas? Email us at rinews@globe.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When we think of middle class life, several things come to mind: owning a home, stable childcare, food in the pantry, a sense of security. But as the rich get richer in Massachusetts, the middle class is falling further behind, and making ends meet is no longer a given. People are angry, and politicians seem to be waking up to the crisis. Say More host Shirley Leung talks to the Boston Globe's Money, Power,Inequality team about their new reporting project “Squeezed” about MA's disappearing middle class. The episode features project editor Kris Hooks and reporters Katie Johnston and Mara Kardas-Nelson.  To read SQUEEZED, click here: https://apps.bostonglobe.com/2025/11/money-power-inequality/squeezed/massachusetts-middle-class/unravel/

In this week’s episode, Jennifer welcomes Jaclyn Corriveau, a dedicated foster parent, court advocate with CASA Boston, and passionate supporter of vulnerable children in Massachusetts. Jaclyn has opened her heart and home to teens in the foster care system and has firsthand experience with the challenges facing both children and the system meant to protect them. A single woman with a strong record of public service and advocacy, Jaclyn now dedicates her energy to CASA Boston, supporting kids who are caught in the bureaucracy of state care, while promoting community engagement as a solution to systemic failures. Jennifer and Jaclyn dive into the alarming issue of missing children in Massachusetts, spotlighted by the Boston Globe’s “Lost Children of Massachusetts” article. They unpack shocking statistics about kids, particularly teenagers, who go missing from state care every year and examine the disproportionate impact on minority populations. The conversation confronts the failures of the system, the lack of mental health and social work resources, and the real dangers faced by runaway youth, including higher risks of drug abuse and sex trafficking. Jaclyn offers personal insight on why so many teens run, from lack of trust to being overwhelmed by a system stacked against them. They explore the necessity for immediate and preventative reforms, emphasize the importance of funding and volunteers, and encourage listeners to become part of the solution. “We have too many kids in the system, and we could have prevented a lot of it by giving resources to families that really needed it.” ~Jaclyn Corriveau This week on Political Contessa: 600 children go missing from Massachusetts state care each year One in seven teens in state care will run away Disproportionate representation of Hispanic and Black youth among runaways Direct links between missing foster youth and sex trafficking Department of Children and Families is critically underfunded and understaffed Mental health and trust issues are major factors in teens running away Preventative family support programs are essential to stop removals before they start Volunteering with CASA and fostering can be life-changing for kids and advocates alike Connect with Jaclyn Corriveau and Mentioned Resources: CASA Boston Volunteer information The Wonder Fund – Supports children in DCF care Boston Globe “Lost Children of Massachusetts” Awaken Your Inner Political Contessa Thanks for tuning into this week’s episode of Political Contessa. If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. Spotify I Stitcher I Apple Podcasts I iHeart Radio I TuneIn I Google Podcasts Be sure to share your favorite episodes on social media. And if you’ve ever considered running for office – or know a woman who should – head over to politicalcontessa.com to grab my quick guide, Secrets from the Campaign Trail. It will show you five signs to tell you you’re ready to enter the political arena. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

11/13/25

In Hour 3 we were joined by Christopher Price from the Boston Globe covering the New England Patriots and our Thursday co-host, former NHLer Ladislav Smid. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this first instalment of a two-part exclusive, The Food Professor Podcast sits down in person with Michael Medline, (now) former President and CEO of Empire Company Limited and Sobeys, in what serendipitously became his last official interview before news broke of his transition to lead The Woodbridge Company. Michael offers a rare, deeply personal look at his eight-plus-year tenure transforming one of Canada's largest retailers. He recounts stepping into the role in 2017, reshaping strategy, modernizing systems, and fostering a culture built on values, innovation, and operational excellence.Michael reflects on navigating the massive disruptions of recent years—from COVID-19 to global trade volatility and technological upheaval—while maintaining a clear North Star for the organisation. He shares insights on revitalizing store formats, strengthening private-label programs, and embracing data transformation and automation to sharpen competitiveness. The conversation also explores the bold acquisitions of Farm Boy and Longo's, discussing trust, partnership, culture, and why collaborative integration—not assimilation—is essential to preserving what makes independent banners special.He also speaks candidly about leadership: prioritizing people, resisting micromanagement, nurturing talent, and ensuring a national grocer performs as one unified organisation rather than fragmented regional fiefdoms. Medline's reflections on turning around the Safeway acquisition, advancing omnichannel capabilities through Voilà, and pushing Empire's innovation agenda offer invaluable lessons for retail leaders navigating rapid change.The episode also features a wide-ranging news conversation with Sylvain and Michael. They break down meat-industry dynamics on both sides of the Canada–U.S. border, including beef supply challenges, oligopoly concerns, and the impact of interprovincial trade barriers on Canadian prices. The hosts also explore the “protein orphan” trend driving increased chicken consumption—and the resulting supply management shortfalls—plus the social-media-fuelled surge in cottage cheese demand.Additional segments highlight CFIA's quietly formed task force responding to U.S. regulatory instability, early snowfall's potential impact on holiday shopping, and the growing disconnect between global climate COP events and the real-world policy outcomes they aim to influence.  The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

During Hour 3 Christopher Price from the Boston Globe joined the show previewing Thursday Night Football between the New England Patriots and New York Jets. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

New emails released have suggested further details to the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.To chat about this amid ongoing pressure on the US Government to release the Epstein files, Ciara Doherty is joined by Adrian Walker of the Boston Globe.

(00:00) Fred shares the nicest thing a friend has ever done for him… and it involves a hot tub. (Due to copyright restrictions, a portion of the first segment has been removed.)(8:54) CHRISTOPHER PRICE covers the New England Patriots for the Boston Globe and joins Toucher & Hardy to talk about rookies, Maye spreading the ball and much more!(23:58) SEX SHOP TALK!Please note: Timecodes may shift by a few minutes due to inserted ads. Because of copyright restrictions, portions—or entire segments—may not be included in the podcast.CONNECT WITH TOUCHER & HARDY: linktr.ee/ToucherandHardyFor the latest updates, visit the show page on 985thesportshub.com. Follow 98.5 The Sports Hub on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Watch the show every morning on YouTube, and subscribe to stay up-to-date with all the best moments from Boston's home for sports!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes acclaimed director Ivy Meeropol for a conversation about her film "Ask E. Jean", which screens at Avon Providence Thursday 11.13, presented by newportFILM.ASK E. JEAN is the thrilling story of E. Jean Carroll's life, from her early days as Miss Cheerleader USA to her rise as a trailblazing journalist, author, and beloved advice columnist. Carroll broke barriers as the first female editor at Esquire, Playboy, and Outside, helping to redefine women's roles in media with her sharp wit and fearless voice. In recent years, she reignited public discourse by standing up to power, becoming the only woman to beat Donald Trump twice in court, and sparking a national conversation about truth, accountability, and resilience. This film is a portrait of an indomitable woman who proved it's never too late to reclaim your voice, rewrite your story, and change the world. Support the show

We start the show by getting your reactions to the Senate Democrats who agreed to help Republicans re-open the government. President Trump just gave a pardon to former Mr. Four Seasons Landscaping himself, Rudy Giuliani – along with dozens others – for charges related to trying to overthrow the free and fair 2020 election. We discuss that and more with Brian McGrory, former editor of the Boston Globe and current head of Journalism at Boston University. As the senate makes progress on ending the shutdown, it's still not totally clear when SNAP recipients can expect the return of food assistance. Food policy analyst Corby Kummer explains. Boston Medical Center's Dr. Katherine Gergen Barnett joins with Tamika Jackson, CEO of The Beautiful Way Foundation, to talk racial equity in clinical trials. Ken Oringer is a James Beard-winning chef behind restaurants like Torro and Uni. He's launched a brand-new pasta venture centered around good food and helping employ people with autism, called Chitarra Pastaria. He joins along with team members Miles Mazzotta and Julia Agostino. Then we open the phone lines to talk about decluttering techniques. 

À l'occasion du début de la COP30 à Belém au Brésil, nous revenons sur le cas d'Haïti. Patrick Saint-Pré, de l'ONG Haïti Climat, explique les multiples vulnérabilités de son pays face au dérèglement climatique. Une interview par Peterson Luxama. « Je n'attends pas qu'on fasse de la charité à Haïti, mais plutôt l'équité », affirme Patrick Saint-Pré, de l'ONG Haïti Climat. Pour lui, les pays développés doivent enfin passer des promesses à l'action, en ce qui concerne le soutien financier obligatoire aux pays les plus vulnérables. Il plaide pour un triplement du financement de l'adaptation, un véritable transfert de technologies et un renforcement des capacités des États comme Haïti, « sans se contenter de simples gestes de bonne volonté ». Belém, insiste-t-il, doit prouver que la solidarité climatique n'est pas un slogan. Selon Patrick Saint-Pré, Haïti est aujourd'hui le troisième pays le plus vulnérable au monde face au changement climatique, et subit une accumulation de chocs : ouragans, inondations, glissements de terrain, sécheresses. Des catastrophes amplifiées par une fragilité structurelle : institutions faibles, pauvreté, infrastructures délabrées. À cette vulnérabilité, s'ajoute l'emprise croissante des gangs, qui freine toute capacité de réponse. L'insécurité détourne les ressources publiques vers un « budget de guerre », au détriment de l'adaptation climatique. Les zones agricoles, comme la vallée de l'Artibonite, sont paralysées, la gouvernance s'affaiblit et les catastrophes naturelles deviennent encore plus dévastatrices faute de secours possibles. Les déplacements internes de populations, fuyant la violence, aggravent encore la dégradation environnementale : habitats informels, déforestation, urbanisation anarchique. Un cercle vicieux où insécurité et dérèglement climatique se nourrissent mutuellement. Coca-Cola provoque des pénuries d'eau au Mexique Autre exemple des conséquences du dérèglement climatique, ce sont des pénuries d'eau. Il y en a notamment dans la région du Chiapas au Mexique, mais le réchauffement climatique n'est pas le seul responsable. La pénurie est aggravée par la présence d'une usine Coca-Cola qui pompe toute l'eau de la ville de San Cristobal. C'est un reportage de notre correspondante Marine Lebègue. USA : les arrestations d'élèves immigrés dans les écoles suscitent de l'indignation C'est à lire dans le Boston Globe. Plusieurs arrestations d'élèves immigrés dans le Massachusetts ont suscité une vive inquiétude. Deux lycéens ont été interpellés après une bagarre à l'école et aussitôt placés en détention par l'agence fédérale de l'immigration ICE, tout comme le père de l'un d'eux. Les associations dénoncent la facilité avec laquelle l'ICE accède aux données biométriques des mineurs, transmises automatiquement via la base de données du FBI dès qu'un élève est arrêté. Elles réclament une loi d'État pour protéger les jeunes sans-papiers et éviter que leurs empreintes digitales ne soient partagées. Ces arrestations provoquent un climat de peur, ce qui a des effets dévastateurs sur le climat scolaire, entraînant stress, décrochage et perte de confiance envers les institutions locales. Les autorités municipales affirment ne pas collaborer avec l'ICE, mais reconnaissent qu'elles ne peuvent pas interférer avec ses opérations. L'Argentine est devenue une terre d'asile pour les Russes qui fuient la répression anti-LGBT du président Poutine C'est un reportage à lire dans Folha de Sao Paulo. Le journal décrit le contraste saisissant entre la liberté affichée lors de la dernière Gay Pride de Buenos Aires et la peur permanente vécue en Russie. Pour des jeunes comme Marat Murzakhanov ou Anton Floretskii, participer à un défilé arc-en-ciel dans les rues de la capitale argentine relève presque du rêve. Depuis le début de la guerre en Ukraine, plus de 120 000 Russes ont immigré en Argentine, parmi eux une minorité de personnes LGBTQIA+ cherchant à vivre sans persécution. Et même si le président Javier Milei est un farouche opposant à ce qu'il appelle l'idéologie du genre, et que la politique d'austérité pèsent sur les programmes destinés aux personnes LGBTQIA+, les réfugiés russes disent redécouvrir une normalité perdue : aller chez le coiffeur, aimer librement, marcher main dans la main. « Le seul regret, confie une exilée, c'est d'avoir dû traverser la planète pour obtenir des droits élémentaires que notre pays nous refuse. » Journal de la 1ère En Guyane, le trafic de bois illégal inquiète les autorités.

This is the true story of how a special investigative unit (called "Spotlight") of the Boston Globe spent upwards of almost two years working to uncover a massive scandal developing within the Catholic Church involving accusations of priests who were molesting children....and the systemic cover-up to protect those priests.  And it was not only an important story but highly acclaimed to the point where this would win the Oscar for Best Picture that year.  Directed by Tom McCarthy (The Visitor, The Station Agent, Stillwater), it also features an all-star cast lead by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber, and Stanley Tucci. Host: Geoff GershonEdited By Ella GershonProducer: Marlene Gershon Send us a textSupport the showhttps://livingforthecinema.com/Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Living-for-the-Cinema-Podcast-101167838847578Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/livingforthecinema/Letterboxd:https://letterboxd.com/Living4Cinema/

The preview of Patriots-Buccaneers and the lack of confidence the national media has in New England. Was last Sunday's squeaker over the Falcons change the confidence those may have in the Pats? Then, Chris Price of The Boston Globe joins the show and shares who will be getting targets in place of Kayshon Boutte along with what a big win could do for Drake Maye. And, Arcand looks back on the World Series beating the NBA Finals in television ratings and circles back to one thing: dynasties.

Patriots' writer for The Boston Globe Chris Price joins the show to explain why making no moves at the trade deadline was smart, Mike Vrabel having a bigger challenge than Drake Maye, and who will see more playing time in the absence of Kayshon Boutte against the Bucs.

(0:00) Chris Gasper of The Boston Globe joins the show and opens the hour discussing the Patriots standing pat at the trade deadline. (13:07) The callers weigh in with thoughts and questions for Chris Gasper on the Patriots. (22:25) The guys discuss the current state of the Celtics and the start to the season for Jaylen Brown.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's our Friday media analysis segment “Press Play” with NBC 10 Boston's media maven Sue O'Connell and GBH's Adam Reilly, on the Pentagon's new MAGA press crew and a new report showing teens think the media is biased and boring. As the Trump administration continues its assault on free thought and open inquiry, how are local libraries weathering the storm? We ask Boston Public Library's David Leonard and Watertown Free Public Library's Kim Long.Then it's Live Music Friday with veteran R&B vocalist, Berklee's Gabrielle Goodman, ahead of a show at Long Live Roxbury.Plus, our Trump Tracker segment, with just a few of the horrors you may have overlooked this week, coming out of the flood-the-zone Oval Office.And we check in with Boston Globe business columnist Shirley Leung on the impact of sports betting on kids' sports, the allure of progressive Millennial mayors, and how anyone could think Elon Musk deserves a trillion dollar salary. 

Writer and author Kyle Austin Young has a debut book that is for anyone who has ever dreamed of having a side-hustle, starting a business or following a dream. The book, Success is a Numbers Game: Achieve Bigger Goals by Changing the Odds, is just out from Hay House Business. Clear, practical, fun and a terrific read, this book will show you how to make your idea happen. The book includes a simple test for knowing which of our biggest goals to prioritize and which to quit immediately. Kyle Austin Young has written for the Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, The Boston Globe, CNBC, Psychology Today, Forbes, and Business Insider. Among his many roles for many teams, Kyle is the Operations Manager here at The Memoir Project. His core principles have shaped everything we do. The QWERTY podcast is brought to you by the book The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing & Life. Read it, and begin your own journey to writing what you know. To learn more, join The Memoir Project free newsletter list and keep up to date on all our free webinars, instructive posts and online classes in how to write memoir, as well as our talented, available memoir editors and memoir coaches, podcast guests and more.

Bruins extending winning streak to 5 games/Buying in on the B's? // Four-Pack: Tampa Bay Buccaneers // What is going on with the Boston Globe's Bob Ryan? //

Jones and Keefe compare Drake Maye to the other QBs in the NFL // How do Pats compare to the Bucs and which AFC teams are contenders or just pretenders // Bruins extending winning streak to 5 games/Buying in on the B's? // Four-Pack: Tampa Bay Buccaneers // What is going on with the Boston Globe's Bob Ryan? // Which team has a better chance of winning the Super Bowl: Pats or Bucs? // The state of the AFC after the Broncos win on Thursday Night Football // A jam packed Week In Review // Keefe's Keys: NE vs. TB/Patriots DE Milt Williams joins the show // Grab Bag // Clip du Jour/Crossover with WEEI Afternoons //

Send us a textBill Bartholomew reacts to a big week for Democrats and how those wins may inform Rhode Island's upcoming elections. Support the show

The military is supposed to be apolitical, but critics say it's getting pulled into the Trump administration's political agenda. Senator Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, joins host Edward Fitzpatrick to weigh in on what's happening. Tips and ideas? Email us at rinews@globe.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We kicked off the program with four news stories and different guests on the stories we think you need to know about!A new study ranks Massachusetts the best place to start a family! Guest: Kelli David - Client Director of Ivy Surrogacy, the company that conducted the study The Invincible Brain: The Clinically Proven Plan to Age-Proof Your Brain and Stay Sharp for Life. Guest: Dr. Majid Fotuhi (Pronounced: MA-JEED - FO-TWO-HEE) - PhD in Neuroscience from Johns Hopkins University in 1992 and his Medical Degree from Harvard Medical School in 1997. Currently serves as an adjunct professor at the Mind/Brain Institute at Johns Hopkins University, while also teaching at George Washington University & Harvard Medical School. Success Is a Numbers Game: Achieve Bigger Goals by Changing the Odds. Guest: Kyle Austin - award-winning strategy consultant, business writer and author - writer for Harvard Business Review, The Boston Globe, CNBC, Psychology Today, Forbes, and Business Insider The Rembrandt Heist: The Story of a Criminal Genius, a Stolen Masterpiece, and an Enigmatic Friendship Guest: Anthony Amore – author & director of security and chief investigator at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

11/6/25

Recorded live at the Coffee Association of Canada Annual Conference, this special edition of The Food Professor Podcast with Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois brews up a rich conversation on the state of Canada's food economy, the coffee industry's shifting landscape, and the global forces shaping what Canadians eat and drink live on the stage.The episode opens with Michael and Sylvain diving into the latest geopolitical tensions influencing trade and agriculture. From Washington to Mexico City, Sylvain shares insights from his travels and firsthand discussions with U.S. policy insiders and Latin American producers. The conversation highlights how Canada's trading partners are adapting quickly, especially Mexico's resilience and growing potential as a key agri-food ally in the hemisphere.The professors then turn to an annual highlight — an early look at the 2026 Canada Food Price Report, compiled by a network of ten universities using AI-powered forecasting. Sylvain hints at tough times ahead for consumers, forecasting that meat and poultry prices could rise by as much as 25% in the months ahead, putting pressure on Canadian households. He connects this to the emerging “protein play” trend, where consumers are seeking protein in unconventional forms — including fortified beverages like coffee. While acknowledging the opportunity, he cautions that nutritionists are warning against over-fortification, signaling that balance and consumer education will be key.The discussion then flows into GLP-1 drugs and their growing impact on food demand. As consumers change their eating patterns, Sylvain warns that Big Pharma's gains may translate into Big Food's challenges — though innovation and reformulation could open new opportunities. From AI-enabled efficiency to personalized nutrition, the professors explore how food and beverage brands must adapt to new consumption realities.Rounding out the first half, they discuss the “Battle for the Third Place” — how coffee shops are redefining the space between home and work post-COVID. Sylvain urges operators to double down on human connection and service excellence, even as automation and rising wages push toward efficiency.In the second half, guest Doug Porter, Chief Economist at BMO, unpacks Canada's economic outlook. Porter delivers a grounded view of growth, inflation, immigration, and consumer spending, labeling the new federal budget “boring — and that's a good thing.” He weighs in on labour shortages, immigration reform, the “K-shaped” economy, and AI's role in reshaping productivity, closing with optimism that innovation and adaptation — not fear — will guide Canada's next decade. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

Host Marina Franklin and young star Nonye Brown-West talk with Allie Redhorse Young as they celebrate Native American Heritage Month. They discuss the siginficance of preserving cultural narratives like cowgirl culture!   Allie Redhorse Young is a powerhouse Diné organizer, storyteller, and founder of Protect the Sacred, where she's educating and empowering the next generation of Native youth and allies to lead with courage and sovereignty. Through Protect the Sacred, she's registered thousands of Native voters, mobilized young people to the polls on horseback and skateboards, and turned grassroots action into national movements with the backing of cultural icons. Her work shines a light on the ways Indigenous communities carry democracy and cultural survival when federal systems fall short. As both a storyteller and organizer, Allie is building Native power and representation that will last for the next seven generations. Nonye Brown-West is a New York-based Nigerian-American comedian and writer. She has been featured in the Boston Globe's Rise column as a Comic to Watch. She has also appeared on Amazon, NPR, PBS, ABC, Sway In The Morning on Sirius XM, and the New York Comedy Festival. Check her schedule on nonyecomedy.com or Instagram to see when she's coming to a city near you. Always hosted by Marina Franklin - One Hour Comedy Special: Single Black Female ( Amazon Prime, CW Network), TBS's The Last O.G, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Hysterical on FX, The Movie Trainwreck, Louie Season V, The Jim Gaffigan Show, Conan O'Brien, Stephen Colbert, HBO's Crashing, and The Breaks with Michelle Wolf. Writer for HBO's 'Divorce' and the new Tracy Morgan show on Paramount Plus: 'Crutch

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Dr. John Kiang for a discussion on Rhode Island Mission of Mercy. Support the show

Jones and Keefe react to the Pats doing nothing at the NFL trade deadline // They debate why that is and how much trust they have in the team going forward // The latest from the Red Sox offseason/Trevor Story opts in // Would You Rather? // #DORK Minute // WEEI Celtics Insider Justin Turpin joins the show // The Boston Globe's Bob Ryan's tweet/Horniest movie-tv characters // BC Football head coach Bill O'Brien's rant/Where does it rank? // Was standing pat at the trade deadline the right move by the Patriots? // Grab Bag // Clip du Jour/Crossover with WEEI Afternoons //

WEEI Celtics Insider Justin Turpin joins the show // The Boston Globe's Bob Ryan's tweet/Horniest movie-tv characters // BC Football head coach Bill O'Brien's rant/Where does it rank? //

This popular episode replay features Dr. David H. Rosmarin, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, a program director at McLean Hospital, and founder of Center for Anxiety, which services over 1,000 patients/year in multiple states. He is an international expert on spirituality and mental health, whose work has been featured in Scientific American, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. Through his work as a clinical psychologist, scientist, educator and author, Dr. Rosmarin has helped thousands of patients and organizations to live happier and more productive lives. His most recent book is Thriving with Anxiety: 9 Tools to Make Your Anxiety Work for You Key Topics: - The current anxiety epidemic and what is causing it - Anxiety as a stepping stone to connection - How fear is a natural alert - How anxiety makes us connect to others better - The difference between stress and anxiety - How anxiety enhances spirituality - Hope for the person who's drowning in anxiety - The least known contributor to anxiety Learn more about Dr. Rosmarin and get his book at drrosmarin.com and centerforanxiety.org. Join Erin's monthly mailing list to get health tips and fresh meal plans and recipes every month: https://mailchi.mp/adde1b3a4af3/monthlysparksignup Order Erin's new book, Live Beyond Your Label, at erinbkerry.com/upcomingbook/ Buy Erin's recipe book, co-written by pediatrician Dr. Alina Olteanu here: https://a.co/d/ateoVxx

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes URI's Dr. Brennan Phillips. Support the show

Student journalist and first-time documentary filmmaker Matthew Winkler joins us to discuss his work on a film chronicling the life and career of Joya Sherrill, an unsung American jazz vocalist who wrote the lyrics to the Billy Strayhorn standard, "Take the A Train," made famous by the Duke Ellington orchestra. Matthew came across Sherrill's name during his freshman year at Tufts University, while doing research for Boston Globe journalist and noted biographer Larry Tye, who was writing a book about jazz. Matthew, a music and history major, was astonished to discover the small footprint Sherrill had left behind, despite being the first female jazz singer to visit the Soviet Union, accompanying bandleader Benny Goodman, and earning the distinction of being one of Duke Ellington's favorite singers. "Public-facing history is very important to me," Matthew told a reporter for Tufts Now, the university's alumni magazine, in an article detailing how the Tufts undergraduate grew a student research project into a feature-length documentary, with the help of his professors and mentors. "I hope this film will make people know who Joya Sherrill is and why we should care about her. On a broader level, I think a documentary like this will make people realize how easy it is for remarkable figures to fall through the cracks of history." With this conversation, it is hoped, he might also signal to aspiring storytellers how easy it is to keep their eyes and ears open for stories that might move us, inspire us, and enlighten us. Learn more about Matthew Winkler: LinkedIn Five Sisters Productions Please support the sponsors who support our show: Gotham Ghostwriters' Gathering of the Ghosts Ritani Jewelers Daniel Paisner's Balloon Dog Daniel Paisner's SHOW: The Making and Unmaking of a Network Television Pilot Heaven Help Us by John Kasich Unforgiving: Lessons from the Fall by Lindsey Jacobellis Film Movement Plus (PODCAST) | 30% discount Libro.fm (ASTOLDTO) | 2 audiobooks for the price of 1 when you start your membership Film Freaks Forever! podcast, hosted by Mark Jordan Legan and Phoef Sutton Everyday Shakespeare podcast A Mighty Blaze podcast The Writer's Bone Podcast Network Misfits Market (WRITERSBONE) | $15 off your first order  Film Movement Plus (PODCAST) | 30% discount Wizard Pins (WRITERSBONE) | 20% discount

How to handle people better.   Isabelle Morley is a clinical psychologist and EFT-certified couples therapist (Emotionally Focused Therapy). She is a contributing author to Psychology Today, and has been featured in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, Business Insider, Vox, and Very Well Mind, among others. Her latest book is They're Not Gaslighting You: Ditch the Therapy Speak and Stop Hunting for Red Flags in Every Relationship.   In this episode we talk about: The difference between abuse and bad behavior How to know if you're really in an abusive relationship How to correctly use the term 'gaslighting' What boundaries are, how to set them, and how to know if yours have actually been violated How to spot a narcissist  The difference between having Narcissistic Personality Disorder and just having selfish qualities Red flags vs. garden-variety imperfections The definition and weaponization of terms like 'bipolar' and 'borderline' The overuse of the word 'triggered' Basic tips for navigating relationships beyond the therapy-speak And much more Join Dan's online community here Follow Dan on social: Instagram, TikTok Subscribe to our YouTube Channel Additional Resources:  Navigating Intimacy: An Introductory Guide to Couples and Sex Therapy   Tickets are now on sale for a special live taping of the 10% Happier Podcast with guest Pete Holmes! Join us on November 18th in NYC for this benefit show, with all proceeds supporting the New York Insight Meditation Center. Grab your tickets here! To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://advertising.libsyn.com/10HappierwithDanHarris Thanks to our sponsors:  AT&T: Staying connected matters. That's why AT&T has connectivity you can depend on, or they will proactively make it right. Visit att.com/guarantee for details. Airbnb: Your home might be worth more than you think. Find out how much at airbnb.com/host.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for November 1, 2025 is: ostracize • AH-struh-syze • verb To ostracize someone is to exclude them from a group by the agreement of the group's members. // She was ostracized by her community after refusing to sign the petition. See the entry > Examples: "Telling stories with affection and noodging, [comedian Sarah] Silverman has always been encouraged by her family, who embraced rather than ostracized her for revealing family secrets on the way to reaping howls of laughter." — Thelma Adams, The Boston Globe, 19 May 2025 Did you know? In ancient Greece, citizens whose power or influence threatened the stability of the state could be exiled by a practice involving voters writing that person's name down on a potsherd—a fragment of earthenware or pottery. Those receiving enough votes would then be subject to temporary exile from the state. Ostracize comes from the Greek verb ostrakízein (itself from the noun óstrakon meaning "potsherd"), used in 5th century Athens for the action of banishing someone by way of such a vote. Someone ostracized today is not exiled, but instead is excluded from a group by the agreement of the group's members.

President Trump is compelling universities across the country to adopt a more conservative agenda in exchange for access to federal funds. On this week's On the Media, how this pressure campaign is playing out at the oldest and richest university in America: Harvard.[0:00] Our latest collaboration with the Boston Globe is Season Two of The Harvard Plan, in which reporter Ilya Marritz explores what has unfolded at Harvard University since Donald Trump's inauguration. Three members of the university community tell the story: Ryan Enos, a political scientist, Kamila Naxerova, a genetics professor and cancer researcher, and Kit Parker, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve and professor of bioengineering and applied physics.     On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

(0:00) Chris Gasper of The Boston Globe joins the show and opens the hour discussing the Patriots and their advantage at quarterback. (11:50) The guys reset the Drake Maye discussion with Chris Gasper. Plus, more caller reaction. (23:31) Gasper's thoughts on Charles Barkley's comments start a conversation on the current state of the Celtics. (33:24) Final thoughts from Gasper on the World Series and how it pertains to the Red Sox. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"I kinda hate it when people say writing is fun," says Jack Rodolico, author The Atavist original "The Blue Book Burglar."Today we feature Jack Rodolico, who is a bit of an audio maven, but he comes to us hot off the Atavist presses to talk about "The Blue Book Burglar: The Social Register was a who's who of America's rich and powerful— the heirs of robber barons, scions of political dynasties, and descendants of Mayflower passengers. It was also the perfect hit list for the country's hardest-working art thief."It's a fun, rollicking read, not too heavy, not really heavy at all, merely a great caper.Batting leadoff is lead editor Jonah Ogles, so we talk about his side of the table about what less experienced writers can learn about pitching the Atavist and how Jonah worked with Jack to fix the structure of the piece. As always, really rich stuff from the editing side of things.A bit more about Jack Rodolico, the dude's got it going on … His work has appeared in The Boston Globe, NPR, 99% Invisible, and NHPR … He's earning an MFA in fiction, and that's really helping him with his nonfiction writing, as you'll hear in a moment.You can learn more about Jack at his website journalistjack.com. In this conversation we talk about his Atavist piece, writing fiction, earning trust, why you can't pay sources for information, how he organizes his research and cites his work, beginnings and endings, and how he didn't necessarily want to be a journalist, rather he wanted to be a writer.Order The Front RunnerNewsletter: Rage Against the AlgorithmWelcome to Pitch ClubShow notes: brendanomeara.com

Carl and Mike get back into some Falcons talk as they share thoughts on how they feel about the Falcons being able to win Sunday after they spoke with Ben Volin, who covers the Patriots for The Boston Globe. As they discuss, they point to the fact that after watching the Dolphins lose as badly as they did to the Ravens puts an even bigger stain on the Falcons' loss to Miami.

The Harvard Plan - our collaboration with the Boston Globe, is back! In episode one, we hear what unfolded at Harvard from Donald Trump's inauguration to convocation 2025. Three main characters, inside Harvard, tell the story from their perspective: politics professor Ryan Enos, genetics professor and cancer researcher Kamila Naxerova and campus conservative Kit Parker, lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve and Professor of Bioengineering and Applied Physics at Harvard. The personal perspectives of our three guides are interwoven with the dramatic timeline and unfolding news.  On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Guest Brian Sumers tells us about The Airline Observer newsletter and The Airshow Podcast. Erin Applebaum updates us on the Boeing litigation and Delta Flight 4819 that rolled over on landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport in February 2025. In the news, the LOT Polish Airlines' fraud case against Boeing is set to go to a jury trial, the FAA approves a 737 MAX production increase, the IAM rejects Boeing's Latest Offer, controller staffing shortages are impacting operations, and engine shortages are affecting airlines and the leasing market Guest Brian Sumers Brian Sumers produces The Airline Observer newsletter dedicated to news and analysis about the global airline business. He covers every facet of the industry except operations. The newsletter targets professionals working in the airline and travel industries, but others with an interest in the industry will also find it valuable. Brian can also be found on The Airshow Podcast with Jon Ostrower and Brett Snyder. Brian explains the types of stories he enjoys reporting on, including the people behind the industry, who is up and who is down, loyalty programs, and revenue management. He's been covering airlines for some 15 years and tells us about the lack of airline policy and procedures clarity, and who understands their competition and who doesn't. We hear his thoughts about his recent interviews with Scott Kirby and Sir Tim Clark, some of the hot-button issues that airlines see ahead, and the future of LCCs in the U.S. Brian is a professional journalist with more than a decade of expertise covering airlines. He has written for Skift, Aviation Week, Conde Nast Traveler, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Brian is often found in major media discussing airline news, with recent appearances in the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe, as well as on CNN, ABC News, and CBS News. He attended Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, has a master's degree in journalism from the University of Southern California's Annenberg School, and an MBA from UCLA's Anderson School of Management. Aviation News LOT Polish Airlines' Fraud Case Against Boeing Set to Go to Jury Trial LOT Polish Airlines' fraud and misrepresentation case against Boeing is proceeding to a jury trial scheduled for November 3, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. LOT alleges that Boeing rushed the 737 MAX to market, bypassed proper engineering protocols, withheld safety-critical details from regulators, and misled airline customers about the scope and safety of design changes from previous 737 models. The airline claims that these actions led to its belief that the 737 MAX was airworthy and economically advantageous. LOT claims at least $250 million in losses from the grounding, including lost revenue, storage costs, and expenses for replacing the unfit aircraft. After months of limits, FAA allows Boeing to increase MAX production The FAA has approved an increase in the production cap for Boeing's 737 MAX jets, allowing for the manufacture of 42 aircraft per month. This follows a review of Boeing's manufacturing processes and safety controls. The FAA will continue to supervise Boeing's operations and monitor the manufacturer's safety and quality culture. The rate increase helps Boeing's financial situation by accelerating cash flow, improving debt serviceability, and restoring investor confidence. Workers reject Boeing's latest offer after nearly three months on strike The roughly 3,200 members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) District 837 at Boeing Defense in the St. Louis area rejected the company's latest contract proposal. In a statement, Boeing said "We're disappointed with the vote result" and "we are turning our focus to executing the next phase of our contingency plan." Boeing's latest contract offer reduced the ratification bonus, added $3,

Boston Globe travel writer Christopher Muther talks about the impact of the government shutdown on air travel, why international tourists are skipping the U.S. and therapy dogs at Logan airport.Kelly Beatty from Sky & Telescope on a “Boston Henge” phenomenon in Back Bay, the Smithsonian's plans to get the Discovery shuttle to Texas and an asteroid that's maybe headed for the moon in 2032. Gabrielle Hamilton is the James Beard-winning chef behind the New York restaurant Prune, and author of “Blood, Bones & Butter.” She joins to talk about her latest, a memoir called “Next of Kin,” ahead of an appearance tonight at Harvard Book Store. Jody Adams and Aidan McGee are the chefs behind La Padrona and McGonagle's Pub, two Boston restaurants recognized in the New York Times' list of the 50 best restaurants across America. They talk about their food and what this good press means for their business. 

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for October 27, 2025 is: acerbic • uh-SER-bik • adjective Something described as acerbic is sharply or bitingly critical, sarcastic, or ironic in temper, mood, or tone. // The comedian draws crowds that appreciate his acerbic wit. See the entry > Examples: "Whether she's giving a sarcastic eye-roll, tossing off an acerbic zinger, or seducing with a come-hither stare, [actress Jennifer] Simard intimately understands the art of underplaying." — Christopher Wallenberg, The Boston Globe, 1 June 2025 Did you know? English speakers created acerbic in the 19th century by combining the adjective acerb with the suffix -ic-. Acerb had already been around for a couple centuries, but for most of that time it had been used only to describe foods with a sour taste. (Acerb is still around today, but now it's simply a less common synonym of acerbic.) Acerbic and acerb ultimately come from the Latin adjective acerbus, which can mean "harsh" or "unpleasant." Another English word that comes from acerbus is exacerbate, which means "to make more violent or severe."