POPULARITY
Categories
83 episodes with co director
88 episodes with co director
65 episodes with co director
33 episodes with co director
31 episodes with co director
28 episodes with co director
16 episodes with co director
18 episodes with co director
13 episodes with co director
12 episodes with co director
23 episodes with co director
16 episodes with co director
16 episodes with co director
14 episodes with co director
13 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
14 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
4 episodes with co director
10 episodes with co director
13 episodes with co director
6 episodes with co director
36 episodes with co director
15 episodes with co director
11 episodes with co director
7 episodes with co director
10 episodes with co director
10 episodes with co director
7 episodes with co director
20 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
7 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
5 episodes with co director
10 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
10 episodes with co director
12 episodes with co director
6 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
15 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
7 episodes with co director
8 episodes with co director
8 episodes with co director
7 episodes with co director
14 episodes with co director
9 episodes with co director
6 episodes with co director
To celebrate the Australian premiere at the Melbourne International Film Festival of NEVER GET BUSTED!, the utterly compelling documentary about narco-officer turned activist Barry Cooper, I talked with co-director David Anthony Ngo about this true American original, who subjects either "love, hate or have never met." Synopsis: Written and directed by Australia's David Anthony Ngo, director Stephen McCallum and produced by Erin Williams-Weir and Daniel Joyce, Never Get Busted! is the utterly compelling story of Barry Cooper, a highly decorated Texas narcotics officer - until he turned on the police force, busting crooked cops and teaching drug users how to hide their stash. Never Get Busted! is a high-octane, no-holds-barred documentary into the world of drugs, seen through the life of a man who has experienced all sides of the Drug War. Taking more than six years to make, and with filming across nine States of America, Mexico, the Philippines and Australia, the story takes the audience into covertly filmed police corruption, scenes of religious fervour, Hollywood pitch meetings, and the ultimate downfall of one of America's most brazen activists. In personal home videos, clandestine recordings, Barry's own police dash cam footage, prime-time news, and present-day interviews, we see his story unravel in a form of macabre and exhilarating entertainment.NEVER GET BUSTED! will be screening at the Melbourne International Film Festival on August 8 and 10, 2025.Facebook: Never Get BustedInstagram: Never Get Busted! (@nevergetbustedfilm)Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/one-heat-minute-productions/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
My guest for this episode is author and historian Karl Bell, who joined me to talk about his new book, The Perilous Deep: A Supernatural History of the Atlantic. Karl is Associate Professor in Cultural and Social History and Co-Director of the Centre for Port Cities and Maritime Cultures at the University of Portsmouth. Prior to his latest work, he wrote The Legend of Spring-Heeled Jack, which was winner of the 2013 Katharine Briggs Award. As its title mentions, The Perilous Deep focuses on the Atlantic Ocean. This is a place whose vastness and unfathomable depths have inspired tales of ghost ships, reports of encounters with mermaids and sea monsters, and legends of mysterious islands for centuries. These stories were told by both seafarers and coastal communities and formed an important part of their culture. In the book, Karl explores why these stories were told, how they were repeated and mutated and what fears, anxieties and desires they helped to express. It offers an insight into the supernatural history of the Atlantic Ocean and some of its neighbouring seas, showing how seafaring peoples have developed knowledge and a sense of control over nature through myths and legends. The Perilous Deep is published by Reaktion Books - further details are available at https://reaktionbooks.co.uk/work/the-perilous-deep. If you enjoy what I do with Some Other Sphere and would like to support its upkeep, you can make a donation via Ko-fi. To buy the podcast a coffee go to https://ko-fi.com/someotherspherepodcast. Thank you! The podcast theme music is by The Night Monitor, from his album, ‘Close Encounters of the Pennine Kind'. You can find out more about The Night Monitor's music at https://thenightmonitor.bandcamp.com/.
With bin strikes in Birmingham having gone on for months, James Gallagher heads to the Small Heath area of the city to ask what the health risks could be from rubbish left on the streets. He meets campaigners Shafaq, Ashid and Danni from End the Bin Strikes who tell him what residents are worried about. To discuss what diseases could be brewing and how they might spread, he's also joined by Professor Malcolm Bennett from the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Nottingham and Martin Goldberg, Lecturer in Microbiology from Birmingham City University.Following news that a child who contracted measles has died at a hospital in Liverpool, James also talks to Professor of Children's Health Helen Bedford from University College London about the risk of measles in the UK. And, over the past week James has been reporting on the news that children have born using a technique which uses two women's eggs and a man's sperm to prevent mitochondrial disease being passed from mother to child. The babies inherit around 0.1% of their overall genetic code from the donor woman. The UK became the first country in the world to make it legal back in 2015 after a big ethical debate about what should and shouldn't be allowed. These kinds of ethical issues are becoming more and more pressing as technology is revolutionising fertility science. To discuss what questions we could be asking next, James speaks to Dr John Appleby, Co-Director for Medical Ethics and Law at Lancaster University. Presenter: James Gallagher Production: Tom Bonnett with Debbie Kilbride and Minnie Harrop Made in collaboration with the Open University
Host(s): Dr. Mary Goldberg, Co-Director of the IMPACT Center at the University of PittsburghGuest(s): Student Design Team - HAT, University of California, Berkeley: Yuka Fan, Emily Boeschoten, Adria Gonzalez, Sasha PortnovaIMPACT Center | Website, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter HAT Team Information | Video, Website, PublicationTranscript | Word Doc, PDF Discussion TopicsIntro & Episode OverviewTeam Formation and BackgroundsClinical Motivation Behind HATHow HAT WorksTech Design Choices (Leap vs Webcam)Reliability Testing InsightsInclusivity and Accessibility in DesignOT Perspective on Disability RepresentationClosing & Teaser for Part 2
Why kids are doomscrolling more these days Plus - Are we really still mad about who is on the Sunshine List? GUEST: Dr. Nina Mafrici - Clinical Psychologist and Co-Director of the Toronto Psychology & Wellness Group
Israel y Netanyahu siguen bombardeando y matando de hambre a la población de Gaza, un centenar de muertos en las últimas 24 horas. En 'Las Mañanas de RNE' hablamos con Jesús Núñez, codirector del Instituto de Estudios sobre Conflictos y Acción Humanitaria (IECAH): "Lo que está ocurriendo en Gaza es un genocidio", califica. "Israel ha ido deconstruyendo cualquier posibilidad de que ocurra la existencia de un estado palestino viable y soberano". Ante la reacción de la comunidad internacional sobre las fotografias de niños que sufren hambruna, el codirector señala: "Es un concepto vacío que demuestra claramente que no hay voluntad política para forzar el guión que el gobierno Netanyahu está estableciendo desde hace mucho tiempo". Sobre el reparto de comida por la Fundación Privada apoyada por EEUU e Israel, Núñez afirma: "La Onu ha demostrado desgraciadamente que no tiene capacidad para poder cumplir lo que demanda". La principal necesidad de los palestinos es "la comida, agua y medicamentos; no son palabras ni gestos". Jesús Núñez asegura que el fin de la guerra llegará cuando Israel lo decida. "Ni la ONU ni la Unión Europea tienen la capacidad para romper ese guión", ha admitido. Entrevista completa en RNE Audio.Escuchar audio
Pastor Mary and Co-Director of Student Ministries Matt give some additional thoughts on the sermon, "Psalm 25" given at WCPC on Sunday, July 27, 2025. Watch the sermon Listen to the sermon
Dennis is joined via Zoom by actor-director-producer Ellen Geer who is the Producing Artistic Director of one of Dennis's favorite spots in Los Angeles, The Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum in Topange Canyon. Dennis has been going to see plays at the outdoor amphitheater since the early 90's and has seen Ellen perform in scores of shows there as well as seeing just as many that she directed and produced. This season, she co-directed the play Strife by Nobel Prize-winning writer John Galsworthy. The show, about a labor strike in rural Pennsylvania, was written in the early 1900's but feels like it could have been written in 2025. The wealthy board of directors feel like the today's financially insatiable oligarchs and the workers are dealing with the same type of injustices that workers face today. Ellen talks about why she chose Strife for this "Season of Resilience," her own history as an activist and the pleasure of co-directing with her daughter Willow Geer. She also discusses the rich history of her family and the property, which was acquired by her parents in the 1950's when her father, the actor Will Geer, was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era and the entire family was ostracized from Hollywood and their Santa Monica community. In the 1950's-60's, the Botanicum property became a safe place for blacklisted artists to seek refuge and practice their craft. In the 1970's, after Will Geer found fame as Grandpa Walton on The Waltons, the place officially opened to the public as The Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum. Ellen talks about her favorite spot on the property, her encounters with animals like bears, deer, mountain lions and rattlesnakes and the challenges of doing theater in such a unique outdoor place. Other topics include: why her father loved plants, losing all her friends as a child because of the blacklist, Jimmy Stewart being sweet to her on The Jimmy Stewart Show, how the current resistance movement could use some good folk songs, and that time her father taught her that reading Shakespeare could be just as enlightening as going to therapy. www.theatricum.com
To subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel visit: https://www.youtube.com/@davisphinneyfdn/podcasts This episode of the Parkinson's Podcast features the full, unedited audio from a Live Well Today Webinar. In this episode, Dr. Greg Pontone discusses the effects that Parkinson's can have on mental health, including why mental health related symptoms occur, how they impact daily life, and what you can do to manage them. You can view our library of past webinars and register to attend our next webinar at our website: https://davisphinneyfoundation.org/event/live-well-today-webinars/ --- Speaker Bio: Greg Pontone, MD, MHS is Division Chief and Professor Of Aging, Behavioral, and Cognitive Neurology at the University of Florida and Co-Director of Neuropsychiatry Program at The Norman Fixel institute for Neurological Diseases. Dr. Pontone earned his medical degree from the University of South Florida in Tampa. After medical school he completed a medical internship at Johns Hopkins Bayview followed by a residency in psychiatry and a fellowship in geriatric psychiatry and movement disorders research at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.
Join host, Karli Burridge, as she discusses how Dr. Nadler got into pediatric bariatric surgery, his expertise on current obesity treatment guidelines, and how to be a positive patient advocate in your medical practice!Bio: At Obesity Explained, Dr. Nadler provides clarity and compassion for those seeking real solutions. His mission is to change the conversation around obesity, offering science-based insights and actionable tools that empower individuals and families to take control of their health.Dr. Nadler has served as Co-Director of the Children's National Obesity Programs and Director of the Child and Adolescent Weight Loss Surgery Program at Children's National Hospital. Before that, he was the Director of Minimally Invasive Pediatric Surgery at NYU School of Medicine, leading FDA-approved studies on adolescent obesity treatments. As an international leader in pediatric obesity, he has spent over two decades pioneering treatment programs, performing life-changing surgeries, and contributing to research that drives real change.Videos: youtube.com/@obesityexplainedWebsite: https://www.obesityexplained.com/Support the showThe Gaining Health Podcast will release a new episode monthly, every second or third Wednesday of the month. Episodes including interviews with obesity experts as well as scientific updates and new guidelines for the management of obesity.If you're a clinician or organization looking to start or optimize an obesity management program, and you want additional support and resources, check out the Gaining Health website! We offer a Roadmap to starting an obesity program or practice, pre-recorded Master Classes, digital resources including patient education materials and office forms, and much more! Check out our resources on our Gaining Health Shop! If you are loving this podcast, please consider supporting us on Patreon
In this insightful episode, join Martin and JP as they delve into the intricate world of brain injury with leading clinical neuropsychologist Professor Huw Williams. Discover the profound impacts of brain trauma on cognition, emotions, and behaviour, and gain a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in neuro-rehabilitation.The discussion also tackles the critical challenges of detecting and treating often-overlooked repetitive sub-concussive head injuries, particularly in high-risk professions such as the military and sports. Learn about the crucial role of screening systems and the exciting potential of AI and big data to revolutionize brain injury treatment and recovery in the future.This episode is essential for anyone interested in neurology, brain health, sports medicine, military health, rehabilitation, cognitive science, and the future of healthcare technology.Guest, Cast & CrewHuw Williams is a Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology and Co-Director of the Centre for Clinical Neuropsychology Research at Exeter University. He has published papers and books and held grants in a range of areas of Clinical Neuropsychology, particularly on neuro-rehabilitation and recently regarding crime.Hosted by Martin Jones & Jonpaul Nevin https://www.ophp.co.uk Produced and edited by Bess ManleyResourcesW.H.Williams@exeter.ac.uk https://experts.exeter.ac.uk/2239-huw-williams https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=mWYMEVoAAAAJ&hl=en Thanks for tuning in. If you found this podcast valuable, please take a moment to rate, share and review. If you have feedback, guest suggestions or topics that you'd love us to cover, then do email us at info@ophp.co.uk or connect with us on LinkedIn. Chapters01:58 What is Clinical Neuropsychology?02:49 Case Study: The Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury07:14 Types of Brain Injuries and Their Consequences14:27 Repetitive Sub-Concussive Head Injuries19:18 Screening and Monitoring for Brain Injuries25:11 Brain Connectivity and Concussions25:36 Advanced Brain Imaging Techniques27:22 Biomarkers and Screening for Brain Injuries28:46 Brain Injuries in Prison Populations29:42 Negative Outcomes of Brain Injuries31:13 Support Systems for Brain Injury Rehabilitation36:19 Policy Implications and Recommendations47:08 Future Technologies in Brain Injury Detection48:59 Final Thoughts and Key Messages"Thanks for tuning in! If you found this discussion on brain injury and human performance valuable, please take a moment to rate, share, and review our podcast. Your feedback helps us reach more listeners. For suggestions, guest ideas, or topics you'd like us to cover, email us at info@ophp.co.uk or connect with us on LinkedIn. Thanks for reading this week's show notesFor more information about the podcast please visit our website: www.ophp.co.uk Follow us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ophp/and on Instagram: @ophumanperformanceFinally, please subscribe, share, and leave a review!Thanks! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
ACS recently completed our 2025 National Convention Series, taking a deep dive into states' responses to the pressing issues of immigration, democracy and voting, economic and racial justice, and transgender rights. This week, we bring you brief excerpts from that series, highlighting perspectives from a diverse set of experts on the stakes of this moment and what we can do in response. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.orgHost: Lindsay Langholz, Senior Director of Policy and Program, ACSGuest: Aura Bogado, Senior Reporter, Injustice WatchGuest: Alina Das, James Weldon Johnson Professor & Co-Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic, New York University School of LawGuest: Marina Multhaup, Senior Associate, Barnard Iglitzin, & Lavitt LLP (Counsel for Starbucks United)Guest: Kylar W. Broadus, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, Public Speaker, Strategist, Legislative, Policy, ManagementGuest: William McGinty, Assistant Attorney General, Washington State Office of the Attorney GeneralGuest: Dawn Blagrove, Executive Director, Emancipate NCLink: Then They Came for Me: Protecting Our Neighbors and OurselvesLink: Resisting Oligarchy + Building Power Link: Combatting a Campaign of Erasure: Upholding the Rights of Trans People to Exist and ThriveLink: Power PlaysVisit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Bluesky | LinkedIn | YouTube -----------------Broken Law: About the law, who it serves, and who it doesn't.----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2025.
This episode forms part of a new strand of our podcast: Seapower Past and Present which explores seapower as it is understood and practised in the modern world whilst offering a historical perspective on the themes we explore. Each episode is chosen according to a theme or a location – a hotspot in the modern world where seapower has a major influence on geopolitics. So if you enjoy this episode do please seek out others in this strand – you will shortly be able to find episodes on economic warfare, critical national infrastructure, how technology is changing the nature of warfare at sea; and on hugely significant locations in the modern maritime world – the Black Sea, South China Sea, Middle East and Arctic.To make this series come alive we've teamed up with the Royal Navy Strategic Studies centre. In each episode you will hear from at least one historian and from at least one practitioner, a member of the armed forces who has direct first hand, personal experience of the topic being discussed.This episode explores how seapower has been exercised in the Black Sea. To find out more Dr Sam Willis spoke with Basil Germond, Professor of International Security in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion and Co-Director of the University research institute Security Lancaster. Commander Caroline Tucket provides a fascinating legal perspective on seapower in the Black Sea, in particular looking at the imposition of sanctions and the legal status of the wreck of the Russian warship Moskva, sunk in 2022. A serving naval officer, Caroline is also a member of Navy Legal. To provide an historical perspective Professor Andrew Lambert explores the history of naval operations in the Black Sea during the Crimean War (1835-6). Andrew Lambert is Laughton Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King's College, London. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Your favorite Buzzkill duo are back at it with hot takes, hot guests, and plenty of RAGE! What went down this week in Abobolandia? Well… let's just start with a win—Ken Paxton: 0 Texas abortion provider, Dr. Margaret Carpenter: 1. HUZZAH! Also, what happens in West Virginia certainly won't stay in West Virginia—we're laying out the latest terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decision curbing access to medication abortion from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in West Virginia *barf*. AND we're making some sense of the clear-as-swamp water Kentucky case that makes us wonder—what do frozen eggs have to do with the right to sue? GUEST ROLL CALL!Joining the Buzzkills this week is Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, to break down the intersections of abortion care and trans care, and how the media (NOT SCIENCE) has literally done all of the work in forming anti-trans bias. PLUS!!! Showing up to FBK with the palate cleanser we all need is the FABU and ICONIC actress and recording artist Peppermint! She's showing us what trans resilience and JOY truly look like, and how she finds the strength to keep fighting. Scared? Got questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu. OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Sign up for virtual 2025 OSA workshop on August 9th! You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS:Chase Strangio IG: @Chasestrangio Bluesky: @Chasestrangio.bsky.socialPeppermint IG: @Peppermint247 TikTok: @Therealpeppermint247 GUEST LINKS:WATCH: “Heightened Scrutiny” DocumentaryACLU Website IG: @ACLU_nationwide Bluesky: @ACLU.orgDONATE: The ACLU LGBTQ & HIV ProjectREAD: Andrea Gibson's PoetryWATCH: Enigma on HBOPeppermint's Documentary “A Deeper Love”Peppermint's WebsitePeppermint's LinktreePep & Hugh's Queer History 101 Book ClubREAD: Transgender History by Susan StrykerREAD: Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel WilkersonREAD: So Many Stars by Caro De RobertisREAD: Another Word for Love by Carvell Wallace NEWS DUMP:Respectful Treatment of Unborn Remains Act of 2025Republicans Propose National Ban on Flushing AbortionsNY County Official Refuses to Enforce Texas Sanction Against Doctor in Abortion CaseNew VA Law Prompts Walmart's Online Data Collection Pop-UpsJewish Woman's Challenge of Kentucky's Abortion Ban Gets Green Light From Appeals CourtWV Can Restrict Abortion Pill Access, Appeals Court Says EPISODE LINKS:ADOPT-A-CLINIC: Palmetto State Abortion Fund's WishlistBUY AAF MERCH!SIGN UP 8/9: Operation Save AbortionEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!
Remembering why you first entered the wonderful and challenging world of academic medicine might be just the boost of joy you need to uncover to stave off burnout. Our guest this week on the Faculty Factory Podcast is Geeta Singhal, MD, MEd, FAAP, whom we warmly welcome for her first-ever (and very memorable) appearance on our program. She does a brilliant job painting a picture for us of ways to uncover joy amidst the challenges of patient care, teaching, research, and many other rich, rewarding, and difficult tasks of the academic medicine journey. Dr. Singhal currently serves as Executive Vice Chair of the Department of Pediatrics, Professor of Pediatrics, Director of Academics in the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Attending Physician, and Co-Director of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM). She is also a Faculty Leadership Development Program Partner at BCM and a Professionalism Partner at Texas Children's Hospital. Learn more: http://facultyfactory.org/Geeta-Singhal
In this episode of the Film Ireland podcast, Gemma Creagh sits down with FrightFest co-director Greg Day. She also catches up with filmmakers Ali Cook and Paul Boyd, whose films both premiered at this fantastic and terrifying strand of horror at the BAFTA-qualifying Glasgow Film Festival. Dubbed “the Woodstock of Gore” by Guillermo del Toro, Pigeon Shrine FrightFest is the UK's leading horror and fantasy film festival. A seasoned film and television publicist, Greg Day has worked with icons such as Dario Argento and George A. Romero, represented Columbia Pictures, and served as Head of Entertainment Publicity at Channel 4. After Greg, we hear from comedian and magician-turned-filmmaker Ali Cook, who discusses The Pearl Comb, his fantastical mermaid-themed short. Then, Scottish filmmaker Paul Boyd joins us to talk about Scared to Death, his darkly comic haunted house feature, which had its international premiere at the festival The 26th FrightFest edition takes place in the heart of London's Leicester Square and runs 21st - 25th August 2025. https://www.frightfest.co.uk/ THE PEARL COMB Director: Ali Cook. Cast: Beatie Edney, Ali Cook, Simon Armstrong, Clara Paget, Roxana Cook, Thomas Stocker. UK 2024. 21 min. A doctor – hell bent on proving a woman's place is in the home and not practising medicine – discovers the source of a woman's unearthly power when investigating her miraculous claim to be the first person to cure tuberculosis. SCARED TO DEATH Director Paul Boyd. Cast: Lin Shaye, Bill Moseley, Rae Dawn Chong, Olivier Paris. USA 2024. 1h38m N/C 18+ Thanks to Brick Lane Entertainment Jasper is a young opportunistic filmmaker yearning to climb the Hollywood ladder. Working as a lowly production assistant, he seizes his chance to be a ‘real' director when he suggests to his cantankerous boss that the crew and actors from their upcoming horror film attend an actual séance in an old, haunted house for research. They choose an abandoned children's shelter closed for 70 years since the mysterious murders of five children in 1942, apparently discovered scared to death. Once the séance begins, the motley crew find themselves trapped and haunted by the children . . . and something possibly worse.
Loud snoring. Struggling to stay awake during the day. Waking up with a dry mouth.They might seem like small annoyances, but together they could be signs of something more serious… a sleep disorder that's affecting your life without you even realizing it.In fact, according to Dr. Andy Galpin, a Human Performance expert, 70% of medical sleep disorders still go undiagnosed.In this episode, Dr. Andy Galpin returns to the podcast for a powerful conversation on the real reasons you're not sleeping well… and what to do about it. From misdiagnosed sleep apnea and nighttime wakeups to the truth about blue light and stimulants, Dr. Galpin shares practical advice on how to sleep better every single night. OUR GUESTDr. Andy Galpin is a tenured full Professor at California State University, Fullerton. He is the Co-Director of the Center for Sport Performance and Founder/Director of the Biochemistry and Molecular Exercise Physiology Laboratory. He is a Human Performance scientist with a PhD in Human Bioenergetics and over 100 peer-reviewed publications and presentations.DR. ANDY GALPIN
Bioneers: Revolution From the Heart of Nature | Bioneers Radio Series
From local communities and states to federal policy, antitrust movements to dismantle monopolies are challenging the system that can be summed up as: Make Feudalism Great Again. Although breaking up is hard to do, we've broken up monopolies before. In this second of our two-part program, we join Thom Hartmann, Stacy Mitchell and Maurice BP-Weeks to survey the landscape of rising antitrust movements to break the stranglehold of corporate power and level the playing field for a democratized economy. Featuring Thom Hartmann, the top progressive talk show host in America for over a decade, a four-time Project Censored Award-winning journalist, and bestselling author. Learn more at his website. Stacy Mitchell, Co-Director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which produces research and develops policy to counter corporate control and build thriving, equitable communities. Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director of ACRE (Action Center on Race and the Economy) where he works on campaigns to create equitable communities by dismantling systems of wealth extraction in Black and Brown communities. The Hidden History of Monopolies by Thom Hartmann Fighting Monopoly Power | Institute for Local Self-Reliance All Life Is Organized Around Democracy | Thom Hartmann's keynote address to the Bioneers 2020 Conference Democracy vs. Plutocracy panel discussion (video) | Bioneers 2020 Conference Our Economic Future | Bioneers Reader eBook This is an episode of the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature series. Visit the radio and podcast homepage to learn more.
Writer/Director/TFH Guru Adam Rifkin returns to discuss cinematic remixes and mash-ups with Josh Olson and Joe Dante. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dr. Matthew Rubach, Associate Professor in the School of Medicine & Associate Research Professor in the Global Health Institute at Duke, offered a TMC seminar in March, 2024. Dr. Rubach is a specialist in clinical infectious diseases with medical specialty training in Pediatrics, Internal Medicine and Medical Microbiology. Since November 2015, he has been based full-time as a clinical researcher and clinician in Moshi, Tanzania where he serves as Co-Director of the Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC)-Duke Health Collaboration. He conducts clinical research on causes of severe febrile illness, sepsis management, vascular pathology of severe malaria, and zoonotic disease epidemiology. In addition to clinical research, he serves as Medical Director of the laboratory that supports clinical investigation at KCMC and he provides medical care & training in the HIV clinic and Medical Ward of KCMC. In this TMC seminar, "Colonialism, Global Health & Catholic Social Teaching: Notes from a Decade at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre," Dr. Rubach presents his work and experience at KCMC through the lens of Catholic social teaching.
Colombia ha mostrado mejoras en varios de los indicadores económicos después de 2023 y está en una fase de recuperación lenta pero sostenida. Sin embargo, el panorama político y fiscal atraviesa una tormenta ad portas de elecciones presidenciales. ¿Qué tanto tienen que ver las decisiones políticas con el estado actual de la economía nacional?Para este capítulo hablamos con Ricardo Ávila, analista senior de El Tiempo; con el abogado y ex superintendente de Industria y Comercio, Pablo Felipe Robledo; con María Claudia Lacouture, presidenta de la Cámara de Comercio Colombo Americana; con el empresario y analista, Thierry Ways; y con Leopoldo Fergusson, profesor de Economía y Fundador y Codirector de TREES.
Co-director of Adopt the Arts Laurie Baker and Vista del Monte Elementary music teacher Michael Fergon
In this episode of Connecting the Diocese, host Clint Berge interviews John Schmidt, Co-Director of Disciple Formation at St. Anne Parish in Wausau, Wisconsin. They discuss the significance of the upcoming National Catholic Youth Conference (NCYC) in November 2025, an event that aims to inspire and deepen the faith of middle and high school youths. […]
Calliope Nicholas is the Co-Director and Manager of Residency Programs at Millay Arts, the artists residency program situated at the former home of Edna St. Vincent Millay, in Austerlitz, New York. The mission of Millay Arts is to support "the work and creative process of multidisciplinary artists through a range of residencies that enrich lives and communities locally and globally.” For those who do not know, a residency is a gift of time and space for creatives. Listen in as Calliope Nicholas and Qwerty Podcast host, Marion Roach Smith, talk about how and when to apply, why to apply and what to expect from an artist's residency. The QWERTY podcast is brought to you by the book The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing & Life. Read it, and begin your own journey to writing what you know. To learn more, join The Memoir Project free newsletter list and keep up to date on all our free webinars, instructive posts and online classes in how to write memoir, as well as our talented, available memoir editors and memoir coaches, podcast guests and more.
In this episode, we explore the Australasian market as an emerging strong key Source market for African destinations. A market Expert and Co-Director of Luxury Travel Marketing Lauren McAlpine beliefs the Africa showcase platform is opening new frontiers for African destination management companies (DMCs) as the continent expands its tourism footprint into Australasia. She takes a deep dive into this high value market. Luxury Travel Marketing (LTM) is a boutique representation agency based in Australia, specialising in sales and marketing for luxury and experiential travel brands across Africa as well as the rest of the world. With a long-standing commitment to promoting Africa's most inspiring travel experiences—from high-end safari operators, luxury trains and remote lodges to conservation-led tourism initiatives—LTM connects African suppliers with the Australian and New Zealand trade. As long-time facilitators of Africa Showcase in Australia, LTM plays a key role in driving awareness, education, and fostering meaningful trade engagement across the region's dynamic travel sector.
In the latest bonus podcast, the practical use of intravenous immunoglobulin is discussed with perspectives from three continents. Participants: Professor Alasdair Coles is Head of Department for Clinical Neuroscience and also Co-Director of the Cambridge Centre for Myelin Repair, UK. Dr. Lynette Kiers is a Clinical Associate Professor at The University of Melbourne, and Director of Clinical Neurophysiology at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Australia. Dr. Christopher Hahn is an Associate Clinical Professor of Neurology at the University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine, and the Medical Director of the Calgary Electromyography Lab, Canada. Read the paper (https://pn.bmj.com/content/25/3/228) which is part of the June issue of the Practical Neurology journal. Please subscribe to the Practical Neurology podcast on your favourite platform to get the latest podcast every month. If you enjoy our podcast, you can leave us a review or a comment on Apple Podcasts (https://apple.co/3vVPClm) or Spotify (https://spoti.fi/4baxjsQ). We'd love to hear your feedback on social media - @PracticalNeurol. Production and editing by Letícia Amorim. Thank you for listening.
We are delighted to be partnering with the Galway Film Fleadh to bring you a series of podcasts spotlighting filmmakers whose work is screening at this year's festival. In this podcast, Gemma Creagh talks to Malcolm Willis, co-director of The Essence of Eva with Alex Fegan, which premieres at this year's festival. The Galway Film Fleadh runs 8-13 July 2025. Featuring previously unheard songs, and exclusive archival footage, Eva paints a vivid portrait of legendary singer Eva Cassidy, from the perspective of her family, friends, and fellow musicians. A woman whose soulful voice transcended genres, captivating audiences with its purity and emotional resonance. Her interpretations of classic songs, such as “Over the Rainbow” and “Fields of Gold”, are explored in depth, showcasing her ability to breathe new life into familiar tunes with her stirring voice. A heart-tugging story about a talent gone too soon. The Essence of Eva screens at The Galway Film Fleadh on 12th July 2025. https://www.galwayfilmfleadh.com/ https://filmireland.net/
မမေအေး က Burmese Care ဟာ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံမှ မတူကွဲပြားသော လူမျိုးစုအသိုက် အဝန်းမှ တစ်ဦးချင်းစီအတွက် NDIS နှင့် သက်ကြီးရွယ်အို စောင့်ရှောက်ရေး ဝန်ဆောင်မှုများ ကို ရိုးရှင်းလွယ်ကူစေပြီး ပိုမိုတိုးတက်ကောင်းမွန်လာစေရန် လုပ်ဆောင်တယ်ဟု ရှင်းပြထားပါတယ်။
This episode, Nicholas Davis, Co-Director, UTS Human Technology Institute takes listeners on a deep dive into the transformative world of Artificial Intelligence and the essential guardrails needed to ensure its safe, ethical, and effective application. Drawing on global best practices, emerging domestic trends, and state-level strategies, the conversation explores how NSW and the broader Australian public sector can harness AI's potential while maintaining public trust and navigating complex regulatory landscapes. From understanding the technology and building a clear strategy, to implementing governance frameworks and operationalising AI at scale, this episode unpacks every layer of the journey. Whether you're exploring use cases or managing risk, it offers a roadmap for safely accelerating AI adoption across government. Nicholas Davis, Co-Director, UTS Human Technology Institute For more great insights head to www.PublicSectorNetwork.co
Bioneers: Revolution From the Heart of Nature | Bioneers Radio Series
In this first part of a two-part program, we travel back and forth in time to explore the battle between democracy and plutocracy that goes back to the very founding of the United States. The extreme concentration of corporate power and the prevalence of monopoly are indeed inarguable. If the solution is once again to throw the tea in the harbor, what does that look like in the 21st century? In today's new Gilded Age of rule by the wealthy, rising anti-trust movements are challenging the stranglehold of corporate monopoly. Featuring Thom Hartmann, the top progressive talk show host in America for over a decade, a four-time Project Censored Award-winning journalist, and bestselling author. Learn more at his website. Stacy Mitchell, Co-Director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which produces research and develops policy to counter corporate control and build thriving, equitable communities. Maurice BP-Weeks, Co-Executive Director of ACRE (Action Center on Race and the Economy) where he works on campaigns to create equitable communities by dismantling systems of wealth extraction in Black and Brown communities. Resources The Hidden History of Monopolies by Thom Hartmann All Life Is Organized Around Democracy | Thom Hartmann's keynote address to the Bioneers 2020 Conference Democracy vs. Plutocracy panel discussion (video) | Bioneers 2020 Conference Our Economic Future | Bioneers Reader eBook This is an episode of the Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature series. Visit the radio and podcast homepage to learn more.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe
Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Trey Ideker is Professor of Medicine, Bioengineering and Computer Science, and former Chief of Genetics, at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). He is also the Director of the Bridge2AI Functional Genomics Data Generation Program and Co-Director of the Cancer Cell Map Initiative. Please subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1
Amy Barmore, Head Volleyball Coach, Transylvania University and Co-Director, Lexington United Volleyball Club Amy is from Louisville, KY and went to Georgetown College where she was a four-year volleyball player and graduated in 2010. After graduation, Amy coached at a few high schools in Lexington and Scott County. She began her collegiate coaching career at Georgetown College in 2012 and left Georgetown College in 2014 when she was hired as an assistant coach at Transylvania. After being the assistant for 4 years, she was named Head Coach at Transylvania and is going into her 8th year in that role. Her teams have won 5 straight conference tournaments and have been to the elite 8 and sweet sixteen. Amy also serves as the Senior Women's Administrator. While coaching at collegiate level, Amy has also been a club director. She started coaching club volleyball in Lexington in 2008 and has not stopped. In 2020, I was the club director for Alpha performance for one year. After Chris Beerman passed away, she and Jenni Morgan merged Alpha Performance and Lexington United and she has been the co-club director of Lexington United since. Jenni Morgan, Head Volleyball Coach, Dunbar High School and Co-Director, Lexington United Volleyball Club Jenni Morgan is originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana. She attended Western Kentucky University, where she played college volleyball and earned a degree in Exceptional Education. She went on to obtain a Master's in Elementary Education from Georgetown College and later achieved her Rank I certification in Leadership from the University of the Cumberlands. She has two children, Kennedy (16) and Clayont (13), and two step children, Alayana (21) and Griffin (15). Since graduating college, she has dedicated the past 25 years to teaching and coaching, with a focus on Special Education. At Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, she has served in multiple leadership roles, including Special Education Department Chair, member of the SBDM Committee, and Assistant Athletic Director. Her coaching journey began right out of college when she was a student assistant under current Head Coach Travis Hudson. Before moving to Lexington, she coached one year in Indiana and two years in Illinois. In 2004, she began coaching at Dunbar, and was honored to be named Head Coach in 2005. Over the years, the Dunbar volleyball program has secured 10 District Championships and 7 Regional Championships. In 2022, Dunbar became one of only three public schools to reach the state tournament finals. She has been recognized as Region 11 Coach of the Year six times and was named the 2023 Kentucky High School Volleyball Coach of the Year. In addition to her work at Dunbar, she has been actively involved in club volleyball, coaching in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. In 2020, following the passing of Club Director Chris Beerman, she and Amy Barmore merged Lexington United and Alpha to continue building and supporting the volleyball community. For more information about Lexington United Volleyball Club, visit the website: https://lexunitedvbc.com/. If you enjoyed this podcast, please click "subscribe" wherever you listen to episodes and we hope you'll consider leaving us a review. Follow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/UKAGHW, Instagram https://www.instagram.com/ukaghw, or LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/company/active-girls-healthy-women. Sign up for the Active Girls Healthy Women newsletter here: http://eepurl.com/h6e30b or learn more about our Program here: https://linktr.ee/ukaghw. If you want to help us sustain the Champions of Active Women podcast, please consider donating to the University of Kentucky Active Girls Healthy Women Program at https://give.uky.edu/campaigns/47165/donations/new?aft=87003cbf2438ea9d126a47dbe0395353
This week, EconoFact Chats features an abridged version of the EconoFact Ask Me Anything Webinar held on May 27th with Bill Gale, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Co-Director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Gale discusses the 'Big Beautiful Budget Bill,' noting that it will provide high-income households with large tax cuts, while likely lowering after tax resources for low-income households. He also stresses the importance of reining in the deficit, and outlines a few tax policy proposals that have broad consensus among economists -- notably lower tax rates, fewer deductions, a consumption tax, and a carbon tax. EconoFact's monthly Ask Me Anything Webinars are exclusively available to our Premium Subscribers. The modest $50 annual fee for becoming a Premium Subscriber supports EconoFact and its efforts to bring timely, accessible, unbiased, and nonpartisan analyses on important economic and social policy issues to the public. You can sign-up for a Premium Subscription at https://secure.touchnet.net/C21525_ustores/web/store_main.jsp?STOREID=157
Constitutional Chats hosted by Janine Turner and Cathy Gillespie
The Founders knew what they did not want our new government to be. Thomas Jefferson so eloquently made the argument to break away from one form while laying the groundwork for our next form of government. Then James Madison completed that groundwork in the text of Constitution. What do we mean by this? The Declaration spoke of unalienable rights, and declared the purpose of government instituted by man is to secure these rights. The Constitution then completes those thoughts by limiting the power any one person or branch of government can have by instituting checks and balances of each branch of government on the others.. To further expound on this magnificent structure protecting our freedoms, we are thrilled to welcome back our good friend, Adam Carrington, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University.
Linley Dixon discusses some of the challenges facing organic farming, particularly the issues of greenwashing and the need for maintaining organic standards in this week's podcast interview. Linley is the Co-Director of the Real Organic Project (ROP), in addition to running her own Adobe House Farm in Durango, Colorado. She emphasizes the importance of transparency in agricultural practices and the impact of lobbying by agribusiness to weaken organic standards. These issues have an impact even on farmers who are not certified organic, because when standards are not maintained, it causes consumers to doubt standards in general.The conversation also touches on the role of fraud in organic certification, the need for accountability, and the importance of strong regulations to protect organic integrity. This is the second episode on maintaining organic standards; the first one with Dave Chapman focused on the issue of allowing hydroponics in organics, while this episode focuses on maintaining humane standards for organic livestock and combatting organic grain fraud. Linley also delves into her academic background in soil science and plant pathology, emphasizing the significance of soil health in sustainable agriculture. Connect With Guest:Instagram: @realorganicprojectWebsite: realorganicproject.org Podcast Sponsors: Huge thanks to our podcast sponsors as they make this podcast FREE to everyone with their generous support: Nifty Hoops builds complete gothic high tunnels that are easy to install and built to last. Their bolt-together construction makes setup straightforward and efficient, whether it's a small backyard hoophouse, or a dozen large production-scale high tunnels- especially through their community build option, where professional builders work alongside your crew, family, or neighbors to build each structure- usually in a single day. Visit niftyhoops.com to learn more. Tilth Soil makes living soils for organic growers. The base for all our mixes is NOP-compliant compost, made from the 4,000 tons of food scraps we divert from landfills each year. And the results speak for themselves. Get excellent germination, strong transplants, and help us turn these resources back into food. Try a free bag, and check our 2025 farmer pricing at tilthsoil.com/gfm. Farmhand is the all-in-one virtual assistant created for CSA farmers. With five-star member support, custom websites, shop management, and seamless billing, Farmhand makes it effortless to market, manage, and grow a thriving CSA. Learn more and set up a demo with the founder at farmhand.partners/gfm. BCS two-wheel tractors are designed and built in Italy where small-scale farming has been a way of life for generations. Discover the beauty of BCS on your farm with PTO-driven implements for soil-working, shredding cover crops, spreading compost, mowing under fences, clearing snow, and more – all powered by a single, gear-driven machine that's tailored to the size and scale of your operation. To learn more, view sale pricing, or locate your nearest dealer, visit BCS America. Subscribe To Our Magazine -all new subscriptions include a FREE 28-Day Trial
Dr. Steve Demarais is a self-described 'deer nut'. The recently retired Co-Director of Mississippi State's famed Deer Lab made whitetail deer his life's work. On today's show we sit down and discuss some of the more fascinating discoveries his department made concerning whitetail deer behavior and genetics. Some of the highlights include: Can a whitetail [...]
From a recent WEDI virtual spotlight, WEDI's Emerging Technology Workgroup Chair Nick Radov (Stedi) has a great conversation about how providers are leveraging artificial intelligence to improve the industry and the special place guidance plays in ensuring not only innovation, but also responsibility. The panel: Jared Staal, Executive Director, Intelligent Automation & AI, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic Newar Shara, PhD, Chief, Research Data Science, MedStar Research Institute. Chief of AI Application in Health Data Science (AI CoLab). Co-Director, Center for Biostatistics, Informatics, and Data Science Frederick Chen, MD, Chief Health and Science Officer, American Medical Association
Max Smeets, Co-Director of Virtual Routes and Senior Researcher at ETH Zurich, joins Lawfare's Jonathan Cedarbaum and Justin Sherman to discuss his recently released book “Ransom War: How Cybercrime Became a Threat to National Security.” They discuss the history of ransomware (including the term itself), how the threats have evolved over the years, and some of the major drivers of innovation and entrepreneurialism within the ransomware ecosystem. They discuss Max's findings on the “trust paradox” facing ransomware groups, the internal business dynamics of ransomware gangs, how governments leverage ransomware operators to their own ends, and how the United States and Europe can respond to future threats.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Interview recorded - 20th of June, 2025On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming back Professor Steve Hanke. Steve is the Professor of Applied Economics and Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at The Johns Hopkins University. He is also the co-author of the recently released book “Making Money Work: How to Rewrite the Rules of our Financial System”During our conversation we spoke about Steve's outlook for the economy, how uncertainty is created during this system shift, change in banking policy, how the FED are too hawkish, potential for a recession and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction2:48 - Outlook on the economy6:22 - Drivers of money supply7:40 - Higher interest rates11:04 - Changing bank policy?13:15 - Uncertainty in markets?16:49 - Recession?17:50 - Trump economic revolution?21:52 - FED too hawkish?25:12 - One message to takeaway?Steve H. Hanke is a Senior Fellow, Contributing Editor of The Independent Review, and a Member of the Board of Advisors at the Independent Institute. He is a Professor of Applied Economics and Founder and Co-Director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He is also a Senior Adviser at the Renmin University of China's International Monetary Research Institute in Beijing, and a Special Counselor to the Center for Financial Stability in New York. Hanke is also a Contributing Editor at Central Banking in London and a Contributor at National Review. In addition, Hanke is a member of the Charter Council of the Society for Economic Measurement and a Distinguished Associate of the International Atlantic Economic Society. He is ranked as the world's third-most influential economics influencer by FocusEconomics in Barcelona, Spain.Steve Hanke: Book - https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-63398-0X - https://x.com/steve_hankeBio - https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=516WTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4X - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas
This week on The Monday Edit: JVN sat down with Chase Strangio from the ACLU to debrief on last week's 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court on U.S. v Skrmetti - ruling in favor of continuing Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care. Chase made history in December 2024 as the first openly Trans lawyer to argue in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. All that, plus! JVN and Chris break down the Karen Read verdict. Chase Strangio is Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project as well as a nationally recognized expert on transgender rights. Chase's work includes impact litigation, as well as legislative and administrative advocacy, on behalf of LGBTQ people and people living with HIV across the United States. Prior to joining the ACLU, Chase was an Equal Justice Works fellow and the Director of Prisoner Justice Initiatives at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, where he represented transgender and gender non-conforming individuals in confinement settings. In 2012, Chase co-founded the Lorena Borjas Community Fund, an organization that provides direct bail/bond assistance to LGBTQ immigrants in criminal and immigration cases. Chase is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law and Grinnell College. Not A Phase. Trans Lifeline Follow Chase Strangio on Instagram @chasestrangio Follow us on Instagram @gettingbetterwithjvn Jonathan on Instagram @jvn and senior producer Chris @amomentlikechris New video episodes Getting Better on YouTube every Wednesday. Senior Producer, Chris McClure Producer, Editor & Engineer is Nathanael McClure Production support from Julie Carrillo, Anne Currie, and Chad Hall Our theme music is also composed by Nathanael McClure. Curious about bringing your brand to life on the show? Email podcastadsales@sonymusic.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Jeff Sebo is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, Director of the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, Director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy, and Co-Director of the Wild Animal Welfare Program at New York University. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the Guarini Center on Environmental, Energy & Land Use Law at the NYU School of Law and an Advisor at the Animals in Context series at NYU Press. Jeff's research focuses on moral philosophy, legal philosophy, and philosophy of mind; animal minds, ethics, and policy; AI minds, ethics, and policy; and global health and climate ethics and policy. His books include The Moral Circle and Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves and he is co-author of Chimpanzee Rights and Food, Animals, and the Environment.In Sentientist Conversations we talk about the most important questions: “what's real?”, “who matters?” and "how can we make a better world?"Sentientism answers those questions with "evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings." The video of our conversation is here on YouTube.00:00 Clips01:20 Welcome- Our first Sentientist Conversation, episode 26 - Jeff's book The Moral Circle - Endorsements from previous Sentientism guests Barbara King and Peter Singer- Welcome Smokey!02:50 Jeff's Intro- Research and teaching and leading programmes at NYU including the Wild Animal Welfare Programme and the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness - Asking "How humans can better interact with the non-human world... who might matter, how much might they matter, what might they need, what might we owe them, what follows for our actions and policies and priorities...?"- Directing the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection "agriculture, farmed animal welfare, #biodiversity, wild animal welfare..."- Directing the NY Center for Mind, Ethics and Policy "Non-human minds... invertebrates and AI systems"04:37 The Moral Circle- JW: "Does it have to be a circle?"- "I was concerned... it implies that humanity is at the centre and that other beings matter or are closer to the centre to the degree that they resemble us"- "We right now at least increasingly agree that all humans and many non-human animals... merit consideration"- "The book asks 'should we go farther?'"08:32 What Makes Us Matter?11:39 Why is Sentience Important?19:16 What About Zero-Valence Consciousness?28:08 Properties vs Relational Approach38:10 So Who Matters?43:28 Do AIs Matter?48:47 Do Photons Matter?56:15 Do Future Beings Matter?01:01:51 How Much Do They Matter?01:14:44 The Role of Epistemology?01:18:26 A Better Future?01:22: 33 Follow Jeff:- Jeff on BlueSky - Jeff on Twitter- "The Moral Circle"- Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (now open access and free to read!)And more... full show notes at Sentientism.info.Sentientism is “Evidence, reason & compassion for all sentient beings.” More at Sentientism.info. Join our "I'm a Sentientist" wall via this simple form.Everyone, Sentientist or not, is welcome in our groups. The biggest so far is here on FaceBook. Come join us there!
Summer is here, temperatures are rising — and so are electric bills. That also means many people are facing a severely overlooked issue: power shutoffs. In 2024, over 600,000 households in the United States had their power shut off due to an inability to pay. When that happens, people cannot turn on their lights, keep food refrigerated, or cool down the home. And regulations preventing shutoffs during extreme heat events are woefully inadequate. But when utilities help pay the upfront costs of efficiency upgrades, the customers and utilities can both save energy — and money. How do we protect the most vulnerable populations from the dangers of home power shutoffs? Guests: Jean Su, Energy Justice Director, Center for Biological Diversity Sanya Carley, Co-Director, Energy Justice Lab, Indiana University Tamara Jones, Co-Executive Director, Clean Energy Works Support Climate One by going ad-free! By subscribing to Climate One on Patreon, you'll receive exclusive access to all future episodes free of ads, opportunities to connect with fellow Climate One listeners, and access to the Climate One Discord. Sign up today. For show notes and related links, visit our website. Ad sales by Multitude. Contact them for ad inquiries at multitude.productions/ads Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
As the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem has made herself the official face of the Trump administration's military crackdowns on protesters in Los Angeles, raids in majority-Democratic cities, and the deportations of student activists. How has she been able to consolidate so much power so quickly? Guest: Seth Tupper, Editor-in-Chief of the South Dakota Searchlight Ahilan Arulanantham, Co-Director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Carolin Duttlinger is Professor of German Literature and Culture at the University of Oxford (UK) and Co-Director of the Oxford Kafka Research Centre, where she is currently leading a three-year UKRI-funded research project,Kafka's Transformative Communities. She has published widely on German literature from the eighteenth century to the present; on Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School; the history of psychology; and on photography and visual culture. Selected publications: Kafka and Photography (Oxford University Press, 2007); ed., with Ben Morgan and Anthony Phelan, Walter Benjamins anthropologisches Denken (Rombach, 2012); The Cambridge Introduction to Franz Kafka (Cambridge University Press, 2013); ed., Franz Kafka in Context (Cambridge University Press, 2017); Attention and Distraction in German Literature, Thought, and Culture (Oxford University Press 2022). She is also the editor of the book series Visual Culture with Legenda. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
The Animal Documentary. In this episode of Carnivore Conversations, Dr. Kiltz interviews Vinny (Producer/Co-Director) are the filmmakers behind Animal, a bold new documentary releasing June 20. The film explores how political, economic, and religious powers have reshaped our relationship with meat, health, and truth. Blends bold interviews, historical research, and science to expose the hidden roots of chronic illness and food misinformation. Aims to challenge mainstream dietary narratives and reignite the conversation around ancestral eating. Both are deeply committed to storytelling that restores health through knowledge, nature, and radical honesty.
On Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg, Dani speaks with Daniel Moss, Co-Director of the Agroecology Fund. They discuss what it means to build a model of trust-based philanthropy, the benefits that agroecology offers to women and youth, and the flexibility that allows for the experimentation inherent in agriculture. Plus, here about progress being made to halt deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, Kenya's plan to address the rising rate of diet-related diseases, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to remove all members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee, and the key crops that could lose half their best land for their production by 2100. While you're listening, subscribe, rate, and review the show; it would mean the world to us to have your feedback. You can listen to “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” wherever you consume your podcasts.
June is a time to honor and celebrate the LGBTQIA+ community. It's also a month when the Supreme Court has historically made pivotal decisions for LGBTQIA+ rights. This week, Co-Director of the ACLU's LGBT & HIV Project Chase Strangio joins W. Kamau Bell to reflect on the 10-year anniversary of marriage equality with Obergefell v. Hodges, how that case bears on the pending U.S. v. Skrmetti decision, and what it looks like to show up for trans youth and their families in this critical moment. For more information on Skrmetti and actions you can take, head to action.aclu.org. While you're there, take the pledge to support trans youth and sign the petition to defend trans freedom: action.aclu.org/petition/defend-trans-freedom action.aclu.org/petition/take-pledge-support-trans-youth-now This episode was executive produced by Jessica Herman Weitz for the ACLU, and W. Kamau Bell, Kelly Rafferty, PhD, and Melissa Hudson Bell, PhD for Who Knows Best Productions. It was recorded at Skyline Studios in Oakland, CA. Our senior executive producer is Sam Riddell. At Liberty is edited and produced by Erica Getto and Myrriah Gossett for Good Get.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
