Podcasts about Criticism

Attack Incident We begin with the recent violent attack of two National Guard members that were shot by an Afghan national who allegedly entered the U.S. through Biden’s resettlement program. One guard member died, and the other was critically injured. Criticism of Biden Administration The administration prioritized political optics over security during the Afghanistan withdrawal. Accusations of incompetence and ideological blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. Suggests that the administration lied about vetting refugees. Historical Context The chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, including abandoning Bagram Airfield and conducting evacuations from Kabul Airport. Mentions the drop in Biden’s approval ratings after the withdrawal. Predicted Consequences The speakers argue that they warned of these risks in 2021, predicting terror attacks and humanitarian issues. Quotes past tweets and op-eds as evidence of prior warnings. Humanitarian Concerns Discusses cultural practices in Afghanistan such as child marriage and domestic abuse. Raises concerns about Afghan men arriving with child brides and cases of sexual abuse in intake centers. Ideological Critique Frames the administration’s approach as driven by left-wing ideology, claiming Democrats ignore radical Islamic terrorism and prioritize political goals over safety. Mentions Rashida Tlaib’s refusal to condemn “Death to America” chants at a rally in her district as an example of ideological extremism. Additional Security Risks Notes other incidents, such as an Afghan national arrested in Texas for making terroristic threats. Links refugee resettlement issues with broader border security concerns, including illegal immigration and potential terrorist infiltration. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Outrage is mounting in Washington over the Trump administration's latest moves in its pressure campaign against Venezuela and the Maduro regime. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is calling for an investigation into a so-called "double tap" strike by the US military, targeting survivors from an alleged drug trafficking vessel. President Trump is denying knowledge of the strike, and backing his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who insists the strikes are legal.  Reporter Stephen Collinson joins the show to discuss.  Also on today's show: Brian Winter, Editor-in-chief, "Americas Quarterly"; former US Secretary of State John Kerry; Pastor Tim Johnson, founder, Fatherless No More Initiative; Andrew Rice, features Writer, New York Magazine    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Nick Wilson and Jonathan Peterlin react to the amount of criticism coming Lane Kiffin's way after taking the LSU job and debate whether or not he deserves it.

Nick Wilson and Jonathan Peterlin debate whether Lane Kiffin deserved all the criticism he's gotten for leaving Ole Miss for LSU.

What do you do when someone corrects you publicly, and their tone stings more than their words?In this episode, Tarjia brings a deeply relatable dilemma: how to respond in the moment when someone interrupts, “clarifies,” or subtly shames you, especially when it's someone in a leadership role. Together, we explore real-time language tools, nervous system regulation strategies, and relational repair practices.This isn't just about one group dynamic or one conversation: it's about how to reclaim your voice when subtle power moves leave you feeling dismissed, small, or confused.Whether you've ever felt stung by someone's tone, shut down by an interruption, or unsure how to set boundaries without creating more conflict, this episode is for you.SHOW NOTESIn this episode, we explore:•What to say in the moment when someone interrupts or corrects you•How to distinguish between your wise adult self and reactive younger parts•Why certain tones of voice can feel shaming, even when the content seems neutral•How to use the It sounds like… is that true? tool to re-center and clarify•What to do when someone flips your feedback back onto you (that's your issue)•How to stay grounded in your dignity even when someone steps into a one-up position•The emotional cost of always trying to care for others at your own expense•What it really means to slow down for your most tender partsBonus: We also walk through a sample script for initiating a repair conversation without blame, without defensiveness, and without abandoning yourself.For ongoing practice and deeper learning, join my monthly membership program. You will find a safe space for live discussions and a supportive community of like-minded, open-hearted humans. Stay updated on new episodes and resources by subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts or visiting yvetteerasmus.com. Here are more ways to connect with me: Become a member of my online learning community Join our calls live Set up a private session Follow me on TikTok @dr.yvetteerasmus

In hour 3, Mark is joined by John Ziegler, the Co-Host of the Podcast, "The Death of Journalism" and a Former Mediaite Senior Columnist. He discusses Lane Kiffin leaving Ole Miss for LSU and why it's a perfect example of what is wrong with College Football and the media's coverage of it. He's later joined by Alex Rosenberger, the Owner of Master Cars. He discusses the WSJ's latest report that American Consumers are losing patience with high car prices. They wrap up the show with the Audio Cut of the Day.

In this explosive interview, Dave Allen pulls no punches as he responds to critics of his comments on the Conor Benn vs Chris Eubank Jr showdown. He delivers raw, unfiltered opinions on boxing politics, fan backlash, and gives a brutally honest take on the potential clash between Anthony Joshua and Jake Paul.

Accepting criticism is the key to growth. One who seeks only reassurance to continue living a life built on lies, will build a house of cards. One who seeks truth, will built something that lasts.

Gillian is joined by former Green Party TD Brian Leddin to discuss the National Development Plan, with Limerick set to receive significant road funding over the next decade. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

7/8 The Unfilial Son and the Trauma of Informing — Tanya Branigan — This segment recounts the 1970 execution of Fu Zhong Mo, a devoted Communist Party member who was denounced following her criticism of Mao. Her seventeen-year-old son, Jiang Hong Bing, informed state authorities against his mother, subordinating filial obligation to worship of Mao Zedong. Fu was publicly executed, and her corpse was subsequently moved multiple times by authorities. Jiang lives with severe guilt, characterizing himself as an "unfilial son" and tormented by the knowledge that he and his father directly facilitated her judicial murder. 1967 SHANGHAI

Charlie Long Unloads on Florida Fans' Criticism of Tulane's Head Coach Jon Sumrall

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdanFollow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ PredictionsSure To Go Wrong: Kozick: Reverse Greif: Affirm American Art Clay: AffirmIL app:https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/American Art:https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-1638.25-1638_11_14_2025.mp3

Is your communication style a red flag?

Join us on the show today as we go through another article engaged in logical Olympic level acrobatics to about blame. Tune in at 5:00pm Eastern Source: https://archive.is/JVfdz 00:00 - Introduction and Overview of the Topic 01:40 - Discussion of Helen Andrews' Essay "The Great Feminization" 03:00 - New York Times Article: "Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?" 06:00 - Challenges Discussing Women's Impact in the Workplace 09:00 - Response Article on Medium and Initial Reactions 14:00 - Critique of Feminism and Workplace Dynamics 20:00 - Feminization of Industries and Publishing Example 26:00 - Accountability and Social Power of Women in Workplaces 32:00 - Feminism's Influence on Academia and Society 38:00 - Gender Differences and Workplace Interactions 44:00 - Female Vices and Their Impact on Work Culture 49:00 - Feminism's Capture of Academia and Its Consequences 55:00 - Analysis of Interview Body Language and Dynamics 1:02:00 - Female Virtues and Feminine vs Masculine Traits 1:08:00 - Lack of Solutions and Criticism of Feminist Narratives 1:14:00 - Consumer Identity of Women in the Workplace 1:23:00 - Discussion on Men and Women's Roles in Society 1:30:00 - Wrap-up and Final Thoughts =================================================== Support the badgers: http://www.feedthebadger.com Patreon us on patreon: http://www.patreon.com/honeybadgerradio Subscribe to us on minds https://www.minds.com/HoneyBadgerRadio Follow us on twitter! https://twitter.com/HoneyBadgerBite Join our Facebook group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/honeybadgerradio Watch us on twitch! https://streamlabs.com/honeybadgerradio Brian - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkcDcML9oLV9oVat54Qp7uw Hannah - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_7Bt0vnvdJqAwF8Ow8iT0g Prim Reaper - https://www.youtube.com/user/Aceticacidplease Karen - https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat Alison - https://www.youtube.com/user/Genderratic Anna - https://www.youtube.com/user/AnnaCherryOnTop Mike - https://www.youtube.com/user/DoctorRandomercam Aydin - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUowFWIWGw6Pv2JqfEj8njQ Deborah Powney - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DOT_N7Ib0Pwi4m4XbX04A

https://teachhoops.com/ The pressure from parents and external sources is often the single biggest stressor for coaches, frequently driving good people out of the profession entirely. It usually stems from a place of misguided love; parents naturally want the best for their child, but this desire often manifests as unrealistic expectations regarding playing time, role, and "exposure." This external noise becomes dangerous when it bleeds into the locker room, creating a "me vs. the coach" narrative that undermines the team culture. The "ride home" conversation, where a parent critiques the coach's decisions to their child, can undo a week's worth of confidence-building and coaching in a fifteen-minute car ride. The most effective defense against this pressure is proactive, brutal transparency. You cannot wait for a complaint to set a boundary. A mandatory pre-season parent meeting is essential, where you clearly articulate your coaching philosophy, your policy on playing time (e.g., "playing time is earned, not given"), and your communication protocols. Implementing a strict "24-Hour Rule"—where parents must wait one day after a game before contacting the coach with a concern—is a non-negotiable tool. This cooling-off period prevents emotional confrontations and allows logic to return to the conversation. Furthermore, coaches must make it clear that they will discuss a player's behavior, attitude, and improvement plan, but they will never discuss another player or strategy with a parent. Finally, managing external pressure requires a "shield the team" mentality. Whether the pressure is coming from parents, the administration, or the community demanding a championship, it is the coach's job to absorb that stress so the players don't feel it. You must constantly pivot the focus back to the "process"—the daily habits, the effort, and the development—rather than the outcome on the scoreboard. By keeping your communication consistent and your standards visible, you build a layer of insulation. You won't make everyone happy, but by being fair, communicative, and firm in your convictions, you earn the respect of the silent majority who simply want a positive environment for their kids. Dealing with Sports Parents, Basketball Parent Meeting, 24 Hour Rule, Coaching Youth Sports, Managing External Pressure, Sports Psychology for Coaches, Parent-Coach Relationship, Basketball Coaching Problems, Playing Time Complaints, Youth Sports Culture, Coaching Boundaries, High School Basketball Parents, Sports Parenting Advice, Conflict Resolution in Sports, Basketball Team Management, Coaching Ethics, Dealing with Criticism, Athletic Director Support, Basketball Program Culture, Communicating with Parents, Overbearing Sports Parents, Youth Basketball Issues, Coaching Stress, Mental Health for Coaches, Sideline Behavior Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Renowned creative visionary Jason Anello joins us for a lively, insightful exploration of the intersections between Italian American culture and modern business. We open with stories from the alcohol industry—where compliance issues ultimately forced a project to relocate from New Jersey to Delaware—and use those moments to delve into the art of carving out a niche and translating the American market to Italian partners. Through humor and candid reflection, Anello shows how authenticity can thrive even in the most complicated spaces. Criticism, he reminds us, is inevitable—but often a sign that something is working. Drawing on ventures like Forking Tasty and his new Red Sauce project, Jason highlights the creative spark at the center of his work and the unexpected encouragement hidden in the reactions of so-called haters. From Paisani Pops, those pocket-sized Italian American lollipops, to the tradition of gifting homemade limoncello, our conversation celebrates the joy of making, sharing, and expressing cultural identity. We travel from Italy's agricultural heritage to America's beloved red-sauce joints, reflecting on family roots in Lazio, the enduring charm of classic eateries, and the challenges they face today. Whether discussing design, hospitality, or the soul of a neighborhood restaurant, Anello underscores the lasting importance of genuine interaction and thoughtfully crafted experiences. The result is a heartfelt journey through tradition, innovation, and community—an ode to the creative spirit at the center of Italian American life.    HIS SOCIALS:  Instagram: @forkingtasty Instagram: @janello    HIS WEBSITE: https://www.theredsaucemap.com/   HOSTS: John Viola Patrick 0'Boyle   SPECIAL GUEST:  Jason Anello   Producer: Nicholas Calvello-Macchia

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

Beyond moves happening on the stock front, Michael Green offers his perspective on the FOMC and potential rate cuts in December and beyond. When it comes to measuring inflation, he says the CPI has problems that don't paint the whole story for investors. Michael later explains the "valley of death" he sees plaguing consumers. ======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Hi, It's Michele! Send me a text with who you want as a guest!This Year's Holiday Gift List and Book List are sponsored by:  Stone Architecthttps://suno.com/s/VcvQiyV94XdoEMjAoday's episode is sponsored by Stone Architect, the natural-stone sourcing company behind the movement Granite Your Planet™ — inspiring cities, architects, and builders to choose materials that truly stand the test of time.Stone Architect's mission is simple: build for centuries, not landfills.While concrete and manufactured products break down every 7 to 20 years — creating massive CO₂ emissions — natural granite is one of the most sustainable building materials on Earth. It's carbon-light, chemically untouched, and built by nature to last hundreds of years.From major city streetscapes to public parks, waterfronts, and private developments across North America, Stone Architect helps design teams realize projects that are stronger, cleaner, and dramatically more sustainable for our planet.If you believe in smarter materials, lower emissions, and public spaces created with intention — join the movement at stonearchitect.org**Stone Architect — Granite Your Planet™.Build for the next generation.””Link to the blog for text and Images and Gift and Book List:https://inmawomanarchitect.blogspot.com/2025/11/holidaygiftlist-interview-w-alexandra.htmlAlexandra LangeAlexandra Lange is a journalist, design critic, and author. Her essays, reviews and profiles have appeared in numerous design publications including Architect, Harvard Design Magazine, and Metropolis, as well as in The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The New Yorker, and the New York Times. She is a contributing writer for Bloomberg CityLab, and has been a featured writer at Design Observer, an opinion columnist at Dezeen, and the architecture critic for Curbed. In 2025 she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism for a series on how urban design and architecture affect children and families.Her last name rhymes with “rang.”Her latest book, Meet Me by the Fountain: An Inside History of the Mall, was published by Bloomsbury USA in 2022. It received positive reviews in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, The Economist, and The Nation, as well as coverage on NPR Marketplace, 99 Percent Invisible, Decoder Ring, and The Brian Lehrer Show.Link to MGHarchitect: MIchele Grace Hottel, Architect website for scheduling a consultation for an architecture and design project and guest and podcast sponsorship opportunities:https://www.mgharchitect.com/

The SEANC team discusses North Carolina's stalled budget, upcoming candidate filing, and the political fallout of a late session. They delve into State Auditor Dave Bullock's rapid report on DHHS, which reveals $386 million in lapsed salary funds, the state's high vacancy rates, and the debate over using lapse funds versus properly funding positions. The episode also covers the State Health Plan's new Lantern program and upcoming town halls, honors DOT and Wildlife employees commended for their response to Hurricane Helene, and wraps with Thanksgiving traditions.

Text Sue what you think!Worried about family questioning your unschooling over Thanksgiving?In this episode, Sue Patterson shares a simple Thanksgiving Toolkit to help you stay calm, grounded, and confident when the tough questions come. Grab 3 practical tools to steady yourself, respond (or not respond) with clarity, and keep the holiday peaceful for you and your kids.Thanksgiving Parent Bundle https://www.unschoolingmom2mom.com/product/Thanksgiving-Parent-BundleBlack Friday Deals for Sue's Membership https://www.unschoolingmom2mom.com/black-fridaySupport the show_____________________________________________________As always, reach out if you need more help. You don't have to do this alone!Free Email List with weekly unschooling resourcesLike what you're hearing - buy Sue a cup of coffee! Buy Me a Coffee Creating Confidence Membership Group Podcast listeners can join without the sign up fee - so use this link! UNSCHOOLING 101 Course Math WITHOUT Curriculum Course Unschooling Transcript Course Seasonal Unschooling Guides Private 1:1 Coaching with Sue www.UnschoolingMom2Mom.com

Hugh Douglas has had enough of people coddling the Quarterback.

Hugh Douglas has had enough with the Eagles fan base being scared to criticize Jalen Hurts.

Adorno and the Ban on Images (Bloomsbury, 2022) upends some of the myths that have come to surround the work of the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno – not least amongst them, his supposed fatalism. Sebastian Truskolaski argues that Adorno's writings allow us to address what is arguably the central challenge of modern philosophy: how to picture a world beyond suffering and injustice without, at the same time, betraying its vital impulse. By re-appraising Adorno's writings on politics, philosophy, and art, this book reconstructs this notoriously difficult author's overall project from a radically new perspective (Adorno's famous 'standpoint of redemption'), and brings his central concerns to bear on the problems of today. On the one hand, this means reading Adorno alongside his principal interlocutors (including Kant, Marx and Benjamin). On the other hand, it means asking how his secular brand of social criticism can serve to safeguard the image of a better world – above all, when the invocation of this image occurs alongside Adorno's recurrent reference to the Old Testament ban on making images of God. By reading Adorno in this iconoclastic way, Adorno and the Ban on Images contributes to current debates about Utopia that have come to define political visions across the political spectrum. Lukas Hoffman is a Doctoral Candidate at the Carolina-Duke Graduate Program in German Studies and is currently supported by a DAAD research grant as a Visiting Scholar at the Humboldt University in Berlin. He is currently working on a book manuscript that examines how the persistence of religious imagery in German modernist lyric reimagines the ways in which traditional, religious attitudes overlap with revolutionary political thought. Recently, he has published an article in Monatshefte, titled “Love of Things: Reconsidering Adorno's Criticism of Rilke” (Summer 2022) and has a forthcoming article in New German Critique, titled “Abject Eve: A Revolutionary Reading of Lasker-Schüler's ‘Erkenntnis.'” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

HOUR 1 - CJ Stroud's Biggest CURRENT CRITICISM, & a Conversation We Must have Houston.. AND-Thanksgiving Food Assignments are SO SERIOUS Folks LOL full 2106 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:53:46 +0000 DUyPv8hH7IzbtKCiKfvQuCJs8DnSWCN7 nfl,mlb,nba,indianapolis colts,afc,cj stroud,houston texans,nico collins,daniel jones,colts,demeco ryans,afc south,nfl news,texans,astros,rockets,houston rockets,nba news,shane steichen,htown,nfl week 13,stroud,houston sports,nick caley,will anderson jr,afc south news,nfl news notes,houston texans news,texans news notes,houston texans news notes,colts news,colts news notes,sports The Drive with Stoerner and Hughley nfl,mlb,nba,indianapolis colts,afc,cj stroud,houston texans,nico collins,daniel jones,colts,demeco ryans,afc south,nfl news,texans,astros,rockets,houston rockets,nba news,shane steichen,htown,nfl week 13,stroud,houston sports,nick caley,will anderson jr,afc south news,nfl news notes,houston texans news,texans news notes,houston texans news notes,colts news,colts news notes,sports HOUR 1 - CJ Stroud's Biggest CURRENT CRITICISM, & a Conversation We Must have Houston.. AND-Thanksgiving Food Assignments are SO SERIOUS Folks LOL 2-6PM M-F © 2025 Audacy, Inc. Sports

Hello everyone and welcome back to The Wrestling Takeover on this Tuesday. This is State of The WWE as I talk Survivor Series and more. Subscribe to the YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@JTTakeoverThank you for listening. I talk all things WWE. The good, the bad, all of it. Socialshttps://instagram.com/@thewrestlingtakeoverhttps://twitter.com/@JTTakeover

As attacks continue between Kyiv and Moscow, American and Russian officials are holding Ukraine peace talks in Abu Dhabi today. We explain why James Comey and Letitia James' legal battles aren't over yet. The House is launching an investigation into alleged antisemitism in three school districts. Flights have been cancelled as a volcanic eruption spreads ash clouds across continents. Plus, next year's Met Gala is facing backlash over its sponsors. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When word spread that Peter had entered the home of gentile, it lead to criticism. Peter was called in to answer questions in Jersualem. But as Peter gave an explanation, his critics were moved. By the end of the passage, there was a new unity and a move of worship. We explore how Peter's message can help us find a similar unity and worship.

Top headlines for Tuesday, November 25, 2025In this episode, most congressional Republicans push the Trump administration to end mail-order abortion pills, and the North Dakota Supreme Court narrowly upholds one of the nation's strictest bans. Plus, we examine new research revealing that the Palestinian Authority's 2025-2026 school curriculum still contains inciting and hateful content despite calls for reform.00:11 175 lawmakers urge FDA to halt mail-order abortion drugs01:03 Texas imam linked to illegal Islamic law court listed as chaplain01:52 Marjorie Taylor Greene denies 2028 presidential run02:38 North Dakota Supreme Court upholds state abortion ban03:24 2819 Church fires Pastor Kenneth McFarland after arrest04:11 Palestinian Authority textbooks continue to teach hatred of Jews05:09 Michael Youssef to step down as pastor, focus on other ministrySubscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the News175 lawmakers urge FDA to halt mail-order abortion drugs | PoliticsTexas imam linked to illegal Islamic law court listed as chaplain | U.S.Marjorie Taylor Greene denies 2028 presidential run | PoliticsNorth Dakota Supreme Court upholds state abortion ban | Politics2819 Church fires Pastor Kenneth McFarland after arrest | Church & MinistriesPalestinian Authority textbooks continue to teach hatred of Jews | WorldMichael Youssef to step down as pastor, focus on other ministry | Church & Ministries

CJ Stroud's BIGGEST Current CRITICISM that We Must Examine More Closely, H-Town.. full 678 Tue, 25 Nov 2025 23:13:47 +0000 gEE984SrYUN3Q0WjH7O04b1oLLKJKXVy nfl,cj stroud,houston texans,demeco ryans,nfl news,texans,houston texans nfl,texans news,stroud,nfl news notes,sports The Drive with Stoerner and Hughley nfl,cj stroud,houston texans,demeco ryans,nfl news,texans,houston texans nfl,texans news,stroud,nfl news notes,sports CJ Stroud's BIGGEST Current CRITICISM that We Must Examine More Closely, H-Town.. 2-6PM M-F © 2025 Audacy, Inc. Sports False https://pla

Welcome to George's Self-Discovery Journey—a raw, real conversation inspired by the acclaimed movie, The Subtle Art of Losing Yourself. In this episode, George blazes a trail through the wild Scottish Highlands, bringing to life the core themes of his transformational film. If you're ready for something beyond the usual self-help chatter, this self-discovery Journey plunges you into discomfort and uncertainty—where letting go of control is the only way to discover your truth.George shares moments of falling apart and finding strength, trading comfort for courage. Be prepared for stories of surrender, of inner critics silenced in the mud and rain, and of what happens when you lose yourself to finally find what matters. No filters, no perfection—just the honesty of starting over, learning to cope, and the gritty reality of rediscovering yourself from the inside out. Whether you're struggling with burnout, searching for meaning, or daring to break old patterns, let The Subtle Art of Losing Yourself be your invitation to real personal change.Here is the Youtube link to he Subtle Art of Losing Yourself : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KArWcMldPMMore about George and his work here: https://www.youtube.com/@George-ThompsonFeeling stuck? If you need help getting out of your rut, Will can help - head to willnotfear.com to learn more about his coaching to get you off the hamster wheel. Looking for a great Speak or Coach - Jon Macaskill can help - learn more here:https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonmacaskill/More from MTM at: https://mentalkingmindfulness.com/ Chapters:00:00 – Introductions03:00 – How Film Mirrors Personal Discovery09:29 – Creativity, Presence, and the Filmmaking Flo15:43 – Parts Work Explained & Our Link to Nature24:09 – Staying Authentic While Creating Online28:38 – Leadership, Purpose, and a Shifting World29:32 – Finding Meaning in Service Through Social Platforms32:02 – Responding to Criticism with Self-Affirmation35:11 – The MMA Method for Daily Growth36:06 – Rewriting Self-Image Through Affirmations37:27 – Facing Fear with Presence and Mindfulness40:13 – The Practice of Returning to the Present41:51 – Nature, DNA, and Interconnected Life46:11 – Holding Unity in a Dualistic World48:27 – Personal Growth and Accepting the Self51:01 – Vulnerability, Openness, and Community ConnectionHosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.

Adorno and the Ban on Images (Bloomsbury, 2022) upends some of the myths that have come to surround the work of the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno – not least amongst them, his supposed fatalism. Sebastian Truskolaski argues that Adorno's writings allow us to address what is arguably the central challenge of modern philosophy: how to picture a world beyond suffering and injustice without, at the same time, betraying its vital impulse. By re-appraising Adorno's writings on politics, philosophy, and art, this book reconstructs this notoriously difficult author's overall project from a radically new perspective (Adorno's famous 'standpoint of redemption'), and brings his central concerns to bear on the problems of today. On the one hand, this means reading Adorno alongside his principal interlocutors (including Kant, Marx and Benjamin). On the other hand, it means asking how his secular brand of social criticism can serve to safeguard the image of a better world – above all, when the invocation of this image occurs alongside Adorno's recurrent reference to the Old Testament ban on making images of God. By reading Adorno in this iconoclastic way, Adorno and the Ban on Images contributes to current debates about Utopia that have come to define political visions across the political spectrum. Lukas Hoffman is a Doctoral Candidate at the Carolina-Duke Graduate Program in German Studies and is currently supported by a DAAD research grant as a Visiting Scholar at the Humboldt University in Berlin. He is currently working on a book manuscript that examines how the persistence of religious imagery in German modernist lyric reimagines the ways in which traditional, religious attitudes overlap with revolutionary political thought. Recently, he has published an article in Monatshefte, titled “Love of Things: Reconsidering Adorno's Criticism of Rilke” (Summer 2022) and has a forthcoming article in New German Critique, titled “Abject Eve: A Revolutionary Reading of Lasker-Schüler's ‘Erkenntnis.'” 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

Adorno and the Ban on Images (Bloomsbury, 2022) upends some of the myths that have come to surround the work of the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno – not least amongst them, his supposed fatalism. Sebastian Truskolaski argues that Adorno's writings allow us to address what is arguably the central challenge of modern philosophy: how to picture a world beyond suffering and injustice without, at the same time, betraying its vital impulse. By re-appraising Adorno's writings on politics, philosophy, and art, this book reconstructs this notoriously difficult author's overall project from a radically new perspective (Adorno's famous 'standpoint of redemption'), and brings his central concerns to bear on the problems of today. On the one hand, this means reading Adorno alongside his principal interlocutors (including Kant, Marx and Benjamin). On the other hand, it means asking how his secular brand of social criticism can serve to safeguard the image of a better world – above all, when the invocation of this image occurs alongside Adorno's recurrent reference to the Old Testament ban on making images of God. By reading Adorno in this iconoclastic way, Adorno and the Ban on Images contributes to current debates about Utopia that have come to define political visions across the political spectrum. Lukas Hoffman is a Doctoral Candidate at the Carolina-Duke Graduate Program in German Studies and is currently supported by a DAAD research grant as a Visiting Scholar at the Humboldt University in Berlin. He is currently working on a book manuscript that examines how the persistence of religious imagery in German modernist lyric reimagines the ways in which traditional, religious attitudes overlap with revolutionary political thought. Recently, he has published an article in Monatshefte, titled “Love of Things: Reconsidering Adorno's Criticism of Rilke” (Summer 2022) and has a forthcoming article in New German Critique, titled “Abject Eve: A Revolutionary Reading of Lasker-Schüler's ‘Erkenntnis.'” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/art

Thoughts & Attitudes | Week 3: Gratitude (In Contrast to Criticism) // Ryland Walter // In this series, we'll explore how God can renew your mind and transform your attitude out of contempt and criticism into honor and gratitude. We'll find that our inner world shapes our outer life.

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports New York's Mayor-Elect Mamdani stands by his criticism of President Trump criticism despite that friendly White House meeting.

How do you learn how to get over drunken mistakes when the same patterns keep repeating? Jennifer spent years convincing herself that each catastrophic night was just an isolated incident—until she couldn't ignore the data points anymore. Raised to suppress her emotions in a predominantly white neighborhood as a Salvadorian, she developed an identity crisis early on that followed her into adulthood. From blackouts at age 21 to nights in jail, from ruined relationships to a devastating trip to Cabo that nearly cost her everything, Jennifer's story reveals the brutal honesty required for change. In this episode, Jennifer joins Coach Cole to explore how childhood trauma shapes adult coping mechanisms, why shame keeps us stuck in destructive cycles, and how journaling and compassion can illuminate the path forward. Jennifer and Coach Cole discuss: Seeing “slip-ups” as compassionate data points instead of proof you've failed. Jennifer's “nine fine, one catastrophic” pattern that exposes the truth about moderation. How insecurity, FOMO, and feeling out of place quietly drove her drinking choices. Hearing “You cannot drink” from family as loving clarity and necessary boundaries. Using honest journaling to remember the full impact of drinking when cravings show up. How to get over drunken mistakes by softening shame and meeting yourself with curiosity and grace. And more… Related Episodes: What Are The Signs of Relapse? | Reader Question | E708 - https://thisnakedmind.com/ep-708-readers-question-what-are-the-signs-of-relapse/ How Do You Deal With Feeling Ashamed or Embarrassed About Drinking? | Reader Question | E406 - https://thisnakedmind.com/ep-406-reader-question-how-do-you-deal-with-feeling-ashamed-or-embarrassed-about-drinking/ How To Explore Drinking Without Judgment | Alcohol Freedom Coaching | E813 - https://thisnakedmind.com/how-to-explore-drinking-without-judgment-alcohol-freedom-coaching-e813/ Ready to take the next step on your journey? Visit https://learn.thisnakedmind.com/podcast-resources for free resources, programs, and more. Until next week, stay curious! Quince For your next trip, treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve from Quince. Go to Quince.com/naked for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns Hungryroot Get 40% off your first box + a free item for life at Hungryroot.com/nakedmind with code nakedmind Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com/mind Cozy Earth Black Friday came early at Cozy Earth! Stack my code NAKEDMIND with their sitewide sale for up to 40% off.

Opening Context The famous phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid” stresses the importance of economic perception in politics. Dissatisfaction with the economy often leads to blame on the sitting president. Criticism of Biden Administration Claims Biden’s tenure caused high inflation (up to 9%) and wage decline (approx. $3,000 loss in take-home pay). Biden favored policies benefiting foreign-born workers and illegal immigration, harming American workers. Trump Administration Achievements Jobs Report: September added 119,000 new jobs, more than double expectations. Construction Jobs: Surged by 19,000—the largest monthly gain in a year. Wages: Up 3.8% year-over-year; real wages projected to increase $1,200 annually. Inflation: Claimed to be under control compared to Biden era. Private Sector Growth: Most jobs went to native-born citizens. Foreign Investment Surge Lists massive investments from countries and corporations (UAE, Qatar, Japan, Apple, EU firms, Saudi Arabia, SoftBank, Nvidia, etc.). Total U.S. and foreign investment cited as $9 trillion. Highlights Trump’s “America First” policy requiring companies to invest domestically. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

First Take resumes with Jalen Hurt's win-loss record over the past two seasons: 24-5. Why do we criticize him so much? Are you more excited to watch Shedeur Sanders makes his first start, or the Cowboys attempt to take down their dominant division rival? Tyrese Maxey dropped 54 points vs the Bucks, becoming one of 21 players all time with at least three career 50/5/5 games. Stephen A. is impressed with his game! Joe Fortenbaugh stops by to give us his best bets for an awesome weekend of football! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is our NEW RELEASE review podcast, ONE HOT TAKE.Synopsis:When Ashley asks for a divorce, the good-natured Carey runs to his friends, Julie and Paul, for support. Their secret to happiness is an open marriage; that is, until Carey crosses the line and throws all of their relationships into chaos.Sean BurnsSean Burns is a film critic for WBUR's Arts & Culture and a contributing writer at North Shore Movies and Crooked Marquee. He was Philadelphia Weekly's lead film critic from 1999 through 2013, and worked as a contributing editor at The Improper Bostonian from 2006 until 2014. His reviews, interviews and essays have also appeared in Metro, The Village Voice, Rolling Stone, The Boston Herald, Nashville Scene, Time Out New York, Philadelphia City Paper and RogerEbert.com.A graduate of New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, Burns was a recurring guest on the late David Brudnoy's WBZ 1030 AM radio show, and in 2002 received an award for Excellence in Criticism from the Greater Philadelphia Society of Professional Journalists. Currently a member of the Online Film Critics Society and the Critics Choice Association, he's also “the most annoyingest person ever,” according to his niece.WEBSITE: splicedpersonality.comTWITTER: @SeanMBurnsOne Heat Minute ProductionsWEBSITE: oneheatminute.comTWITTER: @OneBlakeMinute & @OHMPodsMERCH: https://www.teepublic.com/en-au/stores/one-heat-minute-productionsSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/one-heat-minute-productions/exclusive-contentAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Stefan Molyneux analyzes women's achievements in academia through a social media post by a new PhD graduate in entomology. He contrasts societal reactions to success between women and men, discussing the supportive "buoyancy" encountered by women versus the criticism often faced by men. Broader implications are examined, including potential cultural disconnection from prioritizing women's education over traditional roles like motherhood. Stefan calls for a deeper understanding of how individual accomplishments impact familial structures and societal values.https://x.com/StefanMolyneux/status/1991218733092626936SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneuxFollow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!https://peacefulparenting.com/Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!See you soon!https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

In this episode, we discuss the rising backlash to last week's comments about Nick Fuentes, the distinction between personal judgment and deplatforming, and the broader question of what ideas belong in public discourse. We explore the failures of remedial education across major universities, the collapsing academic standards that allow students to advance without basic literacy and numeracy, and the systemic incentives that push institutions to “get students through” rather than educate them. We examine the roots of the public-school crisis, the role of property-tax funding, the constraints of unionized pay structures, and why market incentives and genuine school choice may be the only workable path forward. We also revisit lessons from the Soviet Union, grocery-store abundance, and what markets reveal about human flourishing in ways central planning never can. 00:00 Introduction and Overview 01:19 The Camino Story and Unexpected Love of Hiking 05:03 Walking Ancient Roman Roads with Modern Tech 07:50 Criticism, Free Speech, and the Nick Fuentes Debate 13:24 Where to Draw the Line on Platforming Extremists 14:49 The Difference Between Preference and Censorship 18:43 Foolishness of the Week: University of Arizona AI Prompting Class 20:13 College Remediation and the Math Skills Crisis 23:08 The Collapse of Writing Standards in Higher Education 24:31 Why Students Aren't Being Educated Before College 29:08 Public Schools, Property Taxes, and Unequal Outcomes 33:53 Why Money and Teacher Quality Don't Correlate 35:34 School Choice, Competition, and Market Incentives 37:02 Why Centralized Solutions Don't Work in Education 39:50 Markets, Feedback Loops, and Real Accountability 46:11 Closing Thoughts and Listener Send-Off 47:33 Aftershow: Khrushchev, Yeltsin, and the Grocery Store Lesson 53:51 The Power of Markets: Food, Abundance, and Freedom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

BUY YOUR TICKETS TO THE "MAN ON WATER" TOUR NOW!https://www.thegeorgejankoshow.com/Text Me To Perform In Your City! (602) 932-8118 Follow George! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/georgejanko Twitter: https://twitter.com/GeorgeJanko TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@georgejanko Follow Shawna! Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/shawnadellaricca/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@ShawnaDellaRiccaOfficial Follow Grant! (Video / Edit)  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/blaccwellBusiness Inquiries Email: george@divisionmedia.coTimestamps:01:04 Football and Faith: Chaplain for the Seahawks01:41 Introduction to Judah Smith: A Long-Awaited Guest02:04 Early Faith: From Childhood to Preaching03:01 Marriage and Temptation: Honest Conversations07:29 The Role of Community in Faith20:59 The Struggle with Pride and Ego30:00 Jesus' Healing Methods: A Lesson in Faith32:08 The Mystery of God's Kingdom39:54 Balancing Fame and Faith41:34 Timothy's Criticism and Paul's Encouragement42:21 The Power of Receiving in Faith43:47 Gratitude and the Story of Cain and Abel44:41 Mary vs. Martha: Choosing the Better Part51:26 The First Mention of Grace in the Bible53:05 The Reflection of Grace in Noah's Story54:31 Finding Rest in Jesus01:07:57 The Role of Confession and Vulnerability01:10:36 The Story of Zacchaeus01:15:11 Jesus' Transformative Power01:16:21 The Beauty of Jesus' Message01:17:09 The Timeless Wisdom of Jesus01:17:43 The Compassion of Jesus01:18:47 Balancing Faith and Parenting01:20:10 Parenting Reflections01:21:39 Scandal and Rumors01:23:28 Handling Criticism and Friendship01:25:50 The Role of a Spiritual Leader01:29:09 The Influence of Fame01:30:05 Legacy of a Father01:31:29 The Power of Humility01:41:35 The Journey with Justin Bieber01:49:37 The Challenges of Fame and Faith01:57:39 Final Reflections and Gratitude

In this insightful episode of "Crafting a Meaningful Life," host Mary Crafts engages in a compelling conversation with Sandy Rosenthal, a formidable force in bringing engineering accountability for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Sandy shares her journey from being a concerned New Orleans resident to becoming the leading voice uncovering the truth behind the failed levees. Her story is one of determination, resilience, and unwavering commitment to justice and transparency, epitomized by her organization, Levees.org, and her book, "Words Whispered in Water." The episode delves deeply into the factors that drove Sandy to challenge the misleading narratives post-Katrina and how her efforts catalyzed significant changes in federal levee design policies. Sandy discusses overcoming fears and criticisms, the importance of knowing the right questions rather than having all the answers, and the power of community and expert support in driving systemic change. Her tale is not just one of personal achievement, but an inspiring account of how one individual's advocacy can influence national policy and save lives. About the Guest: Sandy Rosenthal is an acclaimed activist, author, and founder of Levees.org. With over 40 years of residency in New Orleans, Sandy has become a pivotal figure in documenting and bringing to light the engineering failures that led to the catastrophic flooding from Hurricane Katrina. Through her relentless advocacy and detailed investigations, Sandy has successfully impacted levee policy in the U.S., prompting significant acknowledgment from federal agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers. Key Takeaways: Levees Failures and Accountability: Sandy highlights the critical engineering errors by the Army Corps of Engineers and the resultant levee failures in New Orleans—an oversight that led to catastrophic flooding. Power of One: Rosenthal's story illustrates how one determined individual can influence both public perception and policy, emphasizing the importance of speaking up and seeking truth. Criticism as a Tool: Sandy encourages welcoming criticism as it provides valuable insights and information crucial to advancing one's cause. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): Sandy leveraged FOIA to obtain vital information regarding levees, showcasing this as a powerful tool for any activist's arsenal. Self-Care Importance: Maintaining personal well-being is crucial during activism. Sandy emphasizes the role of self-care in sustaining long-term advocacy efforts. Resources: Sandy Rosenthal's Book: Words Whispered in Water  Website: Levees.org MaryCraftsInc Website

- Gerry argues that new revelations about the Epstein scandal are poised to backfire on Democrats, exposing long-ignored connections and alleged hypocrisy. - Released testimony and records repeatedly clear Donald Trump of wrongdoing while implicating numerous high-profile Democrats and media members. - Criticism of FBI handling of the attempted Trump assassination and other political controversies, portraying them as part of widespread institutional corruption. Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://Newsmax.com/Listen⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://NewsmaxPlus.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/shop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/FB⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -X/Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://nws.mx/IG⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -YouTube: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Rumble: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -TRUTH Social: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -GETTR: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://gettr.com/user/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Threads: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -Telegram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://t.me/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  -BlueSky: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Parler: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://app.parler.com/newsmax⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

- Interview with Patrick Byrne on Election Fraud and Bolshevik Revolution (0:00) - CloudFlare Internet Outage and Vulnerabilities (2:03) - Brighteon's AI Engine and Decentralization Efforts (4:39) - Comparison of AI Engines: Brighteon vs. Google and X (8:02) - Special Report: Brighteon AI Slays Google Gemini 3 and Grok 4.1 (12:03) - Epstein Files and Political Manipulation (25:33) - Jeffrey Epstein's Role and the Depopulation Agenda (29:26) - Patrick Byrne's Role in Exposing Election Fraud (44:51) - The Role of Smartmatic and Election Manipulation (55:29) - The Future of Election Integrity and Trump's Role (1:04:09) - Critique of President's Actions and Internal Obstacles (1:06:16) - Threats and Resistance Within the Administration (1:19:11) - Personal Support and Criticism of Trump (1:20:18) - The Enemy Within and Traitorous Actions (1:21:29) - Availability and Impact of the Documentary and Book (1:23:08) - Grand Jury Impaneled and Final Remarks (1:24:13) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport  NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

Welcome to another episode of Good Morning Liberty! In this special 'speed dating' edition, hosts Nate Thurston and Charles Chuck Thompson dive into politics, culture, and recent key events. They discuss the surprising passage of the Epstein Bill by the Senate, its implications, and public reaction. The hosts also explore deeper philosophical questions about the importance of addressing societal issues and influencing culture and policy. Additionally, they touch on libertarian philosophy, the controversy around prominent figures like Ron Paul and Dave Smith, and the ongoing struggle for liberty in modern politics. Tune in for an engaging and thought-provoking discussion! 00:00 Intro 00:36 The Importance of Political Awareness 03:50 Big News: The Epstein Bill 13:53 Libertarian Debates and Criticisms 21:03 Using Political Tactics for Liberty 21:56 Criticism and Marketing in Politics 23:39 The Importance of Both Theory and Action 25:03 Engaging the Public with Practical Ideas 30:03 Personal Journey to Libertarianism 37:12 Balancing Idealism and Pragmatism 40:00 Conclusion and Call to Action  

The guys spent the first hour of the show discussing what they believe is a lack of vitriol towards Jameson Williams. Then, they did today's CFB edition of "Can We Say That?"

Mike and Rico can't understand how some people believe any criticism of Jameson Williams is racially motivated.

Government Shutdown Context The shutdown lasted over 40 days, beginning October 1 and ending after a Senate vote (60–40) and subsequent House approval. A stopgap funding measure was passed to keep the government operating until January 30, while negotiations for a long-term appropriations bill continue. Political Narrative Democrats are responsible for the shutdown, accusing them of: Blocking votes to fund programs like SNAP (food stamps). Intentionally prolonging the shutdown to harm Americans and blame Trump. Republicans are portrayed as consistently voting for “clean” funding extensions. Impact of Shutdown Economic and social harm cited: Missed paychecks for over 1 million federal workers. 20,000 flight cancellations/delays due to air traffic controller shortages. Disruption of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans. Financial strain on contractors and small businesses. President Trump’s Remarks Trump’s speech during the signing of the bill includes: Accusations of Democratic “extortion” and prioritizing illegal immigrants. Calls to terminate the filibuster to prevent future shutdowns. Celebration of economic achievements: record stock market highs, lower gas prices, and tax cuts. Criticism of Obamacare, proposing direct payments to citizens for healthcare instead of insurance companies. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Shutdown Status & Deal Progress The shutdown began on October 1 and is now at day 41. A bipartisan deal involving Republicans, President Trump, and eight moderate Democrats is close to passing. The deal would: Reopen the government until January 30. Fund programs like SNAP (food stamps), veterans benefits, and other federal services. Reverse layoffs of federal workers and block further firings until January 30. Commit to a future vote on extending Obamacare subsidies. Impact on Air Travel there are severe flight cancellations and delays due to air traffic controller shortages. FAA ordered airlines to cut flights by 4%, with Delta canceling nearly 500 flights and United following similar measures. President Trump ordered all air traffic controllers back to work and threatened pay docking for absentees, while promising $10,000 bonuses for those who worked through the shutdown. Political Dynamics Democrats are deliberately prolonging the shutdown for leverage. Internal Democratic Party civil war: Criticism of Chuck Schumer’s leadership. Calls from Democrats and media figures for Schumer to step down. Growing influence of progressive wing (e.g., Bernie Sanders, AOC faction). Republicans argue Democrats used Americans as “leverage” in a political game. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.