Podcasts about German

For our latest questions submitted by podcast listeners, we examine what my first visit to the battlefields of the Great War with my school meant to me, ask what the Wiltshire Regiment did in the First World War, what sources in English can we look at to understand the German side of WW1 and what did British veterans think of their German foe?Brigadier E.A. James book - British Regiments 1914-1918. Main image: Group portrait of officers of the 1st Battalion, Wiltshire Regiment, after their return from fighting at Thiepval, photographed at Bouzincourt, September 1916. (IWM Q1151 - photo by Ernest Brookes)Got a question about this episode or any others? Drop your question into the Old Front Line Discord Server or email the podcast.Send us a textSupport the show

Europe's self-driving car industry has lagged behind the Chinese and American markets. German automaker Volkswagen may remedy that problem next year, when it will debut its robotaxi ride-pool service in the U.S. Plus: Big publishers may have a new way to take on the AI industry's encroaching web scrapers. Patrick Coffee hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free Technology newsletter. Programming note: Starting this week, Tech News Briefing episodes will be released on Tuesdays and Fridays, and the TNB Tech Minute will be released twice on weekdays, in the morning and afternoon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this podcast episode, we talk about the Mueller Power Clutch 2.0.  If you've ridden a modern Harley-Davidson motorcycle equipped with a cable clutch system, you probably know how fatiguing that clutch pull can get—especially during slow-speed maneuvers, stop-and-go traffic, or long days in the saddle. In this article, we'll introduce you to a game-changing upgrade: the Mueller Power Clutch 2.0. We'll also walk you through the key elements involved in upgrading your cable clutch system without getting bogged down in every bolt turn. SUPPORT US AND SHOP IN THE OFFICIAL LAW ABIDING BIKER STORE If you're riding an '18 and newer Softail or '21 and newer Touring model, chances are your clutch cable includes a cheap plastic inline adjuster. Not only is this piece prone to failure (and can even leave you stranded), but it also offers minimal fine-tune capability—just a red button that automatically adjusts based on spring tension. It's more “auto-manual” than anything else.The Solution: Mueller Power Clutch 2.0 Welcome to the Mueller Power Clutch 2.0, a precision-engineered German-made upgrade that transforms your clutch feel. This system replaces the stock plastic housing with durable aluminum components and an adjuster. And adds a custom ramp mechanism internally. The result? Up to 45% lighter clutch pull Smoother, more linear engagement Enhanced fine-tuning of friction zone Elimination of plastic components that commonly fail Whether you're dealing with arthritis, small hands, or just want to reduce fatigue on long rides or during training drills, this upgrade is a must-have. CHECK OUT OUR HUNDREDS OF FREE HELPFUL VIDEOS ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL AND SUBSCRIBE! A stiff, inconsistent clutch doesn't just cause fatigue—it can actually make you a less confident rider. Whether you're navigating urban traffic, doing parking lot drills, or touring for hours on end, a smooth, easy pull makes all the difference. The Mueller Power Clutch 2.0 is the best way to modernize your Harley's outdated cable system and make it feel like it should have from the factory. NEW FREE VIDEO RELEASED: 2025 Harley Street Glide Midnight Firestorm Paint! Ghost Flames-WORTH THE UPGRADE? Sponsor-Ciro 3D CLICK HERE! Innovative products for Harley-Davidson & Goldwing Affordable chrome, lighting, and comfort products Ciro 3D has a passion for design and innovation Sponsor-Butt Buffer CLICK HERE Want to ride longer? Tired of a sore and achy ass? Then fix it with a high-quality Butt Buffer seat cushion! If you appreciate the content we put out and want to make sure it keeps on coming your way then become a Patron too! There are benefits and there is no risk. Thanks to the following bikers for supporting us via a flat donation: Michael Anchulis of Westlake, Ohio James Augustus of Seville, Ohio Rodney Elnick of Washington, Michigan HELP SUPPORT US! JOIN THE BIKER REVOLUTION! #BikerRevolution #LawAbidingBiker #Bikaholics #RyanUrlacher

Pascal Papathemelis: The Mobile Product Owner—Why Great POs Move Around and Talk to People Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. The Great Product Owner: The Visionary Communicator Pascal describes great Product Owners as excellent communicators who possess the courage to confront stakeholders when necessary. These exceptional POs thrive as decision makers and understand the importance of being mobile - they have "legs and walk around to meet stakeholders" rather than remaining isolated in their offices. Great Product Owners maintain a clear vision and excel at breaking down products into granular items that teams can easily pull from the backlog. They demonstrate superior backlog management skills and understand how to focus on creating systems that collect valuable feedback. Pascal emphasizes that it's critical to help Product Owners develop these capabilities so they can flourish in their role as the primary decision makers for their products. The Bad Product Owner: The Dominating Manager Pascal encountered a challenging Product Owner who exhibited several destructive anti-patterns. This PO dominated meetings by talking most of the time while the team remained silent, creating an environment where team members felt unsafe to contribute. The situation was complicated by the fact that this Product Owner also served as the line manager for the team members, blurring the boundaries between product decisions and personnel management. This dual role created a power dynamic that inhibited healthy team collaboration. The PO went so far as to stop retrospectives, even when Pascal explained how these sessions could benefit the entire team. Pascal identifies a critical anti-pattern: when a Product Owner has no channel of communication or coaching support, and they resist help, it becomes impossible to improve the situation. Self-reflection Question: What steps could you take to help Product Owners in your organization develop better communication skills and create safer environments for team collaboration? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

How'd you say in German: “I can't wait to see you.”?

Norbert Heuser is a German-born inventor, entrepreneur, and global thought leader at the intersection of health, technology, and business. With a professional journey that spans 39 countries and over 200 appearances across podcasts, webinars, and seminars, Norbert brings a wealth of international insight to the conversation. Driven by personal experience, he specializes in addressing food intolerance and addiction, blending alternative medicine with strategic health coaching. Please learn more about Norbert Heuser at www.ImproveYourLife.usIn this compelling episode of Mr. Biz Radio, host Ken "Mr. Biz" Wentworth sits down with renowned health consultant, inventor, and international speaker Norbert Heuser to uncover the often-overlooked impact of caffeine addiction, food intolerance, and modern dietary dependencies on personal health and professional performance. Drawing from his personal journey through life-threatening health challenges and a transformative internship with a pioneering physician, Norbert shares deep insights into how silent food addictions and intolerances can undermine well-being—often without our awareness.Key Takeaways:-Recognizing and acknowledging a food addiction—like caffeine dependence—is half the battle in overcoming it.-Simply, a habit you can control, while addiction controls you.-Food intolerance involves physical reactions from your body rejecting certain foods, which can be misunderstood as allergies.-Achieving natural energy and dopamine boosts require lifestyle adjustments, including proper nutrition, hydration, and sleep.-Opting for healthier living choices over easy, addictive solutions is integral for long-term physical and mental vitality.

AP correspondent Karen Chammas reports on a German tourist who was found alive after 12 days in the Australian outback.

A female German backpacker is missing. Helicopters are being used to search for her in Western Australia, but so far without success. However, the police are not sure whether she might not also be in other parts of the country. The missing person's name is Carolina Wilga and she is 26 years old. Dieter Herrmann, editor-in-chief of WEEK IN AUSTRALIA, is an experienced outback visitor. He fears the missing person has made a big mistake. - Eine deutsche Backpackerin wird vermisst. In Western Australia wird mit Hubschraubern nach ihr gesucht, aber bisher ohne Erfolg. Die Polizei ist sich aber nicht sicher, ob sie vielleicht nicht auch in anderen Landesteilen ist. Die Vermisste heißt Carolina Wilga und ist 26 Jahre alt. Dieter Herrmann, Chefredakteur der WOCHE IN AUSTRALIEN, ist ein erfahrener Outbackbesucher. Er befürchtet, die Vermisste hat einen grossen Fehler gemacht.

On June 27, we broadcasted our program live from the Gold Coast. One of the interview partners was Reimer Möller. He is treasurer of the Brisbane German Club and talks about the history of the club and why it is very popular with people with a non-German background. - Am 27. Juni haben wir unser Programm live von der Gold Coast gesendet. Einer der Interviewpartner war Reimer Möller. Er ist Treasurer des Brisbane German Clubs und spricht über die Geschichte des Clubs, und warum die deutsche Kultur auch bei Menschen mit nicht-deutschem Hintergrund so beliebt ist.

In the West Australian outback, a massive search for a missing German backpacker is underway.

UK police make multiple arrests in the retail cyberattack case.  French authorities arrest a Russian basketball player at the request of the U.S. A German court declares open season on Meta's tracking pixels. The European Union unveils new rules to regulate artificial intelligence. London's Iran International news confirms cyberattacks from Banished Kitten. Treasury sanctions a North Korean hacker over fake IT worker schemes. Microsoft confirms a widespread issue preventing organizations from deploying the latest Windows updates. Agreements over AI help end a year-long Hollywood strike. Researchers take an  in-depth look at ClickFix. I'm joined by Ben Yelin and Ethan Cook for a look at Congress' recent attempt to limit AI regulation through preemption. Password insecurity with a side of fries. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today we're sharing our latest Caveat Policy Deep Dive—a special segment where we explore the legal and policy forces shaping our digital lives. In this episode, Ethan Cook joins hosts Dave Bittner and Ben Yelin to break down a recent attempt by Congress to use preemption as a way to block state-level AI laws, and what this means for the ongoing tug-of-war over who should regulate AI in America. For the full conversation and a deeper dive into the implications of this federal vs. state showdown, check out the Caveat podcast Selected Reading UK police arrest four in connection with M&S and Co-op cyberattacks (Reuters) Russian Basketball Player Arrested in France at Request of United States (The Moscow Times) German court rules Meta tracking technology violates European privacy laws (The Record) European Union Unveils Rules for Powerful A.I. Systems (The New York Times) Leaked materials came from previously reported cyberattacks, Iran International confirms (Iran Insight) Treasury sanctions North Korean over IT worker malware scheme (Bleeping Computer) Microsoft confirms Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) sync is broken (Bleeping Computer) Industry video game actors pass agreement with studios for AI security (Reuters) Fix the Click: Preventing the ClickFix Attack Vector (Palo Alto Networks) McDonald's AI Hiring Bot Exposed Millions of Applicants' Data to Hackers Using the Password ‘123456' (WIRED) Audience Survey Complete our annual audience survey before August 31. Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pascal Papathemelis: Selecting the Appropriate Agile Values for Organizational Impact Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal defines success for Scrum Masters through his recent mantra of "effectiveness over efficiency," "outcome over output," and "create value for the customer." Working with a client introducing a new digital platform, he focuses on understanding the value for both the organization and end customers while minimizing confusion in the process. Pascal emphasizes the importance of ensuring work sustainability over time by focusing on Agile values and principles and their deep understanding. He customizes the Agile Manifesto's values and principles for each organization, such as focusing on customer value, collaboration, and constant learning. Pascal strategically highlights the principles and values that address the biggest challenges facing the organization at any given time, making Agile concepts relevant and actionable for the specific context. Featured Retrospective Format for the Week: Sailboat Pascal recommends the sailboat retrospective as his preferred format, though he emphasizes that the choice depends on context and team focus. He values this metaphor-based retrospective because it helps teams discuss critical aspects of their work through different perspectives. The sailboat format allows teams to explore what propels them forward (wind), what holds them back (anchors), what they need to watch out for (rocks), and their destination (island). Pascal also uses timeline retrospectives and stresses the importance of varying retrospective formats to prevent teams from falling into routine patterns that might limit their ability to bring fresh insights to their work. He believes that good data and effective visualization are essential components of any successful retrospective format. Self-reflection Question: How effectively are you customizing Agile principles to address your organization's specific challenges and context? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

I'm issuing a warning to white people. Do NOT utilize the services of Leftists, particular Black Leftists, and above all female and/or LGBTQ Black Leftists.Antisemitism has infected the therapy world at alarming rates. Meet Long Island NY based therapist Gineth G Nelson, who messaged a Jewish woman on social media to kindly let her know - “Germans should have ended your kind.”Nelson runs Whole Health Counseling in Elmont NY.Who would believe that after 249 years of our development and the fight to end slavery and marginalize the bigots and racists, America openly allows Leftists anti-Semites, white-hating racist, and anti-Trump bigots to openly target American citizens?!This is what the Democrats have become.They have bred this hatred into their constituents, then indoctrinated them for violence.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wie immer beginnen wir unser Programm mit einem Rückblick auf einige aktuelle Ereignisse. Unser erstes Thema ist die Gründung einer neuen politischen Partei in den USA. Was wird sie den Wählern bieten? Kann sie es mit der republikanischen und der demokratischen Partei aufnehmen? Unsere zweite Diskussion konzentriert sich auf die Ermittlungen gegen eine russisch-orthodoxe Kirche in Schweden wegen möglicher Verbindungen zu russischen Geheimdienstoperationen. Danach verlassen wir das politische Weltgeschehen und kommen zu einem wissenschaftlichen Thema. Wir werden über ein vor Kurzem veröffentlichtes Buch sprechen, in dem darauf aufmerksam gemacht wird, dass die Existenz einiger menschlicher Körperteile nicht mit Evolution erklärt werden kann. Und zum Schluss sprechen wir über das berühmte Hot-Dog-Wettessen, das jedes Jahr am amerikanischen Unabhängigkeitstag stattfindet. Der Rest der heutigen Folge ist der deutschen Sprache und Kultur gewidmet. Im ersten Dialog geht es um Beispiele für das Grammatikthema dieser Woche – The Simple Past (das Präteritum). Wir werden über Pumpernickel sprechen. Das ist eine traditionsreiche und besondere Brotsorte, die sogar im Land der Brotesser hervorsticht und dabei noch äußerst gesund ist. Um die Herkunft des eigentümlichen Namens ranken sich mehrere Legenden. Die Redewendung dieser Woche ist Auf großem Fuß leben. Um ihren Gebrauch zu veranschaulichen, werden wir uns die deutschen Milliardäre im internationalen Vergleich genauer ansehen. Der größte Teil des Reichtums in Deutschland ist nämlich geerbt. Elon Musk plant Gründung einer neuen politischen Partei in den USA und fordert das Zweiparteiensystem heraus Russisch-orthodoxe Kirche in Schweden im Fokus von Ermittlungen wegen Spionage Die Existenz einiger menschlicher Körperteile lässt sich nicht mit Evolution erklären Die USA feiern den Unabhängigkeitstag am 4. Juli mit traditionellem Hot-Dog-Wettessen Der Pumpernickel Deutsche Milliardäre im internationalen Vergleich

Today's story: You thought only the passengers rated the drivers? Think again: drivers rate passengers, too. And a low passenger rating might cost you. But it's not hard to earn a high passenger rating. To keep a high rating, don't make the driver wait, be polite, avoid eating or drinking in the car, follow the rules, and don't slam the door when you leave.Transcript & Exercises: https://plainenglish.com/789Full lesson: https://plainenglish.com/789 --Upgrade all your skills in English: Plain English is the best current-events podcast for learning English.You might be learning English to improve your career, enjoy music and movies, connect with family abroad, or even prepare for an international move. Whatever your reason, we'll help you achieve your goals in English.How it works: Listen to a new story every Monday and Thursday. They're all about current events, trending topics, and what's going on in the world. Get exposure to new words and ideas that you otherwise might not have heard in English.The audio moves at a speed that's right for intermediate English learners: just a little slower than full native speed. You'll improve your English listening, learn new words, and have fun thinking in English.--Did you like this episode? You'll love the full Plain English experience. Join today and unlock the fast (native-speed) version of this episode, translations in the transcripts, how-to video lessons, live conversation calls, and more. Tap/click: PlainEnglish.com/joinHere's where else you can find us: Instagram | YouTube | WhatsApp | EmailMentioned in this episode:Hard words? No problemNever be confused by difficult words in Plain English again! See translations of the hardest words and phrases from English to your language. Each episode transcript includes built-in translations into Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Polish, and Turkish. Sign up for a free 14-day trial at PlainEnglish.com

This episode is sponsored by Lockton, click here to learn more Watch the full video on YouTube - click hereWebasto is a legacy company with roots going back to 1901, but staying competitive in today's automotive industry requires more than history. It also means challenging long-standing norms without discarding the company's strengths. To understand how a company like that evolves, we sat down with Brad Ring, President and CEO of Webasto Americas. Brad Ring describes his leadership style as grounded in authenticity, humility, and care for people. At the core of his approach is a belief that when leaders genuinely care about people, people care about the work.Brad shares how his leadership approach evolved, not from leadership training, but from watching the people around him. One of his earliest influences was Jim Hall, who showed him early on that real leadership starts with connection. It isn't about hierarchy or image, it's about showing up as a real person.Webasto is proud of its German heritage, known for its engineering discipline, and carries a cultural weight that doesn't shift easily. But Brad didn't try to fight that. He kept what worked: the care for people, the pride in product quality, and the strong family feel. Then, he started adding what was missing: a performance-driven mindset and a culture that encourages collaboration.One of the most practical changes was in language. Words like “accountable” and “responsible” had become unclear. So Brad introduced “promise.” Promises, he says, create emotional accountability and human connection in a way that traditional “responsibility” never could.Even during restructuring, Brad stays focused on values. Some decisions are hard, he says, but how you carry them out, humanely and with accountability, matters just as much as the decisions themselves. That's what keeps the culture intact even during tough transitions.Brad sees trust as the core of his leadership, both in business and personal relationships. It's not just a value; it's how things get done.He believes trust is built through consistent, everyday actions. Once it's there, it speeds up decisions, reduces wasted effort, and creates a safe space for risk and learning.Outside the office, Brad's passion for cycling and wake surfing offers a glimpse into how he finds balance. His morning routine might not follow what you think, but it works for him. And that's part of his larger point: leadership doesn't come from mimicking others. It comes from knowing who you are and staying grounded, even when the world tells you to act otherwise.Themes discussed in this episode:The challenge of transforming a 120-year-old automotive company for today's marketWhy command-and-control leadership fails in modern manufacturing environmentsBuilding organizational trust to accelerate decision-making and performanceWhy legacy culture must evolve to stay competitive with fast-moving OEMsAdvancing gender diversity and inclusion in automotive leadership rolesThe importance of creating a culture where mistakes lead to growthWhy leadership works best when you're true to yourselfFeatured guest: Brad RingWhat he does: Brad Ring is the President and CEO of Webasto Region Americas, overseeing operations across the United States and Mexico. He joined Webasto in May 2023, bringing over 30 years of global automotive experience.Throughout his career,...

Leo Luster grew up in Vienna speaking German and Yiddish. He and his parents were deported to Terezin in 1942. While his mother remained there, Leo and his father were sent on to Auschwitz, then a series of work camps. One morning Leo saw that the German guards had fled. He stepped outside to see a Soviet soldier pointing a rifle at him. Leo blurted out, in Yiddish, “I'm a Jew!” The soldier lowered his rifle and replied in Yiddish, “So am I.”The actor Steve Furst read's Leo's story for us. Leo was interviewed in Tel Aviv and Vienna by Tanja Eckstein in 2010.

Arnold Fabrikant came from Odesa, where both his parents were doctors. Arnold's father Yefim and his unit tried to hold off the Germans when they surrounded Kyiv. Yefim killed himself rather than fall into German hands. Arnold, then 20 years old, spent the next four years on the front and ended the war shooting his way into Berlin.David Horovitch reads Arnold's story, which is based on an interview conducted in Odesa by Natalia Rezanova in 2004.

By the spring of 1945, the Soviet Army was closing in on Berlin from the east, the Allies had entered Germany from the west, and Adolf Hitler committed suicide on 30 April. From the beginning of the Second World War in 1939, some 20 million military personnel had been killed along with 40 million civilians. Of those, 6 million were Jews and that included 1.5 million children.This podcast season takes you into the personal stories of nine elderly Jews we interviewed between 2001 and 2010. In the first episode three Ukrainian Jews will tell you about fighting their way into Berlin. In episode two, we'll hear from a young Jewish man freed from a German work camp, a teenager in Budapest who went to the train station hoping her father would be coming back, and from someone who stumbled back in Lodz, hoping to find someone in her family might still be alive.The third episode is all about starting over: in Vilnius in Lithuania, in Bitola in today's North Macedonia, and in Targu Mures in Romania.All these stories were told to us by Jews who had been born in Europe—and who remained in Europe. Their stories were recorded in each of their languages. We have translated and edited them and they are read for us by actors in London.This podcast season was co-funded by the European Union. 

Wie immer beginnen wir unser Programm mit einem Rückblick auf einige aktuelle Ereignisse. Unser erstes Thema ist die Gründung einer neuen politischen Partei in den USA. Was wird sie den Wählern bieten? Kann sie es mit der republikanischen und der demokratischen Partei aufnehmen? Unsere zweite Diskussion konzentriert sich auf die Ermittlungen gegen eine russisch-orthodoxe Kirche in Schweden wegen möglicher Verbindungen zu russischen Geheimdienstoperationen. Danach verlassen wir das politische Weltgeschehen und kommen zu einem wissenschaftlichen Thema. Wir werden über ein vor Kurzem veröffentlichtes Buch sprechen, in dem darauf aufmerksam gemacht wird, dass die Existenz einiger menschlicher Körperteile nicht mit Evolution erklärt werden kann. Und zum Schluss sprechen wir über das berühmte Hot-Dog-Wettessen, das jedes Jahr am amerikanischen Unabhängigkeitstag stattfindet. Der Rest der heutigen Folge ist der deutschen Sprache und Kultur gewidmet. Im ersten Dialog geht es um Beispiele für das Grammatikthema dieser Woche – The Simple Past (das Präteritum). Wir werden über Pumpernickel sprechen. Das ist eine traditionsreiche und besondere Brotsorte, die sogar im Land der Brotesser hervorsticht und dabei noch äußerst gesund ist. Um die Herkunft des eigentümlichen Namens ranken sich mehrere Legenden. Die Redewendung dieser Woche ist Auf großem Fuß leben. Um ihren Gebrauch zu veranschaulichen, werden wir uns die deutschen Milliardäre im internationalen Vergleich genauer ansehen. Der größte Teil des Reichtums in Deutschland ist nämlich geerbt. Elon Musk plant Gründung einer neuen politischen Partei in den USA und fordert das Zweiparteiensystem heraus Russisch-orthodoxe Kirche in Schweden im Fokus von Ermittlungen wegen Spionage Die Existenz einiger menschlicher Körperteile lässt sich nicht mit Evolution erklären Die USA feiern den Unabhängigkeitstag am 4. Juli mit traditionellem Hot-Dog-Wettessen Der Pumpernickel Deutsche Milliardäre im internationalen Vergleich

00:00 Chant 00:37 Introduction 01:19 Patience in times of change 02:33 Difficult times never last 05:19 Humans and change 08:46 Perseverance pays off 11:14 AMAYA'S beauty is restored 13:48 NAMAS YOUNIVERSITY expansion 16:18 Announcements 17:20 Chant For more information: https://namasyouniversity. Merrymount Nature Station Classes - contact Donald Flynn https://ecotonene.com/ New Book - The SANAT KUMARA - Prayers & Portals to Rise https://a.co/d/iB2zphH Healing Circles with the COSMIC MOTHER & AUHELEA Group Consciousness every Saturday - contact@katharinaadari.com for more information 11-day Akashic and Cosmic Records Reading Course in English, Russian & German language with Jyothhi, Oksana & and Natina, respectively: https://namasyouniversitykohmahl.exlyapp.com 5DSoul Consciousness - https://5dsoulconsciousness.exlyapp.com Join our international study group: https://discord.com/invite/CeYBuw4Umn

Writer's Voice: compelling conversations with authors who challenge, inspire, and inform Episode Summary In this episode of Writer's Voice, former FBI agent, scholar, and author Michael German discusses his explosive book Policing White Supremacy: The Enemy Within. German, who infiltrated white supremacist and right-wing militia groups during his FBI tenure, offers a chilling insider perspective … Continue reading Michael German on POLICING WHITE SUPREMACY: THE ENEMY WITHIN →

"The Juniper Tree" (also "The Almond Tree"; Low German: Von dem Machandelboom) is a German fairy tale published in Low German by the Brothers Grimm in Grimm's Fairy Tales in 1812 (KHM 47).[1] The story contains themes of child abuse, murder, cannibalism and biblical symbolism and is one of the Brothers Grimm's darker and more mature fairy tales.

This episode delves into the high-stakes preparations of Britain's military and government as they braced for a potential German invasion during the summer of 1940, a pivotal moment in the Battle of Britain . From chaotic early responses fueled by panic to the gradual organization of defenses like the Home Guard, the narrative captures the tension and transformation of Britain's resilience during this critical period. As the episode unfolds, it reveals how the nation's efforts evolved into a structured defense system, setting the stage for the broader struggle against Nazi aggression. Contact advertising@airwavemedia.com to advertise on History of the Second World War. History of the Second World War is part of the Airwave Media podcast network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Fates of Classical Antiquity not only survived in the form of related fairy-tale figures but also as the object of superstitions and rituals associated with newborns. In South Slavic and Balkan regions particularly, these customs represent a surprisingly long-lived and genuine case of pagan survival. We begin our episode examining the fairy godmothers of "Sleeping Beauty" as embodiments of the Fates.  Mrs. Karswell reads a few key passages from the definitive version of the story included in Charles Perrault's 1697 collection, Histoires ou contes du temps passé ("stories of times gone by.") We learn how the fairies fulfill the historical role of godparents at the newborn's christening. We also note the peculiar emphasis on the quality of what's set before the fairies at the christening banquet, observing how a failure there leads the wicked fairy to curse the Sleeping Beauty. 1874 illustration by František Doucha for a Czech edition of Sleeping Beauty We then explore antecedents to Perrault's tale, beginning with the 14th-century French chivalric romance, Perceforest.  A peripheral story in this 8-volume work is that of Troylus and Zeelandine, in which the role of Sleeping Beauty's fairy godmothers are played by Greek and Roman deities, with Venus as supporter of Princess Zeelandine (and her suitor Troylus) and Themis cursing Zeelandine to sleep in a manner similar to Perrault's princess.  A failure to correctly lay out Themis' required items at the christening banquet is again again responsible for the curse, though the awakening of Zeelandine by Troylus awakens is surprisingly different and a notorious example of medieval bawdiness. Preceding Perceforest, there was the late 13th-century French historical romance Huon of Bordeaux, in which we hear of the newborn fairy king Oberon being both cursed and blessed by fairies attending his birth.  From around the same time, French poet and composer Adam de la Halle's Play of the Bower describes a banquet at which fairy guests pronounce a curses and blessings on those in attendance prompted again by their pleasure or displeasure at what's set before them at a banquet. We also  hear of the Danish King King Fridlevus (Fridlef II) bringing his newborn son to a temple of "three maidens" to ascertain the  destiny pf the child in Gesta Danorum ("Deeds of the Danes").written around 1200 by Saxo Grammaticus. And lest listeners think such appeals to the Fates were strictly a literary motif, we hear Burchard of Worms, in his early-11th-century Decretum, condemning the not uncommon among the Germans of his region of setting up offering tables for the Fates.  By this point, the connection between how fairy godmother types are served at a banquet and offerings made to the Fates to ensure a cild's fortune should be clear. We then turn back to the Greek Fates, the Moirai (Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos) and the Roman Parcae (Nona, Decuma, and Morta). Particularly in the case of the Parcae, we hear examples of their connection to the newborn's destiny in the celebration nine or ten days after the birth of the dies lustricus, during which offerings were made to the Fates. The Three Fates by Bernardo Strozzi, late 17th c We make a brief side-trip to discuss the Norns (Urðr, Verðandi and Skuld), the Germanic equivalent of the Fates.  These are more distant cousins, not strongly associated with the newborn and his destiny, though we do hear a passage from the Poetic Edda, in which the Norns are  present birth of the hero Helgi. We also hear a gruesome passage from the 13th-century Njáls Saga, in which the Valkyries weave out the fate of those who will die in the Battle of Clontarf. The Anglo-Saxon equivalent of the Fates, the Wyrds, are also discussed, and we hear how the  witches in Macbeth partook in this identity as the "Weird Sisters," an association Shakespeare inherited from his source material, the 1587 history of Great Britain, known as Holinshed's Chronicles.

//The Wire//2300Z July 9, 2025////ROUTINE////BLUF: TENSIONS RISE BETWEEN GERMANY AND CHINA REGARDING RED SEA INCIDENT. TAIWAN BEGINS LARGE-SCALE MILITARY EXERCISE. WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCES NEW TARIFF ON COPPER.// -----BEGIN TEARLINE------International Events-Far East: Taiwan began their largest annual military drill yesterday evening, with this year's exercises being the most substantial to date. This drill is scheduled to last 10x days, roughly double the length of last year's maneuvers.Germany: Controversy has resulted from an incident that occurred in the Red Sea a few days ago. German authorities have stated that a Chinese warship operating in the Red Sea deliberately targeted one of their aircraft with a laser with the indent to blind the pilots and/or damage sensor equipment. This incident prompted Germany to summon the Chinese Ambassador to account for the situation, and tensions between the two nations have increased as a result.-HomeFront-Washington D.C. - Yesterday the White House announced implementing a 50% tariff on all imported copper. Following this announcement, the price of copper skyrocketed by 13% to a new high today.-----END TEARLINE-----Analyst Comments: The long-term economic impacts of pumping the price of copper are best analyzed by economists. However, the real-world impacts to the average person are plain to see. Anytime a precious metal sharply increases, theft of that metal also rises. Copper theft is already a growing problem in most areas, so opportunistic criminals will likely take advantage of this new high to steal and scrap everything that isn't bolted down (and also most things that ARE bolted down), at least in the short term while the price of copper remains very volatile.Regarding the lasing incident in the Red Sea, these types of events happen very frequently. However, these more soft-targeting efforts are generally a good indicator for which way the wind is blowing in the international arena. Right now China is not very friendly with the west, but particularly the European Union at large.Analyst: S2A1Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground//END REPORT//

Pascal Papathemelis: From Waterfall to Agile—A Multi-Level Change Strategy Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal describes a successful agile transformation where he collaborated with a fellow coach in the IT department of a large organization with a waterfall history and heavy documentation-driven processes. The two coaches worked together effectively, sharing information and scouting for opportunities to take action. They began with an assessment and discussions across IT, business, and management levels to understand the current state. Using the Cynefin framework to understand complexity, they conducted a two-day workshop to introduce Agile vocabulary, covering concepts like Push/Pull and process waste.  The coaches operated at multiple levels simultaneously - working strategically with leadership who typically pushed excessive work to the organization, while also helping teams visualize their processes and clarify priorities. At the team level, they acted as Scrum Masters to demonstrate the role while mentoring the actual Scrum Master through one-on-one sessions. They also supported the Product Owner in understanding their role and used story maps to help visualize and organize work effectively. Self-reflection Question: How might collaborating with another coach or change agent amplify your effectiveness in leading organizational transformation? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

This week, Taylor, Sandy and Doug Jordan discuss a Fourth of July fiasco, Taddea's cryptic Tweets, a dog-speaking boy, the death of a German royal, nuclear flies and much, much more! Another all new edition of Our Week's: Answers debuts!

Rev. Dr. Lawrence Rast, Jr, President of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, joins Andy and Sarah for our History of Lutheranism in America series to talk about the formation of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, including the people who began the ground work for forming what became The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the challenges that they faced, how the creation of our Synod happened, and what we can we learn from our history that would be helpful as we gather for convention this year. Find all three episodes in this series at kfuo.org/tag/history-of-lutheranism-in-america. This episode originally aired on July 5, 2023. Note: Rev. Dr. Lawrence Rast, Jr. is now former president of Concordia Theological Seminary. As you grab your morning coffee (and pastry, let's be honest), join hosts Andy Bates and Sarah Gulseth as they bring you stories of the intersection of Lutheran life and a secular world. Catch real-life stories of mercy work of the LCMS and partners, updates from missionaries across the ocean, and practical talk about how to live boldly Lutheran. Have a topic you'd like to hear about on The Coffee Hour? Contact us at: listener@kfuo.org.

Latest up from Spoken Label (Author / Artist Podcast) features making his debut, Richard Sparks (and yes, that is Jack Black in the picture who is talked about in the Podcast).Richard's bio advises "One morning in 1979 I got a call from an understandably excited Rowan Atkinson.“John Cleese just called. He's asked me to be in his new charity show – and can I do The Schoolmaster?”Er, yes.I'd written The Schoolmaster for Rowan the previous year, for a revue at the Hampstead Theatre (Rowan with Elspeth Walker and Peter Wilson). John and his co-producer, Martin Lewis, had seen it; and a year later, Rowan and I were backstage at Her Majesty's Theatre, meeting John and other members of the cast of The Secret Policeman's Ball.Rowan went on stage an unknown, with his gown and clipboard and pen, and came off a star. The Schoolmaster became his signature piece, the encore of his live shows. Eventually, he got tired of doing the same old routine and wrote another (ruder) version, generously giving me half the royalties.By that time, I'd cut my teeth on various TV shows, from HTV (Wales) to ITV (Southern and Central) to the BBC. I'd also written some stage shows (reviews, original plays, and adaptations of Goldoni comedies), and done a lot of freelance script editing. In 1992, I was hired by Columbia Picture Television to work with Blake Hunter and Marty Cohan, the creators of Who's the Boss?. My wife and I moved with our young daughter to her parents (converted) garage and we've lived in Los Angeles since.I've written a number of libretti for operas, almost all for the LA Opera – some original pieces, some translations from German or Italian. My writing partner, the composer, Lee Holdridge, was – in a way – once G.R.R. Martin's ‘writing partner' in that he composed the scores for the TV series Beauty and the Beast, for which Martin was a script writer.I'd been a hard-core RPG gamer for years when the idea for these books just fell out of the sky one morning, and I started writing. I have hardly had a moment to log on to any game — I'm too busy exploring the New Rock stories as they unfold.My publisher, Caezik SF & Fantasy, is a company of enthusiasts who love these genres. I am delighted to join their family of authors, and to be working with their executive editor, Lezli, Robyn.Three sequels – New Rock New Realm, New Rock New Rules, and New Rock New Roads, have been completed and will be published in due course. I'm currently working on the fifth book."More details including where to buy Richard's books can be found at: https://richardsparks.com/

This week, we talk about The Institute for the Study and Elimination of Jewish Influence on German Church Life and their new bible and hymnal and about Walter Grundmann.

NIGHT of the JUMPs 25th anniversary show was one to remember in Dresden, Germany! After the first ever show in Riesa in 2001 it is crazy to see NOTJ still here 25 years later and going strong!Luc Ackermann has been the man to beat for the past 5 years and for round 2, 2025 Pat Bowden arrived to put some pressure on the local German on his home soil.Highlights include: Dakar Rally Bike Backflip with Libor PodmolPat Bowden's winning run as one of the best we've ever seen in 25 yearsMarc Pinyol's Record breaking 12 metre high Backflip DropLuc Ackermann's HUGE Double Backflip Nac-NacEddy Frech with the first ever Simson S51 Backflip on a 40 year old East German motorcycleAlejandro Bonafe's winning Best Trick runReto Heini joining Tom Pfeiffer and Lennox Zimmermann with his Triple Backflip and much, much more!Join Clint Esposito and I as we go through the Qualification and Finals before the next event coming in Budapest, Hungary on October 4th.(Also, sorry on the background sound - sounds like it was echoing from our YouTube companion piece. It's quiet enough that you should hopefully forget about it)Freestyle Motocross Final1. Pat Bowden (AUS)​​​​​​288 Points2. Luc Ackermann (GER)​​​​​283 Points3. Libor Podmol (CZE)​​​​​​263 Points4. Matej Cesak (CZE)​​​​​​246 Points Freestyle Motocross Qualifikationsgruppe 11. Pat Bowden (AUS)​​​​​​267 Points2. Libor Podmol (CZE)​​​​​​249 Points3. Marc Pinyol (ESP)​​​​​​242 Points4. Mikolej Tempka (POL)​  ​​​​205 Points Freestyle Motocross Qualifikationsgruppe 21. Luc Ackermann (GER)​​​​​275 Points2. Matej Cesak (CZE)​​​​​​235 Points3. Hannes Ackermann (GER)  ​​​​​220 Points4. Alex Bucholtz (AUS)​​​​​​153 Points Whip Contest1. Matej Cesak (CZE)​  2. Pat Bowden (AUS)​​​​​​ Synchro Contest1. Luc Ackermann (GER) & Hannes Ackermann (GER)2. Libor Podmol (CZE) & Matej Cesak (CZE)​​​ Best Trick MTB/BMX/Scooter Final1. Alejandro Bonafe (ESP)2. Lennox Zimmermann (GER)​​​​​

Pascal Papathemelis: The Hidden Cost of Removing Scrum Masters from High-Performing Teams Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal shares a cautionary experience with mature Scrum teams that appeared to function flawlessly. These teams demonstrated excellent Scrum practices with minimal impediments, leading management to conclude that Scrum Masters were unnecessary. When management removed all Scrum Masters from the department, the previously high-performing teams began to struggle significantly.  Team members had to absorb the responsibilities previously handled by their Scrum Masters, causing them to lose focus on their core value-creating work. Different teams adopted various approaches to fill the Scrum Master void, but none proved effective. Pascal reflects that the Scrum Masters could have made their value more visible by supporting Product Owners more actively and becoming more involved in team tasks. This experience taught him the importance of demonstrating the ongoing value that Scrum Masters provide, even when teams appear to be self-sufficient. Featured Book of the Week: Learning Out Loud—Community Learning and Networking Pascal draws his greatest inspiration not from a single book, but from active participation in the Agile community. He finds tremendous value in discussions within local communities, networking events, and sparring sessions with colleagues. Pascal particularly benefits from Agile Coaching circles in Helsinki, which provide practical knowledge and insights. He also gains inspiration from Agile conferences, but credits Agile Coaching Camps as having the biggest impact - these 2.5-day open space format events are intense and packed with valuable insights. Pascal recommends that Scrum Masters actively engage with their local Agile communities and attend coaching camps to accelerate their professional development and gain diverse perspectives. Self-reflection Question: How visible is the value you provide as a Scrum Master, and what steps could you take to make your contributions more apparent to your organization? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

We first recorded this episode -- on the gaggle of bizarre right-wing cranks around the German poet Stefan George (1868 - 1933) -- for IBTWR's Patreon. It's one we're very proud of, and it's also an interesting complement to our ongoing Project 1933. Hope you like it!

Alice just learned that a compliment she received years ago was plagiarized. And Doug believes she may have had a tryst with Cameron Crowe. Meanwhile, they learn some rather disturbing news about some of America's favorite clothing, footwear, and soda. Does everything have evil origins?*Other discussion topics may include:- Are there too many Sharknado movies? Or perhaps...not enough?- Edward Norton's potentially unique relationship with God - Just what IS a "magnificent fall"?- Non-German German Chocolate Cake...but plenty of other less good German stuff- Farting babies*Probably.

Imagine a world in which clothing wasn't superabundant – cheap, disposable, indestructible – but perishable, threadbare and chronically scarce. Eighty years ago, when World War II ended, a textile famine loomed. What would everyone wear as uniforms were discarded and soldiers returned home, Nazi camps were liberated, and millions of uprooted people struggled to subsist? In Making Do: Britons and the Refashioning of the Postwar World (Cambridge University Press, 2025), Dr. Susan L. Carruthers unpicks a familiar wartime motto, 'Make Do and Mend', to reveal how central fabric was to postwar Britain. Clothes and footwear supplied a currency with which some were rewarded, while others went without. Making Do moves from Britain's demob centres to liberated Belsen – from razed German cities to refugee camps and troopships – to uncover intimate ties between Britons and others bound together in new patterns of mutual need. Filled with original research and personal stories, Making Do illuminates how lives were refashioned after the most devastating war in human history. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. 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

A German army staffer revealed Hitler's plans for Russia on this day in 1941. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Leader's Edge hosts its second conversation at The Council's Employee Benefits Leadership Forum, with Jochen Körner, CEO of Ecclesia Group, a Germany-based brokerage. Körner dives into detail about the Krankenhausversorgungsverbesserungsgesetz, which is changing how the German hospital system operates and funds itself. Körner also shares how his family's history of working at brokerages led to his career in insurance and offers advice for people looking to break into the industry.

My guest today is Vojkan Brankovic, founder of Apeiron, a principal investment firm that is shaping the future of sustainable real estate investment. Founded in 2013, Apeiron has established itself as a leader in high-impact real asset opportunities, specializing in logistics real estate across Europe.With over 30 years of investment management experience, Vojkan has positioned Apeiron at the forefront of logistics real estate investment, currently managing a portfolio of 500,000 square meters across strategic German locations spanning the full value chain from opportunistic and value-add to core+ strategies.Vojkan's journey into real estate began far from the world of buildings and investments, with his early years spent between Sweden and Belgrade, Serbia, followed by time in the UK. This upbringing shaped much of his entrepreneurial mindset and leadership style.Growing up in these diverse cultures gave him an early understanding of adaptability and collaboration, 2 key factors that would later influence how he built Apeiron. It was this exposure to different ways of thinking, working, and leading that laid the foundation for his approach to business.While his background had always been in business and finance, he found his true passion in real estate. He saw it not just as a way to generate financial returns, but as an opportunity to make a positive environmental impact.This vision was rooted in the recognition that the real estate sector, particularly logistics, was one of the largest contributors to global carbon emissions. But it was also where he saw the greatest potential for change.What sets Vojkan apart is how he's using real estate as a way to do good while making money. For him, it's about transforming inefficient buildings into assets that serve a greater purpose.His vision for sustainable, technology-enabled logistics infrastructure has attracted partnerships with leading institutional investors from Korea and the Middle East, demonstrating the global appeal of Apeiron's differentiated investment approach.One of the interesting features of Apeiron is its lean approach to business. While many firms in the real estate investment space operate with large teams and complex structures, Apeiron keeps things simple and efficient. With just 5 people in its team, the firm can make quick strategy decisions and stay nimble in an industry that's often slow to change.Through Apeiron, Vojkan is demonstrating that real estate doesn't just have to be about buildings and profits—it can be about purpose, too.—Connect with SRI360°:Sign up for the free weekly email updateVisit the SRI360° PODCASTVisit the SRI360° WEBSITEFollow SRI360° on XFollow SRI360° on FACEBOOK—Additional Resources: 

When surrendered and restored, God makes possible a profound affection and love for The Things of Earth. The man who hates his wife (Luke 14:26) is thus equipped to love her as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). The man who places home and hearth before Christ is trying to make his home a place where people will bite and devour one another (Gal. 5:15). This is a box that people really don’t understand as they are deciding to open it up. All they know is that the label says home and hearth, blood and soil . . . nothing but wholesome happy thoughts inside. They are blindly reacting to the globalist imperative that insists we deracinate everything and everybody, and because it is an reaction, they lurch into a flirtation with the wrong kind of blood and soil ideology.

Paris fell silent under German occupation in 1940, and desperate civilians turned to Dr. Marcel Petiot for help, unaware that the true horror awaited inside his home.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textThis show reflects on what it means to see the future too clearly and the cost of carrying that vision alone.A few weeks ago, America burned on the monitor behind me. Cameras rolled in Santa Monica. Steve Drobny, founder of Clocktower Group, advisor in global hedge funds, told me to sit straight, but I didn't care. We discussed the future and America's possibly undead economy.The previous night, a girl at a Venice Beach bar asked where I'm from. “The future,” I replied. She was 30, blond, beautiful blue eyes, an image I haven't shaken off. When you return from the future, you're never whole. Details are too sharp, too strange. People blink. They don't want to hear it. That's why I wear goggles. That's why they call me unhinged.Knowing what's next doesn't give control. It gives doubt. It exiles you from Main Street.I vibed on John Buchan's The Gap in the Curtain. A country house, a strange German professor, a handful of guests glimpsing a year ahead. One sees a financial headline. Distant words that unravel everything. Once you've seen what's coming, you carry it like a tumor made of light.I drew a line from that story to Saint Peter in Gethsemane. His denial wasn't betrayal; it was fear dressed as certainty. The same fear I see in markets, politics, people I've loved. We say "impossible" when scared. But the future doesn't knock. It slides in through the back door. Think of me as The Back Door Man.That's the curse, not that no one believes you, but that eventually, you stop believing yourself.Our conversation shifted between memories: Blanc Bleu, my house in St. Barts, Bitcoin, bond markets, old debates with giants like Niall Ferguson. Moments I stood and said what no one wanted to hear.Being early feels like being wrong until the chart catches up.The Curse of Knowing isn't about money, it's about myth. Trading safety for clarity. Leaving comfort to speak truths no one's ready for. It's about friends reunited, because ultimately, the only constants are those you love(d).HughSupport the show⬇️ Subscribe on Patreon or Substack for full episodes ⬇️https://www.patreon.com/HughHendryhttps://hughhendry.substack.comhttps://www.instagram.com/hughhendryofficialhttps://blancbleustbarts.comhttps://www.instagram.com/blancbleuofficial⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Leave a five star review and comment on Apple Podcasts!

Pascal Papathemelis: From Mechanics to Human Factors—How Scrum Masters Grow Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. Pascal shares his evolution as a Scrum Master, moving from focusing purely on the mechanics of Scrum to understanding the critical importance of human factors. Early in his career, Pascal worked with teams that struggled to achieve sprint goals, with stories floating from one sprint to another. Through retrospectives and continuous improvement, he learned essential tips like not taking too much into sprints and making stories smaller.  However, Pascal's biggest transformation came when he shifted focus to human elements - involving everyone in the team, improving collaboration during refinement, and developing people's skills and attitudes. He emphasizes that every person is an individual with the intention to be their best, and a good Scrum Master must sense when something is wrong and create safe environments for open conversations. Pascal highlights the importance of corridor conversations and coffee machine breakthroughs, especially before COVID, and stresses the need to invest effort in how teams start, using models like Tuckman's team growth model and Diana Larsen's Team Liftoff approach. In this segment, we also refer to the episode with Arne Roock, about the importance of team design and setup in the success of teams. Self-reflection Question: How might shifting your focus from Scrum mechanics to human factors transform the way you support your team's growth and collaboration? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]

learn how to say 'red' in German

How'd you say in German: “Has he packed his suitcase already?”?

The High Line was once a major railway. Today, it is one of the best gardens in the United States. By focusing on and encouraging native plants, horticulturists at horticulture at the High Line is supporting biodiversity in one of the busiest cities on the planet. Join me and senior director of horticulture Richard Hayden as we explore what makes the High Line so special for wildlife and the community. This episode was produced in part by Carly, Lucia, Dana, Sarah, Lauren, Strych Mind, Linda, Sylvan, Austin, Sarah, Ethan, Elle, Steve, Cassie, Chuck, Aaron, Gillian, Abi, Rich, Shad, Maddie, Owen, Linda, Alana, Sigma, Max, Richard, Maia, Rens, David, Robert, Thomas, Valerie, Joan, Mohsin Kazmi Photography, Cathy, Simon, Nick, Paul, Charis, EJ, Laura, Sung, NOK, Stephen, Heidi, Kristin, Luke, Sea, Shannon, Thomas, Will, Jamie, Waverly, Brent, Tanner, Rick, Kazys, Dorothy, Katherine, Emily, Theo, Nichole, Paul, Karen, Randi, Caelan, Tom, Don, Susan, Corbin, Keena, Robin, Peter, Whitney, Kenned, Margaret, Daniel, Karen, David, Earl, Jocelyn, Gary, Krysta, Elizabeth, Southern California Carnivorous Plant Enthusiasts, Pattypollinators, Peter, Judson, Ella, Alex, Dan, Pamela, Peter, Andrea, Nathan, Karyn, Michelle, Jillian, Chellie, Linda, Laura, Miz Holly, Christie, Carlos, Paleo Fern, Levi, Sylvia, Lanny, Ben, Lily, Craig, Sarah, Lor, Monika, Brandon, Jeremy, Suzanne, Kristina, Christine, Silas, Michael, Aristia, Felicidad, Lauren, Danielle, Allie, Jeffrey, Amanda, Tommy, Marcel, C Leigh, Karma, Shelby, Christopher, Alvin, Arek, Chellie, Dani, Paul, Dani, Tara, Elly, Colleen, Natalie, Nathan, Ario, Laura, Cari, Margaret, Mary, Connor, Nathan, Jan, Jerome, Brian, Azomonas, Ellie, University Greens, Joseph, Melody, Patricia, Matthew, Garrett, John, Ashley, Cathrine, Melvin, OrangeJulian, Porter, Jules, Griff, Joan, Megan, Marabeth, Les, Ali, Southside Plants, Keiko, Robert, Bryce, Wilma, Amanda, Helen, Mikey, Michelle, German, Joerg, Cathy, Tate, Steve, Kae, Carole, Mr. Keith Santner, Lynn, Aaron, Sara, Kenned, Brett, Jocelyn, Ethan, Sheryl, Runaway Goldfish, Ryan, Chris, Alana, Rachel, Joanna, Lori, Paul, Griff, Matthew, Bobby, Vaibhav, Steven, Joseph, Brandon, Liam, Hall, Jared, Brandon, Christina, Carly, Kazys, Stephen, Katherine, Manny, doeg, Daniel, Tim, Philip, Tim, Lisa, Brodie, Bendix, Irene, holly, Sara, and Margie.