Podcasts about Boy

Oh it's just gushing water running down the stairs... So thissss is why my brother is just “dropping by” What are you gonna do with your next 10 years? ASK MY MOM: The Coworker Drink Become a Certified Fan! Help support the podcast and get our Thursday show, More Mama's Boy! OR upgrade your support here!  Adopt An Episode! Want to show us a little extra love? Adopt an Episode and get a personal shoutout in an upcoming show! This episode was adopted by the amazing Queen Pam and Molly from Georgia! Thank you!! A special thank you to our Boy-lievers for your extra support of our show: Candy Z, Marci H, Eileen F, Kat R, Rachelrose S, Donald S, Queen Pam , Erin D, Alexandra T, Deb S, Lisa G, Julie B, Carly M C, Karissa R, Sue W, Lucino , Lisa H, Kayla S, Karen W, Tina U, Lety S, Julia M, Michele K, Angela P and our mystery Boy-liever!  Listen to my other podcast, “Kramer and Jess Uncensored”! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last Sunday, 18th January, was Winnie-the-Pooh Day. It was the birthday of its creator, the author A A Milne. And Winnie-the-Pooh, his most famous book, was first published 100 years ago, in January 1926. Pooh became one of the most beloved children's book of all time, selling millions of copies around the world, and making the Milne family extremely wealthy - but not entirely happy. In this episode, Gyles tells the story of Pooh, A.A. Milne, Christopher Robin, and of the complex and sometimes sad reality behind the stories. As you may know, Gyles published a brilliant book all about A. A. Milne and his family last year. Called Somewhere, a Boy and a Bear, it's published by Penguin Michael Joseph and is available here. This episode has some Gyles and Harriet chat (we find out about Harriet's own connection to the Milnes) and then it features a talk Gyles gave at the Henley Literature Festival, in front of a live audience, all about his book and A. A. Milne. We hope you enjoy this! Don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube here. Join The Rosebud Family here. And visit our website here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Number 1010Damn east coast weather ruined podcast plans, which means this is mostly a solo show. I think I manage to do okay, though! There was certainly plenty to talk about in the world of Nintendo, with lots of big news popping up over the last few days. New Switch 2 rumors, sales milestones, LEGO drops, a massive interview with Nintendo's president and more. PLUS we had our interview with the Dispatch devs and you guys supported GoNintendo in a HUGE way!

#RingRust with my musicular #NightmareRumble pay-per-review! #TagMeIn  ~ ~ ~ I'd like to hear from you! Please drop me a line @ ring-rust@hotmail.com {Subject Line: Ring Rust} & let me know what you like {or dislike} about my show! I'm always on the lookout for constructive criticism {if you want playlists again, start giving me feedback, people!}  ~ ~ ~ Check out my #Unboxing videos, all that snazzy anti-social media & support all my shows http://markjabroni.mysite.com/ ~ ~ ~ RECORDED LIVE @ the Holy Smackdown Hotel in Sunny St. John's NL!  & BROADCAST LIVE @ CHMR FM in sunny St. John's NL! Learn more @ https://www.chmr.ca/ If you want to contribute to Betty Cisneros' Stage 4 Cancer treatment, please donate @ https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-betty-battle-her-cancer-away & if you wanted to contribute to the surgeries of wrestling veteran Lufisto, you can check out her store @ http://www.lufisto.com/store-1/ SHOW NOTES... 0:04:34 Pay-Per-Review: Ohio Valley Wrestling's Nightmare Rumble 1 0:05:40 Musicular Interlude 1 0:12:49 Pay-Per-Review: Ohio Valley Wrestling's Nightmare Rumble 2 0:14:06 Musicular Interlude 2 0:25:47 Pay-Per-Review: Ohio Valley Wrestling's Nightmare Rumble 3 0:27:13 Musicular Interlude 3 0:39:30 News That's Right On the Mark: EC3's Time in the NWA's Over... Man! 0:41:40 Musicular Interlude 4 0:49:19 News That's Right On the Mark: New NXT Champion Incoming! 0:50:21 Musicular Interlude 5 0:58:43 Assuming the Intermissionary Position -= EXPLICIT =- 1:00:21 This Week's Macho Fact 1:10:19 Wrestler Birthdays...  1:11:52 Musicular Interlude 6 1:19:29 This Week's 3-Way Dance-Off: Reach For the Angels, Boy! 1:32:56 News That's Right On the Mark: Total Nonstop Jerichlean Action! 1:35:34 Musicular Interlude 7 1:41:26 News That's Right On the Mark: ! 1:42:08 Musicular Interlude 8 1:51:38 Podcast Extra 

TOP 30 COUNTDOWN BEST OF SERIES

FINALLY we are all in one damn room. And by room, we mean Capital One Arena. Andre Michael and Mark Madden of our much talked about Groupchat are in the building with us today to recap our time at the Boy is Mine tour!!!! Y'all bout to laugh dowwwnnnFollow us everywhere @thepsycepodcastLike, Comment, Subscribe down to the YouTubeYou know what it gives

S7, EP 200Welcome to our 200th episode and the start to Season 7! Boy have we evolved since 2020! This episode we host a few of our recent favorite guest co-hosts - Jane Aquino, Ken Dillon and Sandy Buk!  Along with our season regulars - Jozlyn Rocki, Gaby Borja and Lloyd Waller...Angela Cortez wasn't able to join us but she'll be back soon! Jozlyn brings a few fun questions to the chaos table to create a round table conversation about random topics for the whole group to weigh in on!  Get to know us all a little bit more, hear some random stories and sit in on  & listen in on this 200th episode with us!Jozlyn Rocki website - https://jozlynrocki.com/Gaby Borja IG - https://www.instagram.com/gabrielaborja.vo/Lloyd Waller website   https://droidwallervo.com/Lloyd on TT - https://www.tiktok.com/@droidwallerJane Aquino website  https://www.thejaneaquino.com/Jane's Lion Dance Coloring book Link - https://a.co/d/e0oon30Ken Dillon website - https://kendillonvo.com/Sandy Buk website - https://www.sandybuk.com/This is a shareable podcast where a group of creatives join together to document their creative voiceover & on-camera journeys in real time. We hope this podcast creates inspiration, stirs up a few ah-ha moments or maybe brings to the surface a feeling of "you're not alone" while navigating the creative process. Either way, we are glad you are here. Oh, and we also pull into our conversations at the chaos table industry professionals along with other fellow actors, to share their stories, experiences and knowledge - so we can all connect, share, learn, grow and expand together. This podcast is for entertainment and not educational purposes! Enjoy and thank you for listening to our Creative Chaos! *Have a creative story or journey to share, we'd love to hear it - email us at chaoskeepers411@gmail.com or jozlynrocki@gmail.com Follow all the Chaos - YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChG0fKKBt2QNplJowSaKU6wFB - https://www.facebook.com/keepingupwithchaospodcastIG - https://www.instagram.com/keeping_up_with_chaos/

This week it's time to hang out with Brahms in The Boy (20216) with The Hanna's! Jamie and Nikisha are joined by Hanna and Matt from Horror hour with the Hannah's to talk big swing twists, coping with loss, arrested development, female horror tropes, hunky grocery men, poorly timed letters, and, of course, being a pro-Brahms podcast. Watch us on YouTube! Follow us on Instagram | Twitter | TikTok: @TalkHorrorPod Check out Horror Hour with the Hanna's on YouTube | TikTok | Instagram | Apple

Do you ever wonder whether your grocery store cares about whether you have a healthy diet? Every time we shop or read advertisement flyers, food retailers influence our diets through product offerings, pricings, promotions, and of course store design. Think of the candy at the checkout counters. When I walk into my Costco, over on the right there's this wall of all these things they would like me to buy and I'm sure it's all done very intentionally. And so, if we're so influenced by these things, is it in our interest? Today we're going to discuss a report card of sorts for food retailers and the big ones - Walmart, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize USA, which is a very large holding company that has a variety of supermarket chains. And this is all about an index produced by the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi), a global foundation challenging the food industry investors and policy makers to shape a healthier food system. The US Retail Assessment 2025 Report evaluates how these three businesses influence your access to nutritious and affordable foods through their policies, commitments, and actual performance. The Access to Nutrition Initiatives' director of Policy and Communications, Katherine Pittore is here with us to discuss the report's findings. We'll also speak with Eva Greenthal, who oversees the Center for Science in the Public Interest's Federal Food Labeling work.   Interview Transcript Access ATNi's 2025 Assessment Report for the US and other countries here: Retail https://accesstonutrition.org/index/retail-assessment-2025/ Let's start with an introduction to your organizations. This will help ground our listeners in the work that you've done, some of which we've spoken about on our podcast. Kat, let's begin with you and the Access to Nutrition Initiative. Can you tell us a bit about the organization and what work it does? Kat Pittore - Thank you. So, the Access to Nutrition Initiative is a global foundation actively challenging the food industry, investors, and policymakers to shape healthier food systems. We try to collect data and then use it to rank companies. For the most part, we've done companies, the largest food and beverage companies, think about PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and looking are they committed to proving the healthiness of their product portfolios. Do the companies themselves have policies? For example, maternity leave. And these are the policies that are relevant for their entire workforce. So, from people working in their factories all the way up through their corporate areas. And looking at the largest companies, can these companies increase access to healthier, more nutritious foods. One of the critical questions that we get asked, and I think Kelly, you've had some really interesting guests also talking about can corporations actually do something. Are corporations really the problem? At ATNi, we try to take a nuanced stance on this saying that these corporations produce a huge amount of the food we eat, so they can also be part of the solution. Yes, they are currently part of the problem. And we also really believe that we need more policies. And that's what brings us too into contact with organizations such as Eva's, looking at how can we also improve policies to support these companies to produce healthier foods. The thought was coming to my mind as you were speaking, I was involved in one of the initial meetings as the Access to Nutrition Initiative was being planned. And at that point, I and other people involved in this were thinking, how in the world are these people going to pull this off? Because the idea of monitoring these global behemoth companies where in some cases you need information from the companies that may not reflect favorably on their practices. And not to mention that, but constructing these indices and things like that required a great deal of thought. That initial skepticism about whether this could be done gave way, at least in me, to this admiration for what's been accomplished. So boy, hats off to you and your colleagues for what you've been able to do. And it'll be fun to dive in a little bit deeper as we go further into this podcast. Eva, tell us about your work at CSPI, Center for Science in the Public Interest. Well known organization around the world, especially here in the US and I've long admired its work as well. Tell us about what you're up to. Eva Greenthal - Thank you so much, Kelly, and again, thank you for having me here on the pod. CSPI is a US nonprofit that advocates for evidence-based and community informed policies on nutrition, food safety and health. And we're well known for holding government agencies and corporations to account and empowering consumers with independent, unbiased information to live healthier lives. And our core strategies to achieve this mission include, of course, advocacy where we do things like legislative and regulatory lobbying, litigation and corporate accountability initiatives. We also do policy and research analysis. We have strategic communications such as engagement with the public and news media, and we publish a magazine called Nutrition Action. And we also work in deep partnership with other organizations and in coalitions with other national organizations as well as smaller grassroots organizations across the country. Across all of this, we have a deep commitment to health equity and environmental sustainability that informs all we do. And our ultimate goal is improved health and wellbeing for people in all communities regardless of race, income, education, or social factors. Thanks Eva. I have great admiration for CSPI too. Its work goes back many decades. It's the leading organization advocating on behalf of consumers for a better nutrition system and better health overall. And I greatly admire its work. So, it's really a pleasure to have you here. Kat, let's talk about the US retail assessment. What is it and how did you select Walmart, Kroger, and Ahold Dehaize for the evaluation, and why are retailers so important? Kat - Great, thanks. We have, like I said before, been evaluating the largest food and beverage manufacturers for many years. So, for 13 years we have our global index, that's our bread and butter. And about two years ago we started thinking actually retailers also play a critical role. And that's where everyone interfaces with the food environment. As a consumer, when you go out to actually purchase your food, you end up most of the time in a supermarket, also online presence, et cetera. In the US 70% or more of people buy their food through some type of formal food retail environment. So, we thought we need to look at the retailers. And in this assessment we look at the owned label products, so the store brand, so anything that's branded from the store as its own. We think that's also becoming a much more important role in people's diets. In Europe it's a really critical role. A huge majority of products are owned brand and I think in the US that's increasing. Obviously, they tend to be more affordable, so people are drawn to them. So, we were interested how healthy are these products? And the US retail assessment is part of a larger retail assessment where we look at six different countries trying to look across different income levels. In high income countries, we looked at the US and France, then we looked at South Africa and Indonesia for higher middle income. And then finally we looked at Kenya and the Philippines. So, we tried to get a perspective across the world. And in the US, we picked the three companies aiming to get the largest market share. Walmart itself is 25 to 27% of the market share. I've read an amazing statistic that something like 90% of the US population lives within 25 kilometers of a Walmart. Really, I did not realize it was that large. I grew up in the US but never shopped at Walmart. So, it really does influence the diet of a huge number of Americans. And I think with the Ahold Delhaize, that's also a global conglomerate. They have a lot of supermarkets in the Netherlands where we're based, I think also in Belgium and across many countries. Although one interesting thing we did find with this retail assessment is that a big international chain, they have very different operations and basically are different companies. Because we had thought let's start with the Carrefours like those huge international companies that you find everywhere. But Carrefour France and Carrefour Kenya are basically very different. It was very hard to look at it at that level. And so that's sort of what brought us to retailers. And we're hoping through this assessment that we can reach a very large number of consumers. We estimate between 340 to 370 million consumers who shop at these different modern retail outlets. It's so ambitious what you've accomplished here. What questions did you try to answer and what were the key findings? Kat - We were interested to know how healthy are the products that are being sold at these different retailers. That was one of our critical questions. We look at the number of different products, so the owned brand products, and looked at the healthiness. And actually, this is one of the challenges we faced in the US. One is that there isn't one unified use of one type of nutrient profile model. In other countries in the Netherlands, although it's not mandatory, we have the Nutri Score and most retailers use Nutri Score. And then at least there's one thing that we can use. The US does not have one unified agreement on what type of nutrient profile model to use. So, then we're looking at different ones. Each company has their own proprietary model. That was one challenge we faced. And the other one is that in other countries you have the mandatory that you report everything per hundred grams. So, product X, Y, and Z can all be compared by some comparable thing. Okay? A hundred grams of product X and a hundred grams of product Y. In the US you have serving sizes, which are different for different products and different companies. And then you also have different units, which all of my European colleagues who are trying to do this, they're like, what is this ounces? What are these pounds? In addition to having non-comparable units, it's also non-standardized. These were two key challenges we face in the US. Before you proceed, just let me ask a little bit more about the nutrient profiling. For people that aren't familiar with that term, basically it's a way to score different foods for how good they are for you. As you said, there are different profiling systems used around the world. Some of the food companies have their own. Some of the supermarket companies have their own. And they can be sort of unbiased, evidence-based, derived by scientists who study this kind of thing a lot like the index developed by researchers at Oxford University. Or they can be self-serving, but basically, they're an index that might take away points from a food if it's high in saturated fat, let's say but give it extra points if it has fiber. And that would be an example. And when you add up all the different things that a food might contain, you might come away with a single score. And that might then provide the basis for whether it's given a green light, red light, et cetera, with some sort of a labeling system. But would you like to add anything to that? Kat - I think that's quite accurate in terms of the nutrient profile model. And maybe one other thing to say here. In our retail index, it's the first time we did this, we assess companies in terms of share of their products meeting the Health Star rating and we've used that across all of our indexes. This is the one that's used most commonly in Australia and New Zealand. A Health Star rating goes zero to five stars, and 3.5 or above is considered a healthier product. And we found the average healthiness, the mean Health Star rating, of Walmart products was 2.6. So quite low. Kroger was 2.7 and Food Lion Ahold Delhaize was 2.8. So the average is not meeting the Health Star rating of 3.5 or above. We're hoping that by 2030 we could see 50% of products still, half would be less than that. But we're not there yet. And another thing that we looked at with the retail index that was quite interesting was using markers of UPFs. And this has been a hotly debated discussion within our organization as well. Sort of, how do you define UPF? Can we use NOVA classification? NOVA Classification has obviously people who are very pro NOVA classification, people who also don't like the classification. So, we use one a sort of ranking Popkins et al. developed. A sort of system and where we looked at high salt, fat sugar and then certain non-nutritive sweeteners and additives that have no benefit. So, these aren't things like adding micronutrients to make a product fortified, but these are things like red number seven and colors that have no benefit. And looked at what share of the products that are produced by owned label products are considered ultra processed using this definition. And there we found that 88% of products at Walmart are considered ultra processed. Wow. That's quite shocking. Eighty eight percent. Yeah, 88% of all of their own brand products. Oh, my goodness. Twelve percent are not. And we did find a very high alignment, because that was also a question that we had, of sort of the high salt, fat, sugar and ultra processed. And it's not a direct alignment, because that's always a question too. Can you have a very healthy, ultra processed food? Or are or ultra processed foods by definition unhealthy beyond the high fat, salt, sugar content. And I know you've explored that with others. Don't the retailers just say that they're responding to demand, and so putting pressure on us to change what we sell isn't the real problem here, the real issue. It's to change the demand by the consumers. What do you think of that? Kat - But I mean, people buy what there is. If you went into a grocery store and you couldn't buy these products, you wouldn't buy them. I spent many years working in public health nutrition, and I find this individual narrative very challenging. It's about anything where you start to see the entire population curve shifting towards overweight or obesity, for example. Or same when I used to work more in development context where you had a whole population being stunted. And you would get the same argument - oh no, but these children are just short. They're genetically short. Oh, okay. Yes, some children are genetically short. But when you see 40 or 50% of the population shifting away from the norm, that represents that they're not growing well. So I think it is the retailer's responsibility to make their products healthier and then people will buy them. The other two questions we tried to look at were around promotions. Are our retailers actively promoting unhealthy products in their weekly circulars and flyers? Yes, very much so. We found most of the products that were being promoted are unhealthy. The highest amount that we found promoting healthy was in Food Lion. Walmart only promoted 5% healthy products. The other 95% of the products that they're actively promoting in their own circulars and advertising products are unhealthy products. So, then I would say, well, retailers definitely have a role there. They're choosing to promote these products. And then the other one is cost. And we looked across all six countries and we found that in every country, healthier food baskets are more expensive than less healthier food baskets. So you take these altogether, they're being promoted more, they're cheaper, and they're a huge percentage of what's available. Yes. Then people are going to eat less healthy diets. Right, and promoted not only by the store selling these products, but promoted by the companies that make them. A vast amount of food marketing is going on out there. The vast majority of that is for foods that wouldn't score high on any index. And then you combine that with the fact that the foods are engineered to be so palatable and to drive over consumption. Boy, there are a whole lot of factors that are conspiring in the wrong direction, aren't there. Yeah, it is challenging. And when you look at all the factors, what is your entry point? Yes. Eva, let's talk about CSPI and the work that you and your colleagues are doing in the space. When you come up with an interesting topic in the food area and somebody says, oh, that's pretty important. It's a good likelihood that CSPI has been on it for about 15 years, and that's true here as well. You and your colleagues have been working on these issues and so many others for so many years. But you're very active in advocating for healthier retail environments. Can you highlight what you think are a few key opportunities for making progress? Eva - Absolutely. To start off, I could not agree more with Kat in saying that it really is food companies that have a responsibility for the availability and affordability of healthy options. It's absolutely essential. And the excessive promotion of unhealthy options is what's really undermining people's ability to make healthy choices. Some of the policies that CSPI supports for improving the US retail environment include mandatory front of package nutrition labeling. These are labels that would make it quick and easy for busy shoppers to know which foods are high in added sugar, sodium, or saturated fat, and should therefore be limited in their diets. We also advocate for federal sodium and added sugar reduction targets. These would facilitate overall lower amounts of salt and sugar in the food supply, really putting the onus on companies to offer healthier foods instead of solely relying on shoppers to navigate the toxic food environments and make individual behavior changes. Another one is taxes on sweetened beverages. These would simultaneously nudge people to drink water or buy healthier beverages like flavored seltzers and unsweetened teas, while also raising revenue that can be directed towards important public health initiatives. Another one is healthy checkout policies. These would require retailers to offer only healthier foods and beverages in areas where shoppers stand in line to purchase their groceries. And therefore, reduce exposure to unhealthy food marketing and prevent unhealthy impulse purchases. And then another one is we advocate for online labeling requirements that would ensure consumers have easy access to nutrition, facts, ingredients, and allergen information when they grocery shop online, which unbelievably is currently not always the case. And I can also speak to our advocacy around the creating a uniform definition of healthy, because I know Kat spoke to the challenges in the US context of having different retailers using different systems for identifying healthier products. So the current food labeling landscape in the US is very confusing for the consumer. We have unregulated claims like all natural, competing with carefully regulated claims like organic. We have a very high standard of evidence for making a claim like prevents cold and flu. And then almost no standard of evidence for making a very similar claim like supports immunity. So, when it comes to claims about healthiness, it's really important to have a uniform definition of healthy so that if a product is labeled healthy, consumers can actually trust that it's truly healthy based on evidence backed nutrition standards. And also, so they can understand what that label means. An evidence-based definition of healthy will prevent misleading marketing claims. So, for example, until very recently, there was no limit on the amount of added sugar or refined grain in a product labeled healthy. But recent updates to FDA's official definition of healthy mean that now consumers can trust that any food labeled healthy provides servings from an essential food group like fruit, vegetable, whole grain, dairy, or protein. And doesn't exceed maximum limits on added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat. This new healthy definition is going to be very useful for preventing misleading marketing claims. However, we do think its reach will be limited for helping consumers find and select healthy items mainly because it's a voluntary label. And we know that even among products that are eligible for the healthy claim, very few are using it on their labels. We also know that the diet related chronic disease epidemic in the US is fueled by excess consumption of junk foods, not by insufficient marketing of healthy foods. So, what we really need, as I mentioned before, are mandatory labels that call out high levels of unhealthy nutrients like sodium, added sugar, and saturated fat. Thanks for that overview. What an impressive portfolio of things you and your colleagues are working on. And we could do 10 podcasts on each of the 10 things you mentioned. But let's take one in particular: the front of the package labeling issue. At a time where it seems like there's very little in our country that the Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, the Food and Drug Administration, both previously under the Biden Harris Administration, now under the Trump Vance Administration have identified for a package of labeling as a priority. In fact, the FDA is currently working on a mandatory front of package nutrition label and is creating a final rule around that issue. Kat, from Access to Nutrition Initiative's perspective, why is mandatory front of package labeling important? What's the current situation kind of around the world and what are the retailers and manufacturers doing? Kat - So yes, we definitely stand by the need for mandatory front of package labeling. I think 16 countries globally have front of package labeling mandated, but the rest have voluntary systems. Including in the Netherlands where I live and where Access to Nutrition is based. We use the voluntary Nutri Score and what we've seen across our research is that markets where it's voluntary, it tends to not be applied in all markets. And it tends to be applied disproportionately on healthy products. So if you can choose to put it, you put it all on the ones that are the A or the Nutri Score with the green, and then you don't put it on the really unhealthy products. So, then it also skews consumers. Because like Eva was saying, people are not eating often. Well, they, they're displacing from their diet healthy products with unhealthy products. So that that is a critical challenge. Until you make it mandatory, companies aren't going to do that. And we've seen that with our different global indexes. Companies are not universally using these voluntary regulations across the board. I think that's one critical challenge that we need to address. If you scan the world, there are a variety of different systems being used to provide consumers information on the front of packages. If you could pick one system, tell us what we would actually see on the package. Kat - This is one we've been debating internally, and I saw what CSPI is pushing for, and I think there's growing evidence pushing for warning style labels. These are the ones that say the product is high in like really with a warning, high in fat, high in salt, high in sugar. And there is evidence from countries like Chile where they have introduced this to show that that does drive change. It drives product reformulation. Companies change their products, so they don't have to carry one of the labels. Consumers are aware of it. And they actively try to change their purchasing behaviors to avoid those. And there's less evidence I think interpretive is important. A Nutri Score one where you can see it and it's green. Okay, that's quick. It's easy. There are some challenges that people face with Nutri Score, for example. That Nutri Score compares products among the same category, which people don't realize outside of our niche. Actually, a colleague of mine was telling me - my boyfriend was in the grocery store last week. And he's like picked up some white flour tortillas and they had a Nutri Score D, and then the chips had a Nutri Score B. And he's like, well, surely the tortillas are healthier than the chips. But obviously the chips, the tortilla chips were compared against other salty snacks and the other one was being compared to bread. So, it's like a relatively unhealthy bread compared to a relatively healthy chip. You see this happening even among educated people. I think these labels while well intentioned, they need a good education behind them because they are challenging, and people don't realize that. I think people just see A or green and they think healthy; E is bad, and people don't realize that it's not comparing the same products from these categories. One could take the warning system approach, which tells people how many bad things there are in the foods and flip it over and say, why not just give people information on what's good in a food? Like if a food has vitamins and minerals or protein or fiber, whatever it happens. But you could label it that way and forget labeling the bad things. But of course, the industry would game that system in about two seconds and just throw in some good things to otherwise pretty crappy foods and make the scores look good. So, yeah, it shows why it's so important to be labeling the things that you'd like to see less of. I think that's already happening. You see a lot of foods with micronutrient additions, very sugary breakfast cereals. You see in Asia, a lot of biscuits and cookies that they add micronutrients to. I mean, there's still biscuits and cookies. So Eva, I'd like to get your thoughts on this. So tell us more about the proposed label in the US, what it might look like, and the history about how this got developed. And do you think there's anything else needed to make the label more useful or user-friendly for consumers? Eva - Absolutely. It is a very exciting time to work on food policy in the US, especially with this momentum around front of package labeling. CSPI actually first petitioned calling for front of pack labeling in 2006. And after more than a decade of inaction, industry lobbying, all these countries around the world adopting front of pack labeling systems, but not the US. In 2022 CSPI filed a new petition that specifically called for mandatory interpretive nutrient specific front of package labeling, similar to the nutrient warning labels already required in Mexico, Canada, and as Kat said, around 16 other countries. And in early 2025, FDA finally responded to our petition by issuing a proposal that if finalized would require a nutrition info box on packaged foods. And what the nutrition info box includes is the percent daily value per serving of sodium, added sugar and saturated fat, accompanied by the words high, medium, or low, assessing the amount of each nutrient. This proposal was a very important step forward, but the label could be improved in several ways. First off, instead of a label that is placed on all foods, regardless of their nutrient levels, we strongly recommend that FDA instead adopt labels that would only appear on products that are high in nutrients of concern. A key reason for this is it would better incentivize companies to reduce the amount of salt, sugar, or saturated fat in their product because companies will want to avoid wasting this precious marketing real estate on mandatory nutrition labels. So, for example, they could reduce the amount of sodium in a soup to avoid having a high sodium label on that soup. And also, as you were saying before around the lack of a need to require the positive nutrients on the label, fortunately the FDA proposal didn't, but just to chime in on that, these products are already plastered with claims around their high fiber content, high protein content, vitamin C, this and that. What we really need is a mandatory label that will require companies to tell you what they would otherwise prefer not to. Not the information that they already highlight for marketing purposes. So, in addition to these warning style labels, we also really want FDA to adopt front of package disclosures for foods containing low and no calorie sweeteners. Because this would discourage the industry from reducing sugar just by reformulating with additives that are not recommended for children. So that's a key recommendation that CSPI has made for when FDA finalizes the rule. FDA received thousands and thousands of comments on their labeling proposal and is now tasked with reviewing those comments and issuing a final rule. And although these deadlines are very often missed, so don't necessarily hold your breath, but the government's current agenda says it plans to issue a final rule in May 2026. At CSPI, we are working tirelessly to hold FDA to its commitment of issuing a final regulation. And to ensure that the US front of pack labeling system is number one mandatory and number two, also number one, really, mandatory, and evidence-based so that it really has the best possible chance of improving our diets and our food supply. Well, thank you for the tireless work because it's so important that we get this right. I mean, it's important that we get a system to begin with, even if it's rudimentary. But the better it can be, of course, the more helpful it'll be. And CSPI has been such an important voice in that. Kat, let's talk about some of the things that are happening in developing countries and other parts of the world. So you're part of a multi-country study looking at five additional countries, France, South Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Kenya. And as I understand, the goal is to understand how retail food environments differ across countries at various income levels. Tell us about this, if you would, and what sort of things you're finding. Kat – Yes. So one of our questions was as companies reach market saturation in places like France and the US and the Netherlands, they can't get that many more customers. They already have everyone. So now they're expanding rapidly. And you're seeing a really rapid increase in modern retail purchasing in countries like Indonesia and Kenya. Not to say that in these countries traditional markets are still where most people buy most of their food. But if you look at the graphs at the rate of increase of these modern different retailers also out of home, it's rapidly increasing. And we're really interested to see, okay, given that, are these products also exposing people to less healthy products? Is it displacing traditional diets? And overall, we are seeing that a lot of similar to what you see in other context. In high income countries. Overall healthier products are again, more expensive, and actually the differential is greater in lower income countries. Often because I think also poor people are buying foods not in modern retail environments. This is targeting currently the upper, middle, and higher income consumer groups. But that will change. And we're seeing the same thing around really high percentages of high fat, salt, sugar products. So, looking at how is this really transforming retail environments? At the same time, we have seen some really interesting examples of countries really taking initiative. In Kenya, they've introduced the first Kenyan nutrient profile model. First in Africa. They just introduced that at the end of 2025, and they're trying to introduce also a mandatory front of package warning label similar to what Eva has proposed. This would be these warnings high in fat, salt, and sugar. And that's part of this package that they've suggested. This would also include things around regulations to marketing to children, and that's all being pushed ahead. So, Kenya's doing a lot of work around that. In South Africa, there's been a lot of work on banning marketing to children as well as front of package labeling. I think one of the challenges we've seen there, and this is something... this is a story that I've heard again and again working in the policy space in different countries, is that you have a lot of momentum and initiative by civil society organizations, by concerned consumer groups. And you get all the way to the point where it's about to be passed in legislation and then it just gets kicked into the long grass. Nothing ever happens. It just sits there. I was writing a blog, we looked at Indonesia, so we worked with this organization that is working on doing taxation of sugar sweetened beverages. And that's been on the card since 2016. It actually even reminded me a lot of your story. They've been working on trying to get the sugar sweetened beverage tax in Indonesia passed since 2016. And it gets almost there, but it never gets in the budget. It just never passes. Same with the banning marketing to children in South Africa. This has been being discussed for many years, but it never actually gets passed. And what I've heard from colleagues working in this space is that then industry comes in right before it's about to get passed and says, oh no, but we're going to lose jobs. If you introduce that, then all of the companies that employ people, people will lose their jobs. And modeling studies have shown this isn't true. That overall, the economy will recover, jobs will be found elsewhere. Also, if you factor in the cost to society of treating diabetes from high consumption or sugar sweetened beverages. But it's interesting to see that this repeats again and again of countries get almost over the line. They have this really nice draft initiative and then it just doesn't quite happen. So, I think that that will be really interesting. And I think a bit like what Eva was saying in many of these countries, like with Kenya, are we going to see, start seeing the warning labels. With South Africa, is this regulation banning marketing to children actually going to happen? Are we going to see sugar sweetened beverage taxes written into the 2026 budget in Indonesia? I think very interesting space globally in many of these questions. But I think also a key time to keep the momentum up. It's interesting to hear about the industry script, talking about loss of jobs. Other familiar parts of that script are that consumers will lose choices and their prices will go up. And those things don't seem to happen either in places where these policies take effect. But boy, they're effective at getting these things stomped out. It feels to me like some turning point might be reached where some tipping point where a lot of things will start to happen all at once. But let's hope we're moving in that direction. Kat - The UK as of five days ago, just implemented bans on marketing of unhealthy products to children, changes in retail environment banning promotions of unhealthy products. I do think we are seeing in countries and especially countries with national healthcare systems where the taxpayer has to take on the cost of ill health. We are starting to see these changes coming into effect. I think that's an interesting example and very current. Groundbreaking, absolutely groundbreaking that those things are happening. Let me end by asking you each sort of a big picture question. Kat, you talked about specific goals that you've established about what percentage of products in these retail environments will meet a healthy food standard by a given year. But we're pretty far from that now. So I'd like to ask each of you, are you hopeful we'll get anywhere near those kind of goals. And if you're hopeful, what leads you to feel that way? And Kat, let's start with you and then I'll ask Eva the same thing. Kat - I am hopeful because like you said, there's so much critical momentum happening in so many different countries. And I do find that really interesting. And these are the six countries that we looked at, but also, I know Ghana has recently introduced a or working to introduce a nutrient profile model. You're seeing discussions happening in Asia as well. And a lot of different discussions happening in a lot of different places. All with the same ambition. And I do think with this critical momentum, you will start to break through some of the challenges that we're facing now too. Where you see, for example, like I know this came up with Chile. Like, oh, if you mandate it in this context, then it disadvantages. So like the World Trade Organization came out against it saying it disadvantaged trade, you can't make it mandatory. But if all countries mandate it, then you remove some of those barriers. It's a key challenge in the EU as well. That the Netherlands, for example, can't decide to introduce Nutri Score as a mandatory front of package label because that would disadvantage trade within the European Union. But I think if we hit a critical point, then a lot of the kind of key challenges that we're facing will no longer be there. If the European Union decides to adopt it, then also then you have 27 countries overnight that have to adopt a mandatory front of package label. And as companies have to do this for more and more markets, I think it will become more standardized. You will start seeing it more. I'm hopeful in the amount of momentum that's happening in different places globally. Good. It's nice to hear your optimism on that. So, Eva, what do you think? Eva - So thinking about front of package labeling and the fact that this proposed regulation was put out under the previous presidential administration, the Biden Harris Administration and is now intended to be finalized under the Trump Vance Administration, I think that's a signal of what's really this growing public awareness and bipartisan support for food and nutrition policies in the US. Obviously, the US food industry is incredibly powerful, but with growing public awareness of how multinational food companies are manipulating our diets and making us sick for their own profit, I think there's plenty of opportunity to leverage the power of consumers to fight back against this corporate greed and really take back our health. I'm really happy that you mentioned the bipartisan nature of things that starting to exist now. And it wasn't that long ago where you wouldn't think of people of the political right standing up against the food companies. But now they are, and it's a huge help. And this fact that you have more people from a variety of places on the political spectrum supporting a similar aim to kinda rein in behavior of the food industry and create a healthier food environment. Especially to protect children, leads me to be more optimistic, just like the two of you. I'm glad we can end on that note. Bios Katherine Pittore is the director of Policy and Communications at the Action to Nutrition Initiative. She is responsible for developing a strategy to ensure ATNi's research is translated into better policies. Working collaboratively with alliances and other stakeholders, she aims to identify ways for ATNi's research to support improved policies, for companies, investors and governments, with the aim of creating a more effective playing field enabling markets to deliver more nutritious foods, especially for vulnerable groups in society. Katherine has been working in the field of global nutrition and food systems since 2010. Most recently at Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation (WCDI), where she worked as a nutrition and food security advisor on range projects, mostly in Africa. She also has also worked as a facilitator and trainer, and a specific interest in how to healthfully feed our increasingly urbanizing world. She has also worked for several NGOs including RESULTS UK, as a nutrition advocacy officer, setting up their nutrition advocacy portfolio focusing aimed at increasing aid spending on nutrition with the UK parliament, and Save the Children UK and Save the Children India, working with the humanitarian nutrition team. She has an MSc in Global Public Health from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and a BA in Science and Society from Wesleyan University.  Eva Greenthal oversees Center for Science in the Public Interest's federal food labeling work, leveraging the food label as a powerful public health tool to influence consumer and industry behavior. Eva also conducts research and supports CSPI's science-centered approach to advocacy as a member of the Science Department. Prior to joining CSPI, Eva led a pilot evaluation of the nation's first hospital-based food pantry and worked on research initiatives related to alcohol literacy and healthy habits for young children. Before that, Eva served as a Program Coordinator for Let's Go! at Maine Medical Center and as an AmeriCorps VISTA Member at HealthReach Community Health Centers in Waterville, Maine. Eva holds a dual MS/MPH degree in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition from Tufts University and a BA in Environmental Studies from University of Michigan.  

Today's Topics:1. Public Research Supplement 6.210 – the 14.5-in 7.62 NATO KAC SR-25 Combat Carbine (CC) as a silencer test host. Semiautomatic 7.62 NATO testing is here. As typical, let's look at the combustion propagation characteristics of the new host and see what the silencers will have to deal with as they tackle this new suppression challenge! (00:09:07)2. Sound Signature Review 6.211 – Dillon DRC308 on the 14.5-in SR-25. Kicking off the SR-25 research progression, the larger brother of the previously evaluated DRC556 is put through its paces on this challenging host. In this introduction to today's report publication, we'll talk about the general performance and what we may expect going forward with semiauto 7.62 NATO testing, in general. Can the Dillon tame the beast? (00:25:16)3. Hazard Map Brief 8.1.8 - Dillon DRC308 on the SR-25 7.62x51mm 14.5-in Barrel Automatic Rifle. Boy oh boy. When viewed spatially, how hazardous is the blast overpressure field from a suppressed 7.62 NATO system compared with a 5.56 NATO system? Big brother is here to show you why 7.62 is a different animal. Treat it with respect. (00:36:43)4. Hunting medium size game with 300 BLK? A lot of you do. I am happy to report that I finally tried it, and it was successful. I'll give you some of my initial thoughts on using the 6.75-in Sig MCX Rattler LT (LVAW analog) to take whitetail deer and what I would do differently next time, some pros, cons, etc. (00:43:23)Sponsored by - Silencer Shop, Top Gun Range Houston, Legion Athletics, Capitol Armory, and the PEW Science Laboratory!Legion Athletics: use code pewscience for BOGO off your entire first order and 20% cash back always!Magpul: Use code PSTEN to receive $10 off your order of $100 or more at Magpul

Send us a textWife. Boy mom. Entrepreneur. Tea visionary.  In this episode, I sit down with Brandi Shelton, founder of Just Add Honey Tea Company, who has spent more than two decades building one of Atlanta's most beloved tea brands.Brandi shares how her journey began with her grandmother's herbal remedies in New Orleans, how studying fashion design abroad in London sharpened her creative eye, and how Atlanta has embraced her business from the very beginning.We talk about building a product‑based business, creating intentional customer experiences, balancing motherhood and entrepreneurship, and the lessons she's learned while growing a brand rooted in culture, community, and flavor.If you love tea, business, or stories of women building legacy brands with heart, this episode is your perfect sip.If you love tea, business, or stories of women building brands with intention, this episode is for you.

In this episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, we explore how Miles Copeland, manager of The Police, turned Sting's unmarketable song "Desert Rose" into a 28-million-dollar advertising campaign without spending a dime. The story reveals a powerful principle most businesses miss—the difference between approaching companies at the purchasing department versus the receiving dock. Dan introduces his concept that successful entrepreneurs make two fundamental decisions: they're responsible for their own financial security, and they create value before expecting opportunity. This "receiving dock" mentality—showing up with completed value rather than asking for money upfront—changes everything about how business gets done. We also explore how AI is accelerating adaptation to change, using tariff policies as an unexpected example of how quickly markets and entire provinces can adjust when forced to. We discuss the future of pharmaceutical TV advertising, why Canada's interprovincial trade barriers fell in 60 days, and touch on everything from the benefits of mandatory service to Gavin Newsom's 2028 positioning. Throughout, Charlotte (my AI assistant) makes guest appearances, instantly answering our curiosities. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS How Miles Copeland got $28M in free advertising for Sting by giving Jaguar a music video instead of asking for payment. Why approaching the "receiving dock" with completed value beats going to the "purchasing department" with requests. Dan's two fundamental entrepreneur decisions: take responsibility for your financial security and create value before expecting opportunity. How AI is accelerating adaptation, from tariff responses to Canada eliminating interprovincial trade barriers in 60 days. Why pharmaceutical advertising might disappear from television in 3-4 years and what it means for the industry. Charlotte the AI making guest appearances as the ultimate conversation tiebreaker and Google bypass. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean Jackson: Mr. Sullivan, Dan Sullivan: Good morning. Good morning. Dean Jackson: Good morning. Good morning. Our best to you this morning. Boy, you haven't heard that in a long time, have you? Dan Sullivan: Yeah. What was that? Dean Jackson: KE double LO Double G, Kellogg's. Best to you. Dan Sullivan: There you go. Dean Jackson: Yes, Dan Sullivan: There you go. Dean Jackson: I thought you might enjoy that as Dan Sullivan: An admin, the advertise. I bet everybody who created that is dead. Dean Jackson: I think you're probably right. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. I was just noticing that. Jaguar, did you follow the Jaguar brand change? Dean Jackson: No. What happened just recently? Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Basically maybe 24. They decided to completely rebrand. Since the rebranding, they've sold almost no cars and they fired their marketing. That's problem. Problem. Yeah. You can look it up on YouTube. There's about 25 P mode autopsies. Dean Jackson: Wow. Dan Sullivan: Where Dean Jackson: People are talking mean must. It's true. Because they haven't, there's nothing. It's pretty amazing, actually, when you think about it. The only thing, the evidence that you have that Jaguar even exists is when you see the Waymo taxis in Phoenix. Dan Sullivan: Is that Jaguar? Dean Jackson: They're Jaguars. Yeah. Dan Sullivan: I didn't know that. Yeah. Well, yeah, they just decided that they needed an upgrade. They needed to bring it into the 21st century. Couldn't have any of that traditional British, that traditional British snobby sort of thing. So yeah, when they first, they brought out this, I can't even say it was a commercial, because it wasn't clear that they were selling anything, but they had all these androgynous figures. You couldn't quite tell what their gender was. And they're dressed up in sort of electric colors, electric greens and reds, and not entirely clear what they were doing. Not entirely clear what they were trying to create, not were they selling something, didn't really know this. But not only are they, and then they brought out a new electric car, an ev. This was all for the sake of reading out their, and people said, nothing new here. Nothing new here. Not particularly interesting. Has none of the no relationship to the classic Jaguar look and everything. And as a result of that, not only are they not selling the new EV car, they're not selling any of their other models either. Dean Jackson: I can't even remember the last time you saw it. Betsy Vaughn, who runs our 90 minute book team, she has one of those Jaguar SUV things like the Waymo one. She is the last one I've seen in the wild. But my memory of Jaguar has always, in the nineties and the early two thousands, Jaguar was always distinct. You could always tell something was a Jaguar and you could never tell what year it was. I mean, it was always unique and you could tell it wasn't the latest model because they look kind of distinctly timeless. And that was something that was really, and even the color palettes of them were different. I think about that green that they had. And interesting story about Jaguar, because I listened to a podcast called How I Built This, and they had one of my, I would say this is one of my top five podcasts ever that I've listened to is an interview with Miles Copeland, who was the manager of the police, the band. And in the seventies when the police were just getting started, miles, who was the brother of Stuart Copeland, the drummer for the police. He was their manager, and he was new to managing. He was new to the business. He only got in it because his brother was in the band, and they needed a manager. So he took over. But he was very, very smart about the things that he did. He mentioned that he realized on reflection that the number one job of a manager is to make sure that people know your band exists. And then he thought, well, that's true. But there are people, it's more important that the 400 event bookers in the UK know that my band exists. And he started a magazine that only was distributed to the 400 Bookers. It looked like a regular magazine, but he only distributed it to 400 people. And it was like the big, that awareness for them. But I'll tell you that story, just to tell you that in the early two thousands when Sting was a solo artist, and he had launched a new album, and the first song on the album was a song called Desert Rose, which started out with a Arabic. It was collaboration with an Arabic singer. So the song starts out with this Arabic voice singing Arabic, an Arabic cry sort of thing. And this was right in the fall of 2001. And Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good, Dean Jackson: They could not get any airplay on radio airplay. You couldn't get American airplay of a song that starts out with an Arabic wailing Arabic language. And so they shot a video for this song with Chebe was the guy, the Che Mumbai, I guess is the singer. So they shot a video and they were just driving through the desert between Palm Springs and Las Vegas, and they used the brand new Jaguar that had just been released, and it was really like a stunning car. It was a beautiful car that was, I think, peak Jaguar. And when Miles saw the video, he said, that's a beautiful car. And they saw the whole video. He thought you guys just made a car commercial. And he went to Jaguar and said, Hey, we just shot this video, and it's a beautiful, highlights your car, and if you want to use it in advertising, I'll give you the video. If you can make the ad look like it's an ad for Sting's new album. I can't get airplay on it now. So Jaguar looked at it. He went to the ad agency that was running Jaguar, and they loved it, loved the idea, and they came back to Miles and said, we'd love it. Here's what we edited. Here's what we did. And it looks like a music video. But kids, when was basically kids dream of being rock stars, and what do rock stars dream of? And they dream of Jaguars, right? And it was this, all the while playing this song, which looked like a music video with the thing in the corner saying from the new album, A Brand New Day by Sting. And so it looked like a music video for Sting, and they showed him an ad schedule that they were going to purchase 28 million of advertising with this. They were going to back it with a 28 million ad spend. And so he got 28 million of advertising for Stings album for free by giving them the video. And I thought, man, that is so, it was brilliant. Lucky, lucky. It was a VCR. Yeah. Lucky, Dan Sullivan: Lucky, lucky. Dean Jackson: It was a VCR collaboration. Perfectly executed. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah. It just shows that looking backwards capability, what I can say something that was just lucky looks like capability. Dean Jackson: Yeah, the whole, Dan Sullivan: I mean, basically it saved their ass. Dean Jackson: It saved Sting and Yeah. Oh yeah. But I think when you look in the, Dan Sullivan: No, it was just lucky. It was just lucky. I mean, if there hadn't been nine 11, there's no saying. There's no saying it would've gone anywhere. Dean Jackson: Right, exactly. Dan Sullivan: Well, the album would've gone, I mean, stain was famous. Speaker 1: It would've Dan Sullivan: Gone, but they probably, no, it's just a really, really good example of being really quick on your feet when something, Dean Jackson: I think, because there's other examples of things that he did that would lead me to believe it was more strategic than luck. He went to the record label, and the record label said, he said he was going to give the video to Jaguar, and they said, you're supposed to get money for licensing these things. And then he showed them the ad table that the media buy that they were willing to put behind it. And he said, oh, well, if you can match, you give me 28 million of promotion for the album, I'll go back and get some money from them for. And the label guy said, oh, well, let's not be too hasty here. But that, I think really looking at that shows treating your assets as collaboration currency rather than treating that you have to get a purchase order for it. Most people would think, oh, we need to get paid for that. The record label guy was thinking, but he said, no, we've got the video. We already shot it. It didn't cost us, wouldn't cost us anything to give it to them. But the value of the 28 million of promotion, It was a win-win for everyone. And by the way, that's how he got the record deal for the police. He went to a and m and said, he made the album first. He met a guy, a dentist, who had a studio in the back of his dental. He was aspiring musician, but he rented the studio for 4,000 pounds for a month, and he sent the police into the studio to make their album. So they had a finished album that he took to a and m and said, completely de-risk this for them. We've got the album. I'll give you the album and we'll just take the highest royalty that a and m pays. So the only decision that a and m had to make was do they like the album? Otherwise, typically they would say, we need you to sign these guys. And then they would have to put up the money to make the album and hope that they make a good album. But it was already done, so there was no risk. They just had to release it. And they ended up, because of that, making the most money of any of the a and m artists, because they didn't take an advance. They didn't put any risk on a and m. It was pretty amazing actually, the stories of it. Dan Sullivan: I always say that really successful entrepreneurs make two fundamental decisions at the beginning of their career. One is they're going to be responsible for their own financial security, number one. And number two is that they'll create value before they expect opportunity. So this is decision number two. They created value, and now the opportunity got created by the value that they got created. You're putting someone else in a position that the only risk they're taking is saying no. Dean Jackson: Yeah. And you know what it's, I've been calling this receiving doc thinking of most businesses are going to the purchasing department trying to get in line and convince somebody to write a purchase order for a future delivery of a good or service. And they're met with resistance and they're met with a rigorous evaluation process. And we've got to decide and be convinced that this is going to be a prudent thing to do, and you're limiting yourself to only getting the money that's available now. Whereas if instead of going to the purchasing department, you go around to the back and you approach a company at the receiving dock, you're met with open arms. Every company is a hundred percent enthusiastically willing to accept new money coming into the business, and you're met with no resistance. And it's kind of, that was a really interesting example of that. And you see those examples everywhere. Dan Sullivan: All cheese. Dean Jackson: All cheese. No, whiskers. That's exactly right. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. I mean, it's an interesting, funny, I'm kind of thinking about this. For some reason, my personal email number is entered into some sort of marketing network because about every day now, I get somebody who the message goes like this, dear Dan, we've been noticing your social media, and we feel that you're underselling yourself, that there's much better ways that we personally could do this. And there's something different in each one of them. But if you take a risk on us, there's a possibility. There's a possibility. You never know. Life's that we can possibly make some more money on you and all by you taking the risk. Dean Jackson: Yes, exactly. Send money. Dan Sullivan: Send money. Dean Jackson: Yeah. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. And they're quite long. They're like two or three paragraphs. They're not nine words. They might be nine paragraph emails for all I know, but it's really, really interesting. Well, they're just playing a numbers game. They're sending this out to probably 5,000 different places, and somebody might respond. So anyway, but it just shows you, you're asking someone to take a risk. Dean Jackson: Yes. Yeah. I call that a purchase order. It's exactly it. You can commit to something before and hope for the best hope that the delivery will arrive instead of just showing up with the delivery. It's kind of similar in your always be the buyer approach. Dan Sullivan: What are you seeing there? Whatcha seeing Dean Jackson: There? I mean, that kind of thinking you are looking for, well, that's my interpretation anyway, of what you're saying of always be the buyer is that are selecting from Dan Sullivan: Certain type of customer, we're looking for a certain type of customer, and then we're describing the customer, and it's based on our understanding that a certain type of customer is looking for a certain type of process that meets who they're not only that, but puts them in a community of people like themselves. Yeah. So Dean Jackson: I look at that, that's that kind of thing where one of the questions that I'll often ask people is just to get clarity is what would you do if you only got paid if your client gets the result? And that's, it's clarifying on a couple of levels. One, it clarifies what result you're actually capable of getting, because what do you have certainty, proof, and a protocol around if we're talking the vision terms. And the other part of that is if you are going to get that result, if you're only going to get paid, if they get the result, you are much more selective in who you select to engage with, rather than just like anybody that you can convince to give you the money, knowing that they're not going to be the best candidate anyway. But they take this, there's an element of external blame shifting when they don't get the result by saying, well, everything is there. It's up to them. They just didn't do anything with it. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. I mean, it's a really interesting world that we're in, because we've talked about this before with ai. Now on the scene, the sheer amount of marketing attempts at marketing Speaker 1: Is Dan Sullivan: Going through the roof, but the amount of attention that people have to entertain marketing suggestions and anything is probably going down very, very quickly. The amount of attention that they have. And it strikes me that, and then it's really interesting. There's a real high possibility that in the United States, probably within the next three or four years, there'll be no more TV advertising. The pharmaceuticals. Dean Jackson: Yeah. Very interesting. Dan Sullivan: Pharmaceuticals and the advertising industry is going crazy because a significant amount of advertising dollars really come from pharmaceuticals. Dean Jackson: Yeah. I wonder if you took out pharmaceuticals and beer, what the impact would be. Dan Sullivan: I bet pharmaceuticals is bigger than beer. Dean Jackson: I wonder. Yeah. I mean, that sounds like a job for perplexity. Yeah. Why don't we Dean Jackson: Ask what categories? Yeah, categories are the top advertising spenders. Our top advertising spenders. Dan Sullivan: Well, I think food would be one Dean Jackson: Restaurant, Dan Sullivan: But I think pharmaceuticals, but I think pharmaceuticals would be a big one. Dean Jackson: Number one is retail. The leading category, counting for the highest proportion of ad spend, 15% of total ad spend is retail entertainment. And media is number two with 12% financial services, typically among the top three with 11% pharmaceutical and healthcare holds a significant share around 10%. Automotive motor vehicles is a major one. Telecommunications one of the fastest growing sectors, food and beverage and health and beauty. Those are the top. Yeah, that makes sense. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. But you take, what was pharmaceuticals? Eight, 9%, something like that. 10%. 10%. 10%, 10%. Yeah. Well, that's a hit. Dean Jackson: I mean, it's more of a hit than Canada taking away their US liquor by That was a 1% impact. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Dean Jackson: Yeah. Dan Sullivan: Well, that's not going anywhere right now. They're a long, long way from an agreement, a trade agreement, I'll tell you. Yeah. Well, the big thing, what supply management is, do you remember your Canadians Dean Jackson: Supply management? You mean like inventory management? First in, first out, last in, first out, Dan Sullivan: No. Supply management is paying farmers to only produce a certain amount of product in order to Dean Jackson: Keep prices up. Oh, the subsidies. Dan Sullivan: Subsidies. And that's apparently the big sticking point. And it's 10,000 farmers, and they're almost all in Ontario and Quebec, Dean Jackson: The dairy board and all that. Yeah. Dan Sullivan: Yep, yep, yep, yep. And apparently that's the real sticking point. Dean Jackson: Yeah. I had a friend grown up whose parents owned a dairy farm, and they had 200 acres, and I forget how many, many cattle or how many cows they had, but that was all under contract, I guess, right. To the dairy board. It's not free market or whatever. They're supplying milk to the dairy board, I guess, under an allocation agreement. Yeah, very. That's interesting. Dan Sullivan: Yeah, and it's guaranteed they have guaranteed prices too. Dean Jackson: They're Dan Sullivan: Guaranteed a certain amount. I was looking at that for some reason. There was an article, and I was just reading it. It was about a dairy farm, I think it was a US dairy farm, and they had 5,000 cattle. So I looked up, how much acreage do you have to have for 5,000 dairy cows? And I forget what the number was, but it prompted me to say, I wonder what the biggest dairy farm in the world is this. So I went retro. I went to Google, and it's what now? Google. You know that? Google that? You remember Google? Oh, yeah, yeah. Old, good old Google. I remember that. Used to do something called a search on Google. Yeah, Dean Jackson: I remember now. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Well, I went retro. I went retro, and I said, and the biggest dairy farm is in China. It's 25 million acres. Dean Jackson: Wow. In context, how does that compare to, Dan Sullivan: It's a state of South Dakota. It's as big as Dean Jackson: South Dakota. Okay. That's what I was going to say. That's the entire state of Dan Sullivan: Yes, because I said, is there a state that's about the same size? Dean Jackson: I was just about to ask you that. Yeah. Dan Sullivan: It's a Russian Chinese project, and the reason is that when the Ukraine war started, there was a real cutback in what the Russians could trade and getting milk in. They had to get milk in from somewhere else. So it comes in from China, but a lot of it must be wasted because they've got a hundred thousand dairy cows, a hundred thousand dairy cows. So I'm trying to Dean Jackson: Put that, well, that seems like a lot. Dan Sullivan: It just seems like a lot. Just seems like Dean Jackson: A lot. That seems like a lot of acreage per cow. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Well, they, one child policy, they probably have a one acre, a one 10 acre per cow Dean Jackson: Policy. Yeah, exactly. Dan Sullivan: You can just eat grass, don't do anything else. Just eat grass. Don't even move. But really interested, really, really interesting today, how things move. One of the things that's really interesting is that so far, the tariff policies have not had much. They have, first of all, the stock market is at peak right now. The stock market really peak, so it hasn't discouraged the stock market, which means that it hasn't disturbed the companies that people are investing in. The other thing is that inflation has actually gone down since they did that. Employment has gone up. So I did a search on perplexity, and I said 10 reasons why the experts who predicted disaster are being proven wrong with regard to the tariff policies. And it was very interesting. It gave me 10 answers, and all the 10 answers were that people have been at all levels. People have been incredibly more responsive and ingenious in responding to this. And my feeling is that it has a lot to do with it, especially with ai. That's something that was always seen as a negative because people could only respond to it very slowly, is now not as a negative, simply because the responsiveness is much higher. That in a certain sense, every country in the planet, on the planet, every company, on the planet, professions and everything else, when you have a change like this, everybody adjusts real quickly. They have a plan B, Dean Jackson: Plan B, anyone finds loop Pauls and plan B. That's the thing. Dan Sullivan: Since Trump dropped the notion that he is going to do tariffs on Canada, almost all the provinces have gotten together in Canada, and they've eliminated almost all trade restrictions between the provinces, which have been there since the beginning of the country, but they were gone within 60 Dean Jackson: Days Dan Sullivan: Afterwards. Dean Jackson: It was like, Hey, there, okay, maybe we should trade with each other. Dan Sullivan: Yeah, yeah. Dean Jackson: Very funny. Dan Sullivan: Which they don't because every province in Canada trades more with the United States than with the states close to them across the border than they do with any other Canadian province. Anyway. Well, the word is spreading, Dean, that if you listen to welcome to Cloud Landia, that probably there'll be an AI partner. There'll be an ai. Dean Jackson: Oh, yeah. Word is spreading. Okay, that's good. Dan Sullivan: Yeah, I like that. So let's what Charlotte think about the fact that she might be riding on the back of two humans and her fame is spreading based on the work of two humans. Dean Jackson: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's funny. Dan Sullivan: Does she feel a little sheepish about this? Dean Jackson: It's so funny because I think last time I asked her what she was doing when we're not there, and she does like, oh, I don't go off and explore or have curiosity or anything like that. It'll just sit here. I'm waiting for you. It was funny, Stuart, and I was here, Stuart Bell, who runs my new information, we were talking about just the visual personifying her as just silently sitting there waiting for you to ask her something or to get involved. She's never let us down. I mean, it's just so she knows all, she's a tiebreaker in any conversation, in any curiosity that you have, or there's no need to say, I wonder, and then leave it open-ended. We can just bring Charlotte into it, and it's amazing how much she knows. I definitely use her as a Google bypass for sure. I just say I asked, we were sitting at Honeycomb this morning, which is my favorite, my go-to place for breakfast and coffee, and I was saying surrounded by as many lakes as we are, there should be, the environment would be, it's on kind of a main road, so it's got a little bit noisy, and it's not as ideal as being on a lake. And it reminded me of there's a country club active adult community, and I just asked her, is Lake Ashton, are they open for breakfast? Their clubhouse is right on the lake, and she's looking just instantly looks up. Yeah. Yeah. They're open every day, but they don't open until 10, so it was like nine o'clock when we were Having this conversation. So she's saying there's a little bit of a comment about that, but there's not a lakefront cafe. There's plenty of places that would be, there's lots of excess capacity availability in a lot of places that are only open in the evenings there. There's a wonderful micro brewery called Grove Roots, which is right here in Winterhaven. It's an amazing, it's a great environment, beautiful high ceilings building that they open as a microbrew pub, and they have a rotating cast of food trucks that come there in the evenings, but they sit there vacant in the mornings, and I just think about how great that environment would be as a morning place, because it's quiet, it's spacious, it's shaded, it's all the things you would look for. And so I look at that as a capability asset that they have that's underutilized, and it wouldn't be much to partner with a coffee food truck. There was in Yorkville, right beside the Hazelton in the entrance, what used to be the entrance down into the What's now called Yorkville Village used to be Hazelton Lanes. There was a coffee truck called Jacked Up Coffee, and it was this inside. Now Dan Sullivan: It's Dean Jackson: Inside. Now it's inside. Yeah, exactly. It's inside now, but it used to sit in the breezeway on the entrance down into the Hazelton Lane. So imagine if you could get one of those trucks and just put that in the Grove Roots environment. So in the morning you've got this beautiful cafe environment, Dan Sullivan: And they could have breakfast sandwiches. Dean Jackson: Yes. That's the point. That's exactly it. There used to be a cafe in Winterhaven, pre COVID. Dan Sullivan: I mean, just stop by Starbucks and see what Starbucks has and just have that available. Exactly. In the truck. I mean, they do lots of research for you, so just take advantage of their research. But then what would you have picnic tables or something like that? They Dean Jackson: Have already. No, no. This is what I'm saying is that you'd use the Grove Roots Dan Sullivan: Existing restaurant, Dean Jackson: The existing restaurant. Yeah. Which is, they've got Adirondack chairs, they've got those kinds of chairs. They've got picnic tables, they've got regular tables and chairs inside. They've got Speaker 1: Comfy Dean Jackson: Leather sofas. They've got a whole bunch of different environments. That would be perfect. But I was saying pre COVID, there was a place in Winter Haven called Bean and Grape, and it was a cafe in the morning and a wine bar in the evening, which I thought makes the most sense of anything. You keep the cafe open and then four o'clock in the afternoon, switch it over, and it's a wine bar for a happy hour and the evening. Dan Sullivan: Yeah, I mean, it's interesting. I mean, you've got a marketing mind, plus you've got years of experience of marketing, helping people market different things. So it's really interesting that what is obvious to you other people would never think of. Dean Jackson: I'm beginning to see that. Right. That's really an interesting thing. What I have. Dan Sullivan: I mean, it's like I was reflecting on that because I've been coaching entrepreneurs for 50 years, and I've created lots of structures and created lots of tools for them. And so when you think about, I read a statistic and its function of, I think that higher education is not quite syncing with the marketplace, but in December of last year, there was that 45% of the graduates of the MBA, Harvard MBA school had not gotten jobs. This was six months later. They hadn't gotten jobs, 45% hadn't gotten jobs. And I said, well, what's surprising was these 45% hadn't already created a company while they were at Harvard Business School, and what are they looking for jobs for? Anyway, they be creating their own companies. But my sense is that what they've been doing is that they've been going to college to avoid having to go into the job market, and so they don't even know how to get, not only do they know how to create a company, they don't even know how to get a job. Dean Jackson: Yeah. There's a new school concept, like a high school in, I think it's in Austin, Texas that is, I think it's called Epic, and they are teaching kids how they do all the academic work in about two hours a day, and then the rest of the time is working on projects and creating businesses, like being entrepreneurial. And I thought it's very interesting teaching people, if people could leave high school equipped with a way to add value in a way that they're not looking to plug their umbilical cord in someone else, be an amazing thing of just giving, because you think about it, high school kids can add value. You have value to contribute. You have even at that level, and they can learn their value contribution. Dan Sullivan: I think probably the mindset for that is already there at 10 years old, I think 10 years old, that an enterprise, Dean Jackson: Well, that's when the lemonade stands, right? Dan Sullivan: Yeah. An enterprise, an enterprising attitude is probably already there at 10 years old, and it'd be interesting to test for, I mean, I think Gino Wickman from EOS, when he was grad EOS, he created a test to see whether children have an entrepreneurial mindset or not, but I got to believe that you could test for that, that you could test for that. Just the attitude of creating value before I get any opportunity. I think you could build a psychological justice Speaker 1: Around Dan Sullivan: That and that you could be feeding that. I mean, we have the Edge program in Strategic Coach. It's 18 to 24 and unique ability and the four or five concepts that you can get across in the one day period, but it makes sense. Our clients tell us that it makes a big difference. A lot of 'em, they're 18 and they're off to college or something like that, Speaker 1: And Dan Sullivan: To have that one day of edge mind adjustment mindset adjustment makes a big difference how they go through university and do that, Jim, but Leora Weinstein said that in Israel, they have all sorts of tests when you're about 10, 12, 13 years old, that indicates that this is a future jet pilot. This is a future member of the intelligence community. They've already got 'em spotted early. They got 'em spotted 13, 14 years old, because they have to go into the military anyway. They have everybody at the 18 has to go in the military. So they start the screening really early to see who are the really above average talent, above average mindset. Dean Jackson: Yeah. The interesting, I mean, I've heard of that, of doing not even just military, but service of public service or whatever being as a mandatory thing. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Well, I went through it. Dean Jackson: Yeah, you did. Exactly. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Yeah. And it's hard to say because it was tumultuous times, but I know that when I came out of the military, I was 23 when I came out 21, 21 to 23, that when I got to college at 23, 23 to 27, you're able to just focus. You didn't have to pay any attention to anything going outside where everybody was up in arms about the war. They were up in arms about this, or they're up in arms about being drafted and everything else, and just having that. But the other thing is that you had spent two years putting up with something that you hadn't chosen, hadn't chosen, but you had two years to do it. And I think there's some very beneficial mindsets and some very beneficial habits that comes from doing that, Dean Jackson: Being constraints, being where you can focus on something. Yeah. That's interesting. Having those things taken away. Dan Sullivan: And it's kind of interesting because you talk every once in a while in Toronto, I've met a person maybe in 50 years I've met, and these were all draft dodgers. These were Americans who moved to Canada, really to the draft, and I would say that their life got suspended when they made that decision that they haven't been able to move beyond it emotionally and psychologically Dean Jackson: Wild and just push the path, Dan Sullivan: And they want to talk about it. They really want to talk about it. I said, this happened. I'm talking to someone, and they're really emotionally involved in what they're talking about Dean Jackson: 55 years ago now. Dan Sullivan: Yeah, it's 55 years ago that this happened, and they're up in arms. They're still up in arms about it and angry and everything else. And I said, it tells me something that if I ever do something controversial, spend some time getting over the emotion that you went through and get on with life, win a lottery, Dean Jackson: That's a factor change. I think all you think about those things, Dan Sullivan: But the real thing of how your life can be suspended over something that you haven't worked through the learning yet. There's a big learning there, and the big thing is that Carter, when he was president, late seventies, he declared amnesty for everybody who was a draft dodge so they could go back to the United States. I mean, there was no problem. They went right to the Supreme Court. They didn't lose their citizenship. Actually, there's only one thing that you can lose your, if you're native born, like you're native born American, you're born American with American Speaker 1: Parents, Dan Sullivan: You're a 100% legitimate American. There's only one crime that you can do to lose your citizenship. Dean Jackson: What's that? Dan Sullivan: Treason. Dean Jackson: Treason. Yeah, treason. I was just going to say Dan Sullivan: That. Yeah. If you don't get killed, it's a capital crime. And actually that's coming up right now because of the discovery that the Obama administration with the CIA and with the FBI acted under false information for two years trying to undermine Trump when he got in president from 17 to 19, and it comes under the treason. Comes under the treason laws, and so Obama would be, he's under criminal investigation right now for treason. Dean Jackson: Oh, wow. Dan Sullivan: And they were saying, can you do that to a president, to his former president? And so the conversation has moved around. Well, wouldn't necessarily put him in prison, but you could take away his citizenship anyway. I mean, this is hypothetical. My sense is won't cut that far, but the people around him, like the CIA director and the FBI director, I can see them in prison. They could be in prison. Wow. Yeah, and there's no statutes of limitation on this. Dean Jackson: I've noticed that Gavin Newsom seems to have gotten a publicist in the last 30 or 60 days. Dan Sullivan: Yes, he is. Dean Jackson: I've seen Dan Sullivan: More. He's getting ready for 28. Dean Jackson: I've seen more Gavin Newsom in the last 30 days than I've seen ever of him, and he's very carefully positioning himself. As I said to somebody, it's almost like he's trying to carve out a third party position while still being on the democratic side. He's trying to distance himself from the wokeness, like the hatred for the rich kind of thing, while still staying aligned with the LGBT, that whole world, Speaker 1: Which Dean Jackson: I didn't realize he was the guy that authorized the first same sex marriage in San Francisco when he was the mayor of San Francisco. I thought that was it. So he's very carefully telling all the stories that position, his bonafides kind of thing, and talking about, I didn't realize that he was an entrepreneur, para restaurants and vineyards. Dan Sullivan: I think it's all positive for him except for the fact of what happened in California while it was governor. Dean Jackson: And so he's even repositioning that. I think everybody's saying that what happened, but he was looking, he's positioning that California is one of the few net positive states to the federal government, Dan Sullivan: But not a single voter in the United States That, Dean Jackson: Right. Very interesting. That's why he's telling the story. Dan Sullivan: Yeah Dean Jackson: Fair. They contribute, I think, I don't know the numbers, but 8 billion a year to the federal government, and Texas is, as the other example, is a net drain on the United States that they're a net taker from the federal government. And so it's really very, it's interesting. He's very carefully positioning all the things, really. He's speaking a thing of, because they're asking him the podcasts that he is going on, they're kind of asking him how the Democrats have failed kind of thing. And that's what, yeah, Dan Sullivan: They're at their lowest in almost history right now. Yeah. Well, he can try. I mean, every American's got the right to try, but my sense is that the tide has totally gone against the Democrats. It doesn't matter what kind of Democrat you want to position yourself at. I mean, you'll be able to get a feel for that with the midterm elections next November. Dean Jackson: Yeah. That's Dan Sullivan: Not this November. This November, but no, I think he could very definitely win the nomination. There's no question the nomination, but I think this isn't just a lot of people misinterpret maga. MAGA is the equivalent to the beginning of the country. In other words, the putting together the Constitution and the revolution and the Constitution and starting new governor, that was a movement, a huge movement. That was a movement that created it. And then the abolition movement, which put the end to slavery with the Civil War. That was the second movement. And then the labor movement, the fact that labor, there was a whole labor movement that Franklin Roosevelt took and turned it into what was called the New Deal in the 1930s. That was the movement. So you've had these three movements. I think Trump represents the next movement, and it's the complete rebellion of the part of the country that isn't highly educated against Gavin. Newsom represents the wealthy, ultra educated part of the country. I mean, he's the Getty. He's the Getty man. He's got the billions of dollars of the Getty family behind him. He was Nancy, Nancy Pelosi's nephew. He represents total establishment, democratic establishment, and I don't think he can get away from that. Dean Jackson: Interesting. Yeah, it's interesting to watch him try. I literally, I know more about him now than I've ever heard, and he's articulate and seems to be likable, so we'll see. But you're coming from this perception of, well, look what he did to California. And he's kind of dismantling that by saying, if only we could do to California, due to the country, what I've done to California. Well, Dan Sullivan: He didn't do anything for California. I mean, California 30 years ago was in incredibly better shape than California's right now. Yeah. The big problem was the bureaucrats run California. These are people who were left wing during the 1960s, 1970s, and they were the anti-war. I mean, it all started in California, the anti-war project, and these people graduated from college. First of all, they stayed in college as long as they could, and then they went into the government bureaucracy. So I mean, there's lifeguards in Los Angeles that make 500,000 a year. Dean Jackson: It's crazy, isn't it? Dan Sullivan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's the extraordinary money that goes to the public service in California that's destroyed the state. But I mean, anybody can try. Speaker 1: Yeah. Dan Sullivan: I remember after the Democratic Convention, Kamala was up by 10 points over Trump. Yes. Yeah, she's from San Francisco too. Dean Jackson: Yes, exactly. That's what he was saying, their history. Dan Sullivan: No, you're just seeing that because he started in South Carolina, that's where all his, because that's now the first state that counts on the nomination, but he's after the nomination right now. He's trying to position for the nomination. Anyway, we'll see. Go for it. Well, there you Speaker 1: Go. Dan Sullivan: And Elon Musk, he wants to start a new party. He can go for it too. Dean Jackson: Somebody. That's exactly right. Dan Sullivan: Yeah. Then there's other people. Dean Jackson: That's true. Dan Sullivan: Alrighty, got to jump. Dean Jackson: Okay. Have a great week

So...how is 2026 going?? Why do you think my brother is just “dropping by”? I want to clear up this dating story... MOM-TENT: Gen Xers and Millennials share 17 of the strangest things their Baby Boomer parents do Become a Certified Fan! Help support the podcast and get our Thursday show, More Mama's Boy! OR upgrade your support here!  Adopt An Episode! Want to show us a little extra love? Adopt an Episode and get a personal shoutout in an upcoming show! This episode was adopted by the amazing Laura B. from San Diego, CA! Thank you!! A special thank you to our Boy-lievers for your extra support of our show: Candy Z, Marci H, Eileen F, Kat R, Rachelrose S, Donald S, Queen Pam , Erin D, Alexandra T, Deb S, Lisa G, Julie B, Carly M C, Karissa R, Sue W, Lucino , Lisa H, Kayla S, Karen W, Tina U, Lety S, Julia M, Michele K, Angela P and our mystery Boy-liever!  Listen to my other podcast, “Kramer and Jess Uncensored”! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two chubby little villagers set out on the quest of a lifetime: to review the Dragon Quest VII Reimagined Demo! Tommy and Ben are back in the saddle and this week they lasso a whole mess of video game news, from the upcoming Xbox Direct to a few upcoming games that slipped past their cattle dog, from new Mario Tennis Fever features to the Anno city-builder series. There's some Warioworld hootenanny and even more Clair Obscur barnyard chatter. Boy howdy it's a darn tootin' good time! Settle down in your old West cuck rocking chair and prepare for good times. Cowboy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of Best in Fest, host Leslie LaPage welcomes Rabbi Noam Raucher — educator, divorce coach, and Executive Director of FJMC International (Friendship, Judaism, Mentorship & Community) — to explore an unexpected but urgent topic: how media, masculinity, and meaning intersect in today's culture.Noam shares his personal journey through divorce, career loss, and men's support groups — experiences that inspired him to launch Mama's Boy, a bold new podcast co-hosted with comedy writer Rob Kutner. Together, they're creating content that challenges toxic masculinity, offers healthier models of brotherhood, and brings Jewish wisdom into modern conversations about manhood.In this episode, we explore:

HT2501 - Playing Guitar or Making Music I recently heard a reviewer say of a musician that he didn't play the guitar, he made music. Boy, does that sum up so much about any medium that is the fusion of tools and creative vision — like photography. Do we take pictures or do we make images? Do we make images or do we observe and comment on life? Show your appreciation for our free weekly Podcast and our free daily Here's a Thought… with a donation Thanks!

LET'S DANCE!! Footloose Full Movie Reaction Watch Along: ⁠  / thereelrejects  ⁠ Download PrizePicks today at ⁠https://www.prizepicks.onelink.me/LME...⁠ & use code REJECTS to get $50 instantly when you play $5! Gift Someone (Or Yourself) An RR Tee! ⁠https://shorturl.at/hekk2⁠ John & Andrew hit the dancefloor for one of the most iconic '80s movies of ALL TIME giving their Reaction, Recap, Analysis, Breakdown, Commentary, & Spoiler Review!! Footloose (1984) Full Movie Reaction, Breakdown, Commentary & Spoiler Review! — with hosts Andrew Gordon & John Humphrey diving into the iconic dance-driven classic that turned rebellion, rhythm, and teenage freedom into one of the most beloved films of the 1980s. Directed by Herbert Ross (Steel Magnolias, The Turning Point), Footloose stars Kevin Bacon (A Few Good Men, Mystic River) in a career-making role as Ren McCormack, a city kid who moves to the small town of Bomont — where dancing and rock music have been banned following a tragic accident. What follows is a clash of generations, beliefs, and self-expression as Ren challenges the town's rigid rules and inspires its youth to reclaim joy through movement. Andrew & John break down the movie's most iconic moments: Ren's explosive warehouse dance sequence, the tension-filled town council debates, the emotional conflict with Reverend Shaw Moore (John Lithgow — Dexter, The Crown), the complicated romance with Ariel (Lori Singer), and the unforgettable final prom that proves joy and discipline don't have to be enemies. They also highlight the film's legendary soundtrack — featuring hits like “Footloose,” “Let's Hear It for the Boy,” and “Almost Paradise” — which became inseparable from the movie's legacy. Follow Andrew Gordon on Socials:  YouTube: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/@MovieSource⁠ Instagram:⁠ ⁠ ⁠https://www.instagram.com/agor711/?hl=en⁠ Twitter:  ⁠https://twitter.com/Agor711⁠ Intense Suspense by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. ⁠https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...⁠ Support The Channel By Getting Some REEL REJECTS Apparel! ⁠https://www.rejectnationshop.com/⁠ Follow Us On Socials:  Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/⁠  Tik-Tok: ⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@reelrejects?lang=en⁠ Twitter: ⁠https://x.com/reelrejects⁠ Facebook: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/⁠ Music Used In Ad:  Hat the Jazz by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. ⁠https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/⁠ Happy Alley by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. ⁠https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...⁠ POWERED BY @GFUEL Visit⁠ https://gfuel.ly/3wD5Ygo⁠ and use code REJECTNATION for 20% off select tubs!! Head Editor:⁠ https://www.instagram.com/praperhq/?hl=en⁠ Co-Editor: Greg Alba Co-Editor: John Humphrey Music In Video: Airport Lounge - Disco Ultralounge by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.⁠ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/⁠ Ask Us A QUESTION On CAMEO:⁠ https://www.cameo.com/thereelrejects⁠ Follow TheReelRejects On FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & INSTAGRAM:  FB:  ⁠https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/⁠ INSTAGRAM: ⁠ https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/⁠ TWITTER:  ⁠https://twitter.com/thereelrejects⁠ Follow GREG ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER: INSTAGRAM:  ⁠https://www.instagram.com/thegregalba/⁠ TWITTER:  ⁠https://twitter.com/thegregalba⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "The Quiet Work of Clarity" by Dr. Henry Bair, who is an ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital. The article is followed by an interview with Bair and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Bair explores how vision care can honor end-of-life goals and helps a patient with failing sight write to his children. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The Quiet Work of Clarity, Henry, Bair, MD  Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm professor of medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a pleasure it is to have joining us today Dr. Henry Bair, an ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital, to discuss his Journal of Clinical Oncology Art of Oncology article, "Quiet Work of Clarity". At the time of this recording, our guest has no disclosures. Dr. Bair and I have agreed to call each other by first names. Henry, thank you for contributing to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Henry Bair: Thank you very much for having me. Mikkael Sekeres: I love starting off by getting a little bit of background about our guests. I know a little bit about you, but I'm not sure all of our listeners do. Can you tell us about yourself and how you reached this stage of your training? Henry Bair: Sure thing. Happy to start there. I was born and raised in Taiwan. I came to the United States when I was 18 for college. I was at Rice University. I was drawn to it because the Texas Medical Center was right over there, but the university had a small liberal arts feel and the university did not box me into any specific discipline. I went there and we didn't have to declare anything and we could take any class from any school over there. And I actually fell in love with medieval studies of all things. I just came upon it in one of the survey courses and I went deeper and deeper and deeper and eventually wrote my thesis on medieval Irish manuscripts. That was really interesting. At the same time I was doing some clinical work and I realized that medicine might be a way to combine my interest in storytelling and the humanities with making a tangible difference in people's lives. Then I was in medical school at Stanford University, which was, in a similar way, I found a place that really let me explore what it meant to be a physician because the medical school let me take classes from all across the university: so the law school, the school of humanities, school of engineering, the business school. I got a chance to do a little bit of a lot of different things to try to figure out what I actually wanted to do with life. And I spent a lot of time actually doing a little bit of palliative care, a little bit of oncology, some medical education, some medical humanities. I had a lot of time thinking about, "Okay, what kind of specialty do I want to do?" I found myself really enjoying procedural specialties, but also really liking the kinds of patient interactions and conversations I had in palliative care and oncology, and eventually found ophthalmology, interestingly. I often have to remind myself or explain myself how those two connect. And to me, the way they connect is that ophthalmology lets me do very fascinating, intellectually challenging things in terms of working with my hands, very rewarding surgical procedural work. But at the same time, the conversations that I get to have with patients about seeing well, I saw so many parallels between that and living well. To me it was so much about quality of life. And that's how I knew that ophthalmology was the right move for me. And so now I'm an ophthalmology resident. Mikkael Sekeres: Fascinating. When I was an undergrad, the person who had the most influence on me was an English professor who was also a medievalist. There must be something about the personality and pouring over these old texts and trying to read things in Middle English that appeals to some character trait in those of us who eventually become physicians. I also remember when I was in medical school, we could also take classes throughout the university. So I wound up taking some writing classes with undergrads and with graduate students. It adds to this holistic education that we bring to medicine because it's not all about the science, is it? Henry Bair: Yeah, it's also different ways of thinking and seeing the world and just hearing people's different stories. It's the people I've met in a lot of those different settings outside of medical school that I think really enhanced my formative years in medical education. Mikkael Sekeres: You certainly bring it all together in this essay, which was just lovely. And I wonder if we could dive into some of the aspects of this essay. I'm dying to know, when you went to see this man, the main character of your essay, did you have any idea what the consult would be about? Henry Bair: No. So when we're in the hospital and as the ophthalmology resident on consult, we get notifications. These pop up whenever a primary team puts in a consult and it's usually fairly vague. It's usually no more than "blurry vision, please evaluate," "eye pain, please evaluate." As an ophthalmologist, getting a consult for blurry vision is kind of like a cardiologist getting consulted for chest pain. You're like, "Okay, but it could be something, it could be nothing, it could be something terrifying, it could be dry eyes, or it could be end-stage glaucoma, or it could be, who knows?" You really genuinely never know what you're getting yourself into until you actually go in there and talk to the patient, which can be frustrating, but also kind of an interesting experience. Mikkael Sekeres: I worry I'm guilty of submitting some of those consults to ophthalmology. Henry Bair: I didn't realize this fully until I started working on the ophthalmology side. I think non-ophthalmologists get so little exposure and training in ophthalmology. Of course, when I think about it, I didn't get any ophthalmology in medical school. So it's understandable. Mikkael Sekeres: In your essay, you write, and I'm going to quote you to you, "I am still learning what we can treat and what we can only tend. My training has taught me well how to assess visual acuity, intraocular pressures, and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness, but standing at his bedside, the index that mattered was none of these, but whether we could help him read for one more day." "What we can treat and what we can only tend." That's such a beautiful line. Is that something that only comes with years of experience, determining what we can treat and what we can only tend, or is it a dawning sense as we get to know our patients when we are trying to stop the inevitable from happening? Henry Bair: That is an interesting question because I think of it more almost as a fundamental shift in mindset. And I'm coming from someone who I think had the benefit of having had mentors, having had clinical experiences in palliative care in medical school. As I mentioned earlier, I was drawn to a lot of those patient conversations. So I think in some ways, starting in residency, I had long been primed to think about tending to a patient's concerns. And yet, even having been primed, even having the benefit of all those experiences and those conversations with amazing clinicians and with patients, maybe it's subject matter specific. I mean, ophthalmology tends to be a specialty, in my experience, my limited experience, ophthalmology tends to be one of those specialties that focuses so much on fixing things and treating things and reversing things. And in fact, that's one of the beautiful things of ophthalmology: how often you can reverse things or completely stop the progression of disease. And so I think in some ways, I am having to relearn what it means to see something not always as, "Okay, what's a problem here? What is the fix? How do I reverse this?" and go back and reach back to those experiences, those conversations I had with patients about trying to figure out, "Okay, the things that we can't fix, what can we still do?" To most people who have come across palliative care, this sentiment is by no means novel, the sentiment that there is always something we can do. You often hear about people talking about, "Oh, there's nothing more we can do." And I sort of try to bring that approach into the clinical encounters that I have. It's very reflexive to think that, "Okay, a person has lost vision from end-stage glaucoma or they have a blind painful eye. Well, there's nothing more we can do. You know, we've done all the conventional surgeries, we've done all the therapies, the medications," but I always have to pull myself back and say, "But there's always something we can do here." Mikkael Sekeres: It's so interesting how you frame that. We're problem solvers. We're trained to solve problems. A patient presents with X, a problem, we have to be clever enough to figure out how to solve it. I wonder if what you're saying indirectly is sometimes we're identifying the wrong problem. Henry Bair: I think so, yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: There may be a problem that we can't solve. Someone is actively dying from cancer. We can't solve the problem of curing them of their cancer. But there are other problems that we can potentially solve, and maybe that's where we have to be clever in identifying the problem. Henry Bair: I think so. And it's also what's in our textbooks and what's not. So we spend hundreds of hours in lecture and we pour over so many textbooks, and I do question banks now for board exams preparation. It's all on the textbook presentations, the textbook solutions. The problems are, you know, the retinal artery occlusions, it's about the really bad diabetic retinopathy. And then the answers to those things would be a stroke workup, would be some kind of injection into the eye. But like the problem that I encountered in this story that I talked about was this patient trying to write letters to his kids. That's not going to show up on any exam. We don't have lectures about talking about those things. Mikkael Sekeres: So, as I think you know, I wrote an essay in 2010 for Art of Oncology and for a book that I wrote about a woman who inspired me to go into oncology. She was a woman in her 40s who was a pediatric attending who had advanced ovarian cancer. The story I wrote about her was how she spent her final night on this earth in the intensive care unit writing cards for her children, too. It's fascinating how history repeats itself in how we care for people who have cancer. You have a really a beautiful way of saying this. You talk about, "an ordinary father sharing ordinary advice for an ordinary day. Illness had made that ordinariness remarkable. Our work that day was to protect the ordinary." Can you talk a little bit, I mean given the woman I wrote about and the man you wrote about, about this need to communicate with your family after you're gone? Henry Bair: To me, one of the biggest lessons I've learned working in healthcare is that what defines most of our lives, what defines the most meaningful, the most purposeful, the most rewarding aspects of our lives is our relationships. You can explore this from myriad perspectives. You can explore this from like a psychosocial perspective and look at all those studies showing that people who have better social connections and better ties with their families live longer lives and actually healthier lives, have decreased rates of mental health problems. Or we can just approach this from like a more humanistic perspective and explore it and think and listen in on the conversations people have with people around them, that patients have, the conversations patients have during the most difficult times of their lives. They don't talk about their work, they don't talk about their accomplishments, they talk about their relationships with their kids, with their spouses, with their parents. In my experience when people are at critical junctures of big life changes, whether it's people about to go into major surgery, people grappling with the idea of losing their vision or losing their lives, any sort of big pivotal change, they want to talk to their families and explore gratitude and regret and all these things. These are the themes that come up over and over and over again. In some ways it does not surprise me at all, this need to communicate with the family at the end of life. In some ways that's how you live on, that's how we feel, that's how patients feel their lives are defined by is that lasting relationship, that lasting impact at the end, or even transcending the end. Mikkael Sekeres: This is going beyond the end, isn't it? Henry Bair: Yeah. Mikkael Sekeres: These are letters and notes being written to children to be handed to them after death. And I think one of the reasons, in my case, the woman I encountered when I was in training who inspired me to go into oncology, I've been thinking about her for 25 years off and on. Both the incredible spirit to be able to do that on your last night on this earth, but also the flip side to it: there are potential downsides to doing this, aren't there? That, you know, I think about it from the perspective of her kids who at the time were 8 and 10 years old in my case. And I wonder what it was like for them to open up that birthday card when they were 17 or 18. And I wonder if you've kind of wondered the same about your patient and his children. Henry Bair: Yeah, I think when we think about these letter-writing projects, legacy-type projects, I hear about in hospitals around the country, there are teams that try to implement legacy-type things: whether it's doing video messages, whether it's stitching together short documentary film for patients who are in hospice. I feel like I see these things popping up a lot. You raise a very important point, and I actually didn't think about this until I was writing the essay. It's not an unambiguous good because it's the impact is variable, and it's really hard to predict that. How did you grapple with that in your essay? How did you make sense of it all at the end? Mikkael Sekeres: I don't think I did. I don't think I still have, which is why I think I still reflect back 25 years later on this episode and thinking about her children and how they're now, maybe they're still continuing to receive these cards from her and whether that's something they really appreciate and are like, "Boy, this is great, I get a little piece of mom still even now," or do they look at her unsteady hand as she's writing these cards and say, "That's not the mom I want to remember." Henry Bair: Yeah, that's a really good point. In the essay, I talk about that moment when the patient recognizes these are very imperfect letters, imperfectly written. We talked a little bit about that. And the patient makes a point, very wisely. I had suggested, "Oh, what if you want me to correct things?" And he's like, "No, no, no, the mistakes are part of it. It's part of the message. The message is that this was me at a difficult time in my life. I cannot control my hands the way that I used to, but that's still part of me. That makes it more genuine and authentic, mistakes and all built in." He wanted his children to see him for who he fully was in that moment. Mikkael Sekeres: And that was such a poignant part of your essay and probably the one that jumped out at me the most. Like as a dad, you want your kids to see you for who you are, right? You're not a superhero. In this case, this is somebody who was going to succumb to his illness, who did, but he was their dad and wanted them to remember him for all of who he was at that moment. Before I let you go, Henry, because I feel like we could probably talk for hours about this, before we started this podcast, I noticed you had better podcast equipment than I do, and sure enough, you copped to the fact that you do host your own podcast. You want to tell us a little bit about that? Because it touches on so many themes we touched on here in Cancer Stories. Henry Bair: Yeah, well thanks for asking me about that. Yeah, don't mind if I plug a little bit. Yes, so in medical school, this was 2021, around 2022, we were emerging from the COVID pandemic, and one of the things I was seeing around me as a medical student were physicians and nurses leaving the profession in droves. Like, there were so many reports and surveys coming out of the AMA discussing how more than half of all physicians are burned out, a third of physicians can't find meaning in their work anymore. And that was really scary. As a clinical trainee, what was I getting myself into? These weren't just some clinicians somewhere. These were often times- I was hearing these kinds of conversations about losing sight of why they even come in in the first place to work. I was hearing these conversations from professors that I thought were well-accomplished. These were people who had gone to the right residencies, the right fellowships. They had the right publications. These are people who I aspired to be, I suppose, and they were talking about leaving clinical practice. A wonderful mentor of mine who is an oncologist, still an oncologist at Stanford, we started talking about these things. And I asked him, "You seem to love your job." He was a GI oncologist dealing with very, very sick patients day in and day out. I've seen him in clinic. And I asked him, "What's your secret? What keeps you coming back over and over and over again?" And so that led to a conversation. And then we realized, "Wait a second, there are people, a third of physicians losing meaning in their work meant that two thirds of physicians have meaning in their work. Okay, let's talk about that." So we started exploring, we started just asking clinicians who have found true purpose in their work. And then we asked them to share their stories. And that's how the podcast was born. It's called The Doctor's Art, and at this point, we've expanded and we interview nurses and patients and caregivers. We interview philosophers and filmmakers, journalists. We interview ethicists and religious leaders, really anyone who might have some insight about what living well means either from the clinician perspective or from the patient perspective. And guess what? Everyone is going to be either a caregiver or a care recipient at some point in their lives. It's still ongoing and it's ended up being something where we explore very universal themes. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it sounds great, Henry, and it sounds like a perfect complement to what we're doing here in Cancer Stories. It has been such a pleasure to have Dr. Henry Bair, who is an ophthalmology resident at Wills Eye Hospital, to discuss his essay, "The Quiet Work of Clarity". Henry, thank you so much for submitting your article to the Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us today. Henry Bair: Thank you very much, Mikail, for letting me share my insights and my story. It was a wonderful opportunity. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to have these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and content, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at asco.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for Cancer Stories. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.   Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes:Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr Henry Bair is a ophthalmology resident physician at Wills Eye Hospital and podcast host of The Doctor's Art.

Most of us hear “bullying” and picture a sand-kicking, lunch-money-stealing menace. But today's bullying can take other forms. Research by Dr. Charisse Nixon shows that about 7% of kids report experiencing physical aggression once a week— but that HALF of kids report experiencing relational aggression at least once a month.  On the other hand, as bullying expert Signe Whitson explains, some things get termed “bullying” that are more correctly described as mean or rude. Knowing the difference as parents will help our children navigate these waters more effectively.  In this episode we discuss how to help our children understand what bullying is, plus how to know if our kids are being bullied themselves— since it's the kids who are truly frightened and struggling who are often the most likely not to tell us.  We also discuss whether, how much, and in what ways parents should intervene— somewhere in the middle ground between “so find new friends!” and beating the bully up yourself. (Spoiler alert: don't do either of those things.)  This episode was originally released on June 12, 2024. Here are links to some of the resources mentioned in this episode: Katie Hurley for Washington Post On Parenting: ⁠"What does childhood anxiety look like? Probably not what you think."⁠ Katie Hurley for PBS Kids: ⁠What to Do If Your Child Is Being Bullied⁠ Sherri Gordon for Very Well Family: ⁠7 Tips for Helping Kids Deal With Being Ostracized⁠ Sumathi Reddy for WSJ: ⁠Little Children and Already Acting Mean⁠ Signe Whitson for Huffington Post: ⁠Rude Vs. Mean Vs. Bullying: Defining The Differences⁠ Louis Sachar: ⁠There's a Boy in the Girls' Bathroom⁠  Join Our Facebook Group! ⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/whatfreshhellcast ⁠ What Fresh Hell is co-hosted by Amy Wilson and Margaret Ables. We love the sponsors that make this show possible! You can always find all the special deals and codes for all our current sponsors on our website: ⁠https://www.whatfreshhellpodcast.com/p/promo-codes/⁠ mom friends, funny moms, parenting advice, parenting experts, parenting tips, mothers, families, parenting skills, parenting strategies, parenting styles, busy moms, self-help for moms, manage kid's behavior, teenager, tween, child development, family activities, family fun, parent child relationship, decluttering, kid-friendly, invisible workload, default parent, bullying, bullies, bullied Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Boy!! Join Reneé, John Paul, and Travis as they discuss Don Coscarelli's 1979 supernatural horror film "Phantasm." Please consider supporting the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thepodmortem  Pod Mortem / Stairhole Productions Merch: https://www.teepublic.com/user/thepodmortem Pod Mortem would like to thank Original CINematic for sponsoring this week's episode! https://www.ogcinpro.com/  Feel free to contact: William Rush: wrush@ogcinpro.com Xxena Rush: xrush@ogcinpro.com    Where to listen to the podcast and follow us on social media: https://allmylinks.com/thepodmortem Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepodmortem https://www.instagram.com/travismwh https://www.instagram.com/bloodandsmoke https://www.instagram.com/juggalodaddy84 Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thepodmortem https://twitter.com/bloodandsmoke https://twitter.com/realstreeter84 https://twitter.com/travismwh What would you rate Phantasm and what should we watch next? Email us at thepodmortem@gmail.com    "Pod Mortem Theme" written and performed by Travis Hunter-Sayapin. https://youtube.com/travismwh Podcast artwork by Brian Demarest. https://www.instagram.com/evilflynn 

I didn't want wisdom—I wanted the answer. This video explores Proverbs 9, the fear of God, and the difference between wisdom and foolishness when both are calling your name with the same promises.Growing up, whenever I brought my Pops a question, I was hoping for a shortcut. A quick answer. Something clean and simple. Instead, he'd say, “Boy, I don't know—but I know someone who does.” And just like that, the work landed back in my lap.That response used to frustrate me. I wanted information, not transformation. But what my Pops was really doing was redirecting my eyes—away from convenience and toward wisdom.Proverbs 9 makes this crystal clear: wisdom and foolishness both call out in the same way, to the same people, with the same invitation. Both promise fulfillment. Both sound convincing. Both feel urgent. The outcomes, however, couldn't be more different.So how do you tell the difference?There's only one filter that works every time—the fear of God.Wisdom doesn't come from intelligence, experience, or confidence. It comes from reverence. From knowing where to look when you don't have the answer. Foolishness offers shortcuts. Wisdom offers clarity—but only if you're willing to do the work.If you're searching for answers right now—• personally• professionally• spiritually• financiallythis message is for you.Because maybe the problem isn't that you don't have the answer.Maybe it's that you're asking the wrong source.Like my Pops taught me, I'll say it again today:“I don't know—but I know someone who does.”And when you learn to seek wisdom from the right place, everything changes.Inchstones-The Vibe within bookhttps://a.co/d/4CYg4vGRegister for The VIBE Roomhttps://www.eventcreate.com/e/the-vibe-room-copy-326261-7854e4Join the VIBE communityhttps://thevibebykellycardenas.substack.com?r=4nn6y5&utm_medium=ios

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you haven't been paying attention to social media lately, the place where Trump lives more than at the White House, then you have missed some astounding QAnon commentary coming from not only his own channels, but from the White House, the Press Secretary, and of all places, the US Department of Labor. Arbeit Macht Frei, anyone? Normally this would not warrant its own podcast, but when you add in the acquisition of Gaza, the capture of Venezuela, the proposed takeover of Cuba, land strikes on Mexico and the annexation of Greenland by military force, now we have a podcast. Boy, do we ever.“Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.” Habakkuk 1:5 (KJB)On this episode of the Prophecy News Podcast, Q and all the Anons were loud and proud during Donald Trump's first term, so much so that even Baptist pastors were preaching Q talking points from their pulpits as if it was truth. Then Biden won and the Q rhetoric went largely silent. Trump won reelection in a landslide and almost as soon as he was sworn in, the Q postings came roaring back to life. Then something strange, really strange, started happening. Slowly at first and then as a flood, Q-themed posts started popping up on official Trump administration social media outlets. No longer consigned to the dark edge of society but now openly promoted by the White House itself. Trump himself as recently as last night, was furiously posting and reposting classic, hardcore Q memes and imagery. So it may just be a conspiracy theory, but this time around, Trump is fully embracing its dystopian and arcane messaging, and today we show you why he is doing that and where it is taking us. One thing about all of this is quite true, nothing can stop what's coming. Welcome to the Last Days Deception.

LET'S DANCE!! Footloose Full Movie Reaction Watch Along:   / thereelrejects   Download PrizePicks today at https://www.prizepicks.onelink.me/LME... & use code REJECTS to get $50 instantly when you play $5! Gift Someone (Or Yourself) An RR Tee! https://shorturl.at/hekk2 John & Andrew hit the dancefloor for one of the most iconic '80s movies of ALL TIME giving their Reaction, Recap, Analysis, Breakdown, Commentary, & Spoiler Review!! Footloose (1984) Full Movie Reaction, Breakdown, Commentary & Spoiler Review! — with hosts Andrew Gordon & John Humphrey diving into the iconic dance-driven classic that turned rebellion, rhythm, and teenage freedom into one of the most beloved films of the 1980s. Directed by Herbert Ross (Steel Magnolias, The Turning Point), Footloose stars Kevin Bacon (A Few Good Men, Mystic River) in a career-making role as Ren McCormack, a city kid who moves to the small town of Bomont — where dancing and rock music have been banned following a tragic accident. What follows is a clash of generations, beliefs, and self-expression as Ren challenges the town's rigid rules and inspires its youth to reclaim joy through movement. Andrew & John break down the movie's most iconic moments: Ren's explosive warehouse dance sequence, the tension-filled town council debates, the emotional conflict with Reverend Shaw Moore (John Lithgow — Dexter, The Crown), the complicated romance with Ariel (Lori Singer), and the unforgettable final prom that proves joy and discipline don't have to be enemies. They also highlight the film's legendary soundtrack — featuring hits like “Footloose,” “Let's Hear It for the Boy,” and “Almost Paradise” — which became inseparable from the movie's legacy. Follow Andrew Gordon on Socials:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MovieSource Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/agor711/?hl=en Twitter:  https://twitter.com/Agor711 Intense Suspense by Audionautix is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... Support The Channel By Getting Some REEL REJECTS Apparel! https://www.rejectnationshop.com/ Follow Us On Socials:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/  Tik-Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@reelrejects?lang=en Twitter: https://x.com/reelrejects Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/ Music Used In Ad:  Hat the Jazz by Twin Musicom is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Happy Alley by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... POWERED BY @GFUEL Visit https://gfuel.ly/3wD5Ygo and use code REJECTNATION for 20% off select tubs!! Head Editor: https://www.instagram.com/praperhq/?hl=en Co-Editor: Greg Alba Co-Editor: John Humphrey Music In Video: Airport Lounge - Disco Ultralounge by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Ask Us A QUESTION On CAMEO: https://www.cameo.com/thereelrejects Follow TheReelRejects On FACEBOOK, TWITTER, & INSTAGRAM:  FB:  https://www.facebook.com/TheReelRejects/ INSTAGRAM:  https://www.instagram.com/reelrejects/ TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/thereelrejects Follow GREG ON INSTAGRAM & TWITTER: INSTAGRAM:  https://www.instagram.com/thegregalba/ TWITTER:  https://twitter.com/thegregalba Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 272- Jersey Spreads the Oppression  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment rights, New Jersey gun laws, national firearm licensing, anti-gun oppression, domestic violence restraining order, federal firearms licensing act, gun control measures, gun rights suppression, gun violence prevention, gun rights advocacy, gun rights litigation, gun rights education, gun rights resources, gun rights history, gun rights updates. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is spreading the oppression. New Jersey is like a cancer when it comes to Second Amendment rights, and it has to metastasize. This is really one of the primary reasons that Gun Lawyer, our show here, has reach that is further than just New Jersey, even though we focus a lot on New Jersey. But New Jersey is where we see the experimenting done at the cost of our rights, where we see the oppression in full force and effect. And we see their newest machinations coming from the Left wing, anti-Second Amendment, anti-American, think tanks getting their origins in New Jersey. Then spreading and then spreading, with an attempt to spread it to all of America. Evan Nappen 01:26 So, of course, we have New Jersey senators, strictly New Jersey senators here, that are now pushing a national gun licensing scheme, which is national Second Amendment rights oppression, to force the entire country into the agenda of disarmament via New Jersey style. And it is why you have to, we have to, keep the fight up here in New Jersey, which is the front line of the battle. We need to get our politics here changed, because the cancer has to stop. Evan Nappen 02:13 And here’s what they’re proposing right now. Granted, it’s not likely to pass in the current climate right now with Republicans in control, barely, but in control of both houses, and with President Trump at the helm. But it is something that tells you where the Democrats will go should they ever regain power again, and this is showing you just how far they will go to oppress our Second Amendment rights. I mean, it’s apparently not bad enough that the Democrats are so-called Democrat socialists, you know, communist light. But even just in terms of the Constitution that they are supposedly sworn to uphold, it is demonstrated as to be a false oath by them over and over again. Page – 1 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:14 So, here is the current push, and by the way, this is from an article from Bearing Arms, and it’s by Tommy Knighton. It says, “NJ’s Senators Push National Gun Licensing Bill”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/04/njs-senators-push-national-gun-licensing-bill- n1231085) So, who are the culprits here? Who are those oppressors out of New Jersey? Well, of course, it’s Senator (Corey) Booker and Senator (Andy) Kim. They’ve introduced this legislation, and they’re calling it the Federal Firearm Licensing Act (FFLA). Now, don’t confuse the title. Teddy Nappen 03:43 Doesn’t Cory Booker ever stop talking. Evan Nappen 03:46 Yeah. Don’t confuse this Federal Firearms Licensing Act with the way we traditionally think of an FFL as being a dealer. No, no, no. What they’re doing here, and maybe it’s part of their attempt to fool the public, I don’t know. But it would mandate that every American obtain a Federal Firearms License before purchasing or receiving any firearm. So, if you want to purchase or receive a firearm in America, you’re going to have to get an FFL. Now, this obviously isn’t a dealer FFL. It’s just a private person wanting to exercise Second Amendment rights FFL. This is apparently one of the most comprehensive federal gun control measures, what I prefer to call Second Amendment oppression measures, requiring and establishing a nationwide licensing system. Putting numerous new requirements on every American. Evan Nappen 04:59 Under this proposed legislation, you would need to complete a mandatory firearms training safety that includes both written and hands-on instruction before qualifying for a license. And this is a license just to obtain a firearm. This isn’t to carry a firearm. The Attorney General will then conduct background checks on every applicant, and the FBI would perform regular compliance checks to monitor license holders. So, you’re going to be constantly monitored by the FBI, as well as having to go through this. Each license will expire after five years, requiring gun owners to renew their permission to purchase firearms. And, of course, if the license expires and you don’t renew it, you’re losing your guns and your gun rights. And this is what the oppressionists, what New Jersey’s senators, are putting forward to try to create a national firearm licensing scheme. Of course, it has the end game of utter confiscation and to turn us into, you know, the U.K. basically. Evan Nappen 06:19 The bill will fundamentally alter how Americans can buy and sell firearms privately. Unlicensed individuals could no longer transfer to other unlicensed individuals. Instead, all transactions have to go through dealers, and selling or transferring a firearm without a Federal license issued within the previous 30 days would be illegal. Sellers are mandated to report transactions to law enforcement, etc. So, you can see this is just scratching the surface of this so-called Federal Firearms Licensing Act. It’s designed for the furtherance of their agenda. And this agenda we see come alive in New Jersey. How New Jersey citizens are turned into criminals. Law-abiding citizens turned into criminals by New Jersey Page – 2 – of 13 gun law. I deal with that every day, defending my clients who Jersey has made into law-abiding criminals. And this is something that they want to spread to the entire United States. So, beware. Evan Nappen 07:35 And keep in mind the history of gun rights oppression, beginning with New Jersey, and spreading to the entire U.S. is documented through a number of laws. For example, New Jersey first had the domestic violence misdemeanor and/or restraining order gun ban. New Jersey had it as a state law first, where if you had a domestic violence restraining order, or what New Jersey calls a disorderly person. We can view it as a misdemeanor offense. Concerning domestic violence, then you became a prohibited person to have a firearm. That was not a national law. That was state law. New Jersey was one of the originators of that law. Evan Nappen 08:22 And, of course, it was something that radically departed from what were traditionally prohibited persons. It had to be felons, convicted felons, and originally, it was violent felons, but at least you had to have a felony conviction. But now what you saw was misdemeanant, misdemeanant, a misdemeanant, suddenly having a gun disqualifier. And even less than being a misdemeanant, somebody with a civil restraining order became forfeit, disenfranchised of their Second Amendment rights. And New Jersey did it first to its own people. Then Senator, the corpse, Lautenberg, as you may recall, put it forward federally, and it became federal law by a New Jersey Senator. Creating new disqualifiers for domestic violence restraining order and/or domestic violence misdemeanor. Thereby, retroactively, by the way, because there’s no ex post facto when it comes to a civil disqualifier. Retroactively disqualifying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that were lawful gun owners into being unlawful gun owners. And lowering the bar for a loss of Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 10:01 This has impacted thousands of people in their gun rights, criminal prosecutions, et cetera. And, of course, no piece of paper ever actually really protected somebody. I mean, that’s a joke. You know, these restraining orders are feel good more than anything. I mean, good luck. I mean, we’ve seen case after case where, yeah, the person had a restraining order, and they still became victimized by the person who was restrained. And even taking away guns from the person who has the restraining order. Yeah, oh, there’s no way that they might get another gun, right? So, that thousands of people get their guns seized. Teddy Nappen 10:49 Or, the classic. He threw pretzels at me! Evan Nappen 10:52 Right! Oh, God. Teddy Nappen 10:53 Or where you get accused of something that isn’t true, that they make stuff up and there’s clear falsification. And then. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 11:00 Teddy, you’re so right. As soon as that TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, issues based on the flimsiest of allegations, with you having no say whatsoever. And, you know, it’s harder to get a sandwich at Wawa, than to get a TRO issued against somebody. You now have to go to court. Your guns are going to be seized pursuant to that TRO, and you’re going to have a fight, not only on the allegations, but also on trying to regain your rights. And it’s just a nightmare that can be triggered on the flimsiest of allegations. We see it all the time. And oh, well, that’s not politically correct. Well, it doesn’t matter, folks. I don’t do this show so I can maintain political correctness. Evan Nappen 11:46 I’m telling you what I see as a practicing attorney all the time in this area. I see the abuse, abuse of rights, okay? I see this system being abused against individuals. None of this means that I’m in favor of someone being domestically abused, being violently abused in any capacity. I don’t want to see anybody abused. But that doesn’t mean that we do not talk about the actual effect that we see happen over and over and over again when it comes to the Lautenberg law that started with New Jersey and became federal law by New Jersey senators spreading the cancer, spreading the oppression, to the entire United States. So, that’s why this bill that you may think right now is not a threat, but don’t underestimate how important it is to be aware of it and to know that this very well could become reality. Because other bills in the past that were thought impossible, too, become law have become federal law. So, New Jersey is the state to watch when it comes to the danger to our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 13:08 Now I have a letter here from Ask Evan, and this is from Ron. Ron says, I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Well, thank you, Ron. I’m not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I’m interested on how to handle fish and wildlife officers when hunting with a firearm. With open fields and extended powers granted them, what are we required to do and say to them when approached in the field while hunting,? Are there any recommendations or common issues you encounter how to prevent becoming a gun owner mess up of the week? I like how you call this. It’s a GOFU. You don’t want to be a GOFU, and I appreciate that you don’t want to be a GOFU. Teddy Nappen 13:45 Oh, check every, check every bush. Check every bush when you go out hunting, because you may find a fish and game officer. Evan Nappen 13:50 Hiding behind any bush, right? So, yeah, that reminds me of, I don’t know if I should tell that joke about. The law professor, the appellate judge, and the trial court judge all went hunting. So, they’re out hunting, and in front of the appellate court judge, the bush shook and moved, and out walks a deer. Now the appellate court judge looks at that and says, okay, there’s a three-part test to determine if that deer is a deer. You know, you gotta look at the antlers. You gotta look if there are any. Then you gotta look at the hoofs and the tail. And by the time he does a three-part test of the appellate judge’s determination, the deer is gone. It took off. Next thing you know, in front of the law professor, another little bush shakes and out walks a deer. And the law professor knows it’s a deer, but before he shoots, Page – 4 – of 13 he says, you know what’s the societal impact of me shooting this deer? I wonder how it might affect civil rights and current DEI requirements and all that. By the time he finishes all his social considerations, that deer is gone. Next thing you know, in front of the trial court judge, the bush shakes, and the trial court judge immediately fires into the bush and says, damn, I hope that’s a deer. Anyway, I know if you’re and maybe, maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate it, maybe you don’t. Evan Nappen 14:36 Anyway. Well, back to the hunting and fishing question here, Teddy. Sorry to torture people with that. And it’s a really good question. And what it says is, what do you do in this situation. Well, here’s the deal. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game Officers are law enforcement officers, and they’re proud to say they are. So, the question is, do you have to talk to law enforcement? And the answer is, no, you don’t. You don’t have to talk to law enforcement. Now, what you do have to do, though, is you have to provide your pedigree information. I mean, if they asked to see your license, I would suggest show them your license and identifying yourself as you would with any officer, your pedigree information. But I would not talk anything about your activities in the field. I would not talk about anything about anything. Evan Nappen 15:40 I mean, if they walk up to you and you have your gun, then they want to make sure that things are safe. So, they may ask to secure your firearm in some manner, and it’s best to cooperate with that. But as far as what you say, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You have no obligation to speak to them about any other questions they may have about having to do anything that requires you to say something without a lawyer, other than what I would just leave as identification and pedigree as to who you are, but that’s essentially how it is. And you know, if they say, hey, we want to search your vehicle. No, you do not consent to them searching your vehicle. If they’re going to search no matter what, then they’ll do whatever they’re going to do. But you are not going to consent to it, and that’s the difference. Evan Nappen 15:40 The problem is that with Fish and Game violations, you can end up having your gun rights in jeopardy. They will attempt to use your hunting violations as public health, safety, welfare, character assassination type tactics. Where they will say, oh, you didn’t hunt properly, or follow the hunting laws, etc, with firearms. And then they’ll use it to try to then take away your gun rights. So, there is a risk when hunting that hunting charges can jeopardize your gun rights by them using what I call the all- inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, also known as “public health, safety, and welfare” of the 58-3 licensing requirements. They will take your hunting violations and try to push it into a claim that somehow you’re a danger. So, you have to be careful with having hunting violations, because, yes, it can directly come into conflict and cause problems for your Second Amendment rights on possession of firearms, generally speaking. So, always stand on your rights and be aware that your rights don’t just disappear because the Law Enforcement Officer you’re dealing with happens to be a Fish and Game Law Enforcement Officer. Page – 5 – of 13 Evan Nappen 15:55 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot, which is a range where Teddy and I both shoot in Lakewood. We love WeShoot. Well, they’ve been spotlighting some of their instructors, and they have really top notch instructors. They are highlighting about their expert instructor, retired Detective Sergeant Jim Weinberg, aka Rabbi Jim, folks. That’s right, Rabbi Jim is a legendary instructor at WeShoot, and Rabbi Jim is really top notch. He’s had a lifetime of service. Over 30 years in law enforcement experience in both the Union County’s Prosecutor’s Office and as Union County Police Officer. And he spent two decades with SWAT/UCERT operator. He’s trained thousands, and he’s a PTC Certified Instructor as well. That’s for Police Training Commission purposes. And he served as a Fire Instructor at the police academy. And so he is one of their great trainers at WeShoot. He can do the RPO qualifications, and he can do CCARE. And he has a great teaching style. Jim is just one of the great instructors that you can have instruct you at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:50 It’s amazing resource that we have right there in Central Jersey, easily accessible off the Parkway. They have a great pro shop, great staff and a great range. I mean it. We love WeShoot, and so will you. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their website. You’ll find they have wonderful photography and, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls that have great guns and other things that they display proudly that you will love to see. And you can find those at the pro shop. They often run great sales and deals. So, make sure you check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 21:39 Also, I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Boy oh, boy, things are heating up. We have some major litigation that we’re going to see some major results on in the Third Circuit, where the full panel has agreed on a number of our issues to do the review. We’re cautiously optimistic here about seeing some real important wins in terms of the case law. The Association is there at the forefront on this litigation. Very exciting. Regarding so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, which we prefer to call standard capacity magazines and assault firearms. Man, the pejorative terms of the Left. They’re just so ridiculous. Evan Nappen 22:35 Anyway, the bottom line is, it’s not just words. It’s the effect that these wacko definitions that they put into law arbitrarily turn us into criminals, and that’s what has to end. I’m cautiously optimistic that the court is going to do that. The court is going to step up and finally address these key issues in a positive way for our Second Amendment rights. I mean, folks, I know it gets depressing out there with how we’re treated, but the truth is, we are making tremendous progress. We really are. Between President Trump’s administration and with the Supreme Court and with his appointment of judges throughout the federal court system, we are seeing great progress. I’m really excited for it, but we have to stay vigilant. As you know, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will help you maintain your vigilance. Go to anjrpc.org, and make sure you join as a member. You’ll get those email updates, and you’ll be glad you did. Page – 6 – of 13 Evan Nappen 23:50 And let me also shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law, and you will enjoy it immensely. And you can say to yourself, how does a state like New Jersey even exist with this insane matrix of laws? But at least you’ll know because you have the book on how to safely navigate through them. So, get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law today. The 25th Anniversary Edition is available from EvanNappen.com Hey, that sounds like my name. Well, in fact, it is. Go to EvanNappen.com, and you’ll see the big orange book there. Get your copy today. Make sure you scan the front QR code and join my private subscriber base. I will send you out updates, and you’ll be able to access the archives. And I’m working on what will be the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re waiting to see if laws that have passed get signed into law, which I expect any day now they will be. And then I’m going to be putting out the update. So, you want to make sure you have the book and belong on the subscriber base so that you can stay current. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 25:03 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And because it’s the new year, we always gotta check in on the gun rights suppressors and what’s the latest of their propaganda. They decided to put out a report card like they’re, like they’re, a teacher scolding the states for failing to apply their gun rights oppression. (https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/) But New Jersey, who is the teacher’s pet, got an A. Evan Nappen 25:34 Of course, New Jersey got an A. What does the “A” stand for? Teddy Nappen 25:37 “A” stands for anti-gunners. Also, for New Jersey, the Bloomberg check cleared. So, obviously they’re going to push for it. So. Evan Nappen 25:46 I thought a stands for “a holes”. Teddy Nappen 25:49 That works, too. But yeah, they break it down in that. You can go to their website and check it out. They make it very convenient to click and compare/contrast states. By the way, New Hampshire got an F. So, good job. Evan Nappen 26:03 Oh, New Hampshire, good. F for freedom. Teddy Nappen 26:06 F for freedom. Yep. F for freedom. A for anti-gunners. That’s how we look at it. But I love how they tote it. Which is gun law strength rank, number two. Sorry, they lost. I guess California still wins the day. Teddy Nappen 26:19 Really? Wait, who was number one? Page – 7 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 26:24 From pulling up from that, pulling up, I believe it was California. Evan Nappen 26:28 That makes sense. Teddy Nappen 26:30 They went. Yep, California is number one. Yeah, congratulations to California. Good luck. Good luck. How are the fires? Anyways, I love how they tote the gun death rate ranking, one of the lowest gun death rankings. They always love to tote that. And what is gun deaths? Well, anyone who’s been shot by a firearm, regardless. They count and they misconstrue and put a stamp on it. And by the way, a lot of the other states don’t like to report. Evan Nappen 27:05 They push these false statistics. They’re just such liars. They’re unbelievable. They just, you know, they contort the statistics to make it fit their agenda. It’s that simple. Teddy Nappen 27:17 Yeah, it’s what they do. And they highlighted New Jersey’s investment of nearly $34 million in community violence intervention programs. What does that translate into? Oh, the domestic violence programs, all the anti-gun, you know, NGOs to fund our gun right suppression. Basically, when they say that, it’s them saying New Jersey is paying Democrats to take away your rights. Evan Nappen 27:45 Good way to translate it. Teddy Nappen 27:46 Yeah, just from following the money. I do love the comment section. Again, I’m treating this like a teacher going over. Well, you did a very good job. However, for a way to improve, expand your firearm responsibility laws, aka make a law to circumvent the PLCCA so that you can sue gun companies to create gun deserts. They want to require prohibited people to relinquish their firearms, even though prohibited people aren’t allowed to possess firearms. But that’s just, you know, they’re just, they’re just throwing something extra out there. And to raise the minimum age for purchase or carry a firearms to 21. I mean, at this point. Evan Nappen 28:33 Raise the age for guns, but they want to lower voting to 16. It’s amazing how certain civil rights should have high ages, and other civil rights have low ages. But we can’t just say the age of majority for everything, God forbid, right? 18. Teddy Nappen 28:50 I know. I know the you know the age should be 20. You know, I wonder what would happen to the Dems when you hear the age 21 to vote? Yeah. Page – 8 – of 13 Evan Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Right. Just apply anything. Or freedom of speech. That’s the other one. Yeah, before you can say or you can do anything. Before you can voice your opinion, you need to. Teddy Nappen 29:11 After getting approved from the Government to speak. Evan Nappen 29:13 Right. Prior approval and taking training courses with licensure. Teddy Nappen 29:20 Well, they already want to do that. Evan Nappen 29:21 So that every right is registered. Teddy Nappen 29:24 Well, you have to have the safety of language, because words are violence. Also silence is violence. It actually kind of reminds me of when I had to do the ethics. Evan Nappen 29:34 Wait, they said that silence is violence? Teddy Nappen 29:36 Oh yeah, that’s the game the Left play. Either. Either you cannot say those things because those are mean. But also, silence is violence. The only logical thing you can do is agree with us. That is their logic, and it’s quite disgusting how they play that game. Evan Nappen 29:54 I like that. Silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 29:56 Silence is violence but also, don’t use hurtful language. Figure that out. It’s a trap. That is the game they play. Evan Nappen 30:01 Why did you shoot that person? Well, because he didn’t say anything and silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 30:06 It honestly reminds me of when we had to do the ethics course for when you’re when you become a attorney. The certification they do. This woman comes up and then says to everyone, everyone on Zoom. By the way, they said to us in the very beginning, no one make comments to the speakers, Page – 9 – of 13 please. We know there’s disagreements, but this must be said. She gets up on the podium and says, you are not a comedian. Do not make jokes. That is offensive. Evan Nappen 30:06 Do not make jokes? Teddy Nappen 30:12 Do not make jokes. And my first thought was, my God, you are the problem with society. Like you can’t make jokes. I’m like, oh, my God. So yeah, but getting back to the. Evan Nappen 30:14 No jokes. Wasn’t that from Zulu? Remember when he was talking? Teddy Nappen 30:55 No, no, no. He says. Evan Nappen 30:56 What did he say in Zulu? Teddy Nappen 30:57 The sergeant, the Sergeant, Sergeant, yes. They say, no comedian. Evan Nappen 31:02 No comedian. Teddy Nappen 31:05 He’s going through like, he’s going through roles. Evan Nappen 31:08 Right. Because they’re getting ready for battle. Teddy Nappen 31:10 After the battle, he says Hicks? You’re alive. Say your name. Oh, I’m alive. Thank you, sir. No comedians. Yeah, I will give this card one thing important that I like. It basically lays the whole groundwork of them chastising the Trump administration for its very pro-gun activities they’ve done throughout the Government. Evan Nappen 31:42 Criticizing President Trump for expanding Second Amendment rights? Okay, so do they make a list or something? Teddy Nappen 31:48 Oh, they made a wonderful list. And I was like. Page – 10 – of 13 Evan Nappen 31:50 Let’s hear all the terrible things President Trump has done in expanding Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 31:55 Cutting $800 million of public safety grants, and $150 million to the violence intervention and prevention programs. Evan Nappen 32:03 Nice. The propaganda arm. Teddy Nappen 32:05 Yeah, all that. And then going after ending the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. You know, all the horrible laws that we’ve been getting in the SAFE offices? Those were created by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Trump ended that office and then created. Evan Nappen 32:24 That was propaganda office of Biden. Teddy Nappen 32:28 Correct. And he ended that. Also the dealer regulation. This is them saying it. Dealer regulation, gun hardware. Trump has considered many cuts to the ATF and removing core ATF policies for penalizing gun dealers. You know. Evan Nappen 32:43 Those were outrageously bad. Teddy Nappen 32:46 One screw up and you lose your license. Evan Nappen 32:49 Yeah. So, that was great that he got rid of all that. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Gun Violence Research Policy cut hundreds of staff to the CDC and, you know, another propaganda department, pumping out false data and oversaw allocation of research grants, you know, to oh, Bloomberg’s college. Evan Nappen 33:07 Yeah. Because they want to make it a health issue so they can regulate it in that manner. And it’s not a health issue. And yet, they want to put it in that context, so then they can Page – 11 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 33:18 Then the big highlight, which I’m laughing that they actually know about this, the One Big, Beautiful Bill where it removes the tax requirement for gun silencers. They were trying to put a short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns. I know those two. I don’t I don’t know if those two made it. Evan Nappen 33:35 Any other weapon. Suppressors, any other weapons. And by getting rid of the tax, the idea there is now we’re in litigation that the entire NFA needs to go. And, of course, with success with that lawsuit, where if there is no tax, then it loses its justification for existence. Then we can actually legalize machine guns by way of a simple reconciliation bill where we remove the tax through NFA even on machine guns. That’s how we’ll get the job done. Teddy Nappen 34:10 Take me back four years ago and tell me there would have been a bill put forward to effectively kneecap and shatter the NFA. That is the earth shattering power that this administration has done. Evan Nappen 34:26 And think about this. For the first time since 1934 when this was enacted, we’ve actually been able to take a piece out of it, and the piece has been the actual money that’s been collected. And by the way, there’s been a boom since the tax is gone, in people getting suppressors and getting these other things, even with the law still in effect. I have recently seen that the turnaround time on getting suppressors without having to pay the tax is very quick, as quick as one day. Even electronically, I’ve been hearing. So, it’s very fast turnaround, and it’s being done without having to pay the 200 bucks. Now, of course, if you live in the gun right suppression state of New Jersey, the state still bans silencers. But that’s currently being challenged in court as well. At the moment, you can’t have a suppressor because New Jersey is in favor of gun owners damaging their hearing and making sure that it is as unsafe as possible for any gun owner in terms of hearing protection. But we should see that litigation come to fruition shortly. Anything else on the list that President Trump has done? Teddy Nappen 35:43 Oh, they were going after, of course, the forced reset trigger. They’re trying, oh, yeah, that we’re like. No longer will the ATF come breaking down your door or trying to get, you know, going through and, you know, creating their own work by then saying, oh, it’s fine. And no, it’s not. And then going after innocent people who are making a purchase. It’s the level all these things. I just tell these people. This is as pro-gun as we could possibly get with this administration at the moment. And there’s still more to come, because we’re in the second year. We’re just starting the second year. Evan Nappen 36:21 I know. I know it’s just the beginning of our Christmas gift list of fun. So, it’s great. All right, well, so long as we keep making progress, which we are. But let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is, of course, the Gun Owners Fuck Up. And it’s important to know this so that you don’t end up having an expensive lesson learned, where you get to learn it on the cheap. You get to learn it free from the show. So, these are based on actual cases, actual clients, actual real GOFUs that I’ve seen. This week’s GOFU has to do with make sure you know the dates of your gun purchases, because New Jersey has Page – 12 – of 13 one gun a month, right? One handgun within a 30-day period. You can’t get more than that. So, I always look at one gun a month as kind of the gun of the month where you have to buy one every 30 days. But whether or not you want to take that approach or not, the problem is, don’t attempt purchase within the 30 days, even by accident, because it’ll have ramifications. It gets picked up on because of how the system is designed. If you even inadvertently end up in that more than one gun within 30 days, you can have serious problems. So, be very cautious. I’ve even had debates over the counting in terms of hours for the difference. Make sure you have a good buffer in there until we knock that law out as unconstitutional, which it really should be. I don’t want to see you have a GOFU in which the purchase within the 30 days triggers an escalation to seizure, revocation and possible criminal charges. The whole nine yards coming down on your head. Keep the count of days accurate and clear. Evan Nappen 37:07 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 37:30 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page – 13 – of 13 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E272_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Number 1009What happens when we go without our regular shows due to sickness and holidays? We come back with a super-sized show stuffed to the gills with Nintendo talk, pop culture topics, some major sandwich discussion, and impressions for ALL sorts of game. Consider this episode return to form, friends!

It's an all new That Real Blind Tech Show with Allison, Brian, David, and Jeanine. We kick the year off with yet another show that goes off the rails fairly often. Boy would we have gotten canceled if we left the outakes in!   We kick the show off discussing the worst houseguest or squatter of all time!   We then discuss the six personality traits people who are cool have globally.   We then play and discuss a clip from WFAN about Stevie Wonder.   It's great to learn that luxury goods are now made as crappy as everything else. We discuss the state of products with a focus on the quality of the Meta Glasses.   Have you ever wanted to turn your iPhone in to a Blackberry? Well now you can with the Clicks Power keyboard.   The new horror film A24 turns podcasts in to the new Nightmare on Elm Street.   Did you know there is such a thing as gifted dogs?    We then dive in to our annual CES coverage, starting out discussing what else, but Smart Glasses. The first pair we discuss is the latest coming from Rokid. And a lot of us are interested in the Rocked Glasses, but not the Lumen Glasses out of Romania that are specifically designed for the blind. We do not give a great review of the Lumen Glasses, trust me, you will want to hear it. So if the Lumen Glasses are not for you, how about a pair of Smart glasses with Pet Translation?   Razer is developing a pair of Smart Headphones with cameras.   A blind developer has developed a haptic wristband that will decode facial expressions.   Because most of us are Apple users, we discuss the best Mac and iOS accessories announced at CES.   And then it is finally time to discuss the strangers weirdest things coming out of CES this year.   We then discuss the WTF robots that were announced at CES.   And it's more of Watcha Streaming, Watcha Reading.   And you will want to stay to the very end to hear about the lawsuit that is currently taking place.   To contact That Real Blind Tech Show, you can email us at ThatRealBlindTechShow@gmail.com, join our Facebook Group That Real Blind Tech Show, join us on the Twitter @BlindTechShow , or leave us an old school phone message at 929-367-1005.

Livsbejakande melankoli levereras av artister med mål som är större än vad vi förväntar oss av popstjärnor. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. Effekterna av ett kolonialt förflutet hemsöker Sverigeaktuella Burna Boy från Port Harcourt i sydöstra Nigeria där himlen har en svart nyans av oljeutvinningen.En av världens musikgiganter är klädd i guldfärgat och med solglasögon trots att det är efter midnatt. Burna Boy förändrade bilden av Afrika med musik som blandar vibbar från Jamaica och glansen från amerikansk R&B med hiphop, grime och dussintals lokala stilar som highlife, hiplife och juju förädlade genom decennierna. Burna Boy berättar bland annat om sina tidiga dagar på Brixtons gator, Fela Kutis betydelse, Afrikas fortsatta kamp, och de inre demonerna. I avsnittet möter du även CKay, Omah Lay, NSG och Big Pun.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit weekendwater.substack.comWelcome to the first podcast of damp trash this year! In this bonus content STAY F. HOMEKINS podcast episode… We podcast. Get into it. It's nuts.…we take on the yearly Boy's Dinner at Miss Patricia's, we learn her current butler may have a traumatic brain injury and discover that Whitney may be drowning in …

This week! WEE ARRREEE BAAAACCCKKK!! The full crew is back and ready to talk about... not Hearthstone. Boy howdy do we earn the "sometimes not" aspect of our title this week...    Here is the newsletter I write that releases every Sunday morning! https://stormraige.substack.com/ Logo Created By: Nate Wolfe. Modifications by Gingersaurous Theme Song By: Se7enist. https://open.spotify.com/artist/5kmsQa4jBfiUwWLqOp64GX? You can buy merch here: https://blizzlet.myspreadshop.com/all

0:00 - Avs needed a get right game and they got one. Boy, did they EVER! An 8-2 beatdown of Ottawa that included 2 separate heavyweight fights. Good work, boys. 16:33 - Miami beat Ole Miss last night which means...an SEC team will not with the college football championship this year. It's official: ENOUGH with the SEC bias. "It just means more," huh? Well it didn't seem to matter much this year. 36:46 - Let's preview all the matchups from a stacked NFL Wild Card weekend that kicks off tomorrow. Brett & Mose developed a new system to evaluate QBs: guttural sounds. 

Intro and Outro @fiverr. This episode tells my experience at the Boy is Mine Tour with Brandy and Monica. Follow the show @dreaspointofview on ig, fb and threads. Follow the show @dreapoint on x and spill.Leave a review at www.theedreaspointofview.com and hear all episodes. Subscribe to my Free weekly newsletter at www.dreaspointofview.substack.com.

The first episode of the new year! On the fifty- fifth episode of All the Film Things, Emmy- winning photojournalist Cole Echevarria returns to look back and discuss 2025 in film! This episode is spoiler- filled. The 2025 films spoiled are Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, Bugonia, Caught Stealing, Hamnet, Jay Kelly, and Sinners..While 2023 continues to set a high bar for the 2020s decade, 2025, in my opinion, was a pretty solid year filled with a fantastic variety of unique, original films and stories. Cole and I disagreed greatly in regard to 2024 in film, but when it comes to 2025… we still disagree. Early in the year, Michael B. Jordan reunited with Ryan Coogler for Sinners, proving that they are one of the best actor- director collaborators of our time while Robert Pattinson's long- awaited sci- fi film directed by Bong Joon- Ho, Mickey 17, finally hit theaters. While several prominent actresses, Scarlett Johansson, Kate Winslet, and Kristen Stewart each made their directorial debuts, Celine Song followed up her directorial debut, Past Lives, with another beautiful film that has endured as a favorite amongst audiences. And the Oscar season officially began with the return of two of the greats, Leonardo DiCaprio and Paul Thomas Anderson, for an epic, hilarious, and action- packed masterpiece beloved by film aficionados and general audiences in One Battle After Another. From then on, several brilliant films such as Sentimental Value, Hamnet, and Jay Kelly instantly became beloved by audiences and Oscar contenders. On previous year in review episodes, the concern of physical media's future was discussed and now, due to recent events, the future of movie theaters has become more grim than ever before. This episode not only marks the 101st (!!) episode of All the Film Things, but also Cole's 20th appearance on the show! He is far and away the most frequent guest and I'm very grateful for his friendship, banter and all, as well as, of course, being a part of ATFT since the early days in 2022. This is the fourth year in review episode on All the Film Things and I always look forward to these reflective episodes, not only because I get to chat with friends, but also because these episodes will act as sort- of time capsules someday. This episode was originally 130 minutes so much had to be cut, which especially affected the tribute segment, but it was recorded on December 23, 2025. In this episode, Cole and I share our top five favorite films of the year and, much to our surprise since we never agree, we have the same number one pick . Weirdly enough, we have a few of the same films in our top five lists, though my fourth favorite of the year immediately made Cole laugh. We go on to discuss the favorite films of past ATFT guests from K- Pop Demon Hunters to Bugonia, ponder which other movie stars could have played the titular character of Jay Kelly, and pay tribute to the giant stars we lost in 2025 as well as two previous ATFT guests. You also won't want to miss Cole's Bob Dylan impression... because you won't be able to unhear it. All this and much more on the brand new episode of All the Film Things! Background music created and used with permission by the Copyright Free Music - Background Music for Videos channel on YouTube.

Daily Dose of Hope January 8, 2026   Scripture: Galatians 4   Prayer:  Lord, How we need you.  Thank you for your presence, thank you for the way you continue to pursue us.  Lord, in these next few moments of silence, help us set aside our scattered thoughts and focus on you...In Your Name, Amen.   Welcome back to the Daily Dose of Hope, the devotional and podcast that complements the New Hope daily Bible reading plan.  We are in our first week of our new reading plan, Journey into the Letters of Paul, during which we will walk through Paul's letters chronologically.  We are currently in Galatians, Paul's first letter.   Our chapter for today is Galatians 4. Boy, is Paul frustrated with the Galatians or what?  He doesn't mince words.  But he continues to make his point. Paul contrasts humanity's condition under the law versus in Christ. Under the law, people were heirs to a promise that God made with Abraham, but really they were no better than slaves, for they were still in bondage to the law. Under Christ, however, there is true freedom.  People aren't merely heirs to a promise.  They are children of the one true God.    Paul talks about the Galatians before the false teachers entered the picture.  They were open to Paul's teaching.  Paul alludes to an illness he had when he was with them initially.  They cared for him as if he was Christ.  Their hospitality and love was extravagant.  He was blessed by them immensely.  But now, Paul appears to be personally wounded by their rejection of him.  How quickly things changed.   They moved from reliance on grace to reliance on the law.  Paul is heartbroken.    Our salvation has nothing to do with the law. Rather, our salvation rests in the work of Christ. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. When we are saved, God puts his Holy Spirit within us. There is an intimacy there. Now, we call out "Abba, Father" which effectively means "Daddy." We aren't slave children. We are truly God's children whom he loves. We can rest in the love of our father. We don't have to be fearful or timid. We can spend time with our Father God, sit in his lap, and soak up the love he has for us.   I'll close today with Romans 8:15-16, So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God's Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, "Abba, Father." For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God's children.    Do you consider God your daddy?  Do you clearly understand your relationship as a child of the one true King?  If you still have questions about this, or doubts, spend some time today and write them down.  Pray about them.  Let's see if over the course of this reading plan, God begins to speak to you regarding your list. Blessings, Pastor Vicki

COURTSIDE MAVERICK feat. @xo.mariza_ & @louis.lit We're kicking off the new year with the OG horny crew! Mariza comes by for a little after party reunion as we catch up with her and her latest move to Dallas. She tells us why El Paso men give her the ick and she tells us all about her throuple in paradise. Follow us on social media @AaronScenesAfterParty

Who screwed up the holiday in your family? Our predictions! So my brother and I finally talked... ASK MY MOM: How do I talk to my overweight daughter? Become a Certified Fan! Help support the podcast and get our Thursday show, More Mama's Boy!  Adopt An Episode! Want to show us a little extra love? Adopt an Episode and get a personal shoutout in an upcoming show! This episode was adopted by the amazing Marci H. from GA.! Thank you!! A special thank you to our Boy-lievers for your extra support of our show: Candy Z, Marci H, Eileen F, Kat R, Rachelrose S, Donald S, Queen Pam , Erin D, Alexandra T, Deb S, Lisa G, Julie B, Carly M C, Karissa R, Sue W, Lucino , Lisa H, Kayla S, Karen W, Tina U, Lety S, Julia M, Michele K, Angela P and our mystery Boy-liever!  Listen to my other podcast, “Kramer and Jess Uncensored”! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What happens when a long pastoral calling ends, friendships fade, and the church faces cultural fracture? Bishop Kenneth C. Ulmer (42 years in ministry at Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood, CA) joins Mark Labberton for a searching conversation about retirement from pastoral ministry, loneliness, leadership, and the meaning of credible witness in the Black church today. "Ministry can be a lonely business." In this episode, Bishop Ulmer reflects on the stepping away after four decades of pastoral leadership, navigating aloneness, disrupted rhythms, and the spiritual costs of transition. Together they discuss pastoral loneliness, friendship and grief, retirement and identity, church leadership after elections, authenticity versus attraction, political division in congregations, and whether the church still centers Jesus. Episode Highlights "Ministry can be a lonely business." "[Boy, pointing to a church] Is God in there? [Pastor] Sometimes I wonder." "There's a Moses in you that will see farther than you'll go." "The tension is authenticity versus attraction." "Jesus is the answer for the world today." About Kenneth C. Ulmer Bishop Kenneth C. Ulmer is Bishop Emeritus of Faithful Central Bible Church in Inglewood, California, where he served as senior pastor for more than four decades. A nationally respected preacher, civic leader, and mentor, Ulmer played a significant role in the spiritual and economic life of Los Angeles, including the preservation of the Forum as a major community asset. He has been a prominent voice in conversations about the Black church, urban ministry, and faithful Christian leadership amid cultural and political change. Ulmer continues to teach, preach, and advise leaders while reflecting publicly on vocation, aging, and wisdom in ministry. Learn more and follow at https://www.faithfulcentral.com Helpful Links And Resources Faithful Central Bible Church: https://www.faithfulcentral.com Conversing with Mark Labberton: https://comment.org/conversing Credible Witness podcast: https://faith.yale.edu/credible-witness Show Notes Long pastoral tenure ending after more than four decades of leadership Friendship formed through shared grief and the loss of trusted companions Prayer, friendship, and ministry forged "on our knees" at Hollywood Presbyterian Loss of regular companionship revealing unexpected loneliness and aloneness "Ministry can be a lonely business." Absence of trusted friends exposing a deep relational void Final sermon titled "I Did My Best," echoing 2 Timothy imagery and the words on Kenneth Ulmer's father's grave "I fought a good fight" as closing vocational reflection Disrupted spiritual rhythm after forty-one years of weekly preaching "My rhythm is off." Identity shaped by Sunday coming "every seven days" Question of where and how to worship after stepping away Public recognition colliding with uncertainty about purpose Therapy as a faithful response to grief and transition Energy and health without a clear channel for vocation Question of "what do you do now?" after leadership ends Seeing farther than you will go as a leadership reality Deuteronomy 34 and Moses viewing the Promised Land "There's a Moses in you that will see farther than you'll go." Passing vision to a Joshua who will go farther than he can see Grief of cheering from the sidelines while no longer on the field Wrestling with authenticity versus attraction in church leadership John 12:32 and the tension of lifting up Jesus to draw others "The tension is authenticity versus attraction." Fear of entertainment, production, and celebrity eclipsing Christ Question of whether churches are built on preaching or personality Political polarization dividing congregations and pulpits Question pastors must ask: "Who am I going to be after this ballot?" Kingdom identity beyond donkey or elephant, only the Lamb "Holding up the bloodstained banner" as faithful witness Doors of the church open—how wide are they, and for whom? Concern for credibility after the benediction and after the election Civic engagement without surrendering theological center Preserving community good beyond church walls and buildings Forum purchase as economic stewardship, not church expansion Question of whether God is still "in that house" How much of the God inside gets outside into the neighborhood? Jesus as the enduring answer amid cultural confusion Worship song, "We Offer Jesus" "Jesus in the morning, Jesus at noonday, Jesus in the midnight hour." Call to be the extended incarnation in ordinary life: "You are the temple." "Who are you turning away that he [Jesus] would not turn away?" #KennethCUlmer #PastoralLeadership #ChurchAndCulture #CredibleWitness #FaithAfterRetirement #AuthenticityVsAttraction Production Credits Conversing is produced and distributed in partnership with Comment Magazine and Fuller Seminary.  

Boy, do I love calendars. Transcript

This summer we are curating your Lowbrow podcast playlist bringing you the insanely popular and always funny - brutally honest reviews from our friends on The Spill. Enjoy! The fourth Bridget Jones movie, Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, landed in cinemas a few weeks ago and now we must passionately discuss it. From hidden costume details, to the story around a celebrity cameo that went viral, and an unpopular opinion about Hugh Grant’s character, there are so many juicy behind the scenes details that we have to reveal to you. Plus, we need to debrief on the movie moments that brought us to tears, made us laugh…and then made us cry about the state of dating millennial men.THE END BITS Listen:A Brutally Honest Review Of Apple Cider Vinegar What REALLY Happened When I Confronted Belle Gibson - Interview with whistleblowerA Brutally Honest Review Of BabygirlEm Vernem is co-hosting a new Mamamia podcast. BIZ is rewriting the rules of work with no zero generic advice - just real strategies from women who've actually been there. Listen here.Subscribe to The Spill Newsletter by clicking here. Subscribe to Mamamia GET IN TOUCH:The Spill podcast is on Instagram here.Do you have feedback or a topic you want us to discuss on The Spill? Send us a voice message, or send us an email thespill@mamamia.com.au and we'll come back to you ASAP! WANT MORE?Listen to more from The Spill hereRead all the latest entertainment news on Mamamia... here. CREDITS Hosts: Laura Brodnik & Em VernemExecutive Producer: Kimberley Braddish Audio Producer: Scott Stronach Mamamia acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the Land we have recorded this podcast on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures. Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Happy New Year everyone! Boy are we coming in hot...from all our old faves like Bill Maher, Kathy Giffin (we actually lke her) Mel Gibson and more. Plus an F, Marry, Kill for the AGES. 

What happens when a VR agency stops leading with compliance—and starts leading with trust? In this episode of Manager Minute, Carol Pankow sits down with Lea Dias, Director of the Hawaii Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, to talk about rebuilding an agency from the inside out. Facing high vacancies, low morale, and years of monitoring pressure, Lea chose a different path—one grounded in listening, kindness, and belief in her people. The result? ✔ Renewed staff engagement ✔ Stronger community partnerships ✔ Improved employment outcomes ✔ A culture moving from survival to purpose This is a powerful reminder that real change doesn't start with spreadsheets—it starts with people.   Listen Here   Full Transcript   Lea: I'm proud when I see my staff here at the administration level, thinking less about what the staff are doing wrong and focusing more on how can we help them, getting resources to help them, reaching out directly to help them. People talk a lot about rapid engagement and forget that ongoing part rapid and ongoing engagement. If you focus on culture first, the numbers I believe will follow. And if you focus only on numbers, the culture will crumble.   {Music} Intro Voice: Manager Minute, brought to you by the Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center. Conversations powered by VR. One manager at a time, one minute at a time. Here is your host, Carol Pankow.   Carol: Well, welcome to the manager minute. Joining me in the studio today is Lea Dias, director of the Hawaii Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. Lea recently participated in a panel at the fall CSAVR Conference, sharing Hawaii's journey to improving employment outcomes and what she calls their secret sauce. So how are things going in Hawaii?   Lea: Oh gosh, a lot better now that the shutdown is over. And we got a couple of our grants came through recently. And so that's all good. I think a lot of people think, oh, Hawaii, it's Paradise, right?   Carol: Yes.   Lea: But we have the same sort of issues I think, that many other agencies do. But things are getting better in Hawaii. I'll say that.   Carol: That is awesome to hear. It's so good to see you again. Oh my gosh.   Lea: you too.   Carol: So for years, Hawaii has faced real challenges, including declining employment outcomes, significant work tied to addressing findings from an RSA monitoring report. In fact, you all were monitored the same year I was when I was still with Minnesota Blind back in 2019. And so I remember having a bond with you guys.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: Because we were all going through it together.   Lea: Yes.   Carol: Now, I know when you stepped into the director role following the former director's retirement, you really brought this stabilizing, steady calmness that the agency really needed. And under your leadership, the team is rebuilding momentum, strengthening systems and really seeing some meaningful progress in the work being done across the islands. So today we're just going to explore that journey. What's changed, what's working and what other states can learn from your experience. So let's dig in.   Lea: Okay.   Carol: Can you start by sharing your journey with Hawaii VR and what led you into the director role?   Lea: Sure, Carol. Well, first of all, aloha, and thank you for having me. I have been with Hawaii Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, we're a combined agency, by the way, for over 30 years. And I started off about 34 years ago as an entry level VR counselor at the general site of our agency. And then in 2000, I moved over to become the supervisor of field services at our Ho'opono, which is our services for the blind branch. And Then I stayed there for a while. I then assumed the role of director of our New Visions Structured Discovery Orientation Center, and eventually I became the administrator of Blind Services, and I was honored to serve in that role until about July of 2023. So the majority of my career so far was spent at home. And I learned so much there, you know, working for a blind agency beyond what I got from my master's degree and all that. I learned so much about consumer empowerment. And, you know, the real dramatic changes that vocational rehabilitation can make in people's lives. So anyway, when the former Hawaii VR administrator left pretty abruptly, our agency was in a tough place. We had a vacancy rate of over 40%, I want to say close to 45% and rising low morale. We had that heavy corrective action plan you talked about from RSA and many staff were feeling really overwhelmed. So initially I stepped in as a temporary assignment just because I care so much about our agency. I love this profession. I care about the people we serve, and I wanted to do what I could to help stabilize and restore hope. And also, I had several staff approach me and ask me to do it, and that meant a lot to me. So I decided to apply after that. And I've been official in this job just a little over two and a half years, since July 2023.   Carol: That has gone really quickly.   Lea: Yes it has.   Carol: Well, and when you said bringing kind of that stabilizing calmness, everybody talks about that. You've been credited with doing that. How did you approach leading through that uncertainty and kind of rebuilding trust.   Lea: Oh gosh. Well, thank you for the compliment. But when I stepped in we were struggling across the board. And I know because I was part of that. Right. Coming from within the agency, we had declining successful employment outcomes way down. And a lot of the outcomes we had, they weren't really careers. In many cases, we had something like 77% of eligible participants leaving us before they even got to the point of IPE.   Carol: Wow!   Lea: Which is really atrocious. Super high vacancies. And because of those super high vacancies, we had counselors having to cover other counselors caseloads. So people were really burned out, overwhelmed. And because we had been working since 2019 to resolve that corrective action plan with RSA, and we had been so focused on that, staff were, I think, drowning in compliance tasks. And not that compliance isn't important because it is, of course, but there was a lot of blaming and overcorrecting in my opinion, and I think the human side of VR had been kind of pushed aside. When I was preparing for my speech for CSAVR, I kind of asked the line staff, I told them what I was going to be doing and asked them what they thought. And one counselor really summed up for me how it was by saying, just quote, we were all just Surviving.   Carol: Oh.   Lea: That's kind of pretty much where it was.   Carol: That's quite a statement.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: it really is. And I know I worked with your team too throughout that.   Lea: Mhm.   Carol: You know, when we were trying to work on getting corrective actions done and just kind of redoing policies over and over and fifth iteration, sixth iteration.   Lea: Right.   Carol: Oh my gosh. It was.   Lea: Right.   Carol: It was a lot. And you lose that sense of, you know, you lose the sense of the people and the reason you're all there. I can completely understand that being in the midst of that.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: I know at CSAVR the whole panel was talking about the secret sauce. What do you think has been the biggest impact so far for your agency?   Lea: Well, I focused on listening first and staff told me they felt hurt and they had felt mistrusted and they had felt disrespected. They talked about too many barriers to getting their work done. And, you know, I believed them because like I said, I know.   Carol: Yeah.   Lea: So I developed a pretty tight group of folks on my leadership team up here who I knew I could trust really implicitly to help me, you know, listen to people struggle with and overcome these barriers for our staff and our consumers. And this tight group of people, they shared my vision for the agency and my philosophy of the purpose of this great program called vocational rehabilitation. So we opened up leadership meetings. I decided to bring in frontline supervisors rather than just the people in the quote unquote, ivory tower, and line staff at all levels into our conversations. I really emphasize transparency and consistency and kindness and respect for ourselves. I demanded it to each other and to our consumers, because I really had to rebuild safety and rebuild trust. In the beginning because of the way our agency had been. When I would open up the floor, you know, for people to talk, it was crickets. People just didn't want to speak up. All of that to say, I think there's really to me and I think I said this at CSAVR, I don't think there's really a secret sauce, to be honest. We've made many improvements, but we still have a long way to go, particularly with our data collection and data analysis and reporting are performance measures. Still need a lot of work and my staff and I are learning together. I guess you could say our secret sauce is trust plus autonomy, plus removing barriers and trying to find a way to yes for our consumers and for our staff.   There's lots of little examples, you know, based on feedback that we got from our staff, we started allowing counselors to close their own cases. They weren't allowed to do that, as a result of the reaction to the corrective action plan. I would say we eliminated some things that were outdated or unnecessary, like some financial needs testing language. I stopped the communicating via solely via memo. All communication via memo. Training via memo. I mean, that kind of stuff just doesn't work. It's a good backup, but you can't rely on just written stuff.   Carol: No.   Lea: I cut out what I saw as unnecessary multi-layers of approvals for things as simple as a payment for a service to a consumer would have to come all the way up to the administrator's level if it was, I think, over $2,500. And I was like, this is ridiculous. We really started making a culture shift, I think, from compliance first to people first from distrust, mistrust, and I would say custodialism to communicating my belief, you know, in the skills and judgment of our people tried to make it a less intimidating environment where people could speak their truths and make suggestions for improvements because, you know, like I mentioned, I'm a leader, but I'm also a leader who in a lot of ways has been where they've been. And I know the power of what we can achieve when we all work together and I really believe all those things. I think all those little examples and more have really helped to make a difference.   Carol: I love that because you can always sense your authenticity. Always. I remember meeting you way back, you know, with NCSAB, and we would do work together on committees and all of that good stuff. And it's like, oh my gosh, I always just thought you were amazing because you truly, you walk the talk that you say and people believe you, you know, you're believable. And I think that trust you've put in your people. I could see a difference when we were out there, even last year as a TA center and came for a visit, there was just a whole different sense with that whole group. It was really nice to see. I can just tell. I mean, I can tell from the outside, having seen you all before in meetings where, you know, things were it just felt more chaotic and people didn't feel free to speak. And now you can just see everybody's faces. I mean, it was just their whole affect was so much better.   Lea: Oh, thank you. Thank you for your kindness. That makes me so happy to hear that. I see it, too. But it, I'm always questioning. Is it enough? Am I doing enough? There's still so much to do. But you gotta start somewhere.   Carol: Well, you have to start somewhere.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: I think you've done an incredible job with that.   Lea: Ahh.   Carol:  What do you feel like? Maybe. What progress are you most proud of? Or. And what maybe lessons would help other agencies because other people are going through this. You are not the only one in the entire, you know, system here. It is all over the country.   Lea: Yeah. Well, I mean, closing out that corrective action plan was a huge milestone. Very proud of that, especially after so many years. So it took from 2019 till just earlier this year, 2025 for us to finally, you know, get out from under that so that we can focus on other things. But we didn't do it alone. You know, like you mentioned, Doctor Chaz Compton, Chaz and you and the entire VRTAC QM team were really instrumental in helping us get there, and you guys really walked alongside us with empathy and clarity and unwavering support. Even with the time difference and, you know, being an ocean away. I mean, you guys were always there. And, you know, after I assumed this role, you know, Doctor Compton visited us twice so far for in-person, all staff meetings. So I brought in all staff, not just counselors, not just rehab teachers, everybody on staff for in-person sessions. Zoom is great for a lot of things, but sometimes you need everyone there in person for kind of a call to action, you know what I mean?   Carol: Yeah.   Lea: Anyway, those sessions that we had together with Chaz were, I think, really helped us along in this transformation. His ability to connect with staff and reframe challenges helped us ignite what we're calling our Reimagine and Renew initiative. I also want to acknowledge you, Carol, you know, your leadership at the VRTAC QM and the way, you know, you mentioned you and your team guided our agency and you helped us see this journey not as a series of failures, which is how we felt, but really an opportunity more so for growth and renewal. So what am I most proud of? I am most proud when I see our line staff coming up with these fantastic suggestions and being willing to talk to me about it, and then acting on those where we can and making those changes.   I am proud that I see in so many of them, their passion reigniting. I'm proud that many of them don't just see this as a drudgery, kind of 9 to 5 case manager job sitting in front of a computer all day. They're out in the community a lot more now, engaging with consumers, engaging with other agency partners. And when I say engaging with consumers, things like evenings and weekends, graduations, award ceremonies, things like that might seem like a small thing to some, but I know those consumers remember and they appreciate that and their families. I'm proud when I see my staff here at the administration level thinking less about what the staff are doing wrong and focusing more on how can we help them, getting resources to help them, reaching out directly to help them. I see a lot less finger pointing in both directions, because I know when I was on the line, I'd be like those people in administration and administration, people going, are those people on the line? They don't. I see a lot less of a lot less of that. And I'm really pleased that a lot of our partners in the community are ready to talk to us again. I think a lot of those relationships, for various reasons, had been pretty badly damaged, and that's actually been a big part of my job, too, is rebuilding those relationships. So I would say the biggest lesson for other states is this you can't transform an agency just through compliance tasks alone. You need trusted partners, you need honest conversations, and you really need a willingness to go to the mat to rebuild your agency culture, like from the inside out.   Carol: That is really good advice.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: I always think in this role it takes a village. Like when you were talking about assistance from the QM. And I know when we come alongside any state agency, we always refer to it like we. We always feel like we're part of you.   Lea: You are.   Carol: You know, even in the when we're meeting with staff and staff, it's like, okay, this is what we're going to do next, or...   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: ...let's work on this. And we always feel like we just become another we're another staff like in the group to help facilitate whatever getting done. And so.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: That has been so fun and really fun to see. Like your people embracing all of it. You just see such a difference. It really is pretty incredible.   Lea: Yeah. And I want to be really clear. It's not about me. It's not. It's the village. It's everybody together that is making progress. And I think things are looking up.   Carol: But you did make it possible because you open the space and it takes time. Like you said, people at first weren't really willing to talk because there'd been a long time where you couldn't talk about it.   Lea: Yeah, yeah.   Carol: You know, you couldn't bring things up. I remember the whole finger pointing back and forth all the time. People were like, oh, people in Central office. They don't know what's going on out here.   Lea: Yeah, yeah. And it still happens sometimes, you know, I get it, but not, not as much as before.   Carol: Not like before, No, but it takes that. And that took you really coming in and opening up the space. And it's a time factor. Like look at you've been doing it over two years now. Probably another lesson would be it doesn't go quick. Like it takes time to do this and repairing relationships.   Lea: Yes.   Carol: That's a time factor. They've got to trust you and over and over see what you're doing.   Lea: Yeah. And this is probably bad advice, but forget the work life balance thing. For me, it's like I'm at home thinking about this stuff. Like, what can I do? You know what I mean?   Carol: I know I used to sleep, I'd sleep with a pad of paper by my bed, because I'd often wake up in the middle of the night and be like, I'd have an idea, and I'd write it down because I didn't want to lose it for the morning. And then I'd come in. I'd be like, I was thinking last night, and staff would be like, oh my God, you had your pad of paper by the bed?   Lea: Yep, I talked to Siri. Siri, take a note.   Carol: Yes!   Lea: yes.   Carol: Oh, that's so funny. What strategies do you think just a little bit on your, you know, the employment outcomes. And you've done better with those. Chaz was super jazzed about that.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: What strategies do you think contributed most to those improvements you've had in your employment outcomes?   Lea: I've been thinking about this. I think our internal strategies, people talk a lot about rapid engagement and forget that ongoing part, rapid and ongoing engagement. Talking, you know, just like a broken record, talking with staff about that and the importance of that. And I'm seeing that happening more like I mentioned with those evenings, weekends being out in the field.   Carol: Yeah.   Lea: Streamlining processes, as I mentioned, empowering our counselors and trusting them to do their jobs. I think those were all essential. But and of course, the partnership and the help that we got from the TAC-QM, helping us look at our systems with fresh eyes and supporting us in building some sustainable, long term solutions so that external guidance also gave us confidence and helped accelerate our progress. So with all of those pieces kind of working together, some of our results have really improved dramatically. So you mentioned our successful closures. So between program year 23 and program year 24 our successful closures more than tripled. Okay.   Carol: Amazing.   Lea: The numbers are the numbers are small okay. Compared to like New York or something. But you know, in prog ram year 23 we had 30 closures. In program 24 we had 107.   Carol: That is awesome.   Lea: So yeah, I think that's pretty cool. I'm talking some of them are real careers, too, to real success story.   Carol: Oh, I love that.   Lea: That whole thing with the attrition before IPE has dropped really sharply. University of Hawaii at Manoa. They do a consumer satisfaction survey right for clients post closure, and we had the highest return rates ever and the highest levels of satisfaction ever, according to the university Hawaii, who's been doing these surveys for us. And then just some other stats to throw at you. But from program year 23 to 24, we saw our applications increase by 55%. That's applications for services. Determinations of eligibility increased by 59%, IPE development went up by 52%, and our vacancy rate for our staff has dropped to about 30 something percent. It's still high, but it's a lot lower than it was, and it's continuing to drop. And I've been able to fill some really key leadership positions where we had lost some very good people over those tumultuous years. So yeah, I hope I answered your question, but it's I think it's a lot of factors.   Carol: You did. It's been amazing though. And you look at that. I love that those kind of family sustaining wages, people in careers. That was always super important to me. I didn't want to just, you know, jobs and food, filth and flowers. Although people can do, you know, there are people that do want those jobs, but that isn't the only job that's out there.   Lea: Right. And that thinking long term.   Carol: Yeah.   Lea: You know, Chaz did training with us too. I'm thinking long term, like nurse's aide.  Or have you thought about nurse? Let's see. What are the differences here.   Carol: right.   Lea: Yeah, I like that.   Carol: Chaz is great at that. Bring it all.   Lea: Yeah.   Carol: Oh my gosh. Good for you though. Look at I think that just shows the power of when staff are trusted and they're feeling really good about their work and they're you're all in alignment on the same mission. You can really make huge things happen and including impacting your vacancy rate for employees, because I know you were much higher. I mean, it felt like you were like at 50% or something. So to have it even down to 30 is better.   Lea: Yeah. I'm also looking at revising our CSPD requirements because they're super high right now. And of course, I believe in the master's degree and the CRC and all that, but I think there's some room for us to loosen that up just a bit, still be in line with federal regulations. But that's another thing that I've heard from staff.   Carol: Yeah, that's a good idea. And there's probably a lot of people we could connect you with. Other states have done something similar to...   Lea: Yes.   Carol: ...kind of create space and layers and ways for people to get in and all of that.   Lea: Yes. Now is a good time because of the Unified State Plan is coming.   Carol: Yes. Perfect timing.   Lea: Yes.   Carol: Good pitch to make. It's like take advantage of that state plan. Time to make those changes.   Lea: Yes.   Carol: So what kind of advice would you have for other VR directors navigating tough challenges based on this experience? Do you have any other things you could offer your colleagues across the country? Because we got a lot of new people in, and there's a lot of really tough situations happening everywhere. You had quite a lot on your plate. So is there any other kind of things that could help them?   Lea: Gosh. Well, I would say start by listening. Trust your staff. They already know what the barriers are. Trust yourself. Listen to your consumers. Your consumer organizations encourage, expect, I should say, rapid and ongoing engagement with our consumers. Help them to dream big and to think long term. Find a way to say yes wherever possible. Give our consumers all the skills and confidence that they need to really achieve their life goals. Celebrate wins, even the small ones. Be a broken record if you have to. Keep your mission visible. And just remember, if you focus on culture first, the numbers I believe will follow. And if you focus only on numbers, the culture will crumble.   Carol: Really good advice.   Lea: Yeah, there's just no task too big when it's done together.   Carol: Oh, Lea, look at you go.   Lea: Ahh.   Carol: you made it all happen. Oh my God.!   Lea: Oh, stop it, I'm gonna cry.   Carol: Nah, you've been great. It's so fun to talk to you. I know chaz said at the conference people were crying when you had talked. There were so many people crying and coming up to you and really feeling so engaged and energized.   Lea: And I was surprised how many people came up because I thought our story was going to be like the worst in the whole, you know, all VR. And I had people coming up kind of, yeah, sharing that they had gone or they are going through a similar situation and, people, can I hug you?   Carol: Oh yeah.   Lea: And I was like, oh sure. You know. So no, I, I'm, I'm so humbled and honored that you even asked me to speak here because although I know we've made as a team some progress, we still have a way to go. But we're going to get there.   Carol: Yeah. See I just want other people to hear your message of hope and positivity, because I think we have a lot of directors feeling pretty, pretty sad right now. I'm pretty tough there in some pretty tough spots. And it you kind of you get that all internalized. I know from being a director too. Boy, it's hard to kind of pull out of all of that when you have just all of this piled on top of you, right? And it's hard to see sort of the light at the end of the tunnel. But your, your vision and just your whole message of really the hope and, and living into that mission and really the trust and all the things you've done, you've been doing the right things. And I think other people need to hear it. So I appreciate you doing this so much.   Lea: Oh, thank you so much again. Thank you.   Carol: Well, so I wish you much continued success. Thanks for your time. I hope you have a great day. Thank you.   Lea: Thank you, thank you.   {Music} Outro Voice: Conversations powered by VR. One manager at a time. One minute at a time. Brought to you by the VRTAC. Catch all of our podcast episodes by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening.

You thought we'd get out of 2025 without at least one more Nicolas Cage movie? You were wrong! This time around, Nicolas Cage stars in THE CARPENTER'S SON, a film loosely based on the childhood of Jesus Christ, framed as a horror movie. Featuring Cage as Joseph (aka The Carpenter), Noah Jupe as Jesus (aka The Boy), and FKA Twigs as Mary (aka The Mother).

Fallout as US captures Nicolás Maduro in large-scale strike in Venezuela; Who is Nicolás Maduro and what are the charges he's facing?; Boy rescued from icy pond reunites with hero officers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Fallout as US captures Nicolás Maduro in large-scale strike in Venezuela; Who is Nicolás Maduro and what are the charges he's facing?; Boy rescued from icy pond reunites with hero officers Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In Episode 21 of Season 6, we finally get to rejoice in a Wolves victory. Mateus Mane turns in a Man (or Boy?) of the Match performance and scores his first EPL goal, Hwang is in form and suddenly we question whether this group will make things interesting the rest of the way. Plus, a "see you later" of sorts to the show's founder, to whom we are grateful.

STYX - BABE - (Nu Disco Remix) JOE NARDI RECODE by NAW-T-BOY

Number 1008What does the new year bring us? A couple of sick podcast hosts, unfortunately! Mom Brain is sick, I'm also sick, and Deux Michaels is fighting off a cold as well. Deux stayed home for this episode and we kept Nicky Hill from getting infected, but myself and Mom Brain held things down at GN HQ for a briskly-paced episode to kick off 2026. Less filler, more news, and a heaping helping of germs!

When firefighters discovered the body of forty-year-old Terry King inside the charred remains of his Cantonment, Florida home in November 2001, they assumed the man had been asleep when the fire broke out and died as a result. Upon further inspection, investigators found that King hadn't died as a result of the fire, but from severe blunt force trauma to his head. And even more alarming than that was the fact that King's two boys, thirteen-year-old Derek and twelve-year-old Alex, were missing.Having occurred immediately in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Terry King's murder could have easily been one of many tragedies lost in the fog of national trauma and grief; however, when King's killers were arrested and identified in the days that followed, the story was so shocking, and the motive so heartbreaking, that it managed to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of the attacks. ReferencesAssociated Press. 2002. "Convicted molester denies urging boys to kill dad." Miami Herald , February 1: 33.—. 2002. "Convicted child molester accused of writing love letter to boy in jail." Miami Herald, April 4: 363.—. 2001. "Grandmother: Boys couldn't have killed dad." Miami Herald, November 29: 438.Canedy, Dana. 2002. "Judge throws out brothers' murder conviction." New York Times, October 18.—. 2002. "Reject sympathy, jury is told in boys' trial." New York Times, September 6.CBS News. 2002. Man gets 30 years in killer boys case. November 7. Accessed December 9, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-gets-30-years-in-killer-boys-case/.Clark, Lesley. 2001. "Boys accused of bluedgeoning father, setting home on fire." Miami Herald, December 4: 1.Gomez, Alan. 2002. "Boys take stand against friend." Pensacola News Journal, August 28: 1.—. 2002. "Chavis judge denies request for acquittal." Pensacola News Journal, August 29: 1.Graybiel, Ginny. 2002. "Slaying suspect vows he could hurt no one." Pensacola News Journal, August 4: 1.Kaczor, Bill. 2002. "Sons change story, still to be tried for murder." Miami Herald, August 25: 970.Keith Morrison. 2009. Second chances. September 7. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32664652.2003. American Justice: Blood Brothers. Performed by Bill Kurtis.Midico, Kathryn, and Mollye Barrows. 2004. A Perversion of Justice: A Southern Tragedy of Murder, Lies, and Innocence Betrayed. New York, NY: Avon .New York Times. 2002. "Boy, 13, testifies he and brother didn't kill their father." New York Times, September 5.Scandlen, Monica. 2002. "Testimonies quiet, simple." Pensacola News Journal, August 28: 1. Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When firefighters discovered the body of forty-year-old Terry King inside the charred remains of his Cantonment, Florida home in November 2001, they assumed the man had been asleep when the fire broke out and died as a result. Upon further inspection, investigators found that King hadn't died as a result of the fire, but from severe blunt force trauma to his head. And even more alarming than that was the fact that King's two boys, thirteen-year-old Derek and twelve-year-old Alex, were missing.Having occurred immediately in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Terry King's murder could have easily been one of many tragedies lost in the fog of national trauma and grief; however, when King's killers were arrested and identified in the days that followed, the story was so shocking, and the motive so heartbreaking, that it managed to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of the attacks. ReferencesAssociated Press. 2002. "Convicted molester denies urging boys to kill dad." Miami Herald , February 1: 33.—. 2002. "Convicted child molester accused of writing love letter to boy in jail." Miami Herald, April 4: 363.—. 2001. "Grandmother: Boys couldn't have killed dad." Miami Herald, November 29: 438.Canedy, Dana. 2002. "Judge throws out brothers' murder conviction." New York Times, October 18.—. 2002. "Reject sympathy, jury is told in boys' trial." New York Times, September 6.CBS News. 2002. Man gets 30 years in killer boys case. November 7. Accessed December 9, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-gets-30-years-in-killer-boys-case/.Clark, Lesley. 2001. "Boys accused of bluedgeoning father, setting home on fire." Miami Herald, December 4: 1.Gomez, Alan. 2002. "Boys take stand against friend." Pensacola News Journal, August 28: 1.—. 2002. "Chavis judge denies request for acquittal." Pensacola News Journal, August 29: 1.Graybiel, Ginny. 2002. "Slaying suspect vows he could hurt no one." Pensacola News Journal, August 4: 1.Kaczor, Bill. 2002. "Sons change story, still to be tried for murder." Miami Herald, August 25: 970.Keith Morrison. 2009. Second chances. September 7. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32664652.2003. American Justice: Blood Brothers. Performed by Bill Kurtis.Midico, Kathryn, and Mollye Barrows. 2004. A Perversion of Justice: A Southern Tragedy of Murder, Lies, and Innocence Betrayed. New York, NY: Avon .New York Times. 2002. "Boy, 13, testifies he and brother didn't kill their father." New York Times, September 5.Scandlen, Monica. 2002. "Testimonies quiet, simple." Pensacola News Journal, August 28: 1. Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I used to think that just having "good morals" was good enough... Boy, was I wrong. Listen in to find out why. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!