Podcasts about eastern european jewish

In this enriching episode of "Crafting a Meaningful Life," Mary Crafts engages in an inspiring conversation with Robyn Cohen, a leading figure in women's advocacy and entrepreneurship. Robyn shares her journey from her multicultural roots in Toronto to her international career of dual pathways in business development and women's advocacy. The discussion highlights the importance of women in leadership roles across all industries and addresses the existing disparities that persist. The episode delves into the essence of women's advocacy and why it still matters profoundly in today's world. Robyn Cohen explains her perspective on leadership gaps, empowerment, and the need for more women in influential positions to foster change in areas such as women's health. The pair converse about the scarcity mindset that sometimes impedes women's support for one another and how essential it is to move toward a collective mindset of abundance and authenticity. About the Guest: Robyn Cohen is a dynamic leader in women's advocacy and a successful entrepreneur with a focus on business development, operations, and empowerment. Originally from Toronto, Canada, Robyn's diverse background includes Jamaican and Eastern European Jewish heritage. Over her career, she's launched significant initiatives aimed at uplifting women through technology and advocacy, such as the Los Angeles chapter of Girls in Tech. Currently, she is involved in her family's business, which revolutionized shopping mall advertising, and is exploring new ventures in the media space. Episode Summary: Key Takeaways: Abundance Mindset: Embrace an abundance mindset, understanding that there is room for everyone to succeed, drawing parallels with competitive brands thriving side by side. Empowerment through Leadership: Increasing the representation of women in leadership positions not only empowers women but also drives holistic improvements across various sectors. Importance of Authenticity: Staying true to one's authentic self is central to crafting a meaningful life and effectively supporting others. Role of Experience: Personal and challenging experiences are crucial for growth, offering the lessons necessary to develop insight and discernment. Lifelong Engagement: Continuous participation in business and community initiatives can enhance vitality and extend productive life stages beyond traditional retirement. Resources: Universal Media Robyn on LinkedIn Tune in to the full episode for more on Robyn Cohen's insights into women's advocacy, the power of authenticity, and the entrepreneurial spirit that drives positive change. Stay tuned for more inspiring content on "Crafting a Meaningful Life."

Hankus Netsky joined "The Shmooze" to talk about his upcoming Morris Hollender 100th birthday concert. In conversation we spoke about how interest in Eastern European Jewish musical traditions has experienced an unprecedented resurgence in recent years and how the melodies that Morris Hollender brought over from his birthplace in a small farming village in the Carpathian Mountains have become a major pillar of that resurgence. An Auschwitz concentration camp survivor, Hollender came to the Boston area from Czechoslovakia in 1967. The program will include little-known melodies that Hollender learned as a child in the Munkacs region of Eastern Czechoslovakia (now Ukraine) and shared generously with Temple Beth Israel members and others during his years in the United States. The concert will take at Temple Beth Israel located at 25 Harvard St, Waltham, MA 02453. Tickets and more information are available at https://tbiwaltham.org/concert/. Episode 389 April 14, 2025 Amherst, MA

Jake Cohen didn't care much about Jewish food when he went to culinary school and worked in high end restaurants. But when he met his future husband, Jake was introduced to the Middle Eastern Jewish recipes of his in-laws, like tahdig and kubbeh. Soon, he was mining his own family's Eastern European Jewish recipes, and putting his spin on matzo ball soup and kasha varnishkes. Earlier this year Jake published his first cookbook, Jew-ish: Reinvented Recipes From A Modern Mensch, and he's become a social media star. Ahead of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year), Dan and Jake talk about the controversial ingredient Jake adds to tahdig, whether Rosh Hashanah brisket is overhyped, and why personality is so important in online food videos.This episode originally aired on August 30, 2021, and was produced by Dan Pashman, Emma Morgenstern, and Andres O'Hara. Edited by Tracey Samuelson. Mixed by Jared O'Connell. The Sporkful team now includes Dan Pashman, Emma Morgenstern, Andres O'Hara, Nora Ritchie, and Jared O'Connell. This update was produced by Gianna Palmer. Publishing by Shantel Holder and transcription by Emily Nguyen.Every other Friday, we reach into our deep freezer and reheat an episode to serve up to you. We're calling these our Reheats. If you have a show you want reheated, send us an email or voice memo at hello@sporkful.com, and include your name, your location, which episode, and why.Transcript available at www.sporkful.com.Right now, Sporkful listeners can get three months free of the SiriusXM app by going to siriusxm.com/sporkful. Get all your favorite podcasts, more than 200 ad-free music channels curated by genre and era, and live sports coverage with the SiriusXM app.

The Sould of Jewish Food Presented by Dylan Maysick, co-owner Diaspora Dinners Links to Recipes @ CulinaryHistorians.org: Coconut Macaroons with Chocolate, Pistachio, and Orange Blossom Halloumi and Orange Salad with Pomegranate, Pistachio, and Herbs Montreal Bagels What is Jewish food? That is the question Dylan Maysick has been on a quest to answer through his Diaspora Dinner project, a Chicago-based series of dinners that explores the cuisines of the Jewish Diaspora. Dylan, a professional baker by trade, follows the common thread of what makes up Jewish food; and it's a lot more than bagels, and chopped liver. He said that while his knowledge had been limited to Jewish deli foods and the greatest hits of Eastern European Jewish cuisine “I now know that Jewish cuisine represents a much more diverse set of recipes, cultures, and ingredients.” Come join us as Dylan serves a savory summary of the history of Jewish food from ancient times to the state of Jewish food culture in America today. (“Do Chinese food and Jewish food overlap on Christmas, only for that one special day?” Dylan asks.) *** Recorded via Zoom on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 CONNECT WITH CULINARY HISTORIANS OF CHICAGO ✔ MEMBERSHIP https://culinaryhistorians.org/membership/ ✔ EMAIL LIST http://culinaryhistorians.org/join-our-email-list/ ✔ S U B S C R I B E https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6Y0-9lTi1-JYu22Bt4_-9w ✔ F A C E B O O K https://www.facebook.com/CulinaryHistoriansOfChicago ✔ PODCAST 2008 to Present https://culinaryhistorians.org/podcasts/ By Presenter https://culinaryhistorians.org/podcasts-by-presenter/ ✔ YOUTUBE https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6Y0-9lTi1-JYu22Bt4_-9w ✔ W E B S I T E https://www.CulinaryHistorians.org

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. 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

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

In The Radical Isaac: I. L. Peretz and the Rise of Jewish Socialism (SUNY Press, 2023), Adi Mahalel presents Yiddish and Hebrew writer I. L. Peretz (1852–1915) in a new radical light we've never seen him in before. Conceived in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2011/12 Occupy Wall Street movement and social protests in Israel/Palestine, and against the backdrop of the Bernie Sander's campaigns in the United States, Mahalel revisits the radical period of the 1890s and recasts Peretz as an "organic intellectual" (Antonio Gramsci) of the Eastern European Jewish working class complementing the political work of the incipient socialist, diaspora nationalist movement of the Jewish Labor Bund. By offering close readings of the "radical" Peretz in Yiddish and Hebrew and following a partly chronological, partly thematic scheme, this study traces Peretz's radicalism from its inception through the various ways in which it was synchronically expressed during this intense period of history. It shows how this writer-cum-activist became instrumental in the realm of culture in the rise of ethno-class-consciousness among the Eastern European Jewish working class at the turn century. Adi Mahalel received his doctoral degree in Hebrew and Yiddish Studies at Columbia University and is Visiting Assistant Professor of Yiddish Studies. His articles have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as AJS REVIEW, Studies in American Jewish Literature, Israel Studies Review, and Kesher: Journal of Media and Communications History in Israel and the Jewish World. Mahalel was a culture columnist at the Yiddish Forward. Miriam Chorley-Schulz is an Assistant Professor and Mokin Fellow of Holocaust Studies at the University of Oregon and the co-founder of the EU-funded project We Refugees. Digital Archive on Refugeedom, Past and Present. She holds a Ph.D. in Yiddish Studies from Columbia University and was the Ray D. Wolfe Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre of Jewish Studies and the Centre of Transnational and Diaspora Studies at the University of Toronto. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Embark on a captivating journey through the extraordinary life of Devorah Romm, a pioneering businesswoman in 19th-century Lithuania, who reshaped the literary landscape of Eastern European Jewish communities. Whether breaking copyright rules, crafting the opulent Vilna Shas, implementing a groundbreaking business strategy, or obtaining rare manuscripts from the Vatican, Devorah was unafraid of taking charge and defying expectations. Join Yael and Schwab as they uncover the legacy of Devorah Romm, a trailblazer who not only rose to each challenge presented, but flourished in ways unimaginable for woman at the time, leaving an everlasting mark on the Jewish world. This episode was hosted by Jonathan Schwab and Yael Steiner. Our education lead is Dr. Henry Abramson. Audio was edited by Rob Pera, and we're produced by Rivky Stern. For more on the Devorah Romm, and this episode: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rYN4Yq7nBzV58YD68FRsfLkIKEjU_qp0RI9DF6wTusg/edit#heading=h.oefh2lmsj39c This podcast was brought to you by Unpacked, a division of OpenDor Media. For other podcasts from Unpacked, check out: Jewish History Nerds Unpacking Israeli History Soulful Jewish Living

Journalist and genealogist Jennifer Mendelsohn helps rediscover and tell stories that might otherwise be lost. She specializes in helping Eastern European Jewish families shattered by the Holocaust reclaim their history. In 2022, she co-founded the DNA Reunion Project at the Center for Jewish History, which seeks to promote DNA testing as a tool for helping Holocaust survivors find family. Her curiosity practices have deep journalistic roots and she'd be the first to tell you: it's not magic. Find Jennifer Mendelsohn at The Association of Professional Genealogists: https://www.apgen.org/profiles/jennifer-mendelsohn

EPISODE 1867: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Steven Ujifusa, author of THE LAST SHIPS FROM HAMBURG, about the race to save Russia's Jews on the eve of World War ISteven Ujifusa is a historian and a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His third book, The Last Ships from Hamburg: Business, Rivalry, and the Race to Save Russia's Jews on the Eve of World War I, tells the story of Eastern European Jewish immigration to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It will be published by HarperCollins in November 2023. Principal characters will include the fin de siècle triumvirate of J.P. Morgan, Jacob Schiff, and Albert Ballin. To preorder The Last Ships from Hamburg, visit the HarperCollins book website. His second book, Barons of the Sea: And Their Race to Build the World's Fastest Clipper Ship, tells the saga of the great 19th century American clipper ships and the Yankee merchant dynasties they created. In 2012, The Wall Street Journal named his first book, A Man and His Ship: America's Greatest Naval Architect and His Quest to Build the SS United States (Simon & Schuster), as one of the 10 best nonfiction books of the year. Steven is the recipient of the Washington Irving Medal for Literary Excellence from the Saint Nicholas Society of the City of New York, a MacDowell artist residency, and the Athenaeum of Philadelphia's Literary Award for Non-Fiction. He has appeared on National Public Radio, CBS Sunday Morning, and numerous other media outlets. He is a frequent contributor to the urban history website PhillyHistory.org. As a corporate historian, he is also the author of Local for the Long-Term, a history of Airgas, Inc., and Creative Capital, the official history of J.M. Forbes & Company, one of the oldest independent financial services firms in the United States. A native of New York City and raised in Chappaqua, New York, Steven received his undergraduate degree in history from Harvard University and a joint masters in historic preservation and real estate development from the University of Pennsylvania. He is a rowing member of the University Barge Club and a singing member of the Orpheus Club. Steven resides in Philadelphia with his wife Alexandra (an emergency room pediatrician) and two sons. ​Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

In this podcast, Professor Cary Cooper shares his extensive experience of working to create healthier and happier workplaces. Cary shares his belief that in times of rapid social change, organizational workplaces are more important than ever as sites that can provide healthy environments that support our well-being. Cary identifies key turning points that informed his work; firstly in the 1970s  stress was for the first time identified as a big challenge, and the response was to support the individual to cope with their stress better, e.g. stress management and responses such as today's mindfulness. In the 2008 financial crash and the subsequent 'job restructuring' when organizations stripped their workforce to the minimum, Cary observed a change in workplace responses when a manager said to him that the number one challenge he had was staff retention. This began a shift whereby organizations weren't so concerned with managing individual stress but realized they had to provide workplaces that offered healthy environments where employees could flourish, in order to ensure their well-being, get the best performance from them and to retain them. Cary identifies the line manager as perhaps the key ingredient for a healthy and productive workplace. Most line managers are chosen for their technical ability, and yet their role is vital in terms of people management skills. Reflecting on the UK's focus on growth, he points to the lack of a policy that focuses on this key area of people management; improving this he believes would be vital to increase growth. Cary reflects on his personal journey and shares that his life from an Eastern European Jewish working-class background story continues to impact on him,  citing the constant need to 'prove himself' as the driver of his success. This is a wonderful podcast with one of the great figures of our generation, who has contributed to organizational health and well-being.  Enjoy the listen! Bio: Professor Sir Cary Cooper Cary L. Cooper is the 50th Anniversary Professor of Organizational Psychology and Health at the Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. He is a founding President of the British Academy of Management, Immediate Past President of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), former President of RELATE and President of the Institute of Welfare. He was the Founding Editor of the Journal of Organizational Behavior, former Editor of the scholarly journal Stress and Health and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Management, now in its' 3rd Edition. He has been an advisor to the World Health Organisation, ILO, and EU in the field of occupational health and wellbeing, was Chair of the Global Agenda Council on Chronic Disease of the World Economic Forum (2009-2010), then served for 5 years on the Global Agenda Council for mental health of the WEF, and was Chair of the Academy of Social Sciences 2009-2015. He was Chair of the Sunningdale Institute in the Cabinet Office and National School of Government 2005-2010. Professor Cooper is currently the Chair of the National Forum for Health & Wellbeing at Work (comprising 40 global companies e.g. BP, Microsoft, NHS Executive, UK government (wellbeing lead) , Rolls Royce, John Lewis Partnership, etc.). Professor Cooper is the author/editor of over 250 books in the field of occupational health psychology, workplace wellbeing, women at work and occupational stress. He was awarded the CBE by the Queen for his contributions to occupational health; and in 2014 he was awarded a Knighthood for his contribution to the social sciences.

Host Scott Fisher opens the show with David Allen Lambert, Chief Genealogist of the New England Historic Genealogical Society and AmericanAncestors.org. The guys begin with David's recent amazing discovery while visiting the National Archives. In Family Histoire News, David tells the story of a pre-photographic era artist from Virginia whose silhouettes from 1803 to 1812 have been digitized. Then, a treasure trove of Neanderthal tools and remnants has been discovered. David has details. Next, one of the more bizarre stories you'll hear anytime soon is about a giant meatball that contains DNA from the Wooly Mammoth and other extinct creatures. President Biden is learning about his ancestry in Ireland. And a kitchen renovation in England has revealed some insane 17th century artwork! Next, Fisher visits with Jewish researcher Kathryne Thorne from sponsor Legacy Tree Genealogists. Kathryne will explain why your Russian Jewish ancestry may not be so Russian after all. She also explains the challenges of Eastern European Jewish research. Fisher then talks with author Anne Hansen about her book “Buried Secrets- Looking for Frank and Ida.” These were Anne's grandparents who apparently had no past! Hear about Anne's research process and how she writes in a fascinating genre called “Creative Non-Fiction.” David then returns for another round of Ask Us Anything. That's all this week on Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show!

HELLO FRIENDS, WELCOME BACK TO FLAVORS AND KNOWLEDGE THE FOOD LEANING PODCAST WHERE WE STRIVE FOR HONEST FOOD TALK AND FEW OPINIONS. I AM YOUR HOST CHEF WALTER. Today we'll talk about the history of Jewish Delis. If we turn the clock backward for a few years, we'll notice that Jewish delis in New York City began in the late 19th century when Eastern European Jewish immigrants settled there. These immigrants brought their homeland's culinary traditions, including pickled herring, smoked fish, and pastrami.   In the big apple, delis appeared on small storefronts that sold traditional Jewish foods like bagels, lox, and gefilte fish. These delis quickly became popular gathering places for the Jewish community and soon became an essential part of Jewish culture in the city. As the popularity of Jewish delis grew, they expanded their menus and offerings to include a wider variety of foods, such as matzo ball soup, knishes, and corned beef. These delis also began to develop their unique style, with large, ornate displays of meats and pickled vegetables, murals, and other decorative elements.   In the mid-20th century, Jewish delis reached the height of their popularity, with hundreds of delis scattered throughout the city. These delis were often bustling, noisy places where customers would line up for hours to taste their favorite foods. However, in the latter portion of the 20th century, the popularity of Jewish delis began to wane as the Jewish population in New York City declined, and younger generations moved away from traditional Jewish foods. Today, only a handful of delis continue to serve traditional Jewish foods and provide a taste of the city's rich cultural heritage, most located in the Brooklyn and Queens neighborhoods. For more info, visit www.flavorsandknowledge.com --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/walter-potenza/message

Klezmer music is a form of Jewish folk music that originated in Eastern European Jewish communities in the 15th century. It is characterized by its lively, expressive melodies, the use of traditional instruments such as the violin, clarinet, and accordion, and its ability to evoke both joy and melancholy. In this episode, Walter Zev Feldman, the Artistic Director of The Klezmer Institute, talks about his life, background, and his work spearheading the revival of Klezmer music.  00:36- About Walter Zev Feldman Walter Zev Feldman is credited with spearheading the revival of Klezmer music in the 1970s, bringing to life this relatively unknown form of traditional Jewish music.  He is not only a Klezmer musician and dancer, but also an academic who has written many books and articles on a variety of subjects, including music, poetry, mysticism, and dance.  He is now exploring the role of gesture in the performing arts and its relationship to klezmer. His book,  Music of the Ottoman Court: Makam, Composition, and the Early Ottoman Instrumental Repertoire (Berlin, 1996) are taught as a basic text worldwide.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tbcy/support

Host Scott Fisher opens the show with David Allen Lambert, Chief Genealogist of the New England Historic Genealogical Society and AmericanAncestors.org. The guys begin with David's recent amazing discovery while visiting the National Archives. In Family Histoire News, David tells the story of a pre-photographic era artist from Virginia whose silhouettes from 1803 to 1812 have been digitized. Then, a treasure trove of Neanderthal tools and remnants has been discovered. David has details. Next, one of the more bizarre stories you'll hear anytime soon is about a giant meatball that contains DNA from the Wooly Mammoth and other extinct creatures. President Biden is learning about his ancestry in Ireland. And a kitchen renovation in England has revealed some insane 17th century artwork! Next, Fisher visits with Jewish researcher Katheryne Thorne from sponsor Legacy Tree Genealogists. Katheryne will explain why your Russian Jewish ancestry may not be so Russian after all. She also explains the challenges of Eastern European Jewish research. Fisher then talks with author Anne Hansen about her book “Buried Secrets- Looking for Frank and Ida.” These were Anne's grandparents who apparently had no past! Hear about Anne's research process and how she writes in a fascinating genre called “Creative Non-Fiction.” David then returns for another round of Ask Us Anything. That's all this week on Extreme Genes, America's Family History Show!

Greetings Oddities!    This week i finally take the initial dive deep down the rabbit hole on the history of the Cold War era Congress For Cultural Freedom. Talk about culture creators, and influencers. This group of mostly former Communists, and Trotskyites turned Social Democrats were behind various formed of art, literary works including Expressionist Art, Plays, Concerts, Festivals, Conventions, Movies like Dr. Zhivago, and Books From authors like Arthur Koestler, and Hannah Arendt. Odd Man Out Patreon  https://www.patreon.com/theoddmanout   Thank You For Your Continued Support.   Show Notes They had offices in numerous countries, & high-end magazines as well which featured articles written by authors like Bertrand Russell, & George Orwell. Congress For Cultural Freedom Code Name-QKopera Frances Stonor Saunders https://youtu.be/FYLoyyR1qtI Spawned out of group humanist, & Fabian John Dewey formed In 1939 called the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom” which continued on even after the Congress For Cultural Freedom was formed. Founded: 26 June 1950 Dissolved: 1979 (as International Association for Cultural Freedom) The CIA wanted to influence other parts of the world in order to combat the growing sentiment towards Communism, focusing especially on artists, play-writes, musicians as well as intellectuals. Both of whom they knew would go on to influence many others. Many members were former Communist Party members. Trotskyites specifically who'd turned against Stalin, & his totalitarian measures. Most were not pro-American by any means. They were generally Democratic Socialist types. Like modern Libs, they believed America was backwards, & lacked culture. Quite a few top members were of Eastern European Jewish descent. Obviously, they had no intentions of spreading traditional American rugged individualistic, or patriotic ideology. They were all about "dumbocracy" aka, the Liberal World Order. Militant Liberty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_Liberty:_A_Program_of_Evaluation_and_Assessment_of_Freedom   May 10, 1966 NYT denies Encounter Magazine Funding https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP68B00432R000500020014-4/mode/1up Abstract Expressionism, Weopon Of The Cold War https://www.scribd.com/document/37676685/Cockcroft-Eva-Abstract-Expressionism-Weapon-of-the-Cold-War CIA Funded Modern Art https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html The CIA's preferred tactic for spreading American music abroad was festivals; in 1952, the CCF held the Festival of Twentieth-Century Masterpieces of Modern Art in Paris, and in 1961, using a front group known as the American Society of African Culture, it tricked singer Nina Simone into performing at the Lagos Festival in Nigeria. Musicians of the era, knowing or not, benefitted from the financial support of the CIA. https://medium.com/mondo-americana/rock-n-roll-mind-control-the-cia-and-the-1960s-counterculture-53c1f6e52647 “We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink,” Wili Munzenberg Everywhere men yearn to be misled by magicians.”
Introduction to the Tao Teh Ching Frances Stonor Saunders, The CIA and The Cultural Cold War https://www.abebooks.com/9781565845961/Cultural-Cold-CIA-World-Arts-156584596X/plp Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy https://archive.org/details/liberalconspirac0000cole   Please check out my Podcasting Family over at Alternate Current Radio. You will find a plethora of fantastic talk, and music shows including the flagship Boiler Room, as well as The Daily Ruckus! https://alternatecurrentradio.com/   Fringe Radio Network- Radio on the Fringe!  http://fringeradionetwork.com/   Patreon-Welcome to The Society Of Cryptic Savants  Welcome members of The Society Of Cryptic Savants! (bitchute.com)   Social Media: _theoddmanout on Twitter, and Instagram       Facebook https://www.facebook.com/theoddcastfttheoddmanout           "A special Thank You to my Patrons who contributed to this episode. You are very much appreciated.   Thank You Guys For Your Continued Support!   Their Order Is Not Our Order! Their Order Is Not Our Order!

In the late 1880s, young Eastern European Jewish immigrants had discovered anarchism, Marxism, and other such ideologies that had radicalized them against religion. In an effort to protest religion and expose the lie they thought it was, they threw outrageous balls throughout New York City…on Yom Kippur. Dr. Tony Michels, Jessica Chaffin, and Dr. Eddy Portnoy discuss whether these anarchists were protesting or celebrating the holiday, plus eating festivals, what it means to be Jewish, and what exactly you are allowed to enjoy on Yom Kippur.The Jewish Bizarre is produced by Reboot, an arts and culture non-profit that reimagines and reinforces Jewish thought and traditions. As a premier research and development platform for the Jewish world, Reboot catalyzes its network of preeminent creators, artists, entrepreneurs and activists to produce experiences and products that evolve the Jewish conversation and transform society. This podcast is supported by a generous grant from the Covenant Foundation. Learn more about Reboot and get involved:▼Website: https://rebooting.com/ ▼Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rebootjewish/▼Twitter: https://twitter.com/reboot▼Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rebooters/▼TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@rebooters ▼Newsletter: https://rebooting.com/get-involved/▼YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@rebootjewish

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. Beyond the Synagogue argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Rachel B. Gross asserts if one looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews' involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. The post Maxwell Institute Podcast #155: Nostalgia as Jewish Religious Practice, with Rachel B. Gross appeared first on Neal A. Maxwell Institute | BYU.

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. […] The post Maxwell Institute Podcast #155: Nostalgia as Jewish Religious Practice, with Rachel B. Gross appeared first on Neal A. Maxwell Institute | BYU.

Episode Notes Episode summary Margaret talks with Elle an anarchist and security professional about different threat modeling approaches and analyzing different kinds of threats. They explore physical threats, digital security, communications, surveillance,and general OpSec mentalities for how to navigate the panopticon and do stuff in the world without people knowing about it...if you're in Czarist Russia of course. Guest Info Elle can be found on twitter @ellearmageddon. Host and Publisher The host Margaret Killjoy can be found on twitter @magpiekilljoy or instagram at @margaretkilljoy. This show is published by Strangers in A Tangled Wilderness. We can be found at www.tangledwilderness.org, or on Twitter @TangledWild and Instagram @Tangled_Wilderness. You can support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. Show Links Transcript Live Like the World is Dying: Elle on Threat Modeling Margaret 00:15 Hello, and welcome to Live Like The World Is Dying, your podcast for what feels like the end times. I'm your host, Margaret killjoy. And with me at the exact moment is my dog, who has just jumped up to try and talk into the microphone and bite my arm. And, I use 'she' and 'they' pronouns. And this week, I'm going to be talking to my friend Elle, who is a, an anarchist security professional. And we're going to be talking about threat modeling. And we're going to be talking about how to figure out what people are trying to do to you and who's trying to do it and how to deal with different people trying to do different things. Like, what is the threat model around the fact that while I'm trying to record a podcast, my dog is biting my arm? And I am currently choosing to respond by trying to play it for humor and leaving it in rather than cutting it out and re recording. This podcast is a proud member of the Channel Zero network of anarchists podcasts. And here's a jingle from another show on the network. Jingle Margaret 02:00 Okay, if you could introduce yourself, I guess, with your name and your pronouns, and then maybe what you do as relates to the stuff that we're going to be talking about today. Elle 02:10 Yeah, cool. Hi, I'm Elle. My pronouns are they/them. I am a queer, autistic, anarchist security practitioner. I do security for a living now that I've spent over the last decade, working with activist groups and NGOs, just kind of anybody who's got an interesting threat model to help them figure out what they can do to make themselves a little a little safer and a little more secure. Margaret 02:43 So that word threat model. That's actually kind of what I want to have you on today to talk about is, it's this word that we we hear a lot, and sometimes we throw into sentences when we want to sound really smart, or maybe I do that. But what does it mean, what is threat modeling? And why is it relevant? Elle 03:02 Yeah, I actually, I really love that question. Because I think that we a lot of people do use the term threat modeling without really knowing what they mean by it. And so to me, threat modeling is having an understanding of your own life in your own context, and who poses a realistic risk to you, and what you can do to keep yourself safe from them. So whether that's, you know, protecting communications that you have from, you know, state surveillance, or whether it's keeping yourself safe from an abusive ex, your threat model is going to vary based on your own life experiences and what you need to protect yourself from and who those people actually are and what they're capable of doing. Margaret 03:52 Are you trying to say there's not like one solution to all problems that we would just apply? Elle 03:58 You know, I love... Margaret 03:58 I don't understand. Elle 04:00 I know that everybody really, really loves the phrase "Use signal. Use TOR," and you know, thinks that that is the solution to all of life's problems. But it actually turns out that, no, you do have to have both an idea of what it is that you're trying to protect, whether it's yourself or something like your communications and who you're trying to protect it from, and how they can how they can actually start working towards gaining access to whatever it is that you're trying to defend. Margaret 04:31 One of the things that when I think about threat modeling that I think about is this idea of...because the levels of security that you take for something often limit your ability to accomplish different things. Like in Dungeons and Dragons, if you were plate armor, you're less able to be a dexterous rogue and stealth around. And so I think about threat modeling, maybe as like learning to balance....I'm kind of asking this, am I correct in this? Balancing what you're trying to accomplish with who's trying to stop you? Because like, you could just use TOR, for everything. And then also like use links the little like Lynx [misspoke "Tails"] USB keychain and never use a regular computer and never communicate with anyone and then never accomplish anything. But, it seems like that might not work. Elle 05:17 Yeah, I mean, the idea, the idea is to prevent whoever your adversaries are from keeping you from doing whatever you're trying to accomplish. Right? So if the security precautions that you're taking to prevent your adversaries from preventing you from doing a thing are also preventing you from doing the thing, then it doesn't matter, because your adversaries have just won, right? So there, there definitely is a need, you know, to be aware of risks that you're taking and decide which ones make sense, which ones don't make sense. And kind of look at it from from a dynamic of "Okay, is this something that is in my, you know, acceptable risk model? Is this a risk I'm willing to take? Are there things that I can do to, you know, do harm reduction and minimize the risk? Or at least like, make it less? Where are those trade offs? What, what is the maximum amount of safety or security that I can do for myself, while still achieving whatever it is that I'm trying to achieve?" Margaret 06:26 Do you actually ever like, chart it out on like, an X,Y axis where you get like, this is the point where you start getting diminishing returns? I'm just imagining it. I've never done that. Elle 06:37 In, in the abstract, yes, because that's part of how autism brain works for me. But in a, like actually taking pen to paper context, not really. But that's, you know, at least partially, because of that's something that autism brain just does for me. So I think it could actually be a super reasonable thing to do, for people whose brains don't auto filter that for them. But but I'm, I guess, lucky enough to be neurodivergent, and have like, you know, like, we always we joke in tech, "It's not a bug, it's a feature." And I feel like, you know, autism is kind of both sometimes. In some cases, it's totally a bug and and others, it's absolutely a feature. And this is one of the areas where it happens to be a feature, at least for me. Margaret 07:35 That makes sense. I, I kind of view my ADHD as a feature, in that, it allows me to hyper focus on topics and then move on and then not come back to them. Or also, which is what I do now for work with podcasting, and a lot of my writing. It makes it hard to write long books, I gotta admit, Elle 07:56 Yeah, I work with a bunch of people with varying neuro types. And it's really interesting, like, at least at least in my own team, I think that you know, the, the folks who are more towards the autism spectrum disorder side of of the house are more focused on things like application security, and kind of things that require sort of sustained hyper focus. And then folks with ADHD make just absolutely amazing, like incident responders and do really, really well in interrupt driven are interrupts heavy contexts, Margaret 08:38 Or sprinters. Elle 08:40 It's wild to me, because I'm just like, yes, this makes perfect sense. And obviously, like, these different tasks are better suited to different neuro types. But I've also never worked with a manager who actually thought about things in that way before. Margaret 08:53 Right. Elle 08:54 And so it's actually kind of cool to be to be in a position where I can be like, "Hey, like, Does this sound interesting to you? Would you rather focus on this kind of work?" And kind of get that that with people. Margaret 09:06 That makes sense that's.... i I'm glad that you're able to do that. I'm glad that people that you work with are able to have that you know, experience because it is it's hard to it's hard to work within....obviously the topic of today is...to working in the workplace is a neurodivergent person, but it I mean it affects so many of us you know, like almost whatever you do for work the the different ways your brain work are always struggling against it. So. Elle 09:32 Yeah, I don't know. It just it makes sense to me to like do your best to structure your life in a way that is more conducive to your neurotype. Margaret 09:44 Yeah. Elle 09:45 You know, if you can. Margaret 09:49 I don't even realize exactly how age ADHD I was until I tried to work within a normal workforce. I built my entire life around, not needing to live in one place or do one thing for sustained periods of time. But okay, but back to the threat modeling. Margaret 10:07 The first time I heard of, I don't know if it's the first time I heard a threat modeling or not, I don't actually know when I first started hearing that word. But the first time I heard about you, in the context of it was a couple years back, you had some kind of maybe it was tweets or something about how people were assuming that they should use, for example, the more activist focused email service Rise Up, versus whether they should just use Gmail. And I believe that you were making the case that for a lot of things, Gmail would actually be safer, because even though they don't care about you, they have a lot more resources to throw at the problem of keeping governments from reading their emails. That might be a terrible paraphrasing of what you said. But this, this is how I was introduced to this concept of threat modeling. If you wanted to talk about that example, and tell me how I got it all wrong. Elle 10:07 Yeah. Elle 10:58 Yeah. Um, so you didn't actually get it all wrong. And I think that the thing that I would add to that is that if you are engaging in some form of hypersensitive communication, email is not the mechanism that you want to do that. And so when I say things like, "Oh, you know, it probably actually makes sense to use Gmail instead of Rise Up," I mean, you know, contexts where you're maybe communicating with a lawyer and your communications are privileged, right?it's a lot harder to crack Gmail security than it is to crack something like Rise Up security, just by virtue of the volume of resources available to each of those organizations. And so where you specifically have this case where, you know, there's, there's some degree of legal protection for whatever that means, making sure that you're not leveraging something where your communications can be accessed without your knowledge or consent by a third party, and then used in a way that is conducive to parallel construction. Margaret 12:19 So what is parallel construction? Elle 12:20 Parallel construction is a legal term where you obtain information in a way that is not admissible in court, and then use that information to reconstruct a timeline or reconstruct a mechanism of access to get to that information in an admissible way. Margaret 12:39 So like every cop show Elle 12:41 Right, so like, with parallel construction around emails, for example, if you're emailing back and forth with your lawyer, and your lawyer is like, "Alright, like, be straight with me. Because I need to know if you've actually done this crime so that I can understand how best to defend you." And you're like, "Yeah, dude, I totally did that crime," which you should never admit to in writing anyway, because, again, email is not the format that you want to have this conversation in. But like, if you're gonna admit to having done crimes in email, for some reason, how easy it is for someone else to access that admission is important. Because if somebody can access this email admission of you having done the crimes where you're, you know, describing in detail, what crimes you did, when with who, then it starts, like, it gets a lot easier to be like, "Oh, well, obviously, we need to subpoena this person's phone records. And we should see, you know, we should use geolocation tracking of their device to figure out who they were in proximity to and who else was involved in this," and it can, it can be really easy to like, establish a timeline and get kind of the roadmap to all of the evidence that they would need to, to put you in jail. So it's, it's probably worth kind of thinking about how easy it is to access that that information. And again, don't don't admit to doing crimes in email, email is not the format that you want to use for admitting to having done crimes. But if you're going to, it's probably worth making sure that, you know, the the email providers that you are choosing are equipped with both robust security controls, and probably also like a really good legal team. Right? So if...like Rise Up isn't going to comply with the subpoena to the like, to the best of their ability, they're not going to do that, but it's a lot easier to sue Rise Up than it is to sue Google. Margaret 14:51 Right. Elle 14:51 And it's a lot easier to to break Rise Up's security mechanisms than it is to break Google's, just by virtue of how much time and effort each of those entities is able to commit to securing email. Please don't commit to doing crimes in email, just please just don't. Don't do it in writing. Don't do it. Margaret 15:15 Okay, let me change my evening plans. Hold on let me finish sending this email.. Elle 15:23 No! Margaret 15:25 Well, I mean, I guess like the one of the reasons that I thought so much about that example, and why it kind of stuck with me years later was just thinking about what people decide they're safe, because they did some basic security stuff. And I don't know if that counts under threat modeling. But it's like something I think about a lot is about people being like, "I don't understand, we left our cell phones at home and went on a walk in the woods," which is one of the safest ways anyone could possibly have a conversation. "How could anyone possibly have known this thing?" And I'm like, wait, you, you told someone you know, or like, like, not to make people more paranoid, but like... Elle 16:06 Or maybe, maybe you left your cell phone at home, but kept your smartwatch on you, because you wanted to close, you know, you wanted to get your steps for the day while you were having this conversation, right? Margaret 16:19 Because otherwise, does it even count if I'm not wearing my [smartwatch]. Elle 16:21 Right, exactly. And like, we joke, and we laugh, but like, it is actually something that people don't think about. And like, maybe you left your phones at home, and you went for a walk in the woods, but you took public transit together to get there and were captured on a bunch of surveillance cameras. Like there's, there's a lot of, especially if you've actually been targeted for surveillance, which is very rare, because it's very resource intensive. But you know, there there are alternate ways to track people. And it does depend on things like whether or not you've got additional tech on you, whether or not you were captured on cameras. And you know, whether whether or not your voices were picked up by ShotSpotter, as you were walking to wherever the woods were like, there's just there's we live in a panopticon. I don't say that so that people are paranoid about it, I say it because it's a lot easier to think about, where, when and how you want to phrase things. Margaret 17:27 Yeah. Elle 17:28 In a way that you know, still facilitates communications still facilitates achieving whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, but sets you sets you up to be as safe as possible in doing it. And I think that especially in anarchist circles, just... and honestly also in security circles, there's a lot of of like, dogmatic adherence to security ritual, that may or may not actually make sense based on both, you, who your actual adversaries are, and what their realistic capabilities are. Margaret 18:06 And what they're trying to actually accomplish I feel like is...Okay, one of the threat models that I like...I encourage people sometimes to carry firearms, right in very specific contexts. And it feels like a security... Oh, you had a good word for it that you just used...ritual of security theater, I don't remember...a firearm often feels like that, Elle 18:30 Right. Margaret 18:31 In a way where you're like," Oh, I'm safe now, right, because I'm carrying a firearm." And, for example, I didn't carry a firearm for a very long time. Because for a long time, my threat model, the people who messed with me, were cops. And if a cop is going to mess with me, I do not want to have a firearm on me, because it will potentially escalate a situation in a very bad way. Whereas when I came out and started, you know, when I started getting harassed more for being a scary transwoman, and less for being an anarchist, or a hitchhiker, or whatever, you know, now my threat model is transphobes, who wants to do me harm. And in a civilian-civilian context, I prefer I feel safer. And I believe I am safer in most situations armed in that case. But every time I leave the house, I have to think about "What is my threat model?" And then in a similar way, sorry, it's just me thinking about the threat model of firearms, but it's the main example that I think of, is that often people's threat model in terms of firearms and safety as themselves, right? And so you just actually need to do the soul searching where you're like,"What's more likely to happen to me today? Am I likely to get really sad, or am I likely to get attacked by fascists?" Elle 19:57 Yeah. And I think that there is there's an additional question, especially when you're talking about arming yourself, whether it's firearms, or carrying a knife, or whatever, because like, I don't own any firearms, but I do carry a knife a lot of the time. And so like some questions, some additional questions that you have to ask yourself are, "How confident am I in my own ability to use this to harm another person?" Because if you're going to hesitate, you're gonna get fucked up. Margaret 20:28 Yeah. Elle 20:28 Like, if you are carrying a weapon, and you pull it out and hesitate in using it, it's gonna get taken away from you, and it's going to be used against you. So that's actually one of the biggest questions that I would say people should be asking themselves when developing a threat model around arming themselves is, "Will I actually use this? How confident am I?" if you're not confident, then it's okay to leave it at home. It's okay to practice more. It's okay to like develop that familiarity before you start using it as an EDC. Sorry an Every Day Carry. And then the you know, the other question is, "How likely am I to get arrested here?" I carry, I carry a knife that I absolutely do know how to use most of the time when I leave the house. But when I'm going to go to a demonstration, because the way that I usually engage in protests or in demonstrations is in an emergency medical response capacity, I carry a medic kit instead. And my medic kit is a clean bag that does not have any sharp objects in it. It doesn't have anything that you know could be construed as a weapon it doesn't have...it doesn't...I don't even have weed gummies which are totally like recreationally legal here, right? I won't even put weed in the medic kit. It's it is very much a... Margaret 21:52 Well, if you got a federally arrested you'd be in trouble with that maybe. Elle 21:55 Yeah, sure, I guess. But, like the medic bag is very...nothing goes in this kit ever that I wouldn't want to get arrested carrying. And so there's like EMT shears in there. Margaret 22:12 Right. Elle 22:13 But that's that's it in terms of like... Margaret 22:16 Those are scary you know...the blunted tips. Elle 22:21 I know, the blunted tips and the like safety, whatever on them. It's just...it's it is something to think about is "Where am I going...What...Who am I likely to encounter? And like what are the trade offs here?" Margaret 22:37 I remember once going to a demonstration a very long time ago where our like, big plan was to get in through all of the crazy militarized downtown in this one city and, and the big plan is we're gonna set up a Food Not Bombs inside the security line of the police, you know. And so we picked one person, I think I was the sacrificial person, who had to carry a knife, because we had to get the folding tables that we're gonna put the food on off of the top of the minivan. And we had to do it very quickly, and they were tied on. And so I think I brought the knife and then left it in the car and the car sped off. And then we fed people and they had spent ten million dollars protecting the city from 30 people feeding people Food Not Bombs. Elle 23:20 Amazing. Margaret 23:22 But, but yeah, I mean, whereas every other day in my life, especially back then when I was a hitchhiker, I absolutely carried a knife. Elle 23:30 Yeah. Margaret 23:31 You know, for multiple purposes. Yeah, okay, so then it feels like...I like rooting it in the self defense stuff because I think about that a lot and for me it maybe then makes sense to sort of build up and out from there as to say like...you know, if someone's threat model is my ex-partner's new partner is trying to hack me or my abusive ex is trying to hack me or something, that's just such a different threat model than... Elle 24:04 Yeah, it is. Margaret 24:05 Than the local police are trying to get me versus the federal police are trying to get me versus a foreign country is trying to get me you know, and I and it feels like sometimes those things are like contradictory to each other about what isn't isn't the best maybe. Elle 24:19 They are, because each of those each of those entities is going to have different mechanisms for getting to you and so you know, an abusive partner or abusive ex is more likely to have physical access to you, and your devices, than you know, a foreign entity is, right? Because there's there's proximity to think about, and so you know, you might want to have....Actually the....Okay, so the abusive ex versus the cops, right. A lot of us now have have phones where the mechanism for accessing them is either a password, or some kind of biometric identifier. So like a fingerprint, or you know, face ID or whatever. And there's this very dogmatic adherence to "Oh, well, passwords are better." But passwords might actually not be better. Because if somebody has regular proximity to you, they may be able to watch you enter your password and get enough information to guess it. And if you're, if you're not using a biometric identifier, in those use cases, then what can happen is they can guess your password, or watch, you type it in enough time so that they get a good feeling for what it is. And they can then access your phone without your knowledge while you're sleeping. Right? Margaret 25:46 Right. Elle 25:47 And sometimes just knowing whether or not your your adversary has access to your phone is actually a really useful thing. Because you know how much information they do or don't have. Margaret 26:01 Yeah. No that's... Elle 26:03 And so it really is just about about trade offs and harm reduction. Margaret 26:08 That never would have occurred to me before. I mean, it would occur to me if someone's trying to break into my devices, but I have also fallen into the all Biometrics is bad, right? Because it's the password, you can't change because the police can compel you to open things with biometrics, but they can't necessarily compel you...is more complicated to be compelled to enter a password. Elle 26:31 I mean, like, it's only as complicated as a baton. Margaret 26:34 Yeah, there's that XKCD comic about this. Have you seen it? Elle 26:37 Yes. Yes, I have. And it is it is an accurate....We like in security, we call it you know, the Rubber Hose method, right? It we.... Margaret 26:46 The implication here for anyone hasn't read it is that they can beat you up and get you to give them their [password]. Elle 26:50 Right people, people will usually if they're hit enough times give up their password. So you know, I would say yeah, you should disable biometric locks, if you're going to go out to a demonstration, right? Which is something that I do. I actually do disable face ID if I'm taking my phone to a demo. But it...you may want to use it as your everyday mechanism, especially if you're living in a situation where knowing whether or not your abuser has access to your device is likely to make a difference in whether you have enough time to escape. Margaret 27:30 Right. These axioms or these these beliefs we all have about this as the way to do security,the you know...I mean, it's funny, because you brought up earlier like use Signal use Tor, I am a big advocate of like, I just use Signal for all my communication, but I also don't talk about crime pretty much it in general anyway. You know. So it's more like just like bonus that it can't be read. I don't know. Elle 27:57 Yeah. I mean, again, it depends, right? Because Signal...Signal has gotten way more usable. I've been, I've been using Signal for a decade, you know, since it was still Redphone and TextSecure. And in the early days, I used to joke that it was so secure, sometimes your intended recipients don't even get the messages. Margaret 28:21 That's how I feel about GPG or PGP or whatever the fuck. Elle 28:24 Oh, those those.... Margaret 28:27 Sorry, didn't mean to derail you. Elle 28:27 Let's not even get started there. But so like Signal again, has gotten much better, and is way more reliable in terms of delivery than it used to be. But I used to, I used to say like, "Hey, if it's if it's really, really critical that your message reach your recipient, Signal actually might not be the way to do it." Because if you need if you if you're trying to send a time sensitive message with you know guarantee that it actually gets received, because Signal used to be, you know, kind of sketchy on or unreliable on on delivery, it might not have been the best choice at the time. One of the other things that I think that people, you know, think...don't think about necessarily is that Signal is still widely viewed as a specific security tool. And that's, that's good in a lot of cases. But if you live somewhere, for example, like Belarus, where it's not generally considered legal to encrypt things, then the presence of Signal on your device is enough in and of itself to get you thrown in prison. Margaret 29:53 Right. Elle 29:53 And so sometimes having a mechanism like, you know, Facebook secret messages might seem like a really, really sketchy thing to do. But if your threat model is you can't have security tools on your phone, but you still want to be able to send encrypted messages or ephemeral messages, then that actually might be the best way to kind of fly under the radar. So yeah, it again just really comes down to thinking about what it is that you're trying to protect? From who? And under what circumstances? Margaret 30:32 Yeah, I know, I like this. I mean, obviously, of course, you've thought about this thing that you think about. I'm like, I'm just like, kind of like, blown away thinking about these things. Although, okay, one of these, like security things that I kind of want to push back on, and actually, this is a little bit sketchy to push back on, the knife thing. To go back to a knife. I am. I have talked to a lot of people who have gotten themselves out of very bad situations by drawing a weapon without then using it, which is illegal. It is totally illegal. Elle 31:03 Yes Margaret 31:03 I would never advocate that anyone threaten anyone with a weapon. But, I know people who have committed this crime in order to...even I mean, sometimes it's in situations where it'd be legal to stab somebody,like... Elle 31:16 Sure. Margaret 31:16 One of the strangest laws in the United States is that, theoretically, if I fear for my life, I can draw a gun.... And not if I fear for my life, if I am, if my life is literally being threatened, physically, if I'm being attacked, I can I can legally draw a firearm and shoot someone, I can legally pull a knife and stab someone to defend myself. I cannot pull a gun and say "Back the fuck off." And not only is it illegal, but it also is a security axiom, I guess that you would never want to do that. Because as you pointed out, if you hesitate now the person has the advantage, they have more information than they used to. But I still know a lot of hitchhikers who have gotten out of really bad situations by saying, "Let me the fuck out of the car." Elle 32:05 Sure. Margaret 32:06 Ya know?. Elle 32:06 Absolutely. It's not....Sometimes escalating tactically can be a de-escalation. Right? Margaret 32:17 Right. Elle 32:18 Sometimes pulling out a weapon or revealing that you have one is enough to make you no longer worth attacking. But you never know how someone's going to respond when you do that, right? Margaret 32:33 Totally Elle 32:33 So you never know whether it's going to cause them to go "Oh shit, I don't want to get stabbed or I don't want to get shot," and stop or whether it's going to trigger you know a more aggressive response. So it doesn't mean that you know, you, if you pull a weapon you have to use it. Margaret 32:52 Right. Elle 32:53 But if you're going to carry one then you do need to be confident that you will use it. Margaret 32:58 No, that that I do agree with that. Absolutely. Elle 33:00 And I think that is an important distinction, and I you know I also think that...not 'I think', using a gun and using a knife are two very different things. For a lot of people, pulling the trigger on a gun is going to be easier than stabbing someone. Margaret 33:20 Yeah that's true. Elle 33:21 Because of the proximity to the person and because of how deeply personal stabbing someone actually is versus how detached you can be and still pull the trigger. Margaret 33:35 Yeah. Elle 33:36 Like I would...it sounds...it feels weird to say but I would actually advocate most people carry a gun instead of a knife for that reason, and also because if you're, if you're worried about being physically attacked, you know you have more range of distance where you can use something like a gun than you do with a knife. You have to be, you have to be in close quarters to to effectively use a knife unless you're like really good at throwing them for some reason and even I wouldn't, cause if you miss...now your adversary has a knife. Margaret 34:14 I know yeah. Unless you miss by a lot. I mean actually I guess if you hit they have a knife now too. Elle 34:22 True. Margaret 34:23 I have never really considered whether or not throwing knives are effective self-defense weapons and I don't want to opine too hard on this show. Elle 34:31 I advise against it. Margaret 34:32 Yeah. Okay, so to go back to threat modeling about more operational security type stuff. You're clearly not saying these are best practices, but you're instead it seems like you're advocating of "This as the means by which you might determine your best practices." Elle 34:49 Yes. Margaret 34:49 Do you have a...do you have a a tool or do you have like a like, "Hey, here's some steps you can take." I mean, we all know you've said like, "Think about your enemy," and such like that, but Is there a more...Can you can you walk me through that? Elle 35:04 I mean, like, gosh, it really depends on who your adversary is, right? Elle 35:10 Like, if you're if you're thinking about an abusive partner, that's obviously going to vary based on things like, you know, is your abusive partner, someone who has access to weapons? Are they someone who is really tech savvy? Or are they not. At...The things that you have to think about are going to just depend on the skills and tools that they have access to? Is your abusive partner or your abusive ex a cop? Because that changes some things. Margaret 35:10 Yeah, fair enough. Margaret 35:20 Yeah. Elle 35:27 So like, most people, if they actually have a real and present kind of persistent threat in their life, also have a pretty good idea of what that threat is capable of, or what that threat actor or is capable of. And so it, it's it, I think, it winds up being fairly easy to start thinking about things in terms of like, "Okay, how is this person going to come after me? How, what, what tools do they have? What skills do they have? What ability do they have to kind of attack me or harm me?" But I think that, you know, as we start getting away from that really, really, personal threat model of like the intimate partner violence threat model, for example, and start thinking about more abstract threat models, like "I'm an anarchist living in a state," because no state is particularly fond of us. Margaret 36:50 Whaaaat?! Elle 36:51 I know it's wild, because like, you know, we just want to abolish the State and States, like want to not be abolished, and I just don't understand how, how they would dislike us for any reason.. Margaret 37:03 Yeah, it's like when I meet someone new, and I'm like, "Hey, have you ever thought about being abolished?" They're usually like, "Yeah, totally have a beer." Elle 37:10 Right. No, it's... Margaret 37:11 Yes. Elle 37:11 For sure. Um, but when it comes to when it comes to thinking about, you know, the anarchist threat model, I think that a lot of us have this idea of like, "Oh, the FBI is spying on me personally." And the likelihood of the FBI specifically spying on 'you' personally is like, actually pretty slim. But... Margaret 37:34 Me? Elle 37:35 Well... Margaret 37:37 No, no, I want to go back to thinking about it's slim, it's totally slim. Elle 37:41 Look...But like, there's there is a lot like, we know that, you know, State surveillance dragnet exists, right, we know that, you know, plaintext text messages, for example, are likely to be caught both by, you know, Cell Site Simulators, which are in really, really popular use by law enforcement agencies. Margaret 38:08 Which is something that sets up and pretends to be a cell tower. So it takes all the data that is transmitted over it. And it's sometimes used set up at demonstrations. Elle 38:16 Yes. So they, they both kind of convinced your phone into thinking that they are the nearest cell tower, and then actually pass your communications on to the next, like the nearest cell tower. So your communications do go through, they're just being logged by this entity in the middle. That's, you know, not great. But using something... Margaret 38:38 Unless you're the Feds. Elle 38:39 I mean, even if you... Margaret 38:41 You just have to think about it from their point of. Hahah. Elle 38:42 Even if you are the Feds, that's actually too much data for you to do anything useful with, you know? Margaret 38:50 Okay, I'll stop interuppting you. Haha. Elle 38:51 Like, it's just...but if you're if you are a person who is a person of interest who's in this group, where a cell site simulator has been deployed or whatever, then then that you know, is something that you do have to be concerned about and you know, even if you're not a person of interest if you're like texting your friend about like, "All right, we do crime in 15 minutes," like I don't know, it's maybe not a great idea. Don't write it down if you're doing crime. Don't do crime. But more importantly don't don't create evidence that you're planning to do crime, because now you've done two crimes which is the crime itself and conspiracy to commit a crime Margaret 39:31 Be straight. Follow the law. That's the motto here. Elle 39:35 Yes. Oh, sorry. I just like I don't know, autism brain involuntarily pictured, like an alternate universe in which in where which I am straight, and law abiding. And I'm just I'm very... Margaret 39:52 Sounds terrible. I'm sorry. Elle 39:53 Right. Sounds like a very boring.... Margaret 39:55 Sorry to put that image in your head. Elle 39:56 I mean, I would never break laws. Margaret 39:58 No. Elle 39:59 Ever Never ever. I have not broken any laws I will not break any laws. No, I think that... Margaret 40:08 The new "In Minecraft" is "In Czarist Russia." Instead of saying "In Minecraft," because it's totally blown. It's only okay to commit crimes "In Czarist Russia." Elle 40:19 Interesting. Margaret 40:23 All right. We don't have to go with that. I don't know why i got really goofy. Elle 40:27 I might be to Eastern European Jewish for that one. Margaret 40:31 Oh God. Oh, my God, now I just feel terrible. Elle 40:34 It's It's fine. It's fine. Margaret 40:36 Well, that was barely a crime by east... Elle 40:40 I mean it wasn't necessarily a crime, but like my family actually emigrated to the US during the first set of pogroms. Margaret 40:51 Yeah. Elle 40:52 So like, pre Bolshevik Revolution. Margaret 40:57 Yeah. Elle 40:59 But yeah, anyway. Margaret 41:02 Okay, well, I meant taking crimes like, I basically think that, you know, attacking the authorities in Czarist Russia is a more acceptable action is what I'm trying to say, I really don't have to try and sell you on this plan. Elle 41:16 I'm willing to trust your judgment here. Margaret 41:19 That's a terrible plan, but I appreciate you, okay. Either way, we shouldn't text people about the crimes that we're doing. Elle 41:26 We should not text people about the crimes that we're planning on doing. But, if you are going to try to coordinate timelines, you might want to do that using some form of encrypted messenger so that whatever is logged by a cell site simulator, if it is in existence is not possible by the people who are then retrieving those logs. And you know, and another reason to use encrypted messengers, where you can is that you don't necessarily want your cell provider to have that unencrypted message block. And so if you're sending SMS, then your cell, your cell provider, as the processor of that data has access to an unencrypted or plain text version of whatever text message you're sending, where if you're using something like Signal or WhatsApp, or Wicker, or Wire or any of the other, like, multitude of encrypted messengers that you could theoretically be using, then it's it's also not going directly through your your provider, which I think is an interesting distinction. Because, you know, we we know, from, I mean, we kind of sort of already knew, but we know for a fact, from the Snowden Papers, that cell providers will absolutely turn over your data to the government if they're asked for it. And so minimizing the amount of data that they have about you to turn over to the government is generally a good practice. Especially if you can do it in a way that isn't going to be a bunch of red flags. Margaret 43:05 Right, like being in Belarus and using Signal. Elle 43:08 Right. Exactly. Margaret 43:10 Okay. Also, there's the Russian General who used an unencrypted phone where he then got geo located and blowed up. Elle 43:23 Yeah. Margaret 43:24 Also bad threat modeling on that that guy's part, it seems like Elle 43:28 I it, it certainly seems to...that person certainly seems to have made several poor life choices, not the least of which was being a General in the Russian army. Margaret 43:41 Yeah, yeah. That, that tracks. So one of the things that we talked about, while we were talking about having this conversation, our pre-conversation conversation was about...I think you brought up this idea that something that feels secret, doesn't mean it is, and Elle 43:59 Yeah! Margaret 44:00 I'm wondering if you had more thoughts about that concept? It's not a very good prompt. Elle 44:05 So like, it's it's a totally reasonable prompt, we say a lot that, you know, security and safety are a feeling. And I think that that actually is true for a lot of us. But there's this idea that, Oh, if you use coded language, for example, then like, you can't get caught. I don't actually think that's true, because we tend to use coded language that's like, pretty easily understandable by other people. Because the purpose of communicating is to communicate. Margaret 44:42 Yeah. Elle 44:43 And so usually, if you're like, code language is easy enough to be understood by whoever it is you're trying to communicate with, like, someone else can probably figure it the fuck out too. Especially if you're like, "Hey, man, did you bring the cupcakes," and your friend is like, "Yeah!" And then an explosion goes off shortly thereafter, right? It's like, "Oh, by cupcakes, they meant dynamite." So I, you know, I think that rather than then kind of like relying on this, you know, idea of how spies work or how, how anarchists communicated secretly, you know, pre WTO it's, it's worth thinking about how the surveillance landscape has adapted over time, and thinking a little bit more about what it means to engage in, in the modern panopticon, or the contemporary panopticon, because those capabilities have changed over time. And things like burner phones are a completely different prospect now than they used to be. Actually... Margaret 45:47 In that they're easier or wose? Elle 45:49 Oh, there's so much harder to obtain now. Margaret 45:51 Yeah, okay. Elle 45:52 It's it is so much easier to correlate devices that have been used in proximity to each other than it used to be. And it's so much easier to, you know, capture people on surveillance cameras than it used to be. I actually wrote a piece for Crimethinc about this some years ago, that that I think kind of still holds up in terms of how difficult it really, really is to procure a burner phone. And in order to do to do that safely, you would have to pay cash somewhere that couldn't capture you on camera doing it, and then make sure that it was never turned on in proximity with your own phone anywhere. And you would have to make sure that it only communicated with other burner phones, because the second it communicates with a phone that's associated to another person, there's a connection between your like theoretical burner phone and that person. And so you can be kind of triangulated back to, especially if you've communicated with multiple people. It just it is so hard to actually obtain a device that is not in any way affiliated with your identity or the identity of any of your comrades. But, we have to start thinking about alternative mechanisms for synchronous communication. Margaret 47:18 Okay. Elle 47:18 And, realistically speaking, taking a walk in the woods is still going to be the best way to do it. Another reasonable way to go about having a conversation that needs to remain private is actually to go somewhere that is too loud and too crowded to...for anyone to reasonably overhear or to have your communication recorded. So using using the kind of like, signal to noise ratio in your favor. Margaret 47:51 Yeah. Elle 47:52 To help drown out your own signal can be really, really useful. And I think that that's also true of things like using Gmail, right? The signal to noise ratio, if you're not using a tool that's specifically for activists can be very helpful, because there is just so much more traffic happening, that it's easier to blend in. Margaret 48:18 I mean, that's one reason why I mean, years ago, people were saying that's why non activists should use GPG, the encrypted email service that is terrible, was so attempt to try and be like, if you only ever use it, for the stuff you don't want to be known, then it like flags it as "This stuff you don't want to be known." And so that was like, kind of an argument for my early adoption Signal, because I don't break laws was, you know, just be like," Oh, here's more people using Signal," it's more regularized, and, you know, my my family talks on Signal and like, it helps that like, you know, there's a lot of different very normal legal professions that someone might have that are require encrypted communication. Yeah, no book, like accountants, lawyers. But go ahead. Elle 49:06 No, no, I was gonna say that, like, it's, it's very common in my field of work for people to prefer to use Signal to communicate, especially if there is, you know, a diversity of phone operating systems in the mix. Margaret 49:21 Oh, yeah, totally. I mean, it's actually now it's more convenient. You know, when I when I'm on my like, family's SMS loop, it's like, I constantly get messages to say, like, "Brother liked such and such comment," and then it's like, three texts of that comment and...anyway, but okay, one of the things that you're talking about, "Security as a feeling," right? That actually gets to something that's like, there is a value in like, like, part of the reason to carry a knife is to feel better. Like, and so part of like, like anti-anxiety, like anxiety is my biggest threat most most days, personally. Right? Elle 50:00 Have you ever considered a career in the security field, because I, my, my, my former manager, like the person who hired me into the role that I'm in right now was like, "What made you get into security?" when I was interviewing, and I was just like, "Well, I had all this anxiety lying around. And I figured, you know, since nobody will give me a job that I can afford to sustain myself on without a degree, in any other field, I may as well take all this anxiety and like, sell it as a service." Margaret 50:33 Yeah, I started a prepper podcast. It's what you're listening to right now. Everyone who's listening. Yeah, exactly. Well, there's a value in that. But then, but you're talking about the Panopticon stuff, and the like, maybe being in too crowded of an environment. And it's, and this gets into something where everyone is really going to have to answer it differently. There's a couple of layers to this, but like, the reason that I just like, my profile picture on twitter is my face. I use my name, right? Elle 51:03 Same. Margaret 51:04 And, yeah, and I, and I just don't sweat it, because I'm like, "Look, I've been at this long enough that they know who I am. And it's just fine. It's just is." One day, it won't be fine. And then we have other problems. Right? Elle 51:18 Right. Margaret 51:19 And, and, and I'm not saying that everyone as they get better security practice will suddenly start being public like it... You know, it, it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Like, a lot of the reasons to not be public on social media is just because it's a fucking pain in the ass. Like, socially, you know? Elle 51:36 Yeah. Margaret 51:36 But I don't know, I just wonder if you have any thoughts about just like, the degree to which sometimes it's like, "Oh, well, I just, I carry a phone to an action because I know, I'm not up to anything." But then you get into this, like, then you're non-normalizing... don't know, it gets complicated. And I'm curious about your thoughts on that kind of stuff. Elle 51:56 So like, for me, for me personally, I am very public about who I am. What I'm about, like, what my politics are. I'm extremely open about it. Partially, because I don't think that, like I think that there is value in de-stigmatizing anarchism. Margaret 52:20 Yes. Elle 52:20 I think there is value in being someone who is just a normal fucking human being. And also anarchist. Margaret 52:29 Yeah. Elle 52:30 And I think that, you know, I...not even I think. I know, I know that, through being exactly myself and being open about who I am, and not being super worried about the labels that other people apply to themselves. And instead, kind of talking about, talking about anarchism, both from a place of how it overlaps with Judaism, because it does in a lot of really interesting ways, but also just how it informs my decision making processes. I've been able to expose people who would not necessarily have had any, like, concept of anarchism, or the power dynamics that we're interested in equalizing to people who just wouldn't have wouldn't have even thought about it, or would have thought that anarchists are like this big, scary, whatever. And, like, there, there are obviously a multitude of tendencies within anarchism, and no anarchist speaks for anybody but themselves, because that's how it works. But, it's one of the things that's been really interesting to me is that in the security field, one of the new buzzwords is Zero Trust. And the idea is that you don't want to give any piece of technology kind of the sole ability to to be the linchpin in your security, right? So you want to build redundancy, you want to make sure that no single thing is charged with being the gatekeeper for all of your security. And I think that that concept actually also applies to power. And so I...when I'm trying to talk about anarchism in a context where it makes sense to security people, I sometimes talk about it as like a Zero Trust mechanism for organizing a society. Margaret 54:21 Yeah. Elle 54:21 Where you just you...No person is trustworthy enough to hold power over another person. And, so like, I'm really open about it, but the flip side of that is that, you know, I also am a fucking anarchist, and I go to demonstrations, and sometimes I get arrested or whatever. And so I'm not super worried about the government knowing who I am because they know exactly who I am. But I don't share things like my place of work on the internet because I've gotten death threats from white nationalists. And I don't super want white nationalists like sending death threats into my place of work because It's really annoying to deal with. Margaret 55:02 Yeah. Elle 55:03 And so you know, there's...it really comes down to how you think about compartmentalizing information. And which pieces of yourself you want public and private and and how, how you kind of maintain consistency in those things. Margaret 55:21 Yeah. Elle 55:22 Like people will use the same...people will like be out and anarchists on Twitter, but use the same Twitter handle as their LinkedIn URL where they're talking about their job and have their legal name. And it's just like, "Buddy, what are you doing?" Margaret 55:37 Yeah. Elle 55:38 So you do have to think about how pieces of data can be correlated and tied back to you. And what story it is that you're you're presenting, and it is hard and you are going to fuck it up. Like people people are going to fuck it up. Compartmentalization is super hard. Maintaining operational security is extremely hard. But it is so worth thinking about. And even if you do fuck it up, you know, that doesn't mean that it's the end of the world, it might mean that you have to take some extra steps to mitigate that risk elsewhere. Margaret 56:11 The reason I like this whole framework that you're building is that I tend to operate under this conception that clandestinity is a trap. I don't want to I don't want to speak this....I say it as if it's a true statement across all and it's not it. I'm sure there's absolute reasons in different places at different times. But in general, when I look at like social movements, they, once they move to "Now we're just clandestine." That's when everyone dies. And, again, not universally, Elle 56:40 Yeah, but I mean, okay, so this is where I'm gonna get like really off the wall. Right? Margaret 56:46 All right. We're an hour in. It's the perfect time. Elle 56:50 I know, right? People may or may not know who Allen Dulles is. But Allen Margaret 56:54 Not unless they named an airport after him. Elle 56:56 They Did. Margaret 56:57 Oh, then i do who he is. Elle 56:59 Allen Dulles is one of the people who founded the CIA. And he released this pamphlet called "73 Points On Spycraft." And it's a really short read. It's really interesting, I guess. But the primary point is that if you are actually trying to be clandestine, and be successful about it, you want to be as mundane as possible. Margaret 57:22 Yep. Elle 57:23 And in our modern world with the Panopticon being what it is, the easiest way to be clandestine, is actually to be super open. So that if you are trying to hide something, if there is something that you do want to keep secret, there's enough information out there about you, that you're not super worth digging into. Margaret 57:46 Oh, yeah. Cuz they think they already know you. Elle 57:48 Exactly. So if, if that is what your threat model is, then the best way to go about keeping a secret is to flood as many other things out there as possible. So that it's just it's hard to find anything, but whatever it is that you're flooding. Margaret 58:04 Oh, it's like I used to, to get people off my back about my dead name, I would like tell one person in a scene, a fake dead name, and be like, "But you can't tell anyone." Elle 58:15 Right. Margaret 58:16 And then everyone would stop asking about my dead name, because they all thought they knew it, because that person immediately told everyone, Elle 58:22 Right. Margaret 58:23 Yeah. Elle 58:24 It's, it's going back to that same using the noise to hide your signal concept, that it...the same, the same kind of concepts and themes kind of play out over and over and over again. And all security really is is finding ways to do harm reduction for yourself, finding ways to minimize the risk that you're undertaking just enough that that you can operate in whatever it is that you're trying to do. Margaret 58:53 No, I sometimes I like, ask questions. And then I am like, Okay, well don't have an immediate follow up, because I just need to like, think about it. Instead of being like, "I know immediately what to say about that." But okay, so, but with clandestinity in general in this this concept...I also think that this is true on a kind of movement level in a way that I I worry about sometimes not necessarily....Hmm, what am I trying to say? Because I also really hate telling people what to do. It's like kind of my thing I don't like telling people what to do. But there's a certain level... Elle 59:25 Really? Margaret 59:25 Yeah, you'd be shocked to know, Elle 59:27 You? Don't like telling people what to do? Margaret 59:31 Besides telling people not to tell me what to do. That's one of my favorite things to tell people. But, there's a certain amount of. Margaret 59:38 Oh, that's true, like different conceptions of freedom. Elle 59:38 But that's not telling people what to do, that's telling people what not to do. Elle 59:44 It's actually setting a boundary as opposed to dictating a behavior. Margaret 59:48 But I've been in enough relationships where I've learned that setting boundaries is the same as telling people to do. This is a funny joke. Elle 59:55 Ohh co-dependency. Margaret 59:58 But all right, there's a quote from a guy whose name I totally space who was an old revolutionist, who wasn't very good at his job. And his quote was, "Those who make half a revolution dig their own graves." And I think he like, I think it proved true for him. If I remember correctly, I think he died in jail after kind of making half a revolution with some friends. I think he got like arrested for pamphleteering or something, Elle 1:00:20 Jesus. Margaret 1:00:21 It was a couple hundred years ago. And but there's this but then if you look forward in history that like revolutionists, who survive are the ones who win. Sometimes, sometimes the revolutionists win, and then their comrades turn on them and murder them. But, I think overall, the survival rate of a revolution is better when you win is my theory. And and so there's this this concept where there's a tension, and I don't have an answer to it. And I want people to actually think about it instead of assuming, where the difference between videotaping a cop car on fire and not is more complicated than people want you to know. Because, if you want there to be more cop cars on fire, which I do not unless we're in Czarist Russia, in which case, you're in an autocracy, and it's okay to set the cop cars on fire, but I'm clearly not talking about that, or the modern world. But, you're gonna have to film it on your cell phone in order for people to fucking know that it's happening. Sure. And and that works absolutely against your best interest. Like, on an individual level, and even a your friends' level. Elle 1:01:25 So like, here's the thing, being in proximity to a burning cop car is not in and of itself a crime. Margaret 1:01:33 Right. Elle 1:01:34 So there's, there's nothing wrong with filming a cop car on fire. Margaret 1:01:41 But there's that video... Margaret 1:01:41 Right. Elle 1:01:41 There is something wrong with filming someone setting a cop car on fire. And there's something extremely wrong with taking a selfie while setting a cop car on fire. And don't do that, because you shouldn't do crime. Obviously, right? Elle 1:01:42 But there's Layers there...No, go ahead. Margaret 1:02:03 Okay, well, there's the video that came out of Russia recently, where someone filmed themselves throwing Molotovs at a recruitment center. And one of the first comments I see is like, "Wow, this person has terrible OpSec." And that's true, right? Like this person is not looking at how to maximize their lack of chance of going to jail, which is probably the way to maximize that in non Czarist Russia... re-Czarist Russia, is to not throw anything burning at buildings. That's the way to not go to jail. Elle 1:02:35 Right. Margaret 1:02:35 And then if you want to throw the thing at the... and if all you care about is setting this object on fire, then don't film yourself. Elle 1:02:41 Right. Margaret 1:02:41 But if you want more people to know that this is a thing that some people believe is a worthwhile thing to do, you might need to film yourself doing it now that person well didn't speak. Elle 1:02:53 Well no. Margaret 1:02:56 Okay. Elle 1:02:56 You may not need to film yourself doing it. Right? Because what what you can do is if, for example, for some reason, you are going to set something on fire. Margaret 1:03:09 Right, in Russia. Elle 1:03:09 Perhaps what you might want to do is first get the thing to be in a state where it is on fire, and then begin filming the thing once it is in a burning state. Margaret 1:03:25 Conflaguration. Yeah. Elle 1:03:25 Right? And that can that can do a few things, including A) you're not inherently self incriminating. And, you know, if if there are enough people around to provide some form of cover, like for example, if there are 1000s of other people's cell phones also in proximity, it might even create some degree of plausible deniability for you because what fucking dipshit films themself doing crimes. So it's, you know, there's, there's, there's some timing things, right. And the idea is to get it...if you are a person who believes that cop cars look best on fire... Margaret 1:04:10 Buy a cop car, and then you set it on fire. And then you film it. Elle 1:04:15 I mean, you know, you know, you just you opportunistically film whenever a cop car happens to be on fire in your proximity. Margaret 1:04:23 Oh, yeah. Which might have been set on fire by the person who owned it. There's no reason to know one way or not. Elle 1:04:27 Maybe the police set the cop car on fire you know? You never know. There's no way to there....You don't have to you don't have to speculate about how the cop car came to be on fire. You can just film a burning cop car. And so the you know, I think that the line to walk there is just making sure there's no humans in your footage of things that you consider to be art. Margaret 1:04:29 Yeah. No, it it makes sense. And I guess it's like because people very, very validly have been very critical about the ways that media or people who are independently media or whatever, like people filming shit like this, right? But But I think then to say that like, therefore no, no cop cars that are on fire should ever be filmed versus the position you're presenting, which is only cop cars that are already on fire might deserve to be filmed, which is the kind of the long standing like film the broken window, not the window breaker and things like that. But... Elle 1:05:29 I think and I think also there's, you know, there's a distinction to be made between filming yourself setting a cop car on fire, and filming someone else setting a cop car on fire, because there's a consent elemenet, right? Margaret 1:05:34 Totally. Totally. Elle 1:05:47 You shouldn't like...Don't do crime. Nobody should do crime. But if you are going to do crime, do it on purpose. Right? Margaret 1:05:55 Fair enough. Elle 1:05:55 Like that's, that's what civil disobedience is. Civil disobedience is doing crime for the purpose of getting caught to make a point. That's what it is. And if you if you really feel that strongly about doing a crime to make a point, and you want everyone to know that you're doing a crime to make a point, then that's, that's a risk calculation that you yourself need to make for yourself. But you can't make that calculation for anybody else. Margaret 1:06:25 I think that's a great way to sum it up. Elle 1:06:27 So unless your friend is like, "Yo, I'm gonna set this cop car on fire. Like, get the camera ready, hold my beer." You probably shouldn't be filming them. Margaret 1:06:38 See you in 30 years. Elle 1:06:39 Right? You probably shouldn't be filming them setting the cop car on fire either. Margaret 1:06:43 No. No Elle 1:06:44 And also, that's a shitty friend because they've just implicated you in conspiracy, right? Margaret 1:06:49 Yeah. Elle 1:06:50 Friends don't implicate friends. Margaret 1:06:53 It's a good, it's a good rule. Yeah, yeah. All right. Well, I that's not entirely where I immediately expected to go with Threat Modeling. But I feel like we've covered an awful lot. Is there something? Is there something...Do you have any, like final thoughts about Threat Modeling, and as relates to the stuff that we've been talking about? Elle 1:07:18 I think that you know, the thing that I do really want to drive home. And that honestly does come back to your point about clandestinity being a trap is that, again, the purpose of threat modeling is to first understand, you know, what risks you're trying to protect against, and then figure out how to do what you're accomplishing in a way that minimizes risk. But the important piece is still doing whatever it is that you're trying to accomplish, whether that's movement building, or something else. And so there there is, there is a calculation that needs to be made in terms of what level of risk is acceptable to you. But if if, ultimately, your risk threshold is preventing you from accomplishing whatever you're trying to accomplish, then it's time to take a step back, recalculate and figure out whether or not you actually want to accomplish the thing, and what level of risk is worth taking. Because I think that, you know, again, if if you're, if your security mechanisms are preventing you from doing the thing that you're you set out to try to do, then your adversaries are already winning, and something probably needs to shift. Margaret 1:08:39 I really like that line. And so I feel like that's a decent spot, place to end on. Do. Do you have anything that you'd like to shout out? People can follow you on the internet? Or they shouldn't follow you on the internet? What? What do you what do you want to advocate for here? Elle 1:08:53 If you follow me on the internet, I'm so sorry. That's really all I can say. I'm, I am on the internet. I am a tire fire. I'm probably fairly easy to find based on my name, my pronouns and the things that I've said here today, and I can't recommend following my Twitter. Margaret 1:09:17 I won't put in the show notes then. Elle 1:09:19 I mean, you're welcome to but I can't advocate in good conscience for anyone to pay attention to anything that I have to say. Margaret 1:09:27 Okay, so go back and don't listen to the last hour everyone. Elle 1:09:31 I mean, I'm not going to tell you what to do. Margaret 1:09:34 I am that's my favorite thing to do. Elle 1:09:36 I mean, you know, this is just like my opinion, you know? There are no leaders. We're all the leaders. I don't know. Do do do what you think is right. Margaret 1:09:55 Agreed. All right. Well, thank you so much. Elle 1:09:59 Thank you. I really appreciate it. Margaret 1:10:07 Thank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed this podcast, you should tell people about it by whatever means occurs to you to tell people about it, which might be the internet, it might even be in person, it might be by taking a walk, leaving your cell phones behind, and then getting in deep into the woods and saying," I like the following podcast." And then the other person will be like, "Really, I thought we were gonna make out or maybe do some crimes." But, instead you have told them about the podcast. And I'm recording this at the same time as I record the intro, and now the

Sam Rotman is a renowned international concert pianist who has performed over 3200 concerts in 61 countries in leading concert halls around the world. He has released four recordings. He received an honorary doctorate in May, 2016. He was born into an Eastern European Jewish family that found new life in Christ.--Hear his fascinating testimony when you review this edition of Crosstalk.

Sam Rotman is a renowned international concert pianist who has performed over 3200 concerts in 61 countries in leading concert halls around the world. He has released four recordings. He received an honorary doctorate in May, 2016. He was born into an Eastern European Jewish family that found new life in Christ.--Hear his fascinating testimony when you review this edition of Crosstalk.

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). 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

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/genocide-studies

When I Grow Up, the latest graphic nonfiction narrative from New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein, is based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published autobiographies of Eastern European Jewish teenagers. These autobiographies, submitted in a writing contest, were hidden away at the outbreak of World War II, and were only discovered seven decades later. In When I Grow Up, the author brings these stories, their authors, and their entire world, to life. David Gottlieb is the Director of Jewish Studies at the Spertus Institute for Jewish Learning and Leadership in Chicago. He is the author of Second Slayings: The Binding of Isaac and the Formation of Jewish Memory (Gorgias Press, 2019). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

In this episode, we speak with Blake Zeitman, owner of Zeitman's Grocery Store in downtown Bryan.  He is carrying on his family's legacy from the original Zeitman's Grocery Store opened in 1891 by a family of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. Zeitman's Grocery Store Website

Our guest this week is author and New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein. He joins us to talk about his new graphic narrative called “When I Grow Up.” It brings to life the accounts of six Eastern European Jewish youths right before the start of World War II. It was long thought the Nazis destroyed the autobiographies, but they were discovered in 2017 hidden away in a Lithuanian church cellar.

Our guest this week is author and New Yorker cartoonist Ken Krimstein. He joins us to talk about his new graphic narrative called “When I Grow Up.” It brings to life the accounts of six Eastern European Jewish youths right before the start of World War II. It was long thought the Nazis destroyed the autobiographies, but they were discovered in 2017 hidden away in a Lithuanian church cellar.

The Wise Rabbi is a series of short Jewish folktales, both humorous and serious, which reflect the wisdom of the traditional rabbi and his place of respect in the Jewish community. The tales were gleaned from various Eastern European Jewish collections.

As global cultures have shifted in the past century, traditional conceptions of women in religion are starting to shift as well. Yet these ideas are not entirely new. Although the first Eastern European Jewish school for girls started in 1907, there was a school for Sephardic girls in London that had opened in 1731.

Cory Doctorow is a Canadian-British citizen of Eastern European Jewish descent and, frankly, it is no less difficult to grasp his vast interests and points of expertise than his family roots. After attending four universities without obtaining a degree, Cory's career started with co-founding free software P2P company called OpenCola and selling it to the Open Text Corporation after four years. Later Doctorow relocated  to London and worked as European Affairs Coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation helping to establish the Open Rights Group, before leaving the EFF to pursue both fiction and non-fiction writing full-time.  He is also an activist in favour of liberalising copyright laws and a proponent of the Creative Commons organization, using some of their licences for his books. Some common themes of his work include digital rights management, file sharing, and post-scarcity economics. Academically, he was named the 2006–2007 Canadian Fulbright Chair for Public Diplomacy at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and in 2009, Doctorow became the first Independent Studies Scholar in Virtual Residence at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Doctorow is also a Visiting Professor at the Open University in the United Kingdom. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate from The Open University. If you want to find out how data surveillance, AI, and monopolization can be connected to drug policy, be sure to tune in to this episode! Blog: www.pluralistic.net Books: www.craphound.com/shop Podcast: www.craphound.com/podcast   Newsletter: https://mail.flarn.com/mailman/listinfo/plura-list/Medium: https://doctorow.medium.com/RSS: https://pluralistic.net/feed/Twitter: https://twitter.com/doctorow  Drugs without the hot air: Making Sense of Legal and Illegal Drugs - without the hot air “Nutsack”Harm reductionSelective enforcementElectronic frontier foundationAssociation for Computing MachineryStatement on principles for the development and deployment of equitable, private, and secure remote test administration systems.Bruce AlexanderDanah BoydNetwork effectSwitching Costs  ★ Support this podcast ★

This week we visit with cartoonist Ken Krimstein to talk about his new graphic novel, based on six of hundreds of newly discovered, never-before-published essays by Eastern European Jewish teens written on the brink of World War II, and found in 2017 hidden in a Lithuanian church cellar. Episode 312 November 11, 2021 Yiddish Book Center Amherst, MA

In this second installment on the Jewish history of Houston and South Texas, the renaissance of Orthodox through the pioneering efforts of Rabbi Joseph Radinsky of the United Orthodox Synagogue, Rabbi Shimon Lazaroff of Chabad and Rabbi Yehoshua Wender of the Young Israel of Houston. The development of air conditioning led to a population explosion in Houston in 1960's, and the S&L scandal led to its reduction in the late 80's. Nevertheless, institutions were built, schools grew and a Kollel was founded in recent times as well. 40 miles to the west lies the town of Hempstead. Its rise and decline as a Jewish community is through the story of the Schwartz family and its patriarch Rabbi Chaim Schwartz. The port of Galveston was home to a prestigious community, as well as the oldest established Jewish community in Texas. With Rabbi Henry Cohen's arrival in 1888, he'd leave his imprint on Texas and American Jewish history through his activities over the ensuing more than six decades. The most prominent role played by Galveston was with the ‘Galveston Plan', an attempt to reroute Eastern European Jewish immigrants to Galveston due to the overcrowding of New York. With a direct Bremen-Galveston route in place, over 10,000 Jews arrived in the port between the years 1907-1914.   For sponsorship opportunities about your favorite topics of Jewish history contact Yehuda at:  yehuda@yehudageberer.com   Subscribe To Our Podcast on:    PodBean: https://jsoundbites.podbean.com/   Follow us on Twitter or Instagram at @Jsoundbites You can email Yehuda at yehuda@yehudageberer.com

The latest guest on the Building Texas Business podcast is Ziggy Gruber, restauranteur and deli owner, here in Houston, Texas. Kenny & Ziggy's is a traditional New York Delicatessen Restaurant and Bakery specializing in Eastern European Jewish cuisine. It's the heart of the local community, and we hear how Ziggy believes cultivating your employees helps build a strong family-oriented culture. Listen now to hear Ziggy's passion for his craft and community shine. LINKSShow Notes Previous Episodes About BoyarMiller About Kenny & Ziggy's GUEST Ziggy GruberAbout Kenny Special Guest: Ziggy Gruber.

Jake Cohen didn't care much about Jewish food when he went to culinary school and worked in high end restaurants. But when he met his future husband, Jake was introduced to the Middle Eastern Jewish recipes of his in-laws, like tahdig and kubbeh. Soon, he was mining his own family's Eastern European Jewish recipes, and putting his spin on matzo ball soup and kasha varnishkes. Earlier this year Jake published his first cookbook, Jew-ish: Reinvented Recipes From A Modern Mensch, and he's become a social media star. Ahead of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year), Dan and Jake talk about the controversial ingredient Jake adds to tahdig, whether Rosh Hashanah brisket is overhyped, and why personality is so important in online food videos. // Get 500+ more great Sporkful episodes from our catalog and lots of other Stitcher goodness when you sign up for Stitcher Premium: www.StitcherPremium.com/Sporkful (promo code: SPORKFUL). Transcript available at www.sporkful.com.

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. 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

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Until now, the herbal traditions of the Ashkenazi people have remained unexplored and shrouded in mystery. Ashkenazi Herbalism: Rediscovering the Herbal Traditions of Eastern European Jews (North Atlantic Books, 2021) rediscovers the forgotten legacy of the Jewish medicinal plant healers who thrived in Eastern Europe's Pale of Settlement, from their beginnings in the Middle Ages through the modern era. Including the first materia medica of 26 plants and herbs essential to Ashkenazi folk medicine, Ashkenazi Herbalism sheds light on the preparations, medicinal profiles, and applications of a rich but previously unknown herbal tradition–one hidden by language barriers, obscured by cultural misunderstandings, and nearly lost to history. Written for new and established practitioners, it offers illustrations, provides information on comparative medicinal practices, and illuminates the important historical and cultural contexts that gave rise to Eastern European Jewish herbalism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/folkore

Jonathan Drori CBE is a Trustee of the Eden Project and Cambridge Science Centre, an ambassador for WWF, and was for nine years a Trustee of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In a previous life at the BBC, he was executive producer of more than 50 prime-time science documentaries and popular series, and he is now the author of Around the World in 80 Plants.On the podcast, he talks to Lara and Olivia about the diverse diet he had as a child of Eastern European Jewish refugees, how he got into botany through eating plants and the time he accidentally ordered a raw chicken milkshake.

Jonathan Drori CBE is a Trustee of the Eden Project and Cambridge Science Centre, an ambassador for WWF, and was for nine years a Trustee of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. In a previous life at the BBC, he was executive producer of more than 50 prime-time science documentaries and popular series, and he is now the author of Around the World in 80 Plants.On the podcast, he talks to Lara and Olivia about the diverse diet he had as a child of Eastern European Jewish refugees, how he got into botany through eating plants and the time he accidentally ordered a raw chicken milkshake.

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. In Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (NYU Press, 2021), Rachel B. Gross argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Gross asserts that many prominent sociologists and historians have mistakenly concluded that American Judaism is in decline, and she contends that they are looking in the wrong places for Jewish religious activity. If they looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews’ involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. Rachel B. Gross is Assistant Professor and John and Marcia Goldman Chair in American Jewish Studies in the Department of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. In Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (NYU Press, 2021), Rachel B. Gross argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Gross asserts that many prominent sociologists and historians have mistakenly concluded that American Judaism is in decline, and she contends that they are looking in the wrong places for Jewish religious activity. If they looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews’ involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. Rachel B. Gross is Assistant Professor and John and Marcia Goldman Chair in American Jewish Studies in the Department of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. In Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (NYU Press, 2021), Rachel B. Gross argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Gross asserts that many prominent sociologists and historians have mistakenly concluded that American Judaism is in decline, and she contends that they are looking in the wrong places for Jewish religious activity. If they looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews’ involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. Rachel B. Gross is Assistant Professor and John and Marcia Goldman Chair in American Jewish Studies in the Department of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. 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

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. In Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (NYU Press, 2021), Rachel B. Gross argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Gross asserts that many prominent sociologists and historians have mistakenly concluded that American Judaism is in decline, and she contends that they are looking in the wrong places for Jewish religious activity. If they looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews’ involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. Rachel B. Gross is Assistant Professor and John and Marcia Goldman Chair in American Jewish Studies in the Department of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

In 2007, the Museum at Eldridge Street opened at the site of a restored nineteenth-century synagogue originally built by some of the first Eastern European Jewish immigrants in New York City. Visitors to the museum are invited to stand along indentations on the floor where footprints of congregants past have worn down the soft pinewood. Here, many feel a palpable connection to the history surrounding them. In Beyond the Synagogue: Jewish Nostalgia as Religious Practice (NYU Press, 2021), Rachel B. Gross argues that nostalgic activities such as visiting the Museum at Eldridge Street or eating traditional Jewish foods should be understood as American Jewish religious practices. In making the case that these practices are not just cultural, but are actually religious, Gross asserts that many prominent sociologists and historians have mistakenly concluded that American Judaism is in decline, and she contends that they are looking in the wrong places for Jewish religious activity. If they looked outside of traditional institutions and practices, such as attendance at synagogue or membership in Jewish Community Centers, they would see that the embrace of nostalgia provides evidence of an alternative, under-appreciated way of being Jewish and of maintaining Jewish continuity. Tracing American Jews’ involvement in a broad array of ostensibly nonreligious activities, including conducting Jewish genealogical research, visiting Jewish historic sites, purchasing books and toys that teach Jewish nostalgia to children, and seeking out traditional Jewish foods, Gross argues that these practices illuminate how many American Jews are finding and making meaning within American Judaism today. Rachel B. Gross is Assistant Professor and John and Marcia Goldman Chair in American Jewish Studies in the Department of Jewish Studies at San Francisco State University. Schneur Zalman Newfield is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, and the author of Degrees of Separation: Identity Formation While Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism (Temple University Press, 2020). Visit him online at ZalmanNewfield.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

There is a trail near my house; it cuts through the woods, follows along a creek, and makes its way back to an old textile mill from the 1800s. The mill changed hands a few times and ultimately ended up being run by a woman. This woman also worked to create the first settlement for Eastern European Jewish immigrants in this area. My ancestors are Eastern European Jews. Even before that, before mills and immigrants, the indigenous people first on this land were here. There are carvings in the rocks along this very river from these First People that we can still see today. So, a few times a week, I walk this trail. I step over a heart-shaped rock embedded in the ground, and I reach a spot just before the mill... a sandy little nook along the shoreline. There is a rock that overhangs the water; it is just long enough to lie down on, and so I do. I stretch out on my back, I stare at the sky, and I think about all the other people that might have laid down in this very spot. People that carried worries, if not identical to mine, than very likely in the same vein: Worries about making ends meet Worries about doing the very best by your children Worries about the community and the ecosystems that support that community Worries about changes unknown coming around the corner I lie on this rock, and I allow myself to breathe and to feel, and I stay until I know I'm done. Always past that first inclination to get up... I stay until I well and truly feel held. Because I always do. When I come here and I lie on the earth, on this stone that has seen eons longer than I ever will, I feel held. I feel supported. I remember that these worries aren't meant to be carried by me alone. When we talk about the earth element - absolutely we can talk about what we want to plant. We can talk about nutrients and nourishment and fecundity, but let's first talk about support. Let's talk about being held. For the earth is what has held us {all beings} throughout time. Join me now for today's discussion of the earth element, both external and internal, and then a 20-minute guided meditation practice. If you enjoyed today's episode, please consider leaving me a review wherever you found this podcast. Your review helps others to find this show! You can learn more about my: *Shoreline: my new meditation app *Live, virtual meditation classes with me *Upcoming events All by visiting merylarnett.com. You can also grab my FREE Meditation Starter Kit on my website merylarnett.com. It is full of my favorite tips, stories and ideas for starting and maintaining a daily meditation practice. Grab your copy today! --> http://bit.ly/meditationstarterkit *** Connect with me on Instagram {@merylarnett} to get bonus meditation tips, mini-meditations, and the occasional baby spam: https://www.instagram.com/merylarnett/   #meditatewithmeryl

What is distinctive Jewish dress? Is it distinctive? How is Jewish traditional fashion influenced by the surrounding society? When did chassidic dress develop? Why does Chassidic and traditional Jewish fashion still follow modes of Eastern European Jewish fashion?  What makes the rabbinic frock Jewish and why is it for rabbis? Why are there different types of shtreimels? What is a 'tarbush'?  Fashion and accepted clothing styles in traditional Jewish communities was and is a mode of expression of Jewish and distinctive communal identity throughout Jewish history. Through the challenges of modernity, this was brought into much sharper focus  in the last century. In this episode we'll explore some of the trends of Jewish fashion in modern Jewish history.   For sponsorship opportunities about your favorite topics of Jewish history contact Yehuda at:  yehuda@yehudageberer.com   Subscribe To Our Podcast on:    PodBean: https://jsoundbites.podbean.com/   Follow us on Twitter or Instagram at @Jsoundbites You can email Yehuda at yehuda@yehudageberer.com

Hannah Hahn’s They Left It All Behind: Trauma, Loss and Memory Among Eastern European Jewish Immigrants and Their Children (Roman and Littlefield, 2020) explores the impact of conflict, social change and immigration on the psychology of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their descendants. Focusing her analysis on interviews with 22 children of immigrants who came to United States before the immigration restrictions of the 1920s, Hahn shows how the past weighed on immigrant Jews and their American children. Contrary to claims that the immigrants simply “left it all behind” in Eastern Europe, Hahn concludes that the silence of immigrant parents was part of a larger story of suffering, trauma and the transmission of memories across generations. They Left It All Behind illuminates both the history of Jews in the United States and the kinds of problems immigrant families face today. Robert W. Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of American Studies and Journalism at Rutgers University. He is the author of Crossing Broadway: Washington Heights and the Promise of New York (Cornell, paperback, 2019) and co-author of All the Nations Under Heaven: Immigrants, Migrants and the Making of New York (Columbia, 2019). He can be reached at rwsnyder@newark.rutgers.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Hannah Hahn’s They Left It All Behind: Trauma, Loss and Memory Among Eastern European Jewish Immigrants and Their Children (Roman and Littlefield, 2020) explores the impact of conflict, social change and immigration on the psychology of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their descendants. Focusing her analysis on interviews with 22 children of immigrants who came to United States before the immigration restrictions of the 1920s, Hahn shows how the past weighed on immigrant Jews and their American children. Contrary to claims that the immigrants simply “left it all behind” in Eastern Europe, Hahn concludes that the silence of immigrant parents was part of a larger story of suffering, trauma and the transmission of memories across generations. They Left It All Behind illuminates both the history of Jews in the United States and the kinds of problems immigrant families face today. Robert W. Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of American Studies and Journalism at Rutgers University. He is the author of Crossing Broadway: Washington Heights and the Promise of New York (Cornell, paperback, 2019) and co-author of All the Nations Under Heaven: Immigrants, Migrants and the Making of New York (Columbia, 2019). He can be reached at rwsnyder@newark.rutgers.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Hannah Hahn’s They Left It All Behind: Trauma, Loss and Memory Among Eastern European Jewish Immigrants and Their Children (Roman and Littlefield, 2020) explores the impact of conflict, social change and immigration on the psychology of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their descendants. Focusing her analysis on interviews with 22 children of immigrants who came to United States before the immigration restrictions of the 1920s, Hahn shows how the past weighed on immigrant Jews and their American children. Contrary to claims that the immigrants simply “left it all behind” in Eastern Europe, Hahn concludes that the silence of immigrant parents was part of a larger story of suffering, trauma and the transmission of memories across generations. They Left It All Behind illuminates both the history of Jews in the United States and the kinds of problems immigrant families face today. Robert W. Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of American Studies and Journalism at Rutgers University. He is the author of Crossing Broadway: Washington Heights and the Promise of New York (Cornell, paperback, 2019) and co-author of All the Nations Under Heaven: Immigrants, Migrants and the Making of New York (Columbia, 2019). He can be reached at rwsnyder@newark.rutgers.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Hannah Hahn's They Left It All Behind: Trauma, Loss and Memory Among Eastern European Jewish Immigrants and Their Children (Roman and Littlefield, 2020) explores the impact of conflict, social change and immigration on the psychology of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and their descendants. Focusing her analysis on interviews with 22 children of immigrants who came to United States before the immigration restrictions of the 1920s, Hahn shows how the past weighed on immigrant Jews and their American children. Contrary to claims that the immigrants simply “left it all behind” in Eastern Europe, Hahn concludes that the silence of immigrant parents was part of a larger story of suffering, trauma and the transmission of memories across generations. They Left It All Behind illuminates both the history of Jews in the United States and the kinds of problems immigrant families face today. Robert W. Snyder is Manhattan Borough Historian and professor emeritus of American Studies and Journalism at Rutgers University. He is the author of Crossing Broadway: Washington Heights and the Promise of New York (Cornell, paperback, 2019) and co-author of All the Nations Under Heaven: Immigrants, Migrants and the Making of New York (Columbia, 2019). He can be reached at rwsnyder@newark.rutgers.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Annie Kohen invites us into feldmestn, the Eastern European Jewish women's tradition of cemetery-measuring, as an embodied practice of honoring our beloved dead.

Greg Marchildon interviews Pierre Anctil, a professor of history at the University of Ottawa, about his book “A Reluctant Welcome for Jewish People: Voices in Le Devoir’s Editorials, 1910-1947” (University of Ottawa Press). They discuss the hundreds of editorials published in Le Devoir between 1910 and 1947 on the subject of Judaism or Jews. The most respected newspaper in French-Canada, Le Devoir took a consistently negative view towards increasing Jewish immigration mainly because of the traditional anti-Jewish position of the Roman Catholic Church. Beyond this, however, the key editorialists differed in their views of Montreal’s Eastern European Jewish community. This podcast was produced by Jessica Schmidt.

In her newest book, Legacy of Blood: Jews, Pogroms, and Ritual Murder in the Lands of the Soviets (Oxford University Press, 2019), Elissa Bemporad explores two extreme manifestations of tsarist antisemitism in the Soviet Union from 1917 to the early 1960s. Elissa is assistant professor of history at Queens College and the Graduate Center, where she specializes in Russian and Eastern European Jewish history, gender, and genocide studies. She is interviewed by Beth Harpaz. 

The great cartoonist Ben Katchor rejoins the show to talk about his brand-new book, The Dairy Restaurant (Schocken), a 500-page illustrated history of, um, dairy restaurants! We get into what drew him to the milekhdike personality, the remnants of Eastern European Jewish culture that call to him, why this book had to be prose-with-pictures rather than comics, the decades of research and interviews he conducted, and why these restaurants came to represent the history of how Jews moved away from their parents' professions. We also discuss just what went wrong with the world, why his favorite books are old Chicago Yellow Pages directories, why just studying Jewish history can constitute a sort of Judaism, his fascination with interwar Warsaw, his plea for a controlled economy, and why The Dairy Restaurant had to begin in the Garden of Eden. • More info at our site (And check out our past conversations from 2013 and 2016!) • Support The Virtual Memories Show via Patreon or Paypal

EPISODE 311 Nobody had seen anything quite like it. In late November 1909, tens of thousands of workers went on strike, angered by poor work conditions and unfair wages within the city's largest industry. New York City had seen labor strikes before, but this one would change the city forever. The industry in question was the garment industry, the manufacture of clothing -- and, in the case of this strike, the manufacture of shirtwaists, the fashionable blouse worn by many American women. The strikers in question were mostly young women and girls, mostly Eastern European Jewish and Italian immigrants who were tired of being taken advantage of by their male employers. Leading the charge were labor leaders and activists, and in particular, a young woman named Clara Lemlich who would incite a crowd of thousands at Cooper Union with a rousing speech that would forever echo as a cry of solidarity for an underpaid and abused workforce. PLUS: A visit to the New-York Historical Society's new exhibition Women March and an interview with Valerie Paley, co-curator and director at the Historical Society's Center for Women's History. boweryboyshistory.com     Support the show.

At the 2019 ASEEES Conference, PhD student Raya Shapiro shares with SlavX host Samantha about their research on the Jewish émigré playwright and author S. Ansky. And then, anthropoligist Jenanne Ferguson from the University of Nevada talks about the language of Sakha (Yakut) and the intrinsic spirit of all languages. ABOUT THE GUESTS: Raya Shapiro is a 3rd year PhD student at the University of Illinois Chicago. They are interested in how late 19th/early 20th century Eastern European Jewish writers used different languages - for politics, for publication, for practicality - and how their multilingualism creatively shaped the languages they chose to write in (Polish, Russian, Yiddish, German). They have managed to write at least one paper about S. An-sky for every seminar this year. Jenanne K. Ferguson of the University of Nevada currently researches the maintenance and transmission of the Sakha (Yakut) language in northeastern Siberia, Russia, through the lens of mobility by and through language. Her dissertation works dealt with ways of speaking Sakha among Sakha-Russian bilinguals living in urban and rural regions and the language ideologies shaping their language choices and practices. Ongoing and future work deals with the revitalization and transformation of Sakha oral literary genres and the local creation of new online spaces (e.g. social networking, SMS, Wikipedia) for Sakha language transmission and usage, as well as a project comparing the politics and aesthetics of indige (https://www.aseees.org/)nous storytelling in Canada and Russia. She also has worked on questions and themes with Canadian indigenous languages. A native Canadian, she earned her PhD in Anthropology from the University of Aberdeen in 2013. EDITOR'S NOTE: Episode recorded during the 2019 ASEEES Conference in San Francisco, California. Thanks for listening and if you like this show and support open academic programming, please take a second to rate the show on Apple Podcasts, TuneIn, or on our Facebook page. We so appreciate your support!! CREDITS Co-Producer: Tom Rehnquist (Connect: facebook.com/thomas.rehnquist) Co-Producer: Matthew Orr (Connect: facebook.com/orrrmatthew) Associate Producer: Samantha Farmer Associate Producer: Lera Toropin Associate Producer: Cullan Bendig Associate Producer: Tracy Heim Associate Producer: Milena D.K. Supervising Producer/Recording Engineer: Kathryn Yegorov-Crate Executive Editor/Music Producer: Charlie Harper (Connect: facebook.com/charlie.harper.1485 Instagram: @charlieharpermusic, www.charlieharpermusic.com) Executive Producer & Creator: Michelle Daniel (Connect: facebook.com/mdanielgeraci Instagram: @michelledaniel86, www.msdaniel.com) Follow The Slavic Connexion on Instagram: @slavxradio, Twitter: @SlavXRadio, and on Facebook: facebook.com/slavxradio . Visit www.slavxradio.com for more episodes and information. EXECUTIVE PRODUCER'S NOTE: A special thanks to the Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies for the financial support necessary to take the SlavX team to San Francisco for the multi-day convention. In just a few days, four hosts completed an amazing 18 interviews with unique guests from all over the world. Most of these will be made available on the podcast. Thank you also to the conference directors and staff at ASEEES for being so accommodating and helping SlavX staff find rooms to use as recording spaces. Additional thanks to Professor Craig Campbell at UT for inspiring our supervising producer with the idea to attend the conference and to SlavX team members Katya and Samantha for taking the trouble to apply for travel funds during the busiest time of the semester for grad students. Their initiative is nothing short of amazing to me, and hopefully everybody appreciates their efforts as much as I do. We hope you all enjoy these exclusive interviews!! Disclaimer: The Slavic Connexion is not affiliated with ASEEES and does not represent the association or otherwise explicitly endorse ASEEES' values or views.

SEASON 2: EPISODE 1Violinist Alicia Svigals talks about the erotics of dishwashing. ABOUT THE GUESTAlicia Svigals is violinist, composer, and co-founder of the Grammy-winning Klezmatics. She has taught and toured with violinist Itzhak Perlman and has composed for the Kronos Quartet, has appeared in stadium shows with Robert Plant and Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, recorded for John Cale's album Last Day On Earth, and the Ben Folds Five's Whatever and Ever Amen. Her debut album Fidl was instrumentation in reviving the tradition of klezmer fiddling, and in 2018 she released the album Bergovski Suite with jazz pianist Uli Geissendoerfer. Recently she has been commissioned to compose scores for silent films, including The Yellow Ticket and Das Alte Gesetz. More info at https://aliciasvigals.com. ABOUT THE HOST Neil Goldberg is an artist in NYC who makes work that The New York Times has described as “tender, moving and sad but also deeply funny.” His work is in the permanent collection of MoMA, he’s a Guggenheim Fellow, and teaches at the Yale School of Art. More information at neilgoldberg.com. ABOUT THE TITLE SHE'S A TALKER was the name of Neil’s first video project. “One night in the early 90s I was combing my roommate’s cat and found myself saying the words ‘She’s a talker.’ I wondered how many other other gay men in NYC might be doing the exact same thing at that very moment. With that, I set out on a project in which I videotaped over 80 gay men in their living room all over NYC, combing their cats and saying ‘She’s a talker.’” A similar spirit of NYC-centric curiosity and absurdity animates the podcast. CREDITS This series is made possible with generous support from Stillpoint Fund. Producer: Devon Guinn Creative Consultants: Aaron Dalton, Molly Donahue Mixer: Andrew Litton Visuals and Sounds: Joshua Graver Theme Song: Jeff Hiller Website: Itai AlmorMedia: Justine Lee Interns: Alara Degirmenci, Jonathan Jalbert, Jesse KimothoThanks: Jennifer Callahan, Nick Rymer, Sue Simon, Maddy Sinnock TRANSCRIPTION ALICIA SVIGALS:  I have, over the years, you know, since we got married in 2011, done that thing that I was doing before with "partner" and "my significant" - uncourageously obscured the fact that I'm a lesbian and... NEIL GOLDBERG:  Uncourageously obscure could be the title of my autobiography. NEIL:  Hello, I'm Neil Goldberg and this is SHE’S A TALKER. This is the first episode of season two, and we'll be back with new episodes every Friday. Today I'll be talking with violinist Alicia Svigals. If this is your first time listening, here's the premise of the podcast:  I'm a visual artist, and for the past million or so years, I've been jotting down thoughts, observations, and reflections, often about things that might otherwise get overlooked or go unnoticed. I write them on index cards, and I've got thousands of them. I originally wrote the cards just for me, or maybe to use in future art projects, but now I'm using them as prompts for conversations with some of my favorite artists, writers, performers, and beyond. These days, the cards often start as recordings I make into my phone here and there over the course of the day. Each episode I start with some recent ones. Here they are: NEIL:  The particular Grim Reaper-gloom of a rolly bag coming up behind you. NEIL:  Sleeping naked, but wearing a mouth guard. NEIL:  People in New York get so jovial when they see you carrying a pizza box. NEIL:  I am so excited to have as my guest, my dear friend, Alicia Svigals. Alicia is a world-class violinist who specializes in klezmer. If you’re not familiar with klezmer, here’s Alicia playing at the River To River Festival… [Klezmer music plays]… Klezmer was originally a type of Eastern European Jewish music that then came to the United States and became influenced by jazz. Alicia was one of the founders of the Klezmatics who won a Grammy. She's played with all kinds of fancy people like Itzhak Perlman, John Cale of the Velvet Underground, and Jimmy Page and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin, which was just a brunch where we listened to Led Zeppelin, which turns out to be a great combination. Here's our conversation. NEIL:  Alicia Svigals. Thank you so much for being in SHE’S A TALKER. We went to college together. We've known each other for more than 30 years, but, um, I do like to ask everyone, I'm about to sit down next to you on a plane. Hey, what do you do? ALICIA:  I'm a violinist and a composer. Uh, I specialize in a kind of traditional East European Jewish music called klezmer music, which, you know, in the past people would be like, "Oh, what?" And now they're like, "Oh yeah, of course I know that." NEIL:  Right, right. It's almost like the way coming out has kind of changed, although maybe without the shame element, or maybe not. ALICIA:  I know that the shame element is there. It's a little apologetic, like I'm a violinist composer, well, not like a classical violinist. ALICIA:  I do this weird thing. NEIL:  Yeah. Yeah. It vaguely reminds me of how my referencing my husband has changed. You know what I mean? When Jeff and I got married, we did kind of make an informal commitment that we would just always use 'husband' as a way to kind of desensitize the world to it. Yeah. If we were going to take advantage of that privilege. NEIL:  Um, but now I, I usually don't think twice about it. ALICIA:  Wow. NEIL:  How about you? ALICIA:  I think about it practically, I mean, absolutely every single time, it always feels weird and awkward and like I'm pretending it's no big deal, and there's a social contract now that of course it's no big deal, and everybody secretly in their mind thinks it's a very big deal. NEIL:  Exactly. ALICIA:  I'm wondering, like, how has their entire vision of me now changed and are they, have they stopped listening to what I'm saying? Cause there's digesting that... NEIL:  Right. When you're meeting someone for the first time and you just drop a "wife." ALICIA:  Yeah, or if I'm in a professional context. NEIL:  For me, I always feel like, to your point, that every time I use "husband", it's a little micro acting exercise. You know? ALICIA:  It's like... NEIL:  It's performing casualness. ALICIA:  Exactly. Like, and everybody knows it's a performance. So the conversation was doing whatever it was doing and it was normal, and all of a sudden we're faced with that moment like, what else are we going to do? We have no choice. Either we're going to perform casualness and feel weird and fake about that, or we're going to, uh, uncourageously obfuscate, or there's a third possibility, which I've seen people do, which is to say like, be sort of transparent about all that, but then you've made a big deal of something perhaps unnecessarily. NEIL:  Right. How has that sounded? Like, "I'm gay and I have a husband." ALICIA:  You know, I'm not even sure, I've seen other people do it and I haven't liked it, so I'm not sure, but it... Yeah, exactly. "I'm gay and I have a husband." NEIL:  All right. Now, another question I like to ask people is, uh, what is something you were thinking about today? ALICIA:  I mean, since I woke up. NEIL:  I'll let you define 'today'. ALICIA:  Okay. Okay. Okay. Cause I don't usually start thinking till about one or two. NEIL:  Oh, okay. ALICIA:  And it's still early. NEIL:  So you haven't thought about anything yet? ALICIA:  Not very much, but some - okay, some of the things I'll tell you, I thought, um... I hope that Ellen, my wife, hears me doing the dishes because she has told me that turns her on. NEIL:  Do you think she's saying that just as a way to get you to do the dishes? ALICIA:  You know, I have discussed that at length with my therapist and she says, I need to take that literally. NEIL:  Wow, okay. ALICIA:  And all kinds of things turn people on. And that's not even a weird one in her experience here. And hearing all kinds of things from all kinds of people, because, for a lot of people, having the other person do the dishes means they're being taken care of. NEIL:  Oh yeah, totally. ALICIA:  You know, for some people, you know, they want to wear diapers. NEIL:  Exactly. ALICIA:  No, we don't do that. NEIL:  Okay. ALICIA:  So maybe... NEIL:  No judgement if you did though, but, but feeling taken care of doesn't necessarily map directly onto being turned on. Like I feel very taken care of by Jeff often. I guess sometimes that can be a turn on. It lives in a different space though. ALICIA:  Right. ALICIA:  For me too. But apparently there are a lot of people, like it's a very common thing. They won't feel turned on until they feel taken care of. It's really, really separate for me. Like I'm sure it's connected somewhere in there, sometimes in some ways, in some fantasies and so forth. But, um, according to my shrink, who is a genius - NEIL:  Yeah. ALICIA:  And is the smartest person I've ever met. NEIL:  Wow. ALICIA:  Kind of hoping she'll listen to this. NEIL:  Do you want to do the dishes too, while you're at it? ALICIA:  Anyway, I tend to think that my way of thinking and feeling and... My brain is really the right way. And other people's, if it's different, they must be making it up, they must be putting it on. It must be a ploy to get me to do the dishes. And I wrote the quote somewhere, somebody who said, "Everybody's got a weird brain", and I really like it, and I try to remind myself, and everybody's got a weird brain. NEIL:  Absolutely. I love not being in therapy anymore. ALICIA:  Oh you're not in therapy anymore? NEIL:  No. After, after, I think almost 25 years on the dot. ALICIA:  Wow. NEIL:  Um, we terminated like, uh, three or four years ago now, maybe three years. I love it. ALICIA:  Wow. Wow. NEIL:  You don't spend the money and you have the time and you don't have to kind of think about yourself in that same way. NEIL:  You don't have that accountability. ALICIA:  Yeah, the time part I, you know, couldn't relate to. Um, I feel like currently I'm like a snake in the process of getting ready to shed its skin. There's no crisis. Knock wood, you know, cheap too. But I feel like a transformation is going to happen. NEIL:  That's great. ALICIA:  I can't imagine leaving. NEIL:  Although, sorry, not to be a buzzkill, but, um, that's the thing that I'm happy not to have going on for me in therapy, which is the feeling of like, okay, life is just ahead of you. You know what I mean? And, and when I would say this to my therapist, he would be like, that's not the way to be holding this. But I found it hard to avoid that. I mean, toward the end, it, there was an alignment of like the, you know, the me who was in therapy, but also living my life and feeling like this is also my life. ALICIA:  You know, you're right. Like I'm, I am thinking of it as life is going to be so great once the skin - it's very itchy now, but once I've shed the skin. NEIL:  Yeah. ALICIA:  And yeah, that's problematic. And, uh, one day I think I probably would like to no longer be the kind of person who's like talking about themselves and their therapy, which I think is probably boring to most people. NEIL:  Oh, I know. I don't think talking about therapy stops after your - case in point - stops after you're in therapy. Here I am. NEIL:  Alicia, let's look at some of these cards now. Okay. I've picked out some cards, especially for you. Our first card is the diplomacy of saying a child resembles one parent or another. ALICIA:  Oh... NEIL:  You and Ellen are a very specific case of this, if you'd care to share with our podcast audience. ALICIA:  Right. We're a specific case of this, because, um, we each gave birth to one of our sons with the same anonymous donor. They're very much alike in a lot of ways, and they're each very much like each of us, and it's, it's a different case because we're not competing to be the one whose traits appeared more. ALICIA:  It's just a lovely thing to hear that, you know, one of them looks like one of us, um, because it means our genes worked at all. NEIL:  Yeah, that's a great way to put it. Cause I feel very skeptical about whether my jeans would work. ALICIA:  I'm sure they would, Neil. NEIL:  Well, thank you. Isn't it, it always grosses me out when one kid looks powerfully like one of the parents, you know what I mean? It speaks of like their parents fucking in it somehow, it's like a big genetic smear or something like a litter of pups. ALICIA:  There's something like biologically obscene about it. NEIL:  Exactly. Biologically obscene. ALICIA:  Yeah, like an infestation. NEIL:  Exactly. Exactly. ALICIA:  It's like it kind of, impolitely exposes biology too much and it's rude. NEIL:  Exactly, it's like someone flashing you or something. ALICIA:  It's rude. Cause we're supposed to be self-made individuals and we were supposed to have created our own faces. If I didn't have our personalities and which we chose, which we selected using our moral rectitude. NEIL:  We are not bodies. We are pure. You know, in that whole kind of mind. ALICIA:  Ether, mind. Where my, like, Ooh, we must be bodies cause those two completely different people look exactly alike. NEIL:  Oh yeah, exactly. Disgusting. NEIL:  Next card. As soon as I stub my toe, I look for someone to blame. ALICIA:  How did you know that about me? NEIL:  I guess we're similar in that way. Not everyone's that way. ALICIA:  Oh, it is so... When, when the boys were little, one of them, I'm not going to say who, cause you know, it's a little personal. NEIL:  50/50 chance though. Two kids, Ben and Philip. ALICIA:  True. True. NEIL:  If you're listening, this is about one of you. ALICIA:  But I'm respecting your privacy, cause it's just, it's all, you get all the plausible deniability if it's a 50/50 chance. So if he, like, fell, or if he stubbed his toe, like let's say he hurt himself on the floor, he would bang that floor, angry at the floor. NEIL:  When he was a kid? ALICIA:  Yeah, hitting the floor, mad at the floor. He was mad at the object that hurt him. But I absolutely, I stub my toe and I try to think of whose fault was that. Isn't that nutty? NEIL:  Absolutely. It's horrible. Jeff is not like that. ALICIA:  I don't care if they hear it, but my parents are totally... My mom... Mom, I love you. But you know, you're always looking for the blame. And I'm always like, and of course, you know, I'm always trying to blame Ellen, and right? NEIL:  Right? Yeah, of course. Proximity. ALICIA:  And it all seems like completely reasonable to me until I notice I do it even when I stub my toe. And then it's like, wait a minute... NEIL:  I mean, I guess it begs the question, what are the consequences of there not being - ALICIA:  Someone to blame - NEIL:  There's no fault. ALICIA:  Man. NEIL:  What, I mean, in a way, that's a beautiful moment somehow. I think it's also like a very scary moment. ALICIA:  Frightening, out of control, random. NEIL:  Right. But also free somehow. I think? I don't know, whatever part of the brain that assigns blame to discharge that. ALICIA:  Perfectible. Cause if the person would only not. Then no one would stub their toe again if they'd only get it right. NEIL:  Next card. I know you, at a certain point in your life, were a subway musician. I'm going to say something provocative. ALICIA:  Okay. NEIL:  We don't need subway musicians. ALICIA:  They need us. NEIL:  I don't care. We don't need, we don't need buskers of any sort anywhere. We don't. ALICIA:  What about parkour? NEIL:  Parkour, they're doing it for themselves. You mean where they rebound off buildings and shit like that? ALICIA:  No, they do it in the subway car and they ask for money. NEIL:  Oh, Showtime. Nope. Not that neither. That neither. I'm more disposed to that particular narrative than to like the heartfelt  acoustic singer or really anything, but I'm just ready to come down with a full, like no buskers anywhere. ALICIA:  Uh huh. Well, you know, did you feel that way 30 years ago? NEIL:  I think I might have. ALICIA:  Really? NEIL:  Yeah. Because for me, the subway is enough. The subway, everything is enough. ALICIA:  More than enough. NEIL:  It's more than enough. Absolutely. This street is enough. The Plaza is enough, and I understand that that's proposing a separation between the Plaza and the musician or the musician and the subway. NEIL:  Actually, up until very recently, I was like not into putting headphones in when I was on the street. It's like, the street will do just fine. Now, by the way, I do put the headphones in. ALICIA:  To escape the street or cause you're bored without them? NEIL:  I think it's for the same reason that I like not being in therapy. It's like I'm going to choose not to use this time to think. Or my thinking will be directed by whatever I'm listening to, whether it's a podcast or music. So I think I always felt that, yeah. ALICIA:  I always loved street performers. They made me feel like the joy of humanity. Oh my God. NEIL:  Really? If anything could make me change my mind, which it can't, it would be knowing something like that, like that makes other people happy, I - maybe it's my own narcissism or solipsism or whatever ism. It's like, I just assume everyone feels a slight variation on what I feel. I mean, I feel like at best people are like, interested. Um, I didn't know that, like it's actively bringing joy to people like you. ALICIA:  I would go out looking for them. I mean - NEIL:  Wow! ALICIA:  Partly it was youthful, naivete and enthusiasm, but it was like I would love to go to Central Park, and I would like, uh, street performer hop. I'd go from one to the next. That was my idea of an exciting , you know, adventurous Sunday. NEIL:  Holy shit! My God. Who the fuck knew? ALICIA:  Yeah. Um, and I would love, like if I had friends visiting from another country or city - to show off New York, I would show off all these different performers. NEIL:  I might've  done that, possibly, possibly. Not go out of my way, but if I'm going into a subway platform and there's the street musician, I could kind of inwardly feel like, Oh, I live in a city where we have street musicians. That. Well, at the same time, privately feeling like - ALICIA:  Like stop! NEIL:  Yeah, enough. We don't need it. ALICIA:  You know, in the seventies and eighties, it was new and I would love to see like a P pop player and then, you know, the Pam pipe players. NEIL:  I just feel like the pan pipe, if I may, I just feel like pan pipes only have one emotional register, which is wistful. You know?. And I'm not into wistful ever, ever, ever. You don't need wistful. What are you wistful for? What are you wistful about? Come on. ALICIA:  I'm wistful in advance for the things I have now, but might not in the future. NEIL:  I'm something else about them, but not wistful. ALICIA:  Do you like Brahms, and Dvorak, and romantic chamber music? NEIL:  I don't really know it. ALICIA:  You probably heard it and never pursued it because it was wistful. NEIL:  Next card. Male singers showcasing their vulnerability by singing falsetto. ALICIA:  Ooh. I always thought of it as supreme confidence, but showcasing your vulnerability is confidence. Isn't it? NEIL:  But I feel like it's almost performing vulnerability. ALICIA:  I just am remembering something, which I remember all the time for some reason. When I was in junior high, ninth grade I think, a friend of mine, a female friend... I said something like, Do know this guy? He's got like longish feathered - okay, this is the 70s - reddish straight feathered hair. He, he was just walking by the principal's office singing, you've got a cute way of walking, which is the BG's and it's falsetto, right? NEIL:  It's Leo Sayer. ALICIA:  Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. It's the era, but yeah, right. It's not the BG's. And he was singing that and, and she said, Ooh, sounds cute. Like the guy sounds cute. And that was a moment I thought, I don't understand what girls see in boys. I was like, why is that cute? I'm so perplexed what my female friends think is cute and sexy about boys. You know? That probably was a clue. NEIL:  And was that the moment you became a lesbian? ALICIA:  Listen, it was not. I was just like, I don't get heterosexuality. I didn't really know there was an alternative at that point. So. I don't get heterosexuality. I'm not empathetic. I expect heterosexuals to get homosexuality. I can't, I don't get like, it's so hard for me. NEIL:  You're pretty extreme, pretty extreme lesbian. ALICIA:  Not, not in entire, it shouldn't entirely be hard because I think on some level, you know, I'm not a zero or a 10 on the Kinsey spectrum, but like I always have to like do the mental exercise very deliberately of, yes, this heterosexual couple really does love each other. They're not just making it up. Yes, women really do fall in love with men and cry themselves to sleep, and you know, go into deep depressions of if it doesn't go right and they obsess over them and you know, just like I would do with women, like it's so hard. It's so hard for me. I have to believe that truly. NEIL:  And the emotional part is hard for you to believe. So it's not like the idea of like heterosexual people have sex. ALICIA:  No, that's easy. NEIL:  Interesting. The idea that the affective, the emotional part, is hard to believe, that they love each other. ALICIA:  That, that they're out of control, you know, in love with each other or that, I mean, I love men. Like I love you, my friend. NEIL:  I love you too, Alicia. ALICIA:  And I love my sons to infinity, you know. And I, I, they're, they're like no beings I love more in the world than these two males and not despite their maleness. It's what they are. You know, like I love everything about them, and it's very easy for me in a way to imagine anybody being in love with them, of course. Who wouldn't be in love with my sons. But, when I consider, it's mostly movies and literature, it's like, really? NEIL:  I find it really refreshing. You really have carved yourself a bit of freedom within heteronormativity to be able to like, not believe in heterosexuality in the way that you're talking about. ALICIA:  Do you make an analogy, like do you identify with the woman in a heterosexual couple or do you have no trouble imagining that, that romantic love? NEIL:  I don't. No, super don't. I mean, sometimes I have more trouble imagining it in a homosexual relationship, I think. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, I think that's a, that's a bigger problem for me, probably, even though I'm in love with Jeff and, you know, and, uh. ALICIA:  You see? Everybody has a weird brain. NEIL:  Oh, okay. We can agree to that. I love it. Okay, Alicia. Let's do bad over good. What's the X you would take a bad of over a Y you would  take a good of? ALICIA:  You know what, even this is a loaded question, because what I've been thinking about a lot lately is like I have a hard time recreating, basically. I'm such a nerd. It's like... NEIL:  You want edification. ALICIA:  I know, and part of it is sincere, like I do enjoy the learning, learning languages and reading, but, it seems to me like I would take a bad history book over a good mystery book because I don't know how, I don't know how to have fun, you know? ALICIA:  And that's how I live anyway. I'm trying to like explore that, but I'm just noticing. If I have some free time, it's like, Ooh, now I could practice my scales and go back to Duolingo where I'm working on Hebrew and Japanese right now, and it's like, you know, Ellen, my wife is like, Oh, now I could finish a season of the Bachelor. ALICIA:  But, I think I'd rather read a badly-written edifying thing than watch the most hilarious season of the Bachelor. NEIL:  Wow. You're a paradox, or not a paradox. It's opposite day for Alicia Svigals. That's great though. I hear that. I think that's what gives the pleasure to doing the TV thing. It's the release from the imperative for edification. NEIL:  There's just a certain pleasure that becomes available when your intention is different than to be eating your spinach on some level. You know what I mean? ALICIA:  All I do is frigging eat my spinach. I'm trying to stop that. NEIL:  On that note, Alicia Spiegels, thank you so much for being on SHE’S A TALKER. ALICIA:  Thank you for having me. This was like, just like having coffee with you, with an engineer present, very discreet and like, I totally forgot that we were recording. NEIL:  Thank you. NEIL:  Cut. NEIL:  Huge thank you for listening to this episode of SHE’S A TALKER. If there's someone else you think might like it, I'd love it if you'd share it with them and if you have a couple of seconds to rate and review it on Apple Podcasts, it really helps people find this during season one, a number of folks let me know they had their own responses for some of the cards. NEIL:  If you have thoughts you'd like to share, we'd love to feature them too. Write to us at shesatalker@gmail.com or on Instagram @shesatalker. This series is made possible with generous support from Stillpoint Fund. Devon Guinn produced this episode. Andrew Litton mixed it. Molly Donahue and Aaron Dalton are our consulting producers. Justine Lee handles social media. NEIL:  Our card flipped beats come from Josh Graver, and my husband Jeff Hiller sings the theme song you're about to hear. Thanks to all of them and to my guest, Alicia Svigals, and to you for listening. JEFF HILLER:  SHE’S A TALKER with Neil Goldberg. SHE’S A TALKER with fabulous guests. SHE’S A TALKER it's better than it sounds. Yeah.

Aaron Bensoussan was born into a most prestigious Moroccan family with roots going back to Maimonides, a 12th century leading Jewish sage.  At the tender age of 14 years old, his parents sent him to New York City to learn, with the possibility of becoming a rabbi. There he was exposed to an Ashkanazi (Eastern European) way of life and a dramatically different culture. The young man had to get used to his new freedoms, the ways of Americans and a different menu which included the previously unknown "and strange' cereal called porridge for breakfast versus his back-home morning meal of croissants and cafe au lait. Things had changed for young Aaron, a lot! After hearing the great Ashkenazi singer, Yossele Rosenblatt, Aaron fell in love with chazanute, Eastern European Jewish cantorial song.  With the odds stacked against him, Aaron was accepted into Jewish schools of higher learning where he studied under world-class  composers and cantors. One of his greatest mentors and teachers was the great David Koussevitzky.  Aaron graduated and over time this unique cantor accepted synagogue gigs in New York and later on in Toronto.  One Shabbat morning Aaron fused together the kvetch (the cry) of Ashkenazi music with that of Sephardic liturgical music creating a refreshingly new Jewish cantorial motif.  He was worried he’d be fired but in fact the congregants loved it.  Aaron’s career was established and it skyrocketed. He was asked to sing around the world with many of the greats in places like  Australia, Israel and behind the Iron Curtain. Today Aaron Benssousan is a composer, a teacher, a student of Talmud, a spouse and a father. His work is appreciated across the planet with today's cantorial stars in concerts and services. Aaron uses his gift of singing for much good and an extension of his kindness.  Listen to the interview and learn about this most talented and soulful man and  the many musical and personal challenges he has overcome. HAT RADIO! The Show that Schmoozes. To learn more about Aaron click on his website:  www.aaronbensoussan.com/      

OLIVER MAYER Serving the LA Theater community for over 3 decades, the son of an Eastern European Jewish father and Mexican American mother, Mayer continuously excels at delivering socially-engaged artistic creations that ultimately represent a rich historical record of the multicultural landscape of our society and the very socio-politico-economic issues affecting it. Mayer is readying […]

Klezmer is the joyful music of celebration brought to the states by Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, who arrived around the turn of the 20th century. It was music mostly played by men - but Loraine Ballard Morrill talks with World Class Klezmer musician Susan Watts about her upcoming concert SOUL SONGS: INSPIRING WOMEN OF KLEZMER which will feature new compositions, written and performed by three generations of women who bring contemporary meaning to this traditional Eastern European Jewish folk music form. October 28th Zellerbach Theater.https://www.annenbergcenter.org/event/soul-songs-inspiring-women-of-klezmer

Finding a quality school is always a challenge. Children's Scholarship Fund is a privately funded program whose mission is to provide children from low income Philadelphia families with financial access to quality K-8 tuition based schools. Loraine Ballard Morrill speaks Executive Director Heather Frattone about the success of the program and how parents can apply for their kids.https://www.csfphiladelphia.org/Klezmer is the joyful music of celebration brought to the states by Yiddish-speaking Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, who arrived around the turn of the 20th century. It was music mostly played by men - but Loraine Ballard Morrill talks with World Class Klezmer musician Susan Watts about her upcoming concert SOUL SONGS: INSPIRING WOMEN OF KLEZMER which will feature new compositions, written and performed by three generations of women who bring contemporary meaning to this traditional Eastern European Jewish folk music form. October 28th Zellerbach Theater.https://www.annenbergcenter.org/event/soul-songs-inspiring-women-of-klezmer Loraine Ballard Morrill chats with Pedro Ramos, President and CEO of the Philadelphia Fund about On the Table Philly, a forum designed to elevate civic conversation, foster new relationships and create a unifying experience. In 2017, over 300 conversations were held across the region to highlight local and regional issues at the community level. The project is hoping to exceed that when it reconvenes November 8, 2018 and provide micro grants for some of the ideas generated from the conversations.https://onthetablephl.org/

Is Fiddler on the Roof a celebration of Eastern European Jewish life or sentimental kitsch? And why should we care? This podcast looks at the fallacy of living in the past and shows how Jewish law is structured to honor … Read the rest The post Shoftim: Am I a Bad Jew if I Don't Like “Fiddler on the Roof?” first appeared on Elmad Online Learning. Continue reading Shoftim: Am I a Bad Jew if I Don’t Like “Fiddler on the Roof?” at Elmad Online Learning.

How does the way that you communicate affect your ability to connect, and be understood? Can you change your communication style to become a more effective communicator? We don’t all use language the same way, and in today’s episode, we’re going to see exactly how those differences play out in our interactions with the people we care about most. And by the end of the conversation, you’ll have some strategies for bridging the communication gap in any situation when things aren’t going quite as you had planned. Our guest is Deborah Tannen, Georgetown Professor and author of You Just Don’t Understand, the classic book on gender differences in communication. Her latest book, You’re the Only One I Can Tell, is about the language of friendships between women. Deborah Tannen’s specialty is how we use language - and identifying exactly where differences in the way that we communicate connect us, and get in our way. And, as always, I’m looking forward to your thoughts on this episode and what revelations and questions it creates for you. Join us in the Relationship Alive Community on Facebook to chat about it! During the course of my conversation with Deborah Tannen, we also mention a few other Relationship Alive episodes that will help you with your communication: Episode 59: How to Make Difficult Conversations So Much Easier - with Sheila Heen Episode 22: Essential Skills for Conscious Relationship - with Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt Episode 69: How to Be Completely Alive in Your Relationship - with Hedy Schleifer Resources: Check out Deborah Tannen's website Read Deborah Tannen’s Book - You Just Don’t Understand and her latest book You’re the Only One I Can Tell You can also visit Deborah Tannen’s author page on Amazon FREE Relationship Communication Secrets Guide www.neilsattin.com/language Visit to download the transcript, or text “PASSION” to 33444 and follow the instructions to download the transcript to this episode with Deborah Tannen Amazing intro/outro music graciously provided courtesy of: The Railsplitters - Check them Out Transcript: Neil Sattin: Hello and welcome to another episode of Relationship Alive. This is your host, Neil Sattin. We’ve spoken a lot about communication on this show - and in today’s episode we’re going to cover how the specific language that you use affects your relationships. The words that you choose matter - and today you’re going to find out why. Neil Sattin: This podcast was actually born, in some ways, more than 20 years ago, when I was in a class in college called the Psychology of Interpersonal Relationships. In this class, I gathered with a bunch of students there, in a circle, and we basically dealt with the shit that came up between us, right then and there. If you’ve ever heard of an encounter group - well, that’s what it was. One of the books that was on the required reading list was called “You Just Don’t Understand”  by Deborah Tannen - about the different ways that Men and Women communicate. This book, after it came out, spent 4 YEARS on the NYT bestseller list. So you can imagine the effect that it’s had on our culture, and what we’ve come to know about language, and gender, how we create meaning and understanding with each other. When I started Relationship Alive, one of the people I knew I had to interview was Deborah Tannen, and it took us two years to coordinate this time together. She’s here on the heels of releasing her new book, “You’re the Only One I Can Tell: Inside the Language of Women’s Friendships” - and I’m so excited to have her here with us today to discuss how language impacts our connections - and what you can do to improve the way you communicate with the people who matter to you most. Neil Sattin: If you’d like to download a complete transcript for today’s episode, please visit neilsattin.com/language, or you can always text the word “PASSION” to 33444 and follow the instructions. Deborah Tannen, thank you so much for joining us today on Relationship Alive. Deborah Tannen: Hi. What a pleasure and privilege to speak with you. Neil Sattin: Thank you so much. The feeling, as you can tell, is mutual. Let's start with You Just Don't Understand. We were talking for a few moments before we officially got started, and, as you mentioned, it's a classic. It's something that has defined how we look at gender dynamics in communication. I'm wondering for you what you've noticed about how that book as impacted people in the world around you, and also how you've seen it affect culture? Neil Sattin: I know that for me, personally, not only did it give me a much deeper understanding of what was happening and how I communicated, but it made me want to change. It made me want to shift so that I could find more common ground, whether I was talking to men in my life, women in my life, and at this point, people all over the spectrum of gender. So, how have you seen that book shift what is actually happening in our culture? Deborah Tannen: It has been overwhelming to notice how much of what I wrote about in that book has become part of the landscape, I would say, of how people think about relationships and conversation. I guess the most striking one is, "Why don't men ask directions?" When I put that in the book, I don't think anyone had talked about it, but a number of the interviews that I had very early on had picked up on that. Then it became so much a part of the culture people were sending me cocktail napkins, "Real men don't ask directions"; jokes going around, "Why did Moses wander in the desert for 40 years?"; maybe one of my favorites, "Why does it take so many sperm to find just one egg?" Deborah Tannen: You hear a little bit less about that now that we all have GPS devices, but it really doesn't change things that much. Just recently, this is really funny ... My research method is asking people about their own lives, listening to people. More and more for the current book I actually interviewed people, but in the beginning I didn't do what. The idea of them not asking directions, which is one example that a friend of mine gave me, I just asked her, "What do you and your husband argue about?" Deborah Tannen: She mentioned, "He won't stop and ask directions. We get lost and it frustrates me." Deborah Tannen: I was talking to just that friend not long ago and asked her, "Well, now there's a GPS that doesn't happen, right?" Deborah Tannen: She said, "It still happens. He doesn't want to use the GPS. He says, 'I don't need her to tell me where to go. I know how to go.'" Deborah Tannen: So, that's a long answer. I think just the idea that women and men might have different ways of speaking has become almost like it's just accepted for many people, clearly not everybody. Several of the scenarios I talked about are now very much a part of the public knowledge-base, or something like that. Neil Sattin: Yeah. Do you want to touch for a moment on ... Because there, of course, have been critiques of your work. What have you seen in terms of when people stand up and say, "Nah, this isn't really how it is?" Where are they typically coming from? Deborah Tannen: Oh, yes. Absolutely. I should say, I guess for maybe about a year after the book came out, my book was very frequently criticized, especially in the academic world. It was criticized for generalizing, for saying all women and men are alike, for downplaying, or some people thought I was ignoring power differences. Deborah Tannen: By the way, that led me to write the book The Argument Culture, because it was so surprising and shocking to me that people in the world of academia ... which had been my intellectual home for so many years at that point and really my oasis, you might say, in this wild world. I loved my academic job, my academic colleagues. So, it was shocking to me that what I saw a search for truth was leading people to accuse me of saying things I had never said. Led me to ask, "Why would they do that?" Deborah Tannen: I ended up writing the book The Argument Culture in which I just dissected a bit our tendency to approach everything as a fight, a debate, an argument. Then, you're motivated to look for arguments to make the other person look bad, ignore things the other person actually wrote or said that would make them look good. So that's the background. Deborah Tannen: To answer those complaints, obviously I know that there are power differentials in our culture between women and men. In fact, I do write about how the style differences that we often have -- and I never say all women all men; I always say tend to, many, often, most -- how these very style differences can lead to reinforcing the power of those who use the styles that I associate with men. I actually wrote a whole book about the workplace, that was the next book after You Just Don't Understand. That book was called Talking From 9 to 5, and I showed there how styles that are common among women when used in the workplace lead them to be underestimated, to be seen as less confident than they often are, to be overlooked, to not receive credit that they deserve. Clearly, there's also just sexism, so I would never say that all discrimination is simply based on style, obviously; that's not the case, just that this is one thing that has a role to play there. Deborah Tannen: As for generalizing, there's almost an irony there. I did not start out as an expert on gender; my field was cross-cultural difference. My dissertation and my first book were about New York as compared to California conversational style. I grew up in New York City, Eastern European Jewish background -- I think that's relevant -- and was getting my PhD at Berkeley in California, and my dissertation was an analysis of a conversation involving three New York Jewish speakers and I was one of them, and two Californians who are not Jewish, and one British woman, who actually was half-Jewish but I don't think that affected her style much. Deborah Tannen: I had so much to say about how cultural influence had an effect on the ways people were using language in conversation, and therefore the effects of their ways of speaking on the conversation. I had written much about Greek compared to American conversational styles. I had lived in Greece and I speak Greek. So, clearly I knew that gender was only one of many influence on our styles. Deborah Tannen: The first book that I wrote for general audiences, and, maybe kind of interestingly, the one I really had ambitions for, the one that I thought, "This is going to change the world; people are going to see they're thinking psychology and sometimes it's linguistics, it's use of language," that book was called That's Not What I Meant. It was about all of the ways that our conversational styles, our ways of speaking, our ways of using language, are influenced by ethnic background, regional background, class background, age. How all these influences on style affected our ways of speaking, having conversations, and of course the way people see us, the way we see them. Clearly I knew that gender was not the whole story. Neil Sattin: Yeah. I think why we're here is to get more of the meat around the ways that we use language, how that has an impact. When I read You Just Don't Understand, I identified a lot with some of the more feminine speaking styles. Probably had to do with how I was raised and interacting with my mom. I don't know exactly, my dad was a psychologist so he encouraged me to talk about my feelings. There you have it. It probably doesn't take much more than that. Deborah Tannen: Yes- Neil Sattin: And- Deborah Tannen: Sorry. Neil Sattin: Go ahead. Deborah Tannen: Absolutely, yeah. I never actually would say feminine style, masculine style. I tend to say, "Ways of speaking associated with women, ways of speaking common among women, or men." As I said, although I would say something like, "Tend to, maybe, may, most." But, I think it seems to be the way our minds work, that people walk away thinking, "Women do this, men do that. This is feminine, that's masculine." But I would never put it that way, and you are so right, no two women and men are alike. Think of all the people you know. We've all got so many other influences on our style. Deborah Tannen: I'll give you an example right up front. One of the things that I wrote about in that book, and it traces back to my work in That's Not What I Meant, when I wasn't focusing only on gender, was the use of indirectness. So there was a conversation I discussed there, a couple are riding in a car and the woman turns to the man and says, "Are you thirsty dear? Would you like to stop for a drink?" Deborah Tannen: He's not, so he says, "No." Then later, when they get home, it turns out she's kind of frustrated. She had wanted to stop. It was the man who told me this anecdote and he said, "Why does she play games with me? Why didn't she just tell me she wanted to stop?" Deborah Tannen: My response was, "Well she probably didn't expect a yes/no answer. So if she said, 'Are you thirsty? Would you like to stop for a drink?' She probably expected you to say something like, 'I don't know, how do you feel about it?' Then she could say, 'I don't know, how do you feel about it?'" Then they could talk about how they both feel about it. If he ended up saying, "I'm kind of tired, do you mind if we don't?" that would have been fine. Or if he said, "Well, I'm not thirsty, but if you want to we could," that would have been fine, that would have been great. Deborah Tannen: That's where I began talking about message and meta-message. The meaning of the words, the message, was an information question, "Do you want to stop for a drink?" But the meta-message, what it means that she asks him in that way is, "I don't want to make a demand. I want to know how you feel about it before we make a decision." It's starting a negotiation, and then after you find out how everybody feels about it, you make a decision taking everybody's preferences into account. Deborah Tannen: When she gets an answer, "No," she hears a meta-message, "I don't care what you want, we're only going to do what I want." Of course, he didn't mean it that way; he had a different idea about how a conversation could go. He assumed he could say no and if she wants to she could say, "Yeah, well I'm thirsty. Do you mind if we stop?" That would have been fine with him too. It was these different ways of going about that. Deborah Tannen: Now, it's kind of interesting, I included that example in the book That's Not What I Meant. I repeated it in the introduction to You Just Don't Understand, in the context of saying, I think it was in the introduction, I had said, "Here's an example I had given. Both styles are equally valid." It had been included in a review of the book, it was actually a Canadian newspaper, I think, where they said, "So women have to understand how men mean it," and they didn't put the second part, "Men have to understand how women mean it." I use that to say it's very easy for people to hear my examples as one is right and the other's wrong, and I never take that position. I always take the position: Styles work well when they're shared and don't work well when they're not. Deborah Tannen: This is the long way of leading up to what I was going to say in answer to your question about generalizing. The conclusion of that whole discussion is that women tend to be more indirect when it comes to getting their way. That is, you have something you want, but you don't want to impose it so you open a negotiation. I have lots more examples of that in this new book about women friends, You're the Only One I Can Tell. I have lots of examples of how that creates problems between women and men, and just among women friends. So we can give examples of that if you're interested. Deborah Tannen: But, the very first paper I ever wrote and ever published in linguistics was based on conversations that I had been part of where I was the one who was direct, talking to a man who was indirect. My explanation was cultural differences. I thought of it at the time as American versus Greek, Greeks tend to be more indirect than Americans. Looking back, I would say the fact that it's a New York Jewish style, probably partially explaining my tendency to be more direct. All of this is by way of saying that not only are these generalizations not applying to everybody, but that even in my own experience something that is associated with women and is more typical of women in this country when it comes to getting your way ... I know because even the first paper I ever wrote, I instantiated the opposite style. Neil Sattin: Yeah, I'm just struck in this moment by how I think it would be common to assume that that means just kind of like what you were saying, that the direct style is more effective. So, when you're having communication issues in your marriage, let's say, try to be more direct. What I'm hearing in this moment is this question of how do we develop an appreciation for different styles of communication so that we're able to bridge the gap in styles more effectively. Deborah Tannen: I think the most important thing is to be aware of style differences. Being more direct might help, but being more indirect or attuned to indirectness might also help. I'll give you this example that came up in a class I was teaching at Georgetown, it was a graduate seminar and it was about workplace communication. Deborah Tannen: It came up that papers had been written -- Charlotte Linde is someone who wrote one -- analyzing interaction that is conversation in the cockpit of airplanes that led to accidents. These were studied in order to find out whether there were ways that the pilot and co-pilot were using language that could improve to prevent future accidents. There was one in which this was real. The pilot had not suspected a problem, the co-pilot had suspected the problem; he called attention to it but didn't say it in a direct way. He said it in a kind of indirect way, and so the pilot overlooked it and the plane crashed. This is the most extreme example of a negative result from indirectness. Deborah Tannen: In the class we were discussing that co-pilots were now being trained to be more direct. There was a Japanese grad student in the class and he said, "Well, why don't they just train the pilots to be more attuned to listen for indirect meaning?" It was not surprising to me that this came from a Japanese speaker. Much has been written about how indirectness plays a very significant role in Japanese communication, and there is lots written about the purpose that it serves, that people feel that they understand each other. You could say, maybe, a meta-message of understanding, of closeness, comes from the indirect communication. We understand each other so well, we can get meaning without having to say it outright. Deborah Tannen: In fact, someone named Haru Yamada, she was a student of mine who's written a book about Japanese compared to American communication, she says that the most highly valued communication would be translated into English as belly talk. That is silent communication, where you get your meaning across without having to put it into words at all. Deborah Tannen: So, I'm suspecting the people listening, depending on their own styles, and how they've been raised, and how they've come to view language, some are going to be thinking, "Yes! Yes! Yes! Indirectness is great." Others are thinking, "No, no, no! This is would be a better world if everybody just said what they mean." Deborah Tannen: I think it's really tricky because the ways we tend to communicate are self-evident. Can I give you an example of this? Neil Sattin: Yeah, please. Deborah Tannen: So, I showed up for a conference where I was going to be a primary speaker. Another friend of mine, her name was Judy, was also going to be a primary speaker. That conference organizer, when I arrived, said, "Judy is not going to give her paper. She called me this morning and she said, 'I'm coming down with something. I feel horrible. If you really need me I'll come, but I'm feeling very bad today.'" Deborah Tannen: The organizer said to me, "I told her, 'I need you to stay home and take care of yourself.'" Now, that's indirect, right? Deborah Tannen: I thought, "This is terrific. What a great example of indirect communication and how well it worked." I said to the organizer, "Hey, can I use that in my talk today?" Deborah Tannen: She said, "Yes. Yes, you should. It was excellent, perfect, direct communication." Deborah Tannen: Now, why did she think it was direct? Because the meaning was clear, and it worked. Judy felt better that she didn't have to make a demand, didn't have to let her friend down. The organizer felt better because she could feel that she made the choice to accommodate her friend. I have so many examples like that, where it just works so well. Deborah Tannen: But then, I also have examples (again, in my book about women friends) where it can lead to confusion if you have different styles. So here's an example. This was two women, they had gone to college together so they knew each other. A third person who had gone to college with them was in town visiting the one. When he was with her he said, "Hey, are you in touch with so-and-so? I understand that she lives here." Deborah Tannen: She said, "Yeah, I'm in touch with her." Deborah Tannen: "Hey, I'd like to see her, too." Deborah Tannen: "Okay," she said. "I'll find out if she's free." She called the friend, said, "So-and-so's in town. He'd like to see you. If you're free I can bring him over, would you like that?" Deborah Tannen: She said, "Yeah, sure. Bring him over." And she did. She thought everything was fine. The next day, she got a call from that friend and the friend was livid, "Why did you bring him over? I hate him. You know I hate him." Deborah Tannen: She was so puzzled. She said, "But you said I should bring him." Deborah Tannen: She said, "You should have known by the way I said it I didn't mean it." Now, that sounds insane for people who don't share the style, but it would have been self-evident to people who do. Deborah Tannen: I have one more example that's a self-example. I was talking to a friend- Neil Sattin: This is the I don't know much about that person? Deborah Tannen: Yes. Neil Sattin: I love this. Deborah Tannen: Yes. So, I was talking to a friend from South Carolina. I asked her about a guy that we had some slight dealings with but wasn't a close friend, and I asked her what she thought of him. She said, "I don't really know him." Deborah Tannen: I said, "I think he's a jerk." Deborah Tannen: She said, "That's what I just said." Deborah Tannen: I said, "Huh?" Deborah Tannen: So she explained, "In South Carolina, you cannot say someone is a jerk. You have to proceed on the assumption that if you knew him long enough you would find something to like. So, 'I don't really know him,' means, 'I haven't found anything to like about him.'" Deborah Tannen: Now, this made sense to me, and I believed her, but I was a little bit incredulous. But, luckily, before too long I had met someone who at a gathering for a first time, and he said he was from South Carolina. So I asked him, this is research opportunity now, I asked him, "What would it mean if you asked someone what they thought of someone, and the person said, 'I don't really know him'?" Deborah Tannen: He said, "That means he's a no good, no account." Deborah Tannen: The meaning was completely clear to him, would have been to someone else from South Carolina, was opaque to me. So I could complain, "That's no way to communicate, she should have been more direct." But think about it for a moment, being more direct would have made her come across to other people in South Carolina as an unacceptable person. I cringe to think what she would have thought of me if she didn't know me. When I say about somebody, "I think he's a jerk," I'm saying something that you simply cannot say in that culture. Deborah Tannen: There are ramifications of saying things directly and outright. The thought that you can reduce meaning to the message level and ignore the meta-message level, it's a fantasy. That's not how language works. We're judging people as people by the way they use language. Neil Sattin: That brings me to, I think, a really important question. Though, I have to, just as an aside, say that I'm not sure that there was anything more traumatizing to me as a three-year-old than coming to Maine, where I grew up but I was born in Tennessee. I learned how to talk in Tennessee and when I got to Maine there was a lot about how I communicated that people didn't seem to understand. Neil Sattin: I have very vivid memories of having to shift my language patterns, and also hearing things that people said, particularly the word "wicked" which people from New England will maybe laugh about. But, the first time I heard someone saying something was wicked something-or-other, I got freaked out because my only association with wicked was some horrible witch. It turns out that in Maine, anyway, wicked means more or less like "very". So if something's wicked awesome, then it's really, really awesome. So, just kind of a funny cross-cultural experience that I had. Neil Sattin: Anyway, so the important question, apart from my silly anecdote is: How do we tune in more to the meta-message, particularly in the moment when it's crucial to be understood? Deborah Tannen: It's a great question. I believe awareness of style differences is probably the best thing and the only thing that we can hope for. We are going to respond automatically, "You must mean what I would mean if I spoke in that way in this context." Now when styles are relatively similar, that's going to be okay, and probably most of the time. We're doing it every minute, every time we talk to someone and they say something, we have some automatic way that we think we know what they mean and draw conclusion about their intentions. Deborah Tannen: But, when something goes awry, when you have a negative response when you think they're reacting in a way that's kind of weird, the hope is that you could step back and ask yourself, "What's going on?" But it's tough to do, and then sometimes you can do what I call meta-communication, talk about the communication. Deborah Tannen: An example where I had to do this myself, and again, it's almost embarrassing because it's something I had written about for decades. But I had this op-ed in the New York Times about a month ago where I had a friend over for dinner and she kept offering to help, and then kept getting up and helping. I really didn't want her to and I kept telling her not to, and she kept doing it anyway. I was really frustrated. I was really rattled by it. Deborah Tannen: Normally, I wouldn't had said anything, but since I was writing this book about friends I felt like I needed to know her perspective. So, I meta-communicated; I talked to her about it. I told her how I had responded, how it bothered me that she was ignoring my telling her that I really didn't want her to help. She was astonished and explained to me that in her family were expected to help, and when people say, "I don't want you to help," they don't mean it. They mean something like, "You're a guest and you shouldn't help, therefore I appreciate it all the more when you do." Deborah Tannen: Now, I'd written extensively about indirectness, it still never crossed my mind that she thought I was being indirect, that she thought I didn't mean it. And, it never crossed her mind that I did mean it. But we solved it by meta-communicating, by talking about it. Deborah Tannen: I think many of us, maybe women especially, but probably all of us, don't like to introduce a contentious note into a relationship or a conversation. So, my impulse was not to tell her that what she was doing was bugging me, but I think it served both of us really well to have that conversation. I feel like my consciousness was raised. Any resentment I might have felt because I thought she was behaving in a way that made no sense, that dissipated. She tells me that it's a huge relief to her to know she doesn't have to do all the work when she goes to somebody's house for dinner. Neil Sattin: Yeah, yeah. I feel like there's this frame of reminding yourself not to take everything personally, especially when it's perplexing. To recognize, "Oh, this might not mean what I think it means. This person might not mean what I think they mean when they're making this request, or when they're saying something that I'm finding to be incredibly offensive, or hurtful, or scary even." Deborah Tannen: Well, realizing what the parameters are is helpful. For example, are you a good person by asking questions to show interest? Or are you a good person by not asking questions because they would be intrusive? So, again, coming from my book about women friends, a woman told her friend that her mother was in the hospital and then was hurt that the friend never asked. But they did meta-communicate and the friend said, "Well in my family that would be considered intrusive. People will tell you if they want to talk about something personal, but you shouldn't ask." Deborah Tannen: Or friends that were taking a walk, one was telling the other about a problem. She was listening, but when they passed something really pretty like a gorgeous flower, she said, "Oh, look at that." To her, that didn't mean, "I'm not listening. I'm not interrupting the story." It's kind of like you're at the dinner table and you're telling a story, and somebody needs the salt. They can murmur, "Pass the salt," they're not interrupting your story. Deborah Tannen: But the friend was hurt. She thought, "You're not listening to me." But the other friend was hurt because she so clearly was. If they could talk about that, realize for some people you can throw in interjections and it doesn't mean you're not listening; for other people you really can't, the listener should be quiet. So just knowing that these differences are common makes it possible to give a friend a benefit of the doubt, whereas beforehand it would be self-evident to you that your way of thinking about it is the only way to think about it. Neil Sattin: I have to say, in reading your latest book, You're the Only One I Can Tell, I had several moments where I was confused, actually. I think it was that I would read something and I'd be like, "Okay, that's the way it is." Then in the very next paragraph I'd be like, "Oh! Now this is how that thing completely malfunctions." It's interesting that there are really no hard, fast rules around how to communicate. What seems to be a hard and fast rule is "assume that there's more than meets the eyes". Neil Sattin: I'm curious about having those meta-conversations. Do you have hints about ways to invite people into it, particularly as, as so often happens when you're having that conversation, you're almost undoubtedly having it with someone who couldn't imagine how anything could be other than how they see the world? So, do you have hints on how to invite people into that level of conversation? Deborah Tannen: It's a good question. I guess I feel like the first thing is be aware that there are these differences, so that you can talk about it as a style and not as right and wrong. Then you have to be open to a compromise that might not be the one you would have chosen. People often ask me, this goes way back to You Just Don't Understand and the book before that, "Can people change their conversational styles?" Usually what they have in mind is sending their partner in for repair. They're not thinking, "How can I change my style?" Of course, they could if they wanted to. But they're thinking, "Can I get the other one to change their style?" Neil Sattin: Right. Deborah Tannen: So I think really, you can start by saying, "I want to talk to you about this because I think I might not completely understand your perspective." So, if you frame it as trying to listen and understand, I think that will be better. But you do have to realize, and this came up in my book about mothers and daughters called You're Wearing That?, and my book about sisters, which is called You Were Always Mom's Favorite, as well as friends. There were some women who felt you've got to talk about any kind of a problem or point of contention and work it out. There were others who felt talking about it is a problem in itself, "A friend who wants to constantly process is oppressive, and I don't want to be that person's friend." Deborah Tannen: Now, of course with sisters you can't say, "I don't want to be your sister," but you might distance yourself. But I definitely, in both contexts, talked to people who were frustrated because the friend or the sister didn't want to process, to talk about it. They felt you have to or you can't get past it. So in that context, I would try to raise awareness that it's quite legitimate. Other people feel talking about it only makes it worse, it brings up all the conflict that I felt in the first place, we're both going to end up stating our perspectives that makes the other one angry. Let's just let it lie, move on, and once the emotions have receded in some way, they may never go away, but receded into the background, then we'll just pretend it never happened. I think it often comes down to respecting others differences, and respecting that there could be more than one way of approaching both a problem or the interaction about it. Neil Sattin: Yeah, yeah. A classic relationship problem is one person being conflict avoidant and the other person being someone who engages. That's a set-up for so many problems that people have in relationship. I could see that both people getting to a point where they feel understood and feel resolution, how it would help to have acknowledgement that either one is okay, in both directions. We talked about this in an episode with Sheila Heen, who wrote the book Difficult Conversations as part of the Harvard Negotiation Project. We talked about how so much of getting past any sort of disagreement is really about the other person, so if you put yourself in your own shoes, it's your ability to help the other person feel like you understand them and like you want to understand them. Deborah Tannen: Yes, absolutely. I guess it's kind of like what I said earlier. I know many others are saying something similar, that often our idea of working something out is to convince the other person of our perspective. We want to talk, get them to understand us; but they want to talk and get us to understand them. So I think if we both come in with, "I want to understand your perspective. I want to listen to your perspective," the chances of coming out more happy on the other end are increased. Deborah Tannen: I know that psychologists have many methods for this that can be very effective, like actually articulate the other person's perspective. Because if you keep saying yours they're going to want to keep saying theirs and so you're going to want to say yours again. But if you each articulate the other's perspective, then you're starting with that mutual understanding and you won't have to waste your breath, trying to say your perspective over and over again. Neil Sattin: Right, right. Yes, and we actually, we had a great episode with Harville Hendrix and Helen LaKelly Hunt, talking about the Imago approach to that kind of dialogue. Hedy Schleifer was on talking about a different flavor of that. I'm curious, that idea that we could be trapped in this cycle of wanting to be understood, and how that drives people apart reminded me of the topic that you bring up in your book that is called complimentary schismogenesis. I'm not sure if I said that right. Deborah Tannen: You did. Neil Sattin: This idea that you can find yourself in a dynamic where you're driven further and further apart from the other person in the way that you're communicating. Deborah Tannen: Yes. That term comes from the anthropologist Gregory Bateson, but he used it for a cultures in contact. I've adapted it to everyday conversation. The idea is: If something is not going well, your impulse is try harder and do more of whatever you're doing. That can drive the other person into more and more extreme examples of the other style. Deborah Tannen: So, very quick examples. To start with, what we were doing with indirectness. Say you asked somebody, "Do you want to have lunch?" Deborah Tannen: They say, "Oh, I'm really busy this week." So you ask them again, and they say, "I'm not feeling very well this week." Deborah Tannen: You start to wonder, "Are they being indirect?" So you're going to try to solve it by making them be direct and say, "First you were busy, and then you didn't feel well, do you just not want to have lunch with me ever?" Deborah Tannen: Well, a person who started by being indirect probably cannot bring themselves to say, "I don't want to have lunch with you, ever." They will probably become more indirect. "Oh, gee, I don't know. It's just been a tough time now." Deborah Tannen: So you say, "Well, what is it?" They're going to get even more indirect. Deborah Tannen: Just a couple of other things that we haven't brought up before that are very prone to this complimentary schismogenesis. Let's say you're talking to someone, you tend to talk a bit more loudly than the other does, and they tend to talk a lot more softly. You might raise your voice to set a good example to let them know they should speak up. Well, you're now offending them even more so they're going to talk even lower because they want to set a good example for you. You're going to end up with one shouting and one whispering. You're talking more loudly than you normally would, they're talking more at a lower volume than they normally would in response to what the other is doing. Deborah Tannen: Something that turned out to be very important in a conversation with regard to cultural differences, not gender differences, is how long a pause is normal between turns? When this normal length of pause, when you're approaching it, you'll start to think, "Gee, I guess I should take the floor, the other one has nothing to say." But if your sense of pause is somewhat shorter, you're going to be interrupting. You're going to think the other person is done when they're not and they're going to start thinking you don't want to hear them talk, you only want to hear yourself talk, you're interrupting. Deborah Tannen: You're thinking, "What's wrong with this person? Do they not have anything to say? Do they not like me?" You're coming from Maine, speaking to me, who grew up in Brooklyn. I've got to be really careful and wait, perhaps, a longer length of time than would normally feel right to me, to make sure that you have nothing to say. You might have to push yourself to start speaking before feels completely comfortable. Otherwise, by complimentary schismogenesis, we end up in a situation where I'm doing all the talking and you never get a word in edgewise. Neil Sattin: I was going to ask you why you keep interrupting me? Deborah Tannen: Believe me, I've been holding it back. Neil Sattin: What are some other ... I like how we're flavoring this soup with possibilities in terms of what kind of meta-messages could be operating, what kind of styles could be operating. I'm wondering if there are others, in particular, that come to mind around how people talk to each other. Perhaps, the difference between rapport and reporting, that's one thing that comes to me. But I'm sure you have lots that have been like, "These are the things that we've got to be aware of, because they're most likely happening in your dynamics." Deborah Tannen: Yes, so a difference that I wrote about in You Just Don't Understand was rapport talk and report talk. So report talk is a conversation where really it's the message level meaning of the words that's most important and it's focused on information, impersonal information. Rapport talk is where a lot of what you're saying is to create social connection. It really doesn't matter that much what the specific answer is. I did, there, find that women probably tended to be more likely to do rapport talk in a situation where a man might do report talk. But this can happen between friends of the same sex, even at work. Deborah Tannen: I'll give you an example where, because I have a book about the workplace, it's called Talking From 9 to 5, where one person felt when you have a business meeting you should start with personal talk. The other ones feels, in a business meeting get right down to business that's report talk. Well, the one who is starting with general talk might give the impression, and I had examples where this happened, "Well, there really isn't anything important to talk about. There's nothing I have to pay that much attention to. This is just a social meeting." So then, when that person, the rapport talk person gets to the report talk, the other one has switched off, figures this isn't all that important because it's coming as an afterthought, would be an extreme example from the workplace. Deborah Tannen: I'll give you another example, too. It's kind of like rapport talk and report talk. One of the scenarios from the book You Just Don't Understand that really got a lot of attention, and I think has kind of become part of the culture, a conversation where a woman tells a man about a problem and he tells her how to fix it, and then she's frustrated. What I said about it in that book and what is often said about it is, "She didn't want a solution. She wanted to talk about it." Deborah Tannen: He's frustrated because he's thinking, "Why do you want to talk about it if you don't want to do anything about it?" Both are frustrated because someone they're close to, who should understand how they mean what they say, seems to be misjudging them. Deborah Tannen: I would actually say something somewhat different now, and in the book about women friends I do. I really wish for us to go back and think about that some more. How might the conversation go if it were women friends? Well, I tell you about a problem, you might say, "Gee, why do you think he said that?" And then, "Well, what did you say after he said that? What do you think you might do?" "Yeah, I would probably feel the same thing. I'd probably feel the same way, but what do you think of doing this?" Deborah Tannen: In the end, you do give advice. So when I say, "She didn't want a solution," that's probably not accurate. It's just that we don't want the solution right off the bat, because the very act of talking about it has a meta-message of caring. The fact that you're willing to spend time talking to me about my problem means you care about me. It's a kind of rapport talk. Deborah Tannen: Taking it as, "Here's a problem, I want a solution," that's approaching it as report talk. Perhaps the frustration is not so much that she didn't want a solution as that she didn't want it right off the bat, because the solution shuts down the conversation. Starting that kind of conversation was probably her motivation in the first place. Neil Sattin: Yeah. I'm getting the sense, and this comes up with another strategy that we don't really have time to talk about today called The Ways That We Energize Our Partners. But one element of this strategy, I think gets at helps us clarify meta-messages, which is for you to reflect how what someone is ... Let's see if I can say this well. Neil Sattin: Let's say you say something to me, for me to reflect back to you, "You just said this to me, and what that means to me is ... blank". I think it would be so interesting to use that to flavor a conversation, especially when you sense it going awry. So if you were in that typical scenario where let's say someone just wants to be heard first, before the fixing happens, if you were able to say in that moment, "Wow, you're offering me these solutions. What that means to me is you don't actually really want to hear about what's going on with me, you just want to get past it," it becomes an opportunity for the other person to say, "Well that's not what I meant at all." And at least gives you a window into that dialogue around meaning and how meanings can be misconstrued, and getting at what's important. Like you were just establishing that what's important is setting the stage of caring to help frame a conversation where then someone can actually contribute a solution to it. Deborah Tannen: Yes. That's why I feel that understanding these parameters, understanding that they can be different and often are different among speakers of the same language, that's what I see as essential. Then, once you have that understanding, you, and maybe you with a particular friend or partner, can come up with a way to handle it. Deborah Tannen: A quick example: There are many ways that my husband is not typical and I am not, and there are many ways that we are. For example, he's the one who likes to ask directions and I'd rather use waze or a map. But, this is one where he and I often get frustrated. He once said to me, "I know you don't want a solution, but it's too frustrating for me to listen to you go on and on when I know the solution. So, how about I tell you the solution and you listen. Then if you want to keep talking about it you can." Deborah Tannen: I think that's just as good a compromise as my teaching him to not give me the solution right off the bat. The key is, he and I both understand that this is a difference. Then, we can come up with all different ways of accommodating that difference. Neil Sattin: Yeah, I like that. I really like that. Because your latest book really focuses on friendship, and friendship is such an important part of feeling balance in our lives, feeling fed and supported by the community, I'm wondering if you can touch for a moment on the interplay of how we communicate with our friends versus how we communicate with our spouses, our beloveds? Deborah Tannen: Many of the patterns that I observed in considering conversations among friends were quite parallel to the kinds of things that happen in family relationships and romantic relationships. Some of the things that were different had to do with the level of choice that goes on with friends. This can be both good and bad. Deborah Tannen: As I said earlier, you can decide not to be a friend, you can't decide not to be a sister. You can decide to separate from a romantic partner, but that's quite a big deal, although cutting off a friendship with a same sex friend or other sex friend is also a very big deal. I have a lot to say about that because so many of the women that I interviewed, I interviewed 80 girls and women from this book, so many of them told me about cut-offs, or what we now call ghosting. A friend suddenly disappears, or they decided, "This friendship is really not good for me, I'm just going to cut it off." Deborah Tannen: Somebody pointed out to me, "With a romantic relationship, you kind of have to have that closing conversation, 'I don't think we should see each other anymore because ...'" Certainly if it's a marriage, or living together situation like that, you would have to say, "This isn't working." You would have to have that conversation. But it's so common among friends to just cut it off with no closing conversation, no, "I decided this isn't working for me because ..." So I think that's a huge difference. Deborah Tannen: I guess there's two ways to look at it. One is it was so hurtful when people told me that others had cut them off and they didn't know why. The not knowing why was really, really hurtful. On the other hand, you could say that it's one of the gifts of friendship that you have more volition, that you can decide, "This is causing me more pain than it's giving me pleasure and I want out." I guess you could think of it as a positive or negative thing, but that certainly is a big difference. Neil Sattin: Yeah, and I will say too that some of the more poignant moments in your latest book for me were when the circle did get completed, when people were able to follow up and tell those stories of what they discovered about why cut-offs happen. Deborah Tannen: Yes, and since it is such a common thing and the cause of so much hurt, I do have a bit about it. It could be ... Maybe this is something, in a way, about the whole book, or maybe about all my books, it's a great relief to know that something you've experienced has also been experienced by many other people. You're not alone, nobody's crazy, but these are inherent in human relationships. These cut-offs, yeah, sometimes someone would come back years later and say, "I was just going through a tough time then," or "I was cutting everybody off at that time." Deborah Tannen: I have an example of my own from high school. Very exciting when half a century later I actually found the person who had cut me off, and discovered that it actually wasn't anything I had done or anything she really was going through. It was her older brother who insisted that she end our friendship. Neil Sattin: Wow, yeah, I remember that- Deborah Tannen: I had actually written about that, that yeah, if you're a young person living at home, older people living with you who have that kind of power over you, sometimes they're the ones that make the decision. Often they're right; they may well see that a certain friend is not good for you. But on the other hand, sometimes they're just jealous. Neil Sattin: Yeah, plus I think it's worth highlighting in this moment that I think you might have the title for your next book: You're Not Alone and Nobody's Crazy. Deborah Tannen: Maybe that should be the title of every book. Neil Sattin: Deborah, before we go I'm wondering if we can just touch for a moment on the influence of digital communication on how we communicate? In particular, how much gets sacrificed through texting and Snapchatting? Maybe if you have some ideas on strategies other than, "Don't try to have any meaningful communication that way," which is often what I would just say, but strategies for people to help them sift through the possibility for missing the meta-message when it's just a few characters on your iMessage that's doing the communicating. Deborah Tannen: Yes, I do have a chapter on social media, so I'll just say a little bit from that chapter. I believe that all these social media ramp up both the positive and the negative of friendships. On the positive side, you can stay in much more constant touch. There's this sense of absent presence, so that you feel you're together even though you're not. You send these pictures, it's a way of saying, "Hey, look at that," and you feel as if you're together. Deborah Tannen: One of the big risks is fear of being left out. We all can be hurt if we discover that our friends are doing things without us. Women seem particularly sensitive to that kind of hurt. Well, with social media, your chances not only of knowing what they were doing, but of seeing pictures of what they were doing without you goes way up. It could be you missed it because maybe you were invited but you couldn't make it; maybe you missed it because you didn't check your phone in time; maybe you weren't invited. But the changes of being exposed to this and hurt by it are ratcheted up. Deborah Tannen: As you say, the risks of missing the meta-message, or mistaking the meta-message because you don't have tone of voice, facial expression, although we're extremely creative at using emojis, emoticons, memes, and pictures. There's more and more use of that. My students look at all the creative uses of ha, ha-ha, ha-ha-ha, lol, all these ways that we say, "Don't take what I just said literally." So, I think that people can be very creative about it. Deborah Tannen: Maybe one of the biggest risks is the sense that ... Again, it's a kind of conversational style difference. One friend thinks texting is a good way to talk about problems, the other thinks it's not so she gives minimal responses. The one who's talking about the problem that way thinks, "Where's my supportive, caring friend?" Deborah Tannen: Of course, I think you kind of implied this in your question, just the sense of overload. So many different platforms that you have to check, the fragmentation of attention, the temptation to be looking at your phone rather than the person that you're with. All of these are challenges that we have to be aware and find ways to overcome. Neil Sattin: Yeah, my hope is that as people become more sensitized to how it's affecting them, that it actually spawns even more authenticity and integrity. It's really calling people to the table to be more aligned in terms of how they communicate, because the consequences are so easily seen or experienced, of not being clear. Deborah Tannen: You know, I often find myself defending the use of social media, because I think it has a lot of positive things that we can lose track of. There are many people who can be more authentic when they're typing on a screen than if they're facing a person. Many people find it easier to reveal their real feelings, something personal, some emotion, when they don't have a person staring them down. Many close friendships have evolved, some who never meet, just by talking on the screen, Facebook or some other such medium, and reveal things they wouldn't reveal to somebody that's in the same room with them. Deborah Tannen: I think it's just a matter of awareness and finding what works, and tempering if you feel that things are becoming out of hand. But often those people who are looking at their screen rather than talking to you are really, importantly, avoiding being rude to the person who texted them and need that answer right away. So, a bit of it might be being more tolerant of that. But then, I know there are groups of people who when they get together they all put their phones in the middle, and then the first one who grabs his phone pays the bill. Neil Sattin: I love that. That's a great solution. I can already imagine the meta-meaning conversations. Like, "So, honey, when you're texting on your phone and we're in bed together, what that means to me is ... " Then you get to get more clear about it. Deborah Tannen: You certainly can have parameters that you agree on for your relationship. Neil Sattin: That's what we hope, that's what we hope. Well, Deborah, thank you so much for being here with us today. I'm just so appreciative of your time and your wisdom. For me it's just such a treat, considering how much of an impact your work had on me oh so long ago. It was really fun to revisit today, 20 something years later, and just see how your work has permeated the way that I think, the way that I communicate and interact, and the way that I hope to help others, both as a coach and through this podcast. So, just thank you so much for  being here with us today, and for such a vast contribution to our knowledge about how we communicate with each other. Deborah Tannen: Thank you so much, it's really been a great pleasure to talk to you. Resources: Check out Deborah Tannen's website Read Deborah Tannen’s Book - You Just Don’t Understand and her latest book You’re the Only One I Can Tell You can also visit Deborah Tannen’s author page on Amazon FREE Relationship Communication Secrets Guide www.neilsattin.com/language Visit to download the transcript, or text “PASSION” to 33444 and follow the instructions to download the transcript to this episode with Deborah Tannen Amazing intro/outro music graciously provided courtesy of: The Railsplitters - Check them Out  

What defines evil in fiction? I say the simplest one is bad guys are selfish, good guys are selfless. That is massively over simplistic but it's a good easy template for basic hero's and villains. Basic ones I was just doing a quick thought experiment to work out an easy way to define “good” and “evil” characters in fiction. The more selfless someone is the more “good” they are: the more they think of others, want to help people, put the needs of the masses first, the more willing they are to reach across to their enemies etc. The more selfish a person is the more “evil” they are: if they don't consider the needs or feelings of others, help out their own small group and let others suffer, help themselves first. Of course there are many other more advanced aspects, especially if you consider the relative nature of these things: the idea that everyone thinks they're the good guy from their own perspective, being cruel to be kind, being too authoritarian and heavy handed in the use of power, NOT using power when you should, helping in a way that only SEEMS destructive and selfish, trying to help but causing destruction and chaos in the process, which brings us to the dreaded “unintended consequences”. BUT, the selfless/selfish equation is a nice simple starting point to build from. In the Quackcast we discuss these aspects as well as more advanced notions about what makes a good evil character, what makes a bad one, humanising evil, and weakening you evil character by humanising them too much. Gunwallace's musical theme was for The Cull: Dark, haunting, and compelling- Eastern European Jewish, country and rock, reminds me of Tracy Bonham's later work. Topics and shownotes Featured comic: RIGHTEOUS - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/news/2016/dec/27/featured-comic-righteous/ Topics Adventure time - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305826/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 Chronicle (hero back stories) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/ Special thanks to: Gunwallace - http://www.virtuallycomics.com Tantz Aerine - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/user/Tantz_Aerine/ Banes - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/user/Banes/ Pitface - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/user/PIT_FACE/ kawaiidaigakusei - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/user/kawaiidaigakusei/ Featured music: The Cull - http://www.theduckwebcomics.com/The_Cull/ by Singring, rated M. This is a brutal story about violence, tribalism, and redemption… I think :)

On this week's show How a pair of businesses have adapted traditional Eastern European Jewish recipes, and made them craveable to a new generation. Steve Dolinsky starts with the chocolate babka at Breads Bakery, and then he checks out how the Montreal-style bagels at Black Seed Bagels wound up on the Lower East Side.

Once upon a time, Hershel, a holy fool from the Eastern European Jewish tradition, happened upon a village that couldn’t celebrate Hanukkah because of some Hanukkah-hating goblins. He offers to help them. What happens next? You’ll have to come to church to find out. People’s people of all ages will be worshiping together in The Commons.

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals. Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center's archives.

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals.  Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center’s archives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals.  Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center’s archives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals.  Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center’s archives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals.  Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center’s archives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In YIVO and the Making of Modern Jewish Culture: Scholarship for the Yiddish Nation (Cambridge University Press, 2014), Cecile E. Kuznitz, Associate Professor of Jewish History and Director of Jewish Studies at Bard College, offers the first book-length history of YIVO, the center for Yiddish scholarship founded in the 1920s by a group of Eastern European Jewish intellectuals.  Could scholarship serve as the foundation for a diaspora nationalism? Kuznitz traces the ups and downs of YIVO, using unpublished documents from the center’s archives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Vermont Governor and Ambassador to Switzerland Madeleine Kunin tells us about the Lost Shul Mural Project. An effort is underway in Burlington, Vermont, to save its historic synagogue mural, a unique example of Eastern European Jewish folk art. Episode 0088 September 23, 2014 Yiddish Book Center Amherst, Massachusetts

                    CSP: Seroussi - Tradition: Eastern European Jewish Music and Its (post-) Modern Offsprings

For us, every “nation” has and has always had a “culture,” meaning a defining set of folkways, customs, and styles that is different from every other. But like the modern understanding of the word “nation,” this idea of “culture” or “a culture” is not very old. According to the OED, the modern meaning gained currency in English only in the nineteenth century. In a way, that’s not surprising: the nineteenth century was the era of high-nationalism and, as we’ve said, every “nation” had to have an essence that distinguished it from all others. That essence came to be called “culture.” This nation-culture equivalency, however, presented some nationalists with a problem, particularly if their “nation” had what looked to be several cultures. Jews are the archetypal example. They were spread all over the place, spoke many languages, and practiced many customs. There was nothing to unite them except Judaism–itself hardly unified. If you believed in a Jewish nation, then you had to believe that there could be a “Jewish culture.” But what would it be? In his fascinating new book Jewish Renaissance in the Russian Revolution (Harvard, 2010), Kenneth Moss explores the ways in which Eastern European Jewish culture-builders attempted to answer this question in the Russian Revolutionary era. As Ken points out, there was no simple answer. Rather, there were a lot of competing answers (Yiddishist, Hebraist, Socialist, etc.). But there was also a lot of deep, deep thought about what it meant to build and have a culture. These thinkers knew what we have forgotten, namely, that all cultures are made. They knew this because they were making one. Whether we admit it or not, we are too… Please become a fan of “New Books in Jewish Studies” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For us, every “nation” has and has always had a “culture,” meaning a defining set of folkways, customs, and styles that is different from every other. But like the modern understanding of the word “nation,” this idea of “culture” or “a culture” is not very old. According to the OED, the modern meaning gained currency in English only in the nineteenth century. In a way, that’s not surprising: the nineteenth century was the era of high-nationalism and, as we’ve said, every “nation” had to have an essence that distinguished it from all others. That essence came to be called “culture.” This nation-culture equivalency, however, presented some nationalists with a problem, particularly if their “nation” had what looked to be several cultures. Jews are the archetypal example. They were spread all over the place, spoke many languages, and practiced many customs. There was nothing to unite them except Judaism–itself hardly unified. If you believed in a Jewish nation, then you had to believe that there could be a “Jewish culture.” But what would it be? In his fascinating new book Jewish Renaissance in the Russian Revolution (Harvard, 2010), Kenneth Moss explores the ways in which Eastern European Jewish culture-builders attempted to answer this question in the Russian Revolutionary era. As Ken points out, there was no simple answer. Rather, there were a lot of competing answers (Yiddishist, Hebraist, Socialist, etc.). But there was also a lot of deep, deep thought about what it meant to build and have a culture. These thinkers knew what we have forgotten, namely, that all cultures are made. They knew this because they were making one. Whether we admit it or not, we are too… Please become a fan of “New Books in Jewish Studies” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For us, every “nation” has and has always had a “culture,” meaning a defining set of folkways, customs, and styles that is different from every other. But like the modern understanding of the word “nation,” this idea of “culture” or “a culture” is not very old. According to the OED, the modern meaning gained currency in English only in the nineteenth century. In a way, that’s not surprising: the nineteenth century was the era of high-nationalism and, as we’ve said, every “nation” had to have an essence that distinguished it from all others. That essence came to be called “culture.” This nation-culture equivalency, however, presented some nationalists with a problem, particularly if their “nation” had what looked to be several cultures. Jews are the archetypal example. They were spread all over the place, spoke many languages, and practiced many customs. There was nothing to unite them except Judaism–itself hardly unified. If you believed in a Jewish nation, then you had to believe that there could be a “Jewish culture.” But what would it be? In his fascinating new book Jewish Renaissance in the Russian Revolution (Harvard, 2010), Kenneth Moss explores the ways in which Eastern European Jewish culture-builders attempted to answer this question in the Russian Revolutionary era. As Ken points out, there was no simple answer. Rather, there were a lot of competing answers (Yiddishist, Hebraist, Socialist, etc.). But there was also a lot of deep, deep thought about what it meant to build and have a culture. These thinkers knew what we have forgotten, namely, that all cultures are made. They knew this because they were making one. Whether we admit it or not, we are too… Please become a fan of “New Books in Jewish Studies” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For us, every “nation” has and has always had a “culture,” meaning a defining set of folkways, customs, and styles that is different from every other. But like the modern understanding of the word “nation,” this idea of “culture” or “a culture” is not very old. According to the OED, the modern meaning gained currency in English only in the nineteenth century. In a way, that’s not surprising: the nineteenth century was the era of high-nationalism and, as we’ve said, every “nation” had to have an essence that distinguished it from all others. That essence came to be called “culture.” This nation-culture equivalency, however, presented some nationalists with a problem, particularly if their “nation” had what looked to be several cultures. Jews are the archetypal example. They were spread all over the place, spoke many languages, and practiced many customs. There was nothing to unite them except Judaism–itself hardly unified. If you believed in a Jewish nation, then you had to believe that there could be a “Jewish culture.” But what would it be? In his fascinating new book Jewish Renaissance in the Russian Revolution (Harvard, 2010), Kenneth Moss explores the ways in which Eastern European Jewish culture-builders attempted to answer this question in the Russian Revolutionary era. As Ken points out, there was no simple answer. Rather, there were a lot of competing answers (Yiddishist, Hebraist, Socialist, etc.). But there was also a lot of deep, deep thought about what it meant to build and have a culture. These thinkers knew what we have forgotten, namely, that all cultures are made. They knew this because they were making one. Whether we admit it or not, we are too… Please become a fan of “New Books in Jewish Studies” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to episode 357 of Sexology Podcast! Today I am delighted to be speaking with Darshana Avila. In this episode, we discuss the importance of touch in human connection and intimacy, why we need healthy and attuned touch in relationships and the importance of relaxed arousal for a satisfying sexual experience.  Darshana Avila believes that the foundation of her work in Sex and Intimacy is based on mutual trust. She practices transparency about her identities, recognizing that this disclosure empowers potential clients to make informed decisions about their comfort level and compatibility with her values. Darshana offers a wealth of articles and training resources aimed at dismantling oppression on her Resources page.   Darshana Avila is a cisgender woman of Eastern European Jewish heritage with white skin, able-bodied, and straight-passing. She identifies as bisexual and queer and uses she/her or they/them pronouns. Her life journey has spanned various chapters, including living in liberal pockets of the United States, South America, and Southeast Asia.   She holds a college education and typically enjoys relatively easy access to spaces, resources, and opportunities, despite some of her identities also facing marginalization and persecution. Presently, she resides on land belonging to the Ohlone people, acknowledges this, and pays Shuumi land tax accordingly. Additionally, Darshana allocates a portion of her income to support various socially just and antiracist organizations.     In this episode, you will hear:  The importance of touch in human connection and intimacy Introducing gentle verbal redirection for better touch Normalize asking for consent and use words to ensure safety Expand vocabulary for talking about what feels good The need for healthy and attuned touch in relationships Feedback in heterosexual relationships can be challenging due to social conditioning Consider factors like pressure, speed, and direction for sensation The importance of relaxed arousal for a satisfying sexual experience Explore sex toys as tools for increased pleasure  Cozy Earth This week's episode was sponsored by Cozy Earth. Use the code SEXOLOGY to get 35% off all products: https://cozyearth.com/discount/SEXOLOGY   Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sexologypodcast   Podcast Produced by Pete Bailey - http://petebailey.net/audioAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy