Podcasts about The Boy Who Cried Wolf

This bilingual video is perfect for young Mandarin learners! "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" or "狼来的故事" (láng lái de gùshì) not only introduces kids to a classic moral story but also helps them practice their Mandarin listening skills in an engaging and fun way. Through the story, children will learn key Chinese phrases like "狼来了" (Wolf is here!) and "吃一堑，长一智" (Eat a pit, gain wisdom), enhancing their vocabulary and cultural understanding.By watching this video, your child will be exposed to both Chinese language and Chinese cultural values, making the learning experience more enjoyable and relatable. The moral lesson teaches the importance of honesty, a concept that's crucial for their personal development.This video is designed to be fun, engaging, and educational, helping your child feel more comfortable with Mandarin Chinese while enjoying an easy-to-follow bilingual story. Plus, it's a great way for parents and kids to watch together and bond over learning!

Dave and Bethlie are BACK!  In today's episode Dave and Bethlie tackle a very important question from a listener about how to train a 3 year old with a big imagination to not lie.   Later on in the episode Dave and Bethlie begin their series on raising a child with special needs. Thanks for joining us and enjoy this episode!   Question from a listener Would you be able to share tips on how to train a 3 year old who has a beautiful imagination on lying. We do a lot of pretend/imagination play, but I want him to also understand that lying (if asked a specific question) is not good.  This is something that just recently came up, and I wasn't sure how to handle it or train him on it. You have to know the difference in imagination and lying. Lying lips are an abomination to God; but they that deal in truth are his delight You shall not bear false witness (you shall not be dishonest in any situation) Truth shall be established forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment Using ones imagination is fun and normal and creative; lying is refusing to face facts and/or take responsibility in a specific situation. Imagination is not wrong; lying is very wrong. Imagination is fun; lying is dangerous You have to use different words.  Let's pretend Let's imagine Always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth That is a LIE and That is VERY BAD Say that softly and sadly Connect those emotions with the act of lying In imagination In reality You have to teach Jacob and his family He lied to his dad His father in law lied to him His sons lied to him The Boy Who Cried Wolf   (14:40) Raising A Child With Special Needs Part 1 Defining special needs. Special needs refer to children who require additional support or services due to physical, developmental, intellectual, or emotional challenges. These needs can range from mild to severe and may affect various aspects of a child's life, including: communication, mobility, learning, behavior, and social interaction.  Some children have physical challenges Blindness, deafness, etc. Some children have mental or emotional challenges Various degrees of autism Fetal alcohol syndrome Some children are diagnosed with behavioral issues   ADHD Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. These symptoms can cause significant problems in functioning at home, school, or work.  ADD Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is the older, more colloquial term for a specific type of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) called "Predominantly Inattentive Type”. ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is a behavioral disorder characterized by persistent negativity, defiance, and anger, often in children and adolescents. It's not a personality trait but a diagnosable condition that can impact a child's ability to learn, interact with others, and function in various settings.  OCD Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental health condition characterized by obsessions (unwanted, persistent thoughts, images, or urges) and compulsions (repetitive behaviors or mental acts) that individuals feel driven to perform to reduce the anxiety caused by the obsessions. Conclusion

Pull up a stool at The Three Broomsticks and join Ev, Irvin, Sophia, and special guest Line Egelund as they continue their exploration of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince with chapter six, "Draco's Detour"! This time, the hosts finally make it to the titular part of the chapter, before a short pit-stop at Weasley Whizard Wheezes. Grab yourself a beverage and tune in to discuss joke shop products and names, Ginny Weasley, and if Draco Malfoy should have been a werewolf. Join the discussion: https://threebroomstickspod.com/episode-59-hbp-chapter-6-part-2-the-boy-who-cried-wolf/  In this episode:   The most wholesome constipation story Fred and Hermione's mutual appreciation society Ev is bereft without pygmy puffs Which Weasley Whizard Wheezes product do we want? The twins are fighting Voldemort with intellectual property law Why do the Weasley boys object to Ginny's dating history? Draco has Schrodinger's lycanthropy Borgin bows low to hide his expression What's with all the hanging? Hermione wins the Razzie for Worst Actress Resources:  Borgin, Burke, and the Half-Blood Prince by Irvin Harry Potter and The Hanged Man: Part 3 Its Meaning in Rowling's Written Work by John Granger Pub's Jukebox: Weasleys Wizard Wheezes by Riddle TM   Contact: Website: https://threebroomstickspod.com/ Email: 3broomstickspod@gmail.com Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/3broomsticks Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/threebroomstickspod/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/threebroomstickspodcast/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/threebroompod YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/@ThreeBroomsticksPodcast

Topics include: Boy who cried wolf moments TMA inside jokes Talking about the tournament Tim's time in Arkansas White Lotus recap (SPOILERS for episode 3 and previous seasons)(1:24:30 - 1:36:30) Please support our sponsors:Mark Hannah – Evergreen Wealth StrategiesJames Carlton Agency (State Farm)Design Aire Heating & CoolingFollow us on Social Media: @TMASTL on Twitter, @tma_stl on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Topics include: Boy who cried wolf moments TMA inside jokes Talking about the tournament Tim's time in Arkansas White Lotus recap (SPOILERS for episode 3 and previous seasons)(1:24:30 - 1:36:30) Please support our sponsors: Mark Hannah – Evergreen Wealth Strategies James Carlton Agency (State Farm) Design Aire Heating & Cooling Follow us on Social Media: @TMASTL on Twitter, @tma_stl on Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After CJ sees something horrific at Anthony's house, his friends and family don't believe his tale.

In this episode of the Reading with Your Kids podcast, host Jed Doherty chats with two talented authors who are bringing diverse stories and cultural perspectives to young readers.  First up, Jed introduces Deeba Zargarpur,, the author of the new middle-grade novel "Farrah Noorzad and the Ring of Fate." Deeba shares how her own Afghan heritage inspired the story of a 12-year-old girl who discovers her jinn (supernatural being) lineage and goes on an epic quest. Deeba discusses the cultural significance of jinn in her upbringing and how she wanted to create a fun, magical world that also explores deeper themes of family, identity, and moral complexity. Next, Jed welcomes David Flores, author of "The Boy Who Cried Falta." As a soccer coach, David was inspired by the common tendency of players to fake injuries, which led him to put a creative spin on the classic "Boy Who Cried Wolf" tale. David shares his own passion for the sport, which took root in his childhood in El Salvador and continued to be a source of community and belonging after he immigrated to the US as a teenager.  Both Deeba and David emphasize the importance of representation in children's literature, and how their books provide windows into diverse cultures while also serving as mirrors for young readers to see themselves reflected. They discuss the value of co-reading with families and the meaningful conversations that can arise around themes of morality, identity, and the immigrant experience. With engaging storytelling and a focus on cultural connections, this episode of Reading with Your Kids is a must-listen for parents, educators, and anyone who appreciates the power of diverse, imaginative children's literature. Click here to visit our website – www.ReadingWithYourKids.com Follow Us On Social Media Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/readingwithyourkids Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/readingwithyourkids/ X - https://x.com/jedliemagic LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/reading-with-your-kids-podcast/ Please consider leaving a review of this episode and the podcast on whatever app you are listening on, it really helps!

Scott talks about the time he was tricked into a risky situation and almost lost his brand new Oakleys in the process.  When were you  blamed for something you didn't do? Unfortunately for Scott he was OFTEN acting up, so the one time he DIDN'T do something really fucked up, he still got blamed for it.  Prank Challenge: Luke challenges Scott to call his interior designer the amazing Nicole Rosenberg and tell her he doesn't like his bedroom (that she JUST finished redesigning).  Shithead Kids: A sink plugging nightmare  LINKS Follow @liberty.interiors on Instagram, the amazing Nicole Rosenberg's business - https://bit.ly/libertyinteriors-ig .  Want to see us in person?! Buy tickets to our national live tour at https://bit.ly/sassytour-tix . Send us your Shithead Kid Story via DM at @lukeandsassyscottpodcast   Follow us on Instagram @lukeandsassyscottpodcast  CREDITS: Hosts: Luke And Sassy ScottGuest: Nicole Rosenberg @liberty.interiors   Executive Producer & Editor: Elise CooperSocial Producer: Amy CodeVideo Producer: Nick BarrettManaging Producer: Sam CavanaghTalent Manager: Kirsty Kassabis  Find more great podcasts like this at www.listnr.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://www.preparewithdeepsouth.com My Patriots Supply https://glnk.io/vzw5/1dw Vego Garden Raised Beds https://www.empshield.com/deepsouth EMP Shield https://www.growerssolution.com/deepsouth Growers Solution High Tunnel Kits

Series: N/AService: WednesdayType: InvitationSpeaker: Josh McKibben

In today's episode we discuss G-d's unique ability to forgive an infinite amount of times. Iggeres HaTeshuva middle of Chapter 11.Music by Shoshannah.   Follow us on:  Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, InstagramTo sponsor an episode or for any other inquiries, email: itistaught@gmail.com Support the Show.

Listen ad-free: https://fun-fables.supercast.com/It's an oldie but a goodie. It's a Fun Fables Fan Favourite!Olly is a tricker but has his latest trick got him into trouble?Website: www.funfablespodcast.com Created and produced by: Horseplay ProductionsNarrated by: The Narrator Man Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tales From The Bungalow The Boy Who Cried Wolf

Send us a Text Message.In a futuristic fable/sci-fi mashup, a scheming shepherd boy is outfoxed by a clever ewe.LISTENER DISCRETION IS ADVISED THIS PODCAST IS THE PROPERTY OF SPIKED EGGS PRODUCTIONS – COPYRIGHT 2024 *********************************************************************************** SPIKED EGGS PODCAST ADAPTED FROM THE FABLE "THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF" BY: Frank Donnelly and Jane D. Watson PRODUCTION AND SOUND DESIGN: Jane D. WatsonMUSIC SUPERVISION: Ginevra Iommetti CAST: CHARLIE                                      Richard GibsonSHEPHERD BOY                         Brian BallanceVILLAGE ELDER and THEL        Sharon GrunwaldLUCILLE                                       Jane WingAGNES                                         Erin CulpepperVILLAGER ONE                          John KennardPODCAST HOST                        Zachary BrownADDITIONAL VOICES               Ash Albiniak, Jesse Forrest, Kisara Garalde, Dexter                                                           Howard, Richard Nelson, Salathiel Reagan,                                                      Adam Robinson and Rae WitteMUSIC: "Frost Waltz (Alternate)""Laserpack""Spirit of the Girl""Dances and Dames""Walking Along""Alien Restaurant""Ghostpocalyse - 1 Departure""Himalayan Atmosphere""Lightless Dawn"Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"Take Me with You"The Ginger Lizardshttps://open.spotify.com/artist/1cSExU16WF9ZnYjYjQVaIS?si=1CkmmAPaTDC279NEln7iiwORIGINAL EPISODE ART: Alaina Michaels SFX Provided by Freesound.org S: calm forest 0848 AM 240320_0695 by klankbeeld -- https://freesound.org/s/728218/-- License: Attribution 4.0S: park May 723PM NL DeNoise 210523_0284.wav by klankbeeld l License: Attribution 4.0S: DogYelp.wav by TobiasKosmos l License: Attribution 3.0S: Burn-Through-July-6th-2021 by audiomirage - https://freesound.org/s/579630/ -- License: Attribution 4.0YOU CAN FIND US ON:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/spikedeggsX: https://x.com/spikedeggsYouTube: https://youtube.com/@SpikedEggspodcast

Listen to Zooming In at The UnPopulist in your favorite podcast app: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | RSS | YouTubeLandry Ayres: Welcome to Zooming In at The UnPopulist. I'm Landry Ayres.As the 2024 election draws nearer and Donald Trump's second-term plans come into greater focus, critics of his, across the ideological spectrum, are torn as to whether Trump's movement is continuous with historical fascism. Does the dreaded “f”-word apply to him? Or is it an unhelpful exaggeration?On today's episode, The UnPopulist senior editor Berny Belvedere reconnects with his former Arc Digital colleague and international relations professor at the University of Illinois, Nicholas Grossman. The two discuss the propriety of using historically-weighty labels in our public discourse today, where to situate Trump within the not-so-grand tradition of authoritarianism, and break down how the Heritage Foundation-powered Project 2025 would fuel further democratic backsliding. We hope you enjoy.A transcript of today's podcast appears below. It has been edited for flow and clarity.Berny Belvedere: Nick, do you believe terms like “fascism,” “Nazism,” “communism” are overused today? If so, why do you think they are?Nicholas Grossman: So, in a way they're overused and also not. “Nazi” came to be a word that just meant bad, the thing that we all agree on is bad, and can be used in very serious contexts and comedic contexts—like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld, and all the running jokes and memes of Godwin's law and “everything I don't like on the internet is Hitler” and anything else along those lines. So people do overuse it. But also, with “Nazi” in particular, it can reach a level where people then think that any lesson from Nazi Germany or any lesson from the 20th century more broadly is ipso facto wrong, that there's something inherently wrong about comparing the right-wing nationalist-populist movement that won an election and then lost power and then attempted a putsch and then reconsolidated and ran for power again, to America's right-wing nationalist-populist movement that won an election and then lost power by election and then attempted a putsch and then sought power again. That seems pretty ridiculous that you couldn't connect any of those.As for “fascism,” with thinking of it as this thing nearly everybody agrees was wrong that happened in the 20th century, when people try to apply it more loosely to things that are, say, authoritarian but not necessarily fascist … that could reduce the power of the word. But I think at this point, people using the word like Joe Biden used “semi-fascism,” to describe Trump's authoritarian project … I don't think is unreasonable.Berny: So when Biden used “semi-fascism,” how is it that that qualifier, “semi,” managed to successfully avoid the trap of requiring a perfect historical parallel while at the same time bringing in a term that has enough connotative heft to meet the gravity of Trump and MAGA's offenses? How is it that a word as simple as “semi” is able to successfully get us out of this jam?Nicholas: You know, that's a really good point. I hadn't quite thought about it that way, but it does look like the “semi” modifier has threaded that needle where it's a way of indicating, “Okay, I'm not saying this is literally Hitler and that we are headed for World War III and another Holocaust.” I mean, to pick a kind of obvious example: When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, there is explicit calls for genocide. In Trump's largely ghostwritten books, you don't see anything like the final solution for the Jews. That runs into the problem of, “No, you're being hyperbolic.” So “semi” makes it where, “I'm not saying it's exactly that. I'm saying it bears enough resemblance to that that we should think of it as serious and bad.” And given that I and many others do think of it as serious and bad, and in particular as anti-democratic and authoritarian, the “semi” adds a way to use a word that connects with a lot of people without running into those, “So you're saying this is literally Hitler” counterarguments.Berny: As an international relations professor who has taught classes on terrorism, you've argued convincingly that misapplications of that word, “terrorism,” can have real consequences and that therefore applying the word well, in a more narrowly defined way, is really important. Is the issue with misapplications of the word “Nazi” or “fascism” on that same level, or not really?Nicholas: You're right that I'm a stickler on the word “terrorism,” that it's something that I teach and have taught for a while, and I take issue with a common usage of it to be basically a synonym of “bad,” a synonym of “thing I don't like.” If you Google “Republican terrorists” or “Democratic terrorists,” you get millions of hits. I think it is important for us to be able to really understand that “terrorism” refers specifically to violent political actions targeted against non-combatants by non-state actors. It's important for conceptual clarity, but in particular for developing counter-strategies and executing them well.I tend not to use “fascism” as well. I stick more to something like “authoritarianism” because the usefulness about it is: Trump's project is clearly authoritarian and there's no ambiguity about it. He's calling for the termination of the Constitution, saying, “I'll be a dictator”—he's quite open about it. You could have judged it from actions, but also now from statements. Whereas with something like the word “fascism,” that leads to debates that are potentially distracting. So I think it's a mistake to really fixate on the word, to be very insistent upon it.My concern with the word “terrorism” is not throwing it around so often and so loosely that it loses its power. And I feel that way about “fascism” as well—as a word that we shouldn't throw around loosely. I'll give you a recent example of this. When some people were reacting to police shutting down various campus protests, some cases seemed, to me and to many others, like an excessive use of force, just the sheer number of manpower and police presence that was being used. I saw comments along the lines of, “Why would you be concerned about fascism? Fascism is clearly already here.” And, no, that's really not it. So, the police arrested a bunch of people and, if any of them are charged with a crime, they'll have a chance to defend themselves in court. And that maybe is bad—certainly somebody can criticize it—but it's also not fascism. There's a danger of a “boy who cried wolf” effect where, if you're constantly calling anything you don't like this maximal bad word, then when something that is actually like that thing comes around, people are less inclined to believe you.Then again, the lesson of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is not that wolves aren't real and you don't need to worry about them.Berny: We're going to focus on more than just the term “fascism” here in this discussion, but I want to stay on the term for just a sec because it is a prominent issue in our discourse that keeps popping up.So, we humans tend to be incorrigibly committed to clarifying our world by describing it, by capturing it linguistically. But there's an inherent limitation to doing that that seems to always rear its head. Calling something a “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi” initiative helps to situate it within a particular historical movement. But the downside to that is historical episodes, by their very nature, are in the minds of many people tethered to particular circumstances, the ones that they temporally existed in. So history gives us these movements that have a fixed shape. And that can somewhat frustrate new applications of those labels.The part that a lot of people are underestimating is just how incredibly powerful institutional authority is. This idea of, it's norms all the way down … the idea that powerful people should follow the law is a norm. It is only a law to the extent that the people in power enforce it. And if the people in power, just enough of the people in power, don't enforce it, then it might as well not be a law. — Nicholas GrossmanSo to continue with the Nazi example, when some form of discourse today, whether it's a meme or a trope, or some rhetoric that a politician uses, gets characterized as “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi,” skeptics who don't detect a full-blown, genocidal antisemitism in that discourse will suggest that the “Nazi” label is overblown or being unfairly applied. I think the same thing happens, though at a lower scale, with “fascism.”My own take is that proponents and skeptics alike of these terms have in mind different aspects of those movements when they apply the labels or when they hear the labels applied. So when Trump gets called a “fascist” or a “neo-fascist,” the idea isn't necessarily that he's literally continuing Mussolini's project or that he's done the same exact things Franco did in Spain or whatever. Sometimes it means that. But sometimes I suspect the term is applied because a commentator or analyst just wants to note that Trump has similar impulses or inclinations or beliefs. The idea isn't that there's a perfect or near perfect match between the concrete actions Trump has taken and the ones past fascists have taken—because those will always be indexed to a particular time horizon. I think the idea, instead, is that Trump's posture toward democracy, toward the nation, the individual's role within the nation, and so on, is meaningfully similar to past fascist leaders and how they viewed things.If institutions exist today that reliably frustrate Trump's ability to carry out a more full-bodied fascistic reign, more so than they ever did for someone like Mussolini, that doesn't suggest, and it shouldn't suggest, that Trump lacks fascistic tendencies. Because, of course, that's just something external. Trump has routinely praised Putin and Kim and the way the societies they rule over are organized around their whims and wishes. The fact that he can't achieve that level of compulsory, fawning admiration here doesn't mean that he doesn't hold those yearnings.Does the fact that at any given time some discourse participants may have in mind tendencies and beliefs, whereas others have in mind concrete actions and historical parallels, and that therefore there's always going to be a talking past each other dynamic, does that suggest that historical terms like “fascism” are more unhelpful than helpful and should be retired?Nicholas: It can. I think that makes a lot of sense. This is also the purpose of those qualifiers like “semi.” One that's especially popular when you talk about things like political ideologies is “neo”—like a new version that's kind of like the one in the past. That tends to be how people thread the needle.But I do think that you're right in the tied-to-historical-circumstances aspect of it. And that also makes it where it is not necessarily the best or clearest form of communication or of persuasion because it can send some people down a rabbit hole of, “Let's compare that circumstance in history to this today,” whereas somebody who is using it might want to say, “These are similar”—or, often in some cases, it's a way of almost saying, “I think this is really bad.” So maybe a word like “authoritarian” doesn't have a real kick; “fascist,” “Nazi,” you know, has more of a kick and maybe is more likely to get people to pay attention—but it also, as you say, can make it more likely for people to shut off or to resist it. That's why I tend to say “anti-democracy” or “authoritarian,” or a more political science term, “democratic backsliding,” because that is unambiguously what is happening and it doesn't carry that same “historical circumstance” baggage.Berny: So, what is fascism, historically?Nicholas: So there's some debate about that, which again is one of the reasons why maybe it is not the most politically useful, or I guess discourse-useful, word. Historically, people place the origins in Italy, with Mussolini as the first real practitioner. When I was studying this, the person that I read the most was an Italian named Alfredo Rocco. He said that there were a couple of central principles: there's a hyper-nationalism, and an ethnic nationalism. Organicism, which is the sense that cell is to body as individual is to state … in other words, you give over everything to the state, as if you don't personally matter. Belief in superiority, then also militarism and foreign aggression. There are a number of other points that people like Umberto Eco have listed.There is a kind of later argument, and one that I find pretty persuasive, that fascism is almost a kind of anti-politics in that it is fixated on the past, often a fictional past, one in which there's not only nostalgia but trying to reclaim past glory and is a rejection in a way of the very idea of politics in the sense of we debate and argue about various pieces of evidence and facts and then come up with things like what might be the best solution or what do we agree would be a better solution rather than a worse solution. Whereas fascism often is much more an appeal to feelings and a fundamental rejection of the value of truth itself.Berny: I want to shift to a description of actions that can be categorized as fascistic, although if you just use a pure description of them, as you were suggesting earlier, you could also analyze them purely on their own merits. You were talking about how you prefer the word “authoritarianism” and “assaults on democracy.” In your latest for Arc Digital, you write that “American institutions are hanging by a thread.” And you argue that a model of instantaneous authoritarianism or revolutionary illiberalism, or as you put it, “a dramatic seizure of power,” is kind of the wrong model to expect America to fall prey to. Instead, you argue that if authoritarianism arrives in the U.S., it will do so via a more incremental process of democratic backsliding. Can you expound on what that is?Nicholas: Sure. That's a term that I think is very valuable in describing what's happening. So a lot of people, when they picture authoritarianism, they think of—and probably a lot of 20th-century takeovers were a big part of this—something like a big dramatic scene, something out of a movie. Think Mussolini or Hitler, the Iranian Revolution in 1979, or the Russian revolution, communist revolution—any of these big dramatic moments in which somebody seizes power and then holds onto it and then executes their authoritarianism and asserts their power throughout the country. What is more likely to happen in the United States, what in fact has been happening decently more to some democracies in the 21st century, is this idea of democratic backsliding, which is the process by which a leader gains power legally, legitimately via election, and then proceeds to abuse power while in office, to erode rule of law, erode checks and balances, try to put themselves above the law, and give themselves unfair advantages in elections.An egregious example of this, one that was backsliding from an already low baseline, is Putin's Russia. That Putin just got reelected—I don't know if you can hear my air quotes through the mic—in what was very clearly not an actual election, and yet they went through the motions and he claimed a popular mandate from it. Earlier, when Russia's laws had required him to step down, he just reworked the offices of president and prime minister, gave himself the prime minister job, gave his flunky, Dmitry Medvedev, the president job and continued running the country until that term was up and then just became president again.In the 21st century, we've seen versions of the sort of democratic backsliding that the U.S. should be afraid of in Turkey, India, Israel, Hungary, Poland, Peru, and a few others. Hungary, in particular, is the model for Trump in that the leader there, Viktor Orbán, won via election and then proceeded to do things like force just about all independent media outlets to go into this new kind of umbrella corporation which he had a flunky run and then change their commentary from sometimes critical of the government to basically government propaganda. An example of what happened in Poland was, they didn't like some of the judicial rulings, so they made a law that said that the maximum age for a Supreme Court justice or their equivalent is set at just right below the people that they wanted to get rid of. Then they got rid of those. And then they said, “Actually, the age can be different,” and then appointed their own people.We can also see that that sort of democratic backsliding has happened in part of the United States: with the failure of reconstruction after the Civil War and the imposition of Jim Crow—that people in those southern states did get power via elections and then you abuse that power to reduce the ability to vote and generally repress black people. So they still had elections, but they weren't free and fair, especially not in the way that the post-Civil War amendments tried to create and which the U.S. didn't really have until the Civil Rights acts.If he manages to get power again, there is zero reason to believe that he wouldn't try to do the thing that he literally did last time that he and his team have been spending over three years planning for, to try to fix the problems of that so they could do it again more successfully. I think there's a lot of naïveté about how somebody would stop it. Well, who? Congress? Why? — Nicholas GrossmanWhere we are hanging by a thread is: Trump has managed to already break through a lot of those institutional barriers that separate democracy from authoritarianism. And one of the things that a lot of people tend to misunderstand about this, and this also goes back to the glorious takeover vision of authoritarianism, is that authoritarians don't actually need to be strategic and good at this for it to work. This was a point that Hannah Arendt made in The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951 that really resonates today, which is that incompetence can be an asset to wannabe authoritarians because it ends up getting competent people to quit and then opens up more spots for loyalists and makes it that they don't have this fundamental hesitancy when it comes to, “But, I'm violating a norm or I'm violating a law.”That can create a lot of the democratic backsliding. The United States saw that with Trump beating both impeachments. Why would he be concerned about Congress? And if he does manage to get reelected after being charged with a number of very serious crimes, including crimes associated with a coup attempt to overthrow the Constitution, if he then gets national power anyway, after all of that, there is no reason to expect that he will be bound or restricted by the law at all because he clearly does not respect it himself. At that point, there will be nobody left to potentially enforce it against him.Berny: In that same Arc piece, you made a list of the battles Trump has waged against our democratic institutions, and you put the number at nine. One of the battles that he's waged includes that he's violated internal rules of the executive branch. Can you give me an example?Nicholas: That was one of the easiest for him to violate because it was within the executive branch and the president is the elected head of the executive branch, so legal authority in the executive branch flows from the president. Just about everything you think of as government, besides the courts and Congress, is executive branch. So there's this immense power. And yet: America has a president, not a king. Presidents are subject to rule of law. As Teddy Roosevelt famously put it: “No man is above the law.”In response to Watergate, there were a number of reforms to try to create some internal restrictions on the power of the presidency—an example of this was to create the position of Inspector General and put it in a variety of executive branch departments. The press tends to refer to these people as the internal watchdog of whatever, and Trump, because he was doing things that was tripping these wires and getting these internal watchdogs to publicize the violations that he was doing, he then removed the inspectors general from Health and Human Services and the Defense Department and the intelligence community, among some others. And the only purpose of those positions is to monitor the executive branch, make sure that everybody's following the law, and if they're not following the law, report it, especially to Congress. So by removing them and either not replacing them or putting some loyalist hack in their place, that meant greater ability to get away with more.The Mueller investigation was another example of this in what finally ended it, at least the potential threat it posed to Trump, was he got a new attorney general, William Barr, and Barr proceeded to mislead the public about what the Mueller report had actually said. And he set a lot of the narratives and then he shut down further investigation of the president. That was an example where the executive branch was investigating itself for some malfeasance by its own leaders, and yet he was able to shut that down in part because it is entirely within the executive branch. So those were the first barriers that he got through. And the third, the one that ended up then bringing in congressional oversight, was when Trump tried to extort Ukraine by secretly withholding military aid and saying to the Ukrainian president Zelenskyy that he would release the aid if Zelenskyy did him a favor by lying and manufacturing an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, which Trump would then use as a basis for lies for his reelection campaign. That got caught by a whistleblower, someone on the National Security Council, who went through the proper procedures that got that information to Congress. That's what led to the first impeachment.So it was Trump's repeated efforts to break through various internal executive branch controls that eventually got the attention of Congress, which is a bigger barrier, but he burst through that too.Berny: Another battle he waged was against the transfer of power itself—a key presidential tradition within American history. He met that process, that idea, with violence rather than with peaceful acceptance. Do you consider that one to be the most dangerous, or is there one that's worse than that?Nicholas: I don't know if I can pick out an individual worst one because it's cumulative. My first instinct was to say, “No, the worst one is the current one against the legal system.” But a lot of what the legal system is trying to hold them accountable for was the coup attempt, which grew out of a violation of bunch of norms. So if I had to pick one, I'd still say the January 6 coup attempt, where introducing that level of political violence into American politics, making it the first in all of modern U.S. history to not have a peaceful transfer of power—it was literally not peaceful.The one about post-election norms … I think it's easy to underrate that one. Norms, because they're not codified, they're not laws, they're not written down, sometimes it doesn't feel like violating something important, but those are the ways that we do things. And if somebody then does it egregiously differently, violates those norms and gets away with it, or manages to even succeed with it, then what they've done is create a new normal, new expectations.With every previous losing presidential candidate, as soon as the election was called, shortly after they gave a concession speech. Hillary Clinton did it the morning after networks called the election for Trump in 2016. Probably the biggest example of this was Al Gore, who pursued legal means. I'm not criticizing Trump here for doing things like filing lawsuits to try to question some aspects of the election. Some of those were in bad faith, probably all of those were in bad faith, but still it is a legal measure. Others have done it too. But what Gore did was, after the Supreme Court made a ruling about the Florida recounts that resulted in George W. Bush becoming president, Gore publicly accepted the results of the election. And then, because he was vice president, he was in the Mike Pence role of being the presiding officer at the Senate that was officially acknowledging the Electoral College votes. And he gaveled in his own loss. So that was the norm.The other part of that was an outgoing president brings the new president-elect to the White House to peacefully transfer power, to begin the transfer. Obama did that with Trump—invited him to the White House, hosted him as the president-elect shortly after Hillary conceded. Every previous president did this. George H.W. Bush famously lost reelection and wrote a—what is now publicized, what was then private—letter of encouragement to Bill Clinton that basically amounted to, “I didn't want you to be president, but now that you are, I really wish you the best. You're the leader of our country and I love our country and I want you to do really well. Here are some suggestions.”That was just the way we always did things. By Trump incessantly lying about the election and conspiring to overthrow it, and after exhausting legitimate means, turning to illegitimate and illegal ones, and then, of course, after all of this, just hammering the Big Lie, the “up is down” lie, about the election results over and over and over again, and turning it into this kind of loyalty litmus test for Republicans that want to seek office or just want to speak in public about this stuff, has made it now where most Republicans just expect that challenging an election result and insisting that if you lost you actually won is just something you do now and that that is normal. Then a lot of the mainstream press treats it as, “Well, that's just another political strategy” and talks about it in these kind of horse-race sports language type of terms as opposed to, “This was a egregious violation of the most core principle of constitutional democracy and not something that we should treat lightly at all.”Granted, a lot of people didn't. Liz Cheney is a good example of somebody who did not treat it lightly. Nevertheless, it has become more normalized and it's reached a point where just about everybody expects that, if Trump loses the 2024 election, there will be similar claims that it's illegitimate, that it doesn't count, that it should be overthrown, or any other version of that. And that alone is something that is bad for the country, bad for democracy, and I don't really know how we fix.Berny: What is Project 2025?Nicholas: Project 2025 comes out of the Heritage Foundation think tank, and it is essentially a blueprint for democratic backsliding, for an internal authoritarian takeover after winning election. The biggest provision along those lines that is in it is a plan to purge the federal government of people who were hired because of their qualifications, not because of their political loyalty—people who are fundamentally loyal to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump personally. People have to swear to honor the Constitution. You don't swear to the president. The oath is to the Constitution—to protect and defend the Constitution. The plan is to get all those people out of the federal government. We're talking literally thousands of federal employees. That amounts to removing the barriers that thwarted Trump's last coup attempt.Where he ultimately failed was not enough people went along with the lies—Mike Pence being the most prominent one. So, Project 2025 is best understood as a plan to get anybody who followed the Constitution out and replace them with people who think that Donald Trump being in power is the end all, be all and are perfectly fine with breaking the law about that.That goes back to the Hannah Arendt line about you don't really need to be competent to do this. If anything, having competent people, smart people, there makes them less likely to be blind loyalists. So, they don't even need to necessarily be good at it. The first coup attempt failed, because it was haphazard, something that Trump and Co. came up with on the fly. Their plan was to win the election, and if not, lose it by one state, probably Pennsylvania, and then try to throw the count in Pennsylvania into chaos. But they weren't able to do that because Biden won most of the swing states, with Arizona and Georgia being two, plus Michigan and Wisconsin.There's a danger of a “boy who cried wolf” effect where, if you're constantly calling anything you don't like this maximal bad word, then when something that is actually like that thing comes around, people are less inclined to believe you. Then again, the lesson of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is not that wolves aren't real and you don't need to worry about them. — Nicholas GrossmanNow, they've spent the last three-and-a-half years stewing about that failure and trying to figure out ways to make it work next time. Project 2025 is already on the way. So whereas Trump came into office last time—and this is pretty typical of wannabe authoritarians in their first term—and didn't really know what he was doing, didn't really know how the system works, took some time to learn it as is fairly typical of populist leaders, he hired a number of establishment figures that the press called “the adults in the room.”—think, for example, Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Those were ones who were not willing to put Trump above the Constitution. Gradually, over the course of his term, accelerating in his last year after he beat the first impeachment, they started removing a number of these people and replacing them with loyalists. So now you've got people at the Heritage Foundation who have been working on vetting people to make sure that they are loyal to Trump and his authoritarian project rather than to the Constitution and American democracy. They are ready to hit the ground running with a lot of these democratic backsliding plans.Also connected to this are policy ideas like abortion bans and rounding up all the illegal immigrants and deporting them, which is a good one to describe how this would actually go because it's not that they would necessarily succeed at finding 11 million people and removing them from the country. It's that such a project is so massive and, because they are not the most competent people when it comes to policy execution, even trying would be chaotic and would lead to a lot of federal officers, probably state officers, and vigilantes going after people that they think look illegal, meaning just basically Latino, rather than, say, carefully checking everybody's papers and making this more of a rule of law effort. But that project couldn't happen without having enough of the people in place that would carry it out, people who react to it with, “Yes, sir, absolutely,” or in a bloodthirsty nature of being excited to do it.Berny: I want to bring the word “fascist” back in here for a sec. The threat of political violence can sometimes be just as effective as political violence itself. Figures associated with Project 2025 have called on Trump, if he gets reelected, to invoke the Insurrection Act on day one. Can this sort of preemptive reliance on police or military force in order to quell popular demonstrations of dissent be characterized as fascistic or semi-fascistic, in your view? Nicholas: I think so. That's one where I would use the label of authoritarian, because you don't necessarily have those ethno-nationalist aspects to it, though I do think the rounding up of a whole bunch of brown people and putting them in camps, yeah, you can safely call that fascist.Berny: You've written that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election and becomes president again, American democracy is done. Why are you so definitive about America's prospects if Trump wins again?Nicholas: Because the record of national leaders who attempt a coup, fail, and then get power again is really bad for democracy. And because I think that people are—not everybody, of course, but quite a few Americans—stuck in a “it can't happen here” complacency, or just a natural tendency to think that the future will look like the past, that there isn't going to be any sort of drastic change. Also, they did see him in office and see that America did not turn into a dictatorship—so, you know, why necessarily would that happen in a second term?That gets it backwards in that it's the second term when democratic backsliding tends to go really bad. Turkey and India are both good examples of this, because then you had a leader who is not uncertain at all, who has shown their true colors. And we have in Trump's case very serious, just egregious, violations of the law.To put this in perspective: the trial in New York for fraud, to cover up hush money payments that he paid to porn star Stormy Daniels, is the sort of thing that's being treated as trivial. If it were at any other person at any other time in the past, it would be one of the biggest scandals in all of presidential history. It's the sort of thing that you'd have to say is at least on par with something like Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, and yet it pales in comparison to the charges that he's facing for things like stealing, retaining, and exposing very high-level national-security secrets, and of attempting to overthrow the government, conspiring to defraud the United States out of its presidential election, conspiring to defraud Georgia out of its presidential vote.If he manages to get power again, there is zero reason to believe that he wouldn't try to do the thing that he literally did last time that he and his team have been spending over three years planning for, to try to fix the problems of that so they could do it again more successfully. I think there's a lot of naïveté about how somebody would stop it. Well, who? Congress? Why? He got impeached but didn't get kicked out of office because Republicans protected him even when he caused a violent attack on their own building. So, in that case, Congress is toothless. He'll be protected legally from anything. And if he manages to beat the criminal justice system, then anytime somebody says, “That's a violation of the law,” you can just say, “I don't care. What are they going to do about it?”The part that a lot of people are underestimating is just how incredibly powerful institutional authority is. This idea of, it's norms all the way down … the idea that powerful people should follow the law is a norm. It is only a law to the extent that the people in power enforce it. And if the people in power, just enough of the people in power, don't enforce it, then it might as well not be a law. So the inflection point is the 2024 election. If they get power, they are not going to willingly give it up and they're not going to be checked while using it because they have already burst through those barriers, all those checks and balances. They've already beaten them—or, at least, if he gets reelected, would have already beaten them.Some people get into a bit of a fantasy: “Well, it'll be like the past in that we'll work hard in the midterms and then Congress will check him.” But why? Or, some that I've seen, especially from more radical people on the left, that there'll be all these great protests. You mentioned the Insurrection Act—I don't think Americans have really absorbed what it looks like when the government sends the military to fire on protesters. We already saw Trump do a bit of this in his first term in the infamous photo-op at Lafayette Square in DC in which had security services violently clear an area so that Trump could go through to this church and take a photo. Incidentally, he took it with the Bible upside down, but you know, still.There were also these weird paramilitary forces that showed up in Portland, Oregon that were throwing people into vans that were federal officers, but unmarked and turned out to be this force cobbled together from border patrol and others. That was basically a separate, semi-legal force. So having seen this already, and then having that validation of reelection despite fighting the law, despite not following the law and violating the law, there is a decent chance that would do it.This doesn't mean that every single member of the U.S. military is going to go, “Yes, sir. I'm going to violate my oath and shoot people.” But some probably will. Certainly some will out of a sense of, “Look, this is the commander in chief. That's what he's saying.” Some will because they like it and because they agree with him. The two possibilities, then, are either the security forces and the military honor the order and then they violently put down these protests in a way that modern America at least has never seen or that causes some sort of split in the military, which is also devastating and would break the country.This was a point that Hannah Arendt made in The Origins of Totalitarianism in 1951 that really resonates today, which is that incompetence can be an asset to wannabe authoritarians because it ends up getting competent people to quit and then opens up more spots for loyalists and makes it that they don't have this fundamental hesitancy when it comes to, ‘But, I'm violating a norm or I'm violating a law.' — Nicholas GrossmanBerny: Imagine that we stripped our vocabulary of labels and just used descriptors. Imagine that historians all formed a pact to no longer use labels and just lay out what each historical movement and figures have done. And so we get to a point where, with historical distance, we read descriptions of what Mussolini and other fascist movements in the 20th century believed and carried out, and we get descriptions of what Trump in the 21st century believed and carried out. What do you think would be the biggest difference in those descriptions? And then what would be the element with the most overlap between them?Nicholas: The most overlap is democratic backsliding: an elected leader abusing power to gain unchecked authority and then use that to violate our various core tenets of democracy up to and including individual rights and future elections.For the least parallel, maybe actually not as sound as it used to be, but the part where it's most different is in the aggressive military force abroad, the desire for conquest. You have a number of these historical cases where the new leader goes to conquer some foreign people, usually some people that they consider lesser, racially or in some other way, where they consider themselves the rightful masters. We talked about the Europeans a lot, but you can see this with Imperial Japan in the 20th century.With Trump and the MAGA movement, something that has caught my attention is increasing discussions of invading Mexico, of using military force against Mexico, usually tied up not in a desire for conquest and domination per se … it's usually more to stop illegal immigration, or to stop drug dealers. But if they had actually thought any of it through, it amounts to a U.S. war with Mexico. The Mexican government already works with the United States in a coordinated fashion on things like dealing with drug traffickers—maybe not as much or as well as some would like, but nevertheless there is a decent amount of coordination. So, if they actually tried to go through with this, Mexico would resist it and that could create really serious problems spiraling from there. But I'd say the main focus of the MAGA movement is a lot more domestic and really want to dominate and repress groups of Americans that they don't like, rather than to be violently dominant and repressive of bordering countries as well. So I would not expect that the U.S. is going to gear up for a military invasion of Canada. That would be lower on my list of worries, whereas something like an authoritarian power within the United States that focus on domestic enemies is decently more likely.Berny: Nick, thank you so much.Nicholas: Thanks, Berny.Landry: Thank you for listening to Zooming In, a project of The UnPopulist. For more like this, make sure to subscribe for free at theunpopulist.net. Until next time.The UnPopulist invites interesting thinkers from across the political spectrum to foster a wide-ranging and thoughtful conversation to advance liberal values, including thinkers it may—or may not—agree with.© The UnPopulist 2024Follow The UnPopulist on: X, Threads, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net

DJ Fyütch and Baby Scratch spin the classic “Boy Who Cried Wolf” story to a new beat. Wolves that don't eat meat! The wolfpack is going vegetarian, but one young wolf tries to trick the pack into switching back.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You know the story of the boy who cried wolf, right? I can relate to it a lot as a parent. But can Jesus relate to it? Let's study Mosiah 26:30! And grab study guides for the whole family here:  - To get Cali's scripture study guide for adults click here:  https://comefollowmestudy.com/shop/ Discount code: OMSS Or for a physical copy:  https://a.co/d/9KwXfC0 (affiliate link) - To get Kristen's scripture study guides click here: Kids Study Guide, Teens Study Guide, Combined Teens AND Kids Study Guides: https://kristenwalkersmith.com/start-here-scripture-study-guides/ Get our 365-day Book of Mormon daily devotional book: https://amzn.to/4016Xob

Let's discuss what happens when people continually cry about mean words.https://www.adl.org/antisemitismhttps://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...  / 1766656069701406924  Follow me everywhere:https://linktr.ee/KyleMatovcikEverything Tiger Fitness:https://www.tigerfitness.com/?a_aid=6.Fox N' Sons Coffee!Https://www.foxnsons.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/in-liberty-and-health/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a fun fable about the importance of telling the truth so that people will always be willing to listen to what you have to say. For this weekend's message, we pick up where we left of with the Samaritan woman at the well and see what - and how - she shares with her whole town over her interaction with Jesus.

Intro: Coffee substitutes, cortisol levels and protein intake.7:38: One way to tell if you're healthy via your fingernails.10:10: Molly's milk frother died!10:36: If you'd invested in Apple with iPhone money you'd have how much?”11:56: Creo brew coffee substitutes, price per serving and the cost of Starbucks.16:45: Moody's analytics and the last year's inflation numbers and saving money at the grocery store. Organic Shell Pasta.21:43: Finances, young couples owning a home and reasons to get married.26:15: One of the reasons people aren't having kids.28:03: Do your kids a favor and have them watch The Tuttle Twins28:55: Zimbabwe's attempted currency relaunch.32:48: Attending a heavily edited play about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.37:12: A lazy kid and why dad's are important.40:44: Data on men and boys are failing. Mike Rowe and Nicolas Eberstat. A failure of unemployment statistics.43:41: Boys Adrift46:03: Manual labor, masonry and bricks.47:54: Leonard Sacks' 5 reasons boys are failing54:10: Isn't this a pendulum swing from the women's rights movement?56:32: Just get the boys out of the house, video games and hijacking the brain rewards center.1:00:29: Titus and his hatchet. Outdoor Boys.1:07:32: Doing something hard and building neural pathways.1:12:27: A contrast in the brain between playing a video game and real world accomplishments.1:15:02: Show Close Too Busy to Flush Telegram GroupSend us a PostcardPique Tea - Referral Link (it's super-delicious and healthy)Molly's Favorite Milk Brother (she takes it in the van!)Ledger Hardware Wallet - Referral Link (store your crypto securely!)

women can change the world seriously they have done it so many times i have been a little angry lately but today something happened today something was ignited that i have thought about many times but never like put all the pieces together car troubles and misogyny how can we change the system i went on a trip for work and had to drive over 500 mike's and when i got home my tire pressure light came on my car so in the back of my head all week i was like oh i need to go stop where i got oil changes to get my tires filled up so i got up bright and early this morning to go for a walk and then o was like let me go to take 5 it's open so i went and the guys there are so nice it's so expensive and the guy filling up on my tires was definitely on a pre workout high he literally said it to the other workers he was like oh i think you have a slow leak on this tire go to this place down the road and oh i went because i was concerned - [ ] when i went in these people were so hell bent on me getting all 4 tires and i was like no and he was like why and i was like uh i don't want to pay the guy next to me started laughing i waited while they changed the one faulty tire and another man came out and said my name i was like awesome let me get out of heee but no he's like you should fix this and this when are you gonna get new tires i tell him later like in a month or two and he keeps saying do you have any questions i heard this a lot today and the thing is let me honestl i don't know shit about cars and this is my dilemma i'm stubborn i'm on my period i'm angry i'm black i was raised. to go with my dad to do car stuff and i don't think he knows stuff either but things always. go smoother when there is a man present but here's my issue when do i know when i - [ ] being jacked or when it's serious like were they trying to me to pay more money or were they being nice and trying to help me i'll never know me i have an old episode called SNL SKETCH ideas don't go listen to it or sucks but this could literally be one bowen yang recently did an episode where he reviewed the sketch bowens gay with sydney sweeney and she talked about how she wanted to give america what they wanted and do tit jokes and yea love that but sydney!!!!! girl i need your help with the car stuff! like i had this idea a few years ago to learn how to things that society has categorized as masculine to help girls im general and single women i think we need car shops that are all female mechanics we need more transparency with what it takes too own a vehicle and maybe i'm just the isidro and everyone else knows but i think it's so important i know gabbie egan is also a trained mechanic i would subscribe so quickly to a female mexhanic teaching girls how to change their oil change their tires and stuff maybe i need to just go to a trade school or something but this like ignited a fire in me misogyny is so rampant in society right now and i'm done with it i will be going with my dad next time i see him to assess my tires and maybe get new ones but this little event really pissed me off because it seems like everything jnvolved with cars is so predatory and scammy most people have debt from cars most people go into debt to get cars and we talk about things like rent that beee to be stabliliRd and i agree whole heartedly but a lot of things need to be reformed i also think jobs that are based off commission negatively impact poor people and are predatory there is something about the business side of thing and people just being so gross that makes me so mad i don't know why i'm sorry maybe this sounds insane but like sydney please do somtbintg!!!! but like no women were wiring in that entire shop and it was big and i'd like to see that personally like i would've felt more comfortable talking to a woman i don't know we live in a man's world and there are so many boys clubs let's make some more girls ones --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/al4s/message

Cold As Ice is here and we are ready to cook! His name is Ben Baller aka Not Ben Humble & Jimmy The Gent aka JimmyBoi and today is the kickoff of a monumental achievement in podcast history! You've been BTB ARMY with Behind The Baller and now it's time for CAI Army to come through! Jimmy being in Vietnam the last 3 weeks, JLO getting slandered on TikTok for being Jenny From The Block, going back to the neighborhood, Jimmy's philanthropy, talking to Nipsey Hussle before he passed, things being negative in the world, those who love or hate them, not knowing if they want to be relatable, wanting to keep things aspirational, hurt people hurting people, 2024 The Boy Who Cried Wolf, the reaction is not always going to be equal, never knowing what someone is going through, dealing with Sean Kingston, Bobby Valentino story, people lying in wait, knowing Diddy for 30 years & opinion, Drake vs. Future beefing, Kendrick & J Cole's rhymes, Drake being Thanos, having someone close to you doing you wrong, relationships being transactional these days, outgrowing friends & more.  This episode is brought to you by BetterHelp. Please support our sponsors: www.BetterHelp.com/Baller If you are interested in MLB, NBA, NCAA, NHL, Tennis, Soccer, UFC & more Picks daily, weekly or monthly subscribe at www.CaptainPicks.com & Follow @CaptainPicksWins on Instagram Produced by: DBPodcasts www.dbpodcasts.com Follow @dbpodcasts on Instagram & Twitter Music by @lakeyinspired Available on all Podcast Platforms & @coldasice YouTube  Video Editor: Dan Demme Theme Music Artist: Illegal Kartel @the_mirror_of_math_equation Produced by: Gene Crenshaw @yuyuthemaker Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Jacob goes deeper into the Feast of Tabernacles. At the beginning of this recording, Jacob talks briefly about his teaching, "The Return of Jesus and the Boy Who Cried Wolf." He mentions it as being "last week's teaching." It will, however, be released as a podcast next month as part of our "Heresy in the Church Series".You can see the entire video on RTNtv.org where it was recorded live on September 30, 2023.

Sarah now has the most expensive paper weight. Who is more upset about it? Has NNF gone #viral? Nick takes a wild trip into the future. Does he like what he sees? Chris has a run in with a wild animal. Is it a Wolf, a Fox, or maybe just a dog? Who knows! #podcastreccomendations #viral #fyp #youtube To connect with us, check out our sweet merch or join our Clubhouse and become a friend with benefits, visit our website www.nonewfriendspodcast.com. Please support our sponsors. Sandpiper Vacations (tell them that the No New Friends Podcast Sent you) www.sandpipervacations.com, Night Watchman Ghost Tours. www.seeamericatours.net. Use Promo Code NNF for 25% discount.. www.manscaped.com use the promo code NNF for 20% off. Check out our website for more No New Friends Podcast exclusive deals. https://newsly.me/ and the promo code N0NEWFR1ENDS.

In this episode, we examine the mounting evidence of the crumbling of the green energy, suicide pact narrative promoted by climate change cultists. And we expose it for what it is - immoral, disingenuous and dangerous to the health of humankind and the economy. The worshipers at the Church of Holy Global Warming have been crying wolf for almost 100 years. It's time to let them get eaten. Show Notes Instagram  |  Truth Social  |  GETTR  |  Twitter  |  GAB  |  Rumble  |  BitChute -------------------------------- Energy Transition Versus Rhetoric Ominous Rumblings from the Climate Change Cult 17 Reasons Why You Really Need an Electric Car Report: Electric Vehicles Have 80 Percent More Problems than Gas Powered Cars Thousands of Car Dealers Stand Up to Biden's EV Mandate The Crippling Economic Costs of Green Energy Subsidies Not So Scary Truth About Climate Change Ignored COP28 Death Cult Lancet Study Finds Climate Scientists Say We Should Embrace Higher CO2 Levels Truth Quest Podcast Episode #7 - The Truth About Climate Change Episode #208 - The Truth About the Climate Change Agenda Episode #215 – The Truth About Fossil Fuels Grab your Truth Quest Merchandise at The Truth Quest Shirt Factory: With each shirt design there is an explanation of what to expect from those inquisitive or brave enough to ask you about it. In most cases there are links to podcast episodes that will further deepen your understanding of the importance of each phrase.  We hope you take the challenge of wearing these shirts in public and to family gatherings. Don't worry! You will be well-equipped with the rhetorical tools to engage in conversation and/or debate.  Good luck! And thanks for supporting the Truth Quest Podcast! Order a copy of one of my books, Pritical Thinking, The Proverbs Project, The Termite Effect. The Truth Quest Podcast Patron Page

To celebrate Pete's Birthday, Tanya and Bat Lamb decide to tell a 'Peter ' story, of which there are many to choose from. They settle on the classic tale of the boy who cried wolf, with Peter in the main role.Of course  Bat lamb uses her super hero powers to deal with the wolf!You can find our audios and books to purchase at https://imagined-worlds.net/story-shopOr join the live monthly Batt Cave storytelling club at https://ko-fi.com/tanyabatt0027/tiers Or if you are an educator for children 0 - 8 years subscribe to 'Batt on the Mat' - a monthly online, professional development storytelling and arts programme https://imagined-worlds.net/batt-on-the-matAnd finally, if you enjoyed our podcast, please share with friends and write a review. Or make a donation to support what we do here https://ko-fi.com/tanyabatt0027Kia Ora!

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – In the wake of the Rainbow Bridge explosion between Niagara Falls, NY, and Ontario, I delve into public skepticism towards government statements. The widespread disbelief in official accounts, much like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," raises crucial questions about our trust in authorities and the importance of independent verification in an era of uncertainty and misinformation.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – In the wake of the Rainbow Bridge explosion between Niagara Falls, NY, and Ontario, I delve into public skepticism towards government statements. The widespread disbelief in official accounts, much like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," raises crucial questions about our trust in authorities and the importance of independent verification in an era of uncertainty and misinformation.

The full moon cast an eerie glow over the small podcast studio as the Wise_N_Nerdy trio - Charles, Joe, and Kurt - gathered for their latest episode. This time, they kicked off with the age-old question of the week: "What is your favorite part of Halloween?" Charles, ever the skeptic, sighed and admitted, "You know, guys, I've never been a fan of Halloween. The costumes, the spooky stuff... not my cup of tea." Kurt nodded in agreement, "I'm with Charles on this one. Halloween just never did it for me." But then there was Joe, grinning from ear to ear, "Well, you two are missing out! I love Halloween, especially spending time with my kids, seeing them get all excited about costumes and candy. It's a blast!" As tradition dictated, they rolled the dice to determine their next topic, and it landed on "Daddy tell me a story." Joe shared a tale of his younger years, recounting the time he scared his little sister and her friend after watching "The Ring" in theaters. Laughter filled the room as Joe's storytelling skills shone. The dice decided it was time for "What are you Nerding out about?" Charles was up first, passionately sharing his love for T-Mobile's innovations. Kurt expressed hope for a live-action Gargoyles movie, and Joe talked about watching "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" with his kids, emphasizing the importance of life lessons in storytelling. A bad dad joke was inevitable, and it came up: "Why don't ghosts dance at parties?" The answer was simple, "Because they have no body to dance with!" Next up, the "Let Daddy Decide" segment, where the three friends engaged in a spirited debate. The topic of the day: should you prioritize your spouse or your kids? Each of them presented compelling arguments, showcasing their unique perspectives on the matter. Finally, they wrapped up the episode with the "Can you dig it?" segment. The guys dove into a lively discussion about their favorite scary movies, sharing spine-tingling recommendations and personal anecdotes that sent shivers down their listeners' spines. As they signed off with their signature tagline, "Remember: they may not be your father, but they'll always be your daddy," the Wise_N_Nerdy trio left their audience with a memorable, entertaining, and thought-provoking episode, celebrating their shared love for all things nerdy and dad-related. #TheWiseNNErdyExperience #WNNE --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/wise-n-nerdy/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/wise-n-nerdy/support

Tom Holland's 1985 suburban "Boy Who Cried Wolf" vampire film, FRIGHT NIGHT, is our feature presentation this week. We discuss the Chris Sarandon's hesitation to star in the film, the Backlot magic of the production, the iconic movie poster, the phenomenal year in Horror that 1985 was, the horribly painful contact lenses used in the Special FX of the film, and much much more! We also pick our TOP 10 VAMPIRE FILMS in this week's extended version of the SILVER SCREEN 7. Check out the ninth entry in our DOUBLE-STUFFED OCTOBER series. Subscribe, become a regular, and tell your movie-loving friends about The Broken VCR!

Never Forget! Yes we are talking about 9/11. But we're also talking about mask mandates and lockdowns. Guess what's coming back! This week Denton decides we need to change the National Anthem, so Sas debates him on the idea. Things get heated. Also, we've heard for years how this is the most important election of our life time. But now it actually is and are people burned out on that message? Have we cried wolf too many times before? John Podesta, do you know that name? He's a creepy dude and he's been doing evil stuff for a long time. We'll shine some light onto some of it and why it matters. And Biden just made sure the price of gas (and everything else) is going to skyrocket. Here's what you need to know. Finally, back by popular demand, the Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes desk.

Laugh out loud funny new episode of Dad Talk is out now! Rate, review and subscribe!

In today's episode we discuss G-d's unique ability to forgive an infinite amount of times.Iggeres HaTeshuva middle of Chapter 11.Music by Shoshannah.   Follow us on:  Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, InstagramTo sponsor an episode or for any other inquiries, email: itistaught@gmail.com Support the showSupport the show

Today we are talking about conditioning, the process of training someone to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances.  In the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the villagers became conditioned to his cries. Like the boy in the story, covert narcissists set off alarm bells when they are not needed. They stir up drama and trouble when there isn't any there. Claiming that they hate drama, they are the first ones to create it. It is almost as though they are bored with life unless the drama is there.  They then feed off of your anger and frustration, off your reactions to them. They thrive when you are all worked up and upset. They love it when you are back in your fix-it mode to put all the pieces that they blew up back together again. Like the boy in the story, they sit back and enjoy your reaction. Overtime, you learn to tolerate their behavior and put up with things you should never be putting up with. You have been conditioned.    

Welcome back as Sam & Emily are finally back again this week to continue their read of ATYDs. Only a few more chapters to go until the end of book three! Jump in and enjoy your favorite beverage of choice. Cheers!

Link to slide deck: https://bit.ly/444wOMS   - Today we look at the market closing last week on a slight dip after the prior furious run higher. One issue that has failed to trigger any market turmoil of late has been the US Treasury rebuilding its reserves, possibly as liquidity "stored" in the Fed's repo facility may provide some offset, at least for now. Elsewhere, we take a look at the rapid repositioning unfolding in the grains market on supply concerns in part driven by El Nino, copper and crude oil, EU versus US real rates, a preview of the Bank of England meeting this week and more. Today's pod features Althea Spinozzi on fixed income, Ole Hansen on commodities and John J. Hardy hosting and on FX. Read daily in-depth market updates from the Saxo Market Call and SaxoStrats Market Strategy Team here. Click here to open an account with Saxo   - Intro and outro music by AShamaluevMusic

MIP Markets With Shawn Hackett - The Boy Who Cried, Wolf!Regarding Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea, the market has reacted widely to the upside and the downside. The market now is looking for actual storylines to happen in reality, not in theory.Click To Listen:https://www.spreaker.com/user/9810017/mip-markets-with-shawn-hackett-the-boy-wClick to Watch:https://youtu.be/-2LG3QQC1bQPresented By@AxonTire@TractorZoom@AgDirect@FarmCredit@ValleyTransInc@Anvil_AppWorks@IronSolutionsMusic By: @TalbottBrothersCo-host: @AaronfintelHost: @casey9673#AgEquipmentBusinessTalk #LetsGoMoveSomeIron Contact me @:MovingIronLLC.comMovingIronPodcast@MovingIronPodcast.com

Aesop's Fables or the Aesopica are a collection of fables credited to Aesop, a slave and story-teller believed to have lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 560 BCE. The fables remain a popular choice for moral education of children today. Many of the stories, such as The Fox and the Grapes (from which the idiom "sour grapes" derives), The Tortoise and the Hare, The North Wind and the Sun, The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Ant and the Grasshopper are well-known throughout the world. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/librivox1/support

Which is the one story that teaches you about the dangers of lying?Was it The Boy Who Cried Wolf?Teaching someone to say the truth is a tricky task. Understanding what is a lie and when is it okay to lie and when not is even tougher. Have you ever wondered when and how did you learn to lie? Yes, I am assuming that like me, you too have sinned and lied at some point of time in your life.To be human is to lie. And we all lie when we have to. Sometimes they are small lies. Sometimes they are big lies. Sometimes we lie to win. Sometimes we lie to hide our loss. The fact that we tell and accept each others lies is what makes us co-exist.Lying is a sensitive topic. No one likes to be called a liar, whether in the classroom, in the living room or in the boardroom. Take this story to any space and it will make a few people uncomfortable.The trick is how to talk about lying without making anyone feel like you're pointing a finger at them? I love this story because it doesn't moralise and tell you which of the two values / virtues is loftier. It ends rather ambivalently. You need to have a conversation with the listener to make sense of it.If you want to explore complex themes of truth, lies, integrity, ethics and honesty, whether in the Classroom, Living Room or Boardroom, begin with THIS STORY.*****

Aesop's Fables or the Aesopica are a collection of fables credited to Aesop, a slave and story-teller believed to have lived in ancient Greece between 620 and 560 BC. The fables remain a popular choice for moral education of children today. Many of the stories, such as The Fox and the Grapes (from which the idiom "sour grapes" derives), The Tortoise and the Hare, The North Wind and the Sun, The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Ant and the Grasshopper are well-known throughout the world. (From Wikipedia.)This is the revised edition by R. Worthington, 1884.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Enjoy this classic Camp Redrum story! New episodes come out every Friday for free, with 1-week early access for ABF Fam subscribers  While on a walk, Eli finds footprints that he believes belong to Bigfoot. He convinces the kids to join his search for the creature with the promise of a new, terrifying story.  Of all the things Clyde expects to see on a stormy night, a werewolf at his window isn't one of them. With a dad who doesn't believe him and a monster out to get him, Clyde must find a way to make it until morning. Loved this episode??? Be sure to let us know at this link!!! Your voice matters: https://ratethispodcast.com/campredrum

Want to choose and perform a story for BKFK? Go to bykidsforkids.co and click on Minis!Support the show

Comparisons of Putin to Hitler only sound profound and relevant if you only just began paying attention to US foreign policy and are therefore unaware that literally every single US enemy is always copiously compared to Hitler. It's like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, except there is no wolf, and the boy just keeps crying "Wolf!" over and over again, and the villagers never learn their lesson and never stop believing him. Because mainstream westerners ignored all wars until Ukraine, they don't know we've seen all these tricks before. They don't know the war propaganda is airing reruns. They think it's new to compare today's Official Enemy to Hitler. They never question the atrocity narratives. They don't know the US always lies about every war. They think it's a crazy conspiracy theory to suggest that the actions and motives of their government isn't what they've been told. Reading by Tim Foley.

New episodes come out every Thursday for free, with 1-week early access for ABF Fam subscribers  While on a walk, Eli finds footprints that he believes belong to Bigfoot. He convinces the kids to join his search for the creature with the promise of a new, terrifying story.  Of all the things Clyde expects to see on a stormy night, a werewolf at his window isn't one of them. With a dad who doesn't believe him and a monster out to get him, Clyde must find a way to make it until morning. Loved this episode??? Be sure to let us know at this link!!! Your voice matters: https://ratethispodcast.com/campredrum

In this episode, we recap and analyze Episode 10 of It's Okay to Not Be Okay, the hit K Drama on Netflix. In this episode, the children's story is The Girl Who Cried Wolf, based on The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Meun Young says the boy was lonely up on the mountain, which is why he kept crying wolf. When the wolf did come, nobody believed him. Meun Young believes that if even one person had believed him, he would not have died.The episode opens with Sang Tae announcing to the hospital that Gang Tae wanted him dead and that he pushed him (Sang Tae) into the river. He is eventually given sedatives and put into an isolation room. A devastated Gang Tae pushes Meun Young away, telling her that he has woken from a dream and he should have focused instead on his brother. Sang Tae eventually goes home with Ju-ri's mom. Whe Gang Tae comes home, he apologizes for lying to Sang Tae, for saying that he wanted him dead, for wishing his brother was normal. Sang Tae comes out of his wardrobe and comforts a sobbing Gang Tae.Meanwhile, Meun Young threatens Gang Tae, who has rejected him. She goes to Ju-ri's house, asks Ju-ri's mom for seaweed soup because it's her birthday, and then gives the doll Mang Tae back to Sang Tae.The episode also featured:Ju-ri and Meun Young drinking together, and Ju-ri slapping Meun Young in a drunken stateThe publisher and Jae-soo fighting over who is to blame for the debacle between Sang Tang, Gang Tae and Meun Young.Meun Young's dad tried to choke Park Ok-ran, whom he heard singing “Oh my darling Clementine” and reading The Murder of the Witch of the WestAt the end of the episode, Park Ok-ran hits a caregiver on the head with a rock and then escapes from the hospital. Gang Tae figures out that she is headed to the cursed castle, so he races to Meun Young. Meun Young answers a knock on the door and finds Park Ok-ran standing on her front step, wishing her a happy birthday.References:How seaweed soup became Korea's traditional birthday dishSouth Korea's obsession with fried chicken explained8 restaurants you've seen in K Dramas  

Let's talk about Dems, Trump, and the boy who cried wolf.... --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/beau-of-the-fifth-column/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/beau-of-the-fifth-column/support