Podcasts about Gertner

When a Senate campaign gets hit with a sexting scandal, the spouse is supposed to disappear. Amy Gertner grabbed her phone, walked into a cloud of Maine blackflies, and recorded the most effective crisis response of the cycle.Everyone is covering the Wall Street Journal texts. Molly is covering the betrayal underneath them, and the moment a candidate who built his brand on owning his record reached for the worst page in the 2026 crisis playbook.Chapters:0:00 — The Reddit Bomb That Finally Detonated on Platner4:30 — How Amy Gertner's Confession Reached Genevieve McDonald8:30 — Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky and the Betrayal Pattern13:04 — Amy Gertner's Blackfly Video Goes Viral on X18:01 — Why Amy Nailed the Platner Playbook Solo20:00 — The NPR Interview Showing What Accountability Looks Like22:29 — The Vrabel Playbook Platner Borrowed By Mistake27:30 — Barney Frank, Janet Mills and the Democratic Party Distance30:00 — Silda Spitzer Versus the Amy Gertner Standing-By Model33:00 — The High Road Takeaway and Why Platner Is LimpingWe dissect:• Why Reddit was supposed to be Graham Platner's kryptonite, and the one trait that kept disarming every landmine until this one• The Bernie Sanders rally moment when Amy disclosed the texts to political director Genevieve McDonald, the inciting incident the WSJ buried• The Linda Tripp parallel and why the public judges the telling of a scandal as harshly as the act itself• "This is like my 20th take" — the unedited blackfly video Amy posted from a road in Sullivan, Maine, and why the imperfection is the point• The NPR interview that aired right before the WSJ broke, where Platner answered directly on the SS-resembling tattoo and Jake Auchincloss calling him disqualifying• The exact moment Platner called the texts "gossip," blamed the press, and reached for the Mike Vrabel playbook — the worst page in any 2026 crisis manual• Barney Frank criticizing Platner from hospice in Ogunquit, Janet Mills as the party's preferred candidate, and what "same technique, opposite loyalty" actually looks like• Silda Spitzer standing reluctantly behind Eliot versus Amy Gertner standing forward for Graham, with Amy Vrabel's conspicuous absence as the counter-exampleThis is not a recap of the WSJ story. It is a forensic look at why the spouse out-executed the candidate. When a campaign built on "own it, explain it, promise it" suddenly stops owning it, voters notice before pollsters do.What you'll learn:• How to tell the difference between privacy and a cover-up when a campaign says "it's handled"• Why raw, one-take video reads as truth in 2026 and a polished statement reads as guilt• What "someone else's worst" framing signals to voters, and why blaming the press accelerates the collapse• How to read a spouse's presence, posture, and word choice as the first real signal of what is actually trueYou can't blackmail someone who confesses first. The only thing you control is whether you face it before someone else does.Want More Behind the Breakdown?Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack (https://open.substack.com/pub/mollymc...) for early access to podcast episodes, private member chats, weekly live sessions, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It is the inside hub for communicators who want real strategy, clear judgment, and a little side-eye where it counts.Follow Molly on Substack (https://mollymcpherson.substack.com/)Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter (https://www.mollymcpherson.com/newsle...)Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting (https://www.mollymcpherson.com/speaking).Want More Behind the Breakdown? Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, private member chats, weekly live sessions, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It is the inside hub for communicators who want real strategy, clear judgment, and a little side-eye where it counts.Follow Molly on Substack Subscribe to Molly's Weekly Newsletter  Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting. Follow & Connect with Molly:https://www.youtube.com/mollymcphersonhttps://mollymcpherson.substack.com/https://www.tiktok.com/@mollybmcphersonhttps://www.instagram.com/molly.mcpherson/...

On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal published an exposé on the behavior of Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee in the Maine Senate race. According to The Journal, Platner's wife, Amy Gertner, disclosed to his campaign last August that she had discovered sexually explicit texts between Platner and multiple women on his phone last spring. Furthermore, The Journal found that Platner has an active account on Kik, a private-messaging app often used to arrange sexual encounters. Also on Saturday, The New York Times revealed that Gertner had disclosed this information to a senior aide who later left the campaign, and Platner had been sending explicit messages to up to 12 women. The reports represent the latest controversies in Platner's campaign to defeat Sen. Susan Collins (R) in November's election.New and improved comments.In case you missed our announcement in Friday's edition on our favorite reader essays, our publishing platform Ghost has rolled out several new commenting features! Comment replies now nest more easily, helping you keep track of conversations, and you can now dislike comments that you think violate our commenting guidelines. To read more about these changes, you can check out our FAQ page. And to experience them yourself, comment below!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: Who do you think will win the Maine Senate election? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Step into a fiery, embodied, and deeply human conversation with Danielle Gertner, speaker, MC, and embodiment-based leadership coach, on this episode of Intimate Conversations: Dark Night to Divine Light. Known for her raw truth, infectious presence, and unapologetic devotion to ownering one's sh*t, Danielle helps high-performing leaders stop outsourcing their power and start leading their lives from the body, not just the mind. Danielle shares her journey of stepping off the "conveyor belt" of doing what was expected, blowing up a life that looked good on paper, and choosing radical self-responsibility instead of blame. What began as fitness coaching evolved into deep self-mastery work when she realized that confidence built on appearance alone never touches the soul. We explore how true embodiment became the foundation of her leadership, relationships, and work. Danielle speaks vulnerably about anger, shame, inherited family patterns, and learning to trust her body's signals, especially in love. She shares how listening to a felt pull or push, even when logic disagreed, taught her a new level of self-trust and integrity. The conversation moves into love, boundaries, and conscious uncoupling. Danielle reflects on ending a long-term partnership with honesty and reverence, allowing love to evolve rather than die, and redefining boundaries as the distance where she can love herself and another unconditionally. Her devotion to truth over performance is palpable. We also talk about: -Radical self-ownership as the gateway to freedom -Embodiment as the root of real confidence -Listening to the body over logic or conditioning -Mirror work, self-forgiveness, and self-trust rituals -Grief, loss, and allowing joy to coexist with pain -Outrageous joy and rapturous glory as lived practices -Leading crowds through presence rather than hype -Feminine leadership, slowing down, and letting yourself be supported The episode comes full circle weaving in the painful yet beautiful lessons of losing her brother. Danielle gifts us with a powerful conversation and reminder that confidence is not something you perform. It is something you inhabit. Danielle's story invites us to slow down, feel what is alive, trust the body's wisdom, and choose a life led from truth, courage, and devotion to self. You can connect with Danielle, explore her work, and find Warrior Women ATX at daniellegertner.com, or follow her on Instagram for movement, embodiment, and truth-telling in real time.   Go deeper with me inside The Intimate World. patreon.com/AllanaPratt #TheIntimateWorld About Danielle:   Danielle Gertner is a speaker, emcee, and embodiment-based leadership coach known for delivering raw truth that moves people from motivation into embodied confidence and real-world ownership. She helps high-performing leaders stop outsourcing their power and start leading their lives, businesses, and communities with self-trust, clarity, and emotional resilience. Danielle's core philosophy is simple and uncompromising: Ownership is the new leadership, and your life was not meant to be rented, it was meant to be owned. Her work lives at the intersection of mindset, embodiment, and leadership, blending tools from NLP, somatic practices, habit transformation, and nervous system regulation to create transformation that lasts beyond inspiration. Danielle doesn't teach people how to perform confidence, she teaches them how to build it from the inside out. Danielle is the founder of Warrior Women ATX, Austin's most empowering community for women, and the creator of multiple transformational programs including the Own Your Shit Self Mastery Program and the Radical Confidence Blueprint. She is also THE Queen of Hype and emcee for HYROX North America, where she has energized and inspired hundreds of thousands of athletes across the country. Whether she's on stage, behind a mic, or leading a room through movement and conversation, Danielle creates spaces where people feel safe to tell the truth, brave enough to choose themselves, and supported enough to take radical responsibility for the lives they are building.   Website: https://daniellegertner.com Instagram URL https://www.instagram.com/daniellegertner/ Book Your Intimacy Breakthrough Experience with Allana https://allanapratt.com/connect Scholarship Code: READYNOW Finding the One is Bullsh*t. Becoming the One is brilliant and beautiful, and ironically the key to attracting your ideal partner. Move beyond the fear of getting hurt again. Register for Become the One Introductory Program. http://allanapratt.com/becomeintro Use Code: BTO22 to get over 40% off. Let's stay connected: Exclusive Video Newsletter: http://allanapratt.com/newsletter Instagram - @allanapratt [ / allanapratt ] Facebook - @coachallanapratt [ / coachallanapratt ]

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen on Let's Get Legal. As a real estate tax attorney, Caren shares what the process is like of helping clients reduce their property taxes in Cook County. To learn more, visit gertnerandgertnerltd.com or call 312-782-9222.

Erin Gertner, vice president of the Partner Organization and SMB sales at Cisco Canada The Cisco 360 Partner Program launched in January after roughly eighteen months of co-development with the partner community. It represents one of the most significant overhauls to Cisco’s channel model in more than two decades – replacing the Gold/Silver tier structure with architecture-specific “Preferred” designations, consolidating multiple incentive programs into the new Cisco Partner Incentive, and fundamentally shifting how partner value is measured, from transaction volume toward capability depth and lifecycle engagement. Three months in, Erin Gertner, vice president of the Partner Organization and SMB Sales for Cisco Canada, says the Canadian response has exceeded internal expectations – including on metrics Cisco had set internal targets around, like the percentage of partners achieving Preferred status. The surprise wasn’t just the numbers. Partners, she says, have been telling Cisco they appreciate the accountability around technical certifications. The Partner Value Index requirement to maintain certification levels gave partner leadership internal cover to prioritize training investments they already knew they needed to make. On the end of Gold: Gertner acknowledges the market education challenge, but argues Preferred is actually a more accurate signal than Gold ever was – since Gold could historically be earned through volume in a single area, while Preferred reflects genuine architectural depth. On the incentive shift: the current structure remains 90% weighted toward the “land” motion, with 5% each for adopt and renew. The rebalancing is coming, the timeline isn’t confirmed, and Gertner’s advice to partners is consistent: start building adoption and managed services practices now, because it takes years, and waiting for the incentives to change is waiting too long. Read Full Transcript Hello and welcome to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca, bringing news and information to the Canadian IT channel community for the last sixteen years. I’m Robert Dutt, editor of ChannelBuzz.ca, and as always, your host for the show. Cisco’s 360 Partner Program was a long time coming. Eighteen months of co-development with partners, significant changes to how Cisco recognizes, rewards, and incentivizes its channel, including the end of the Gold designation that partners have built their brands around for more than two decades. The program launched in January and we’re now at roughly the three-month mark, which means it’s a good time to ask: how’s it actually going? Erin Gertner is vice president of the Partner Organization and SMB Sales for Cisco Canada, and she was closely involved in rolling 360 out to the Canadian market. We get into what surprised her most about how Canadian partners have responded – and some of the feedback wasn’t what she expected. We talk about what the end of Gold actually means for partners who built their reputation around it, where the incentive math is landing, and what the shift towards rewarding capability depth and lifecycle engagement looks like in practice for partners of all sizes. There’s also a practical question at the heart of this. If you’re a Canadian partner who’s still figuring out how to position yourself in the new program, what should you be doing right now? Let’s get right into it. My chat with Erin Gertner. ROBERT DUTT: Erin, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it. ERIN GERTNER: Thank you for having me. ROBERT DUTT: 360, the partner program – long awaited, rolled out I’m going to say eighteen months or so ago, but has been live now for a quarter. How’s it going? What surprised you on the upside, and what’s been harder in getting the program out there than you expected? ERIN GERTNER: Yeah, it was a long eighteen months, but I’m glad we did it that way. I was telling somebody yesterday, I think we very intentionally took the hard road on evolving our partner program. As you’re well aware, our previous partner program had been in place for over twenty years, and was very beloved by our partners. And candidly, it was wildly profitable for many of them. So I think there was a lot of angst in the machine around changes, but there came a time where we really did have to go out and evolve our program as the market has changed. So we intentionally took the harder road, which was to co-innovate the program with our partners, versus us creating a program and pushing it out to the partner community. Early days, we got a ton of feedback from partners. We certainly made a few mistakes, but I really do think we did a great job listening to feedback from the partners and making adjustments where necessary. Obviously, the Canadian market is quite different from my peers in the US, as an example – same thing as EMEA and APJC. And it’s hard to make a program that fits for everybody. But I do think we’ve done a good job of creating a model, and having the ability to adjust a model that takes care of the majority of our partners. What surprised me the most was: we tried to take a really strategic approach in Canada. As I said to my team, my biggest fear at the end of this is that we have partners who say “I wasn’t ready” or “I didn’t know.” And we really operated with that in mind. So our goal was to have the majority of our partner community as ready as they possibly could be, earning either the same, if not more, with us. We did workshops with all of our partners. We enabled our distributors. We spent a really long time sitting in front of our partner community, helping them understand what investments they would need to make to be successful, as well as what would be the payoff on those investments. Some of the asks around training and other elements of the program did require investment from the partners. So we wanted to make sure we could demonstrate to them that there was a strong outcome – that there was profit to be made should they make those investments alongside us. The thing that actually surprised me the most is that our partner community in Canada is in very good shape in terms of being able to earn with us in the future. We had some metrics and some targets that we aspired to – a certain percentage of our partners achieving Preferred, for example – and we were able to exceed those metrics. But actually, the thing that surprised me the most is that a lot of our partners came back to us and said, “I like the accountability you have around our technical capabilities, because a lot of this does center around getting Black Belts, as an example.” And one individual said to us, “Behind the curtains, I don’t know if our team was spending as much time as they needed to on training and maintaining our certification levels. And this has really compelled our team to ensure that they are certified in all the right technologies, and we’re having better conversations with customers.” So I thought there would be a little more noise in the machine, and there certainly was at different points – we made those adjustments along the way – but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive from the Canadian community. I think the team did a really good job of making sure we were hand-in-hand with our partners, because their success is so critical to us. We know if they’re not making money with us, they have choices in the market and they won’t continue to lead with Cisco. ROBERT DUTT: So to that point – CRN in the States surveyed partners heading into the launch and found about 40% were positive, about the same number were in the wait-and-see camp, and very few – I think it was about 7% – were actively unhappy with the way things were looking going into 360. Now that the program’s live and partners have actually had a chance to see their PVI and the incentives and how it all looks to them, have you seen the mood trend in Canada? Have you started to see those wait-and-sees move toward the positive camp, or what are you seeing in terms of that momentum? ERIN GERTNER: I mean, I think our big partners were sort of a no-brainer. A lot of them had a lot of the skills, depth, and capability that were going to be required to get them into Preferred in all the categories. So a few of them grumbled early on because they had to do a little bit more training and enablement, but they quickly hit the thresholds and they’re all in good shape. What we’ve actually seen is our distributors took a really strategic approach to our two-tier partners, and they’ve been running a lot of workshops and working hand-in-hand with some of our smaller partners. And we’ve actually seen quite a few new partners come on board because they have the ability to be specialized in certain architectures. For example, we’ve been recruiting more security partners, and the distis have done a great job of working alongside those security partners to help get them up and running. Because a piece of feedback we used to hear in our old program was: “It’s really hard to earn with you because we don’t want to be a network reseller. That’s not interesting for us. We’re a pure-play security partner and we’d like to continue to be a pure-play security partner. And just because it fits for you, it doesn’t fit for me.” I think this evolution of the program has allowed partners who are pure-play security partners, or great data centre partners, to come on board and start earning rebate pretty quickly, as well as get the designation so customers know that they are deeply skilled and deeply qualified in that particular architecture. ROBERT DUTT: From your comments a bit earlier, it sounds like partners who you expected to be hitting Preferred are hitting Preferred, and in some cases folks who you maybe weren’t expecting to hit Preferred are hitting Preferred – which is a nice little bonus. But as PVI becomes the engine of the new model, do you find that Canadian partners are generally landing where they expected? ERIN GERTNER: Yeah, for the most part. We do have a few partners who do a lot of business with us but are smaller – just have a few employees – and they’re very critical to our business because they serve some small subsegment of the public sector, for example. Those are the corner cases that we’ve been taking back to our global team, and they’ve provided some flexibility in how we treat those partners. Because again, when we looked at our partner landscape, we wanted to make sure everybody who plays a critical role in how we deliver our business for Cisco Canada was taken care of. For the most part, the program has fit the good majority of our partners in the Canadian landscape. For the ones where there are exceptions, or where the program doesn’t make full sense, we’ve been working with them in the background to try to figure out: can we help make an investment, or can we look at treating some of those partners in a bit of a different way to make sure they’re going to be successful with Cisco and continue to earn with Cisco? So some of that is still underway, even though the program has already launched. We’re still continuing to tweak it and take feedback. ROBERT DUTT: VIP was for so long the thing that partners watched most closely – the best indicator of where Cisco thinks we should be pointed. How is CPI, the Cisco Partner Incentive, actually landing now that it’s out there? Before launch, I think anytime you switch something like that, there’s always going to be the “what if we used to get X millions in rebates and now we get half of that?” Now that it’s live, how’s the math working out? And do you find partners are generally at least at parity with where they were with VIP? ERIN GERTNER: We haven’t gotten to a point where we’ve given anybody a check yet, because we’re still in the infancy of the program. But all the feedback I’ve heard from partners so far – and we have a few partners who sit on our advisory board, so they were early in testing out those calculators and have a really good sense of where they’re going to land – the majority of those partners have said they’re tracking to the same or better from a profitability perspective. Again, to your point around VIP, it’s always very clear where we’re leaning in and where we’re trying to go as a company based on the back-end rebates and the accelerators that follow alongside that. So I think our partners do have a good understanding of where they need to focus and what the outcome will be of that focus. So far the feedback has been very positive from the calculator, but I guess we shall see in a few months from now. ROBERT DUTT: Let’s talk about the end of Gold. It was such a standard for such a long time. It was well understood by partners and I think it was well understood by customers. Longview was one of the first Canadian partners to achieve Preferred in all five of the architectures, but they still flagged some concern with the fact that there’s not an easy way to signal that multi-architecture depth the same way that Gold used to in one easy packaging. For a Canadian partner that’s kind of built their brand around Gold or included that in their messaging, what’s the practical guidance in positioning their expertise to their customers now, especially looking across architectures? ERIN GERTNER: I think you said part of it in the question, right? The fact that they are the first, and that they are Preferred in all the categories, is actually better than Gold. I was talking about this to somebody yesterday. What is interesting about Gold – and I was actually on the sales side of our business for the majority of my career – there was always this perception that if you were a Gold partner, you were great at everything. And that was a market perception for a really long time. When in fact, when you pulled back the covers, you could be a Gold partner just by selling a lot of one thing. So we’ve actually embarked on a marketing campaign that’s been live for a few months now – I think you probably heard about it at Partner Summit – talking about some of the change in our branding. Now when customers are evaluating our partners, or when our account teams are evaluating when to bring in partners, the fact that it’s very clear which partners have the right expertise, the ones who have made the right investments and who’ve got really deep technical depth – that’s now very clear with Preferred status versus what used to be Gold. I think we still have some market education to do around what it means to be Preferred and the amount of investment that partners need to make to get into Preferred status in each of those architectures. There was quite a bit of chatter at some of the advisory boards about Gold going away and what they felt that meant to their business and their market. But I actually like where this program has gone because their expertise is very clear now, which wasn’t the case with Gold. ROBERT DUTT: Gold did have this great market perception of being good at everything. It was easy to capture in kind of one word, one concept. But your point there then is that it’s easier with Preferred to express where you’re good and the breadth of that. That’s an interesting takeaway for partners. The philosophy in the program has shifted even more so than in the previous shift – away from rewarding transaction volume, towards rewarding capability depth and lifecycle engagement. Sounds great conceptually, and I understand why it’s important, but for a partner whose business model has been built around those big infrastructure deals and landing them, what does that transition look like in practice? Is there a smooth ramp to getting that worked into the business, or is there potentially a cliff here?ERIN GERTNER: So it’s a multi-year journey to getting to a true place where our incentive programs are going to be aligned to full lifecycle. The intent of the program is to work with partners to build those skills and capabilities around lifecycle, adoption, managed services, and all the other things we’re asking them to build. But we know for some partners that is a multi-year journey, and that’s okay. When we look at our back-end rebate structure, we are taking a slower approach. On the surface, we’re asking partners to do all these things with us and come along for the ride – but we are still incenting them very heavily on hardware resale in the near term. We want to make sure they have a very clear path and that they do understand that we’re evolving the business and we’re evolving the way we incent for good reasons. We need to do that. Adoption – especially as software continues to be a larger portion of our overall business – and lifecycle becomes even more critical over time, as well as the renewal business. But we aren’t just flipping a switch. The intent of this program was never to punish, and it was never meant to save Cisco money. We talked a lot about how partners are so critical to our success – we want to make sure they are continuing to be very profitable with us. So we’re trying to take them on a longer-term journey and we’re not trying to make it hurt. ROBERT DUTT: The engagement metrics right now are sitting at 90% land and 5% each to adopt and renew. I think Tim Coogan has said that that will shift over time as the market dictates, but how fast do you see that coming? Should partners be building those adopt-and-renew muscles now in anticipation of the bigger shift, or is there still some runway there? ERIN GERTNER: I would say we need to get started now. Some of those certifications take a year or two, and building those practices – for partners who have historically sold hardware, building out an adoption practice – I mean, we did it, and it took us a couple of years to get that up and running. So building out those practices is really critical for partners. What’s interesting about this program is that we had partners asking us to shift away from paying solely on hardware, because they were saying, “You’re asking us to go out and do all this extra work with customers to help them deliver the outcomes they’re looking for. We should be incentivized around that as well.” So I would say: get started now. I don’t think I can speak to when our back-end programs are going to shift more to adoption and renew, because nobody has shared that with me. I’m not sure we even know – I think we want to see where our partners are on the journey. But I would say get started now. Get yourself in a place where that makes sense. And candidly, you’re going to yield better outcomes from your customers and better renewal rates if you’ve got a great practice around that. I was talking to a partner a few weeks ago who said, “We love the whole adoption motion. It has us having conversations we’ve never had with customers, and we’re much closer to the executives at our customer base because we’re talking about use cases and talking about whether we’re seeing success or whether we need to pivot. We’re having quarterly touchpoints and QBRs talking about whether or not what we sold them is working and they’re seeing value from it.” So I think it’s a good motion for partners to build regardless. It will drive a different level of engagement and conversation with their customers. When we’re going to fully incentivize around it, I’m not entirely sure – but I know it’s coming. Be ready, start building that expertise now. There’s hopefully limited downside to doing so. ROBERT DUTT: One of the things that analysts have noted about the program change is that it’s really a bet on skills first – that partner value is measured by what you can do, not how much you sell. That’s a big cultural shift, not just a programmatic one. Acknowledging that there are going to be some partners who are maybe a little bit behind the curve, and some who are ahead of you saying “what took you so long?” – how far along are Canadian partners in making that mental shift themselves? ERIN GERTNER: I can feel [they’re] pretty far along. I think it was a bit of a shock early on because we never had any accountability in our programs around maintaining certification levels and technical depth. But our best partners have great technical expertise and a really strong understanding of our solutions and what they can deliver to customers. And as I said earlier, some of the feedback we’re getting from partners is, “I’m glad you’re doing this – it’s holding us accountable to making sure we’re staying on top of the solutions.” Our portfolio has moved so quickly over the last couple of years. Our best partners are the ones who have great understanding of the technology and what it can deliver. So I think early on there was a little hesitation from some partners around that, but the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive in the last little while. ROBERT DUTT: Let’s talk about SMB. The Canadian channel in market skews toward small and mid-size, and this happens to roll into your line of work as well. I’m seeing two different takes on what 360 means for smaller partners. Tiffani Bova from Futurum warned that smaller or resource-constrained partners may be sort of specialized out of the ecosystem. But Cisco’s analysis with Techaisle argues that 360 dismantles the bias toward big partners. Those are two very different reads. I’m curious what you’re seeing in the market in Canada and what’s closer to the truth in practice. ERIN GERTNER: It’s so funny when you ask – we were joking about this yesterday on a call. When you ask one set of partners, they’ll say 360 was created for the big partners. And then you ask another set of partners, they’ll say 360 was created for the small partners. So it was really created for everybody. I think the distis have done a really good job of leaning in with some of our SMB partners and helping them figure out where they want to play and what they need to do to be successful. They also have a lot that they can bring to bear to some of the smaller partners – for example, they’ve got a really good EA practice, and they can help augment some of those skill sets that are required for the SMB partner. So if there is an SMB partner out there that wants to work with us, distis are really well equipped to help them get on board. And we’ve also got some incentives, programs, and specializations that are offered specifically for the SMB market. Still, a good majority of our business happens with our big partners, but also through that two-tier channel and distribution. And we need those partners to be successful alongside us. We’ve made a lot of investments to ensure that’s the case. Is it going to be perfect for everybody? Maybe, maybe not. But we certainly did craft the program to make sure that SMB would have an equal chance at success. ROBERT DUTT: One of the big promises of 360 is that managed services is now treated as a standard earning motion rather than kind of an exception to the rules. How’s that landing? Are you seeing Canadian MSPs that have their operational maturity and lifecycle engagement reflected in PVI, or is there still friction to be resolved there? ERIN GERTNER: I think it looks a little bit different, but we actually are seeing a lot of our partners go out and build Cisco Partner-Powered managed services, which I love. Due to the shift in 360, I was working with a partner a few weeks ago who’s building out a managed Meraki practice, and we’re also seeing a lot of partners starting to build up managed security with us as well. Going through the certifications can be a little bit cumbersome, but we’ve also made quite a few investments in our partners to help ease some of that transition – especially partners who are building really great, highly relevant managed services for SMBs or for any customer base. We’re trying to offset the cost or do what we can to help them through that journey, because I know in some instances it is a heavy lift. But the focus around managed services has actually been really good. Partners are getting thoughtful around where they can deliver value to their customer base, where there’s opportunity, and they’re coming to us proactively to build, which I love. ROBERT DUTT: One of the neat things about the program is the fact that Meraki CMNA and CMSS certifications now actually count towards Black Belt, and that’s an important part of the program. CMNA, CMSS – it feels like a big deal for SMB-focused partners. Are you seeing Canadian partners taking advantage of that pathway and getting represented better because they have those certifications? ERIN GERTNER: Again, everybody’s path looks a little bit different. I was just working with a small partner who’s going out and getting his CCNA and getting himself certified so he can improve his PVI score. And that’s been awesome. Having more technical people at our partners who know a lot about Cisco has been an interesting journey for them. He was sort of grumbling a little bit at the beginning doing it, and then he said [it was rewarding [? – unclear in audio**]], being able to have a little more depth to conversations when he’s sitting in front of a customer. So we’re seeing partners take all different types of paths to get to where they need to be from a certification perspective. But again, it is certainly holding them accountable and encouraging them to get more technical depth and capability into their organization, which ultimately will serve the customer better over time. ROBERT DUTT: The Secure AI Infrastructure specialization drove three times the enrollment of any previous specialization, from what I’ve read. What does that tell you about where partner investment is heading? Is there a risk that everyone rushes toward AI and neglects the bread-and-butter networking and security competencies? Or are we pretty much so well entrenched there that there’s the opportunity to build into the next thing and still defend the home base? ERIN GERTNER: I keep saying to partners: there’s no AI without a network. And when we left Partner Summit, I had three partners come up and say to me, “That was my biggest aha moment of this whole thing.” Even if you’re not selling Cisco servers – which we encourage them all to do – whatever you’re doing is built on the foundation of a secure network. So I love that people are gravitating more toward AI, because it does pull through. If I go back to the days of IP telephony, we used to joke when I was in the field, if somebody bought a phone, it pulled through PoE ports – I think AI is going to be the same opportunity for a lot of our partners. It’s going to pull through observability, it’s going to pull through security, it’s going to pull through networking. So I almost think those things very much go hand in hand together, versus standing on their own and being autonomous. ROBERT DUTT: Finally, if you’re a Canadian partner listening to this and you’ve been in the program and getting used to it for coming up on a quarter now – what’s the one thing you should be doing right now to position yourself as the program matures? What’s the one thing you can differentiate yourself by year end? ERIN GERTNER: That’s a great question. I think it’s going to end up being a few things. One: make sure you have a good understanding of the program and how it works. Because again, it was intended to make sure our partners are making money working with Cisco. Profitability is number one for us in the channel. We value our partners so much. I have a partner who always jokes, “The thing I love about working with Cisco is you guys always ask us about our profitability” – and we really do care deeply and immensely about the profitability of our partners. So to your point around VIP, you can always sort of tell where Cisco is going. I hope all of our partners have a pretty good understanding of where we are going – and if you don’t, reach out to us directly or to our distributors. If you follow the bouncing ball on that one, make sure you are leading with a secure networking conversation, and make sure whoever you’re working with has a lot of depth and knowledge in how to leverage the program and how to work within the confines of it. Go out there and be loud and proud of where you are with your PVI score and where you are focusing from an architecture perspective. We love that there’s a really large breadth of partners who are good at many things, or really good at one or two things – and that works for us. Again, if you need help to be successful, reach out to our teams, because we love working with our channel partners. ROBERT DUTT: All right. Erin, thanks for taking the time, and congratulations on getting the program out there, getting it launched, getting it established. Good luck on quarter two and beyond. ERIN GERTNER: Thank you. Thank you for the conversation. I really enjoyed that. ROBERT DUTT:There you have it – Erin Gertner from Cisco Canada. I’d like to thank Erin for her time on this one. A few things worth sitting with. The feedback from the Canadian partner community has apparently been more positive than even Cisco expected – including partners who said they actually appreciated being held accountable to their certification levels because it gave them internal cover to make the training investments they knew they should have been making anyway. That’s a more honest answer than most vendor channel chiefs would volunteer. The other thing I’d keep in mind: the incentive structure is still heavily weighted toward hardware resale in the near term – 90% land, 5% adopt, 5% renew. But Erin was pretty clear that the shift towards adoption and managed services is coming. The timeline just isn’t set. Her advice was simple: start building those muscles now, because it takes a couple of years to get an adoption practice up and running. Don’t wait till the incentives force your hand. If you’re enjoying the In The Channel podcast, you can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and most podcast directories. Follow, subscribe, leave a rating and review if you’re feeling generous – it all helps. Until next time, I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, and I’ll see you in the channel.

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen on appealing your property taxes. Caren shares the time frame for appealing, how long the process can take, and that they only make money if they save you money. With over 50 years of experience, you will be […]

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen on Let's Get Legal. With South Suburb residents facing reassessment in 2026, Caren discusses appealing property taxes and reveals that roughly 80% of appeals result in a reduction. She also walks through senior exemptions and answers listener questions about what to do […]

Erin Gertner, vice president of the Partner Organization and SMB Sales at Cisco Canada When Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins told investors the campus and data centre refresh is at “the top of the first inning” of a multi-year, multibillion-dollar opportunity, it raised an obvious question for Canadian partners: what does that inning look like here? Erin Gertner, vice president of the Partner Organization and SMB Sales at Cisco Canada, says Canada is tracking with the global trend – and that the opportunity is being driven by a “perfect storm” of three converging forces: the largest last-day-of-support (LDOS) wave Cisco has seen in years, growing urgency around AI readiness, and increasing pressure around data sovereignty. The AI readiness gap is particularly striking. Only 7% of Canadian organizations say they’re fully prepared to deploy AI – down from 9% the previous year – while 96% say the urgency has increased. That tension is creating real opportunities for partners who can lead with outcomes rather than product. Gertner says the partners winning the biggest deals are those taking a consultative approach – running assessments, broadening the conversation beyond a like-for-like swap, and helping customers understand their full security and AI readiness posture. In one example, a security assessment nearly quadrupled the deal size compared to a straight hardware refresh. The conversation also touches on where vertical demand is hottest (financial services and healthcare are leading), how the Secure AI Factory with NVIDIA translates for mid-market partners, the role of data sovereignty in driving on-prem modernization, and what smaller MSPs should be doing to get in the game. Gertner’s advice to partners who haven’t started? Reach out to your Cisco partner account manager or distributor and get access to the PXP data – the opportunity is there, and Cisco wants to make it easy to find. Read Full Transcript Robert Dutt: Hello and welcome to In The Channel from ChannelBuzz.ca, bringing news and information to the Canadian IT channel community for the last 16 years. I’m Robert Dutt, editor of ChannelBuzz.ca, and as always, your host for the show. On Cisco’s most recent earnings call, CEO Chuck Robbins called the campus and data centre refresh the top of the first inning of a multi-year, multi-billion dollar opportunity. Double-digit growth in networking, six consecutive quarters. But that’s the global picture. What does the first inning look like in Canada? My guest today is Erin Gertner, VP of the Partner Organization and SMB Sales for Cisco Canada. Erin sees what she calls a “perfect storm” converging right now – a massive wave of aging infrastructure hitting last day of support, growing urgency around AI readiness, and increasing pressure around data sovereignty. We get into what Cisco Canada is seeing on the ground, where partners are finding the most traction, and what separates the ones winning those deals from the ones leaving the door open for somebody else. Let’s get right into it. My chat with Erin Gertner. Erin, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it. Erin Gertner: Thank you so much, and thank you for having me, Robert. It’s nice to see you. Robert Dutt: Nice to see you as well. It’s been a little while since Partner Summit when last we sat down, but I wanted to chat because of Chuck’s comments on the earnings call, talking about the top of the first inning on a multi-year, multi-billion dollar opportunity around campus refresh. Double-digit growth in networking for six consecutive quarters. That’s the global picture. I guess to throw it open, what does that top of the first inning look like from where Cisco Canada sits? Are we tracking with the US on this one? Are we still back in spring training? What does the Canadian opportunity look like in this moment? Erin Gertner: I think we’re seeing something very similar to what Chuck spoke about on the earnings call. We are seeing a multi-year, multi-billion dollar refresh cycle taking place here in Canada. And I think it is the perfect storm of three things coming together. One, we have a lot of aged infrastructure out there. Sometimes we call it last day of support, or LDOS. When we look in our portfolio, we’ve got the largest LDOS opportunity that we’ve had in many, many years this year and next year. We’ve been working with many of our partners as well as our account teams to start going out and pursuing those opportunities because we really do need to get in front of them. But we’re also seeing the dynamics of a few other things taking place. One is AI readiness. I think you probably heard in our earnings call, Chuck talk about the success that we’re having in AI. A lot of that today is really centred in the world of the hyperscalers. In our last earnings call, I talked about doing over $2 billion worth of infrastructure with the hyperscalers. So there’s this huge influx of demand around AI. But where we haven’t really scratched the surface is AI in the enterprise. The hyperscalers are very well prepared, but now we’re starting to see this big wave of enterprise deployment, or at least enterprises thinking about the use cases and the ROI, because it is a board-level conversation. And then lastly, and this is probably a topic you hear a lot about working in Canada, is around digital resilience and data sovereignty. You need a modernized, secure network in order to deploy AI, and the network is more critical than it’s ever been as you think about the role it’s going to play in the next few years. The ability to fuse together security into the network is really unique and core for Cisco and driving refresh. I often talk to partners about the LDOS opportunity, and we used to get the question a lot of, “Why would a customer upgrade?” or, “How do I have this conversation with a customer?” because their response is often, “It all still works. Why bother?” I think AI especially is really giving them that reason to modernize, because while their network may work, it wasn’t necessarily built to run the applications that they’re going to need today and in the future. So it’s a really compelling conversation, and we’re seeing huge uptake and demand in networking. Robert Dutt: You touch on the customer size, especially on the AI side of things. Looking across the Canadian market in terms of customer size, vertical, geography – is the refresh opportunity relatively evenly distributed, or is it concentrated? Where’s the heat at right now? Erin Gertner: It’s been interesting. All of our account teams, some of which are verticalized, others which are organized geographically, talk a lot about where they’re seeing refresh opportunity. A great example is what we’re hearing from financial services organizations. We had that long period of COVID, and then there’s been a ton of conversation around return to office. Our financial services team will tell you that there’s massive demand because if you listen to what the banks or insurance companies are doing, they’re asking people to come back to the office. Those networks, many of which were built in 2018 or 2019, can’t support the applications that are being driven in today’s world. They can’t even support the number of people they have anymore. [A lot of those organizations saw a boom.] So there’s a huge network refresh taking place right now in that specific vertical. We’re also hearing a lot about mission-critical verticals like healthcare, where uptime is hugely important and security and resilience are top of mind. But it’s really spread throughout. Many companies had a long period of time where they spent a good majority of their budget on work from home and getting people set up for different use cases. Now that we’re living in this hybrid world, or a lot of organizations are back to work, that’s putting a huge change in demand on what is being asked from the network, plus everything that’s happened from the AI perspective. Robert Dutt: You bring in a lot of different threads in terms of things that are driving this – AI readiness at the top of the list, aging infrastructure, data sovereignty, security modernization, probably a few more. What’s actually leading the charge in this moment for the conversations you’re having with Canadian partners and customers? I’m curious if one of those things is the leader and the others follow, or if there’s really a convergence where this is a big pile of conversation topics at the same time. Erin Gertner: I think it’s a big pile of conversation topics at the same time, and it also depends on the partner you talk to and how they’re approaching a customer. Every partner has got a really interesting and different approach, especially when it comes to AI, and I love that about our partner community. A lot of them are taking, for example, an advisory services-led approach, or they’re taking the approach of – I hate this expression, but it’s one that makes sense – eating your own dog food. I was with a partner last week and they were talking about a lot of the work that they had done to embed AI into their own workflows. Then they were taking their success out into the market and starting new conversations with customers they hadn’t historically had access to. All of that was leading to a network refresh conversation, because customers are excited about the opportunity with AI, and then the partner was able to embed the question around, “Well, are you ready? Do you have the right infrastructure in place?” The conversation often is bigger than that, and obviously security is a huge area of concern when it comes to AI. I think that’s where Cisco is very uniquely positioned to win in this space. We’re seeing a lot of our competitors try to bring network and security together, and we’re really the only organization who can truly embed network and security together and then traverse it from the campus to the data centre. Robert Dutt: To your point on dog food, I learned from a partner years ago that the way to phrase it is “drinking one’s own champagne.” Erin Gertner: Oh, I like that expression a lot better. Thank you for that. Robert Dutt: Let’s talk about the AI side of things. Cisco’s own AI Readiness Index showed that 7% of Canadian organizations feel they’re fully prepared to deploy AI, and that’s actually down a couple of points from 9% in 2024. 96% say it’s more urgent than ever. That’s a pretty big gap. How’s that tension showing up in the conversations that partners are having with their customers? Erin Gertner: I’ve spoken to a lot of partners in the last little while, and again, each are taking a very individual approach. I think leading with outcomes and that consultative mindset – and it looks very different for each partner – but they’re all trying to understand what outcome a customer is trying to deliver, or what is the ROI, or what is that metric that’s going to help move a CEO’s agenda forward, or help them understand how they can build a true business case to build out a full AI deployment. It’s hard, right? We’re going through our own transformation at Cisco. We’ve got a team of individuals who work with us internally building out our AI workflows, and even on my own team, we’re trying to do all these things to help our team adopt AI tools to make their lives easier and more efficient. You often hear that somebody’s job is not going to be taken by AI – it’ll be taken by somebody who knows how to use AI. It is even more critical than ever that organizations figure it out. A lot of our partners have deployed some interesting things for themselves or worked through really interesting consulting engagements where they have use cases they can take out to market and help customers build that business case for themselves. They need to start small, they need to define what success looks like, and I think many customers have a long road there, but there’s certainly hope that we’re headed in the right direction. Robert Dutt: Raj, the president of Cisco Canada, wrote an op-ed recently saying that Canadian businesses risk – I think the quote was – “Blockbuster-style failure” without having the right AI infrastructure. For a partner who’s sitting across the table from a customer who feels that urgency but hasn’t really started yet, what do you counsel that partner to advise the customer on? What’s the practical starting point? Where do you begin? Erin Gertner: It’s tough. Again, it depends what type of customer they are and what their use case looks like. But I think for that customer, it’s really leaning back to outcomes – what is going to demonstrate success for that organization? The last thing you want anybody to do is go out and deploy an AI application and see absolutely no success out of it. That will move that executive’s agenda back probably a couple of years. But we are also really encouraging partners to talk through: Are they ready? You can have the best use case out there, but do you have a good data strategy? Do you have a good security strategy? Have you thought about modernizing your network? Is sovereignty important to you? And if it is, do you want to start thinking about potentially building that on-prem, or taking a different approach than maybe what you have historically done, because there are new considerations being layered on top of all of that. Robert Dutt: Talk to me about the Secure AI Factory side of things. Tim Coogan called it the partner opportunity of this year. I’m curious how that translates practically for Canadian partners. Is this a play mostly for the big SIs, or are you finding mid-market partners who are finding a role in the AI infrastructure buildout? Erin Gertner: I think it’s a little bit of both. We’re having conversations around Secure AI Factory with some of our largest partners because it is really unique. Our relationship with NVIDIA is truly one of a kind, and we’re actually creating products together. I know everybody has done a great job of partnering with NVIDIA in the market, but our relationship with them is a little bit different. What I love about the whole notion of Secure AI Factory is the fact that it’s everything built together. We make it really easy. We’ve pre-built all the CVDs. We’ve essentially created a blueprint for partners and customers to go out and deploy an entire AI pod. That includes everything from networking to servers to security to observability. We can even include storage, even though we don’t make it – we’ve got a bunch of great storage partners. Is it going to work for a small customer being serviced by a small partner? Probably not. It might be outside the scope of what they’re doing. But for mid-sized customers who are running interesting workloads and they want them on-prem, and especially for bigger customers who want to scale and deploy really quickly, or partners who have a ton of depth and capability in that space, the Secure AI Factory is a great solution. Robert Dutt: For a Canadian partner who’s looking at this refresh opportunity, where are you seeing the most traction in terms of the technology stack? Is it campus switching, data centre modernization, Wi-Fi, security? What’s the entry point that’s helping partners produce pipeline right now? Erin Gertner: We’ve done a lot of work with partners. We’ve got a tool called PXP – I think you’ve probably had some exposure to it – but we’ve been doing quite a few workshops with our partners to help them understand where their opportunity is. PXP does a great job of being very data-rich and data-centric. As we go through the enablement with partners, it gives them a good sense of what their refresh opportunity looks like. Then we are trying to make sure we enable them around the broader conversation. You don’t want to just be refreshing a switch for a switch. Our best partners are taking that data and – again, to your question, some partners, let’s say their history was really in the data centre – data centre networking is probably their biggest opportunity because that’s where they’ve sold the most in the past. For more broad-scale partners, it could be a combination of two or three different things. What we’re really trying to coach them to do is take that opportunity and don’t refresh a switch for a switch. Help the customer understand what outcome they’re trying to achieve. Do they have the right security posture? What’s their Wi-Fi strategy? What’s their device strategy? We’re trying to help them take that data and broaden the conversation into something that’s more outcome-driven. Our best partners are doing an excellent job of that and building really big, interesting deals alongside their customers. Robert Dutt: In doing that, when you’re looking at the services layer, are there any particular areas that you find are especially productive? Assessments, design, migration, managed services post-deployment – where are partners getting the most return from focusing their energy? Erin Gertner: Consulting services has been a huge one. We’ve got a great assessment program and we have some partners who are doing a great job leveraging it and seeing a ton of success. I was in a partner QBR the other day and they were giving an example of having done a security assessment with a customer that significantly broadened the scope of the deal and helped the customer understand where they had some vulnerabilities in their current infrastructure. That deal almost quadrupled in size. Partners are doing a great job with that. What we’re really trying to encourage partners to do is make sure we’ve got an adoption plan for every software deal out there upfront, because we want to make sure anything our customers buy from our partners, they have a great experience with. If they aren’t doing a good job of adopting that and showing value all the way throughout the chain, we’re not going to see a renewal at the end. The other thing we’ve been talking a lot about with our leadership team is some of what’s happening in the industry right now with some of the shortages that are industry-wide. In COVID, we saw something similar happen – a lot of supply chain constraints. Then there was this really long ingest period that happened afterwards because customers just had so much technology. We are really encouraging our partners and our teams to make sure we’re leading with services, so there is an outcome attached to the end and there is a plan with the customer to consume the technology so they can get the most out of what they’ve bought from us. Robert Dutt: We talked a little bit about the big guys, the SIs, and the opportunity around AI Factory. For the smaller partner, that long-tail 15-to-20-person MSP that’s living in Meraki and maybe doing some security, is this a real opportunity for them, or is this fundamentally a larger VAR and SI play? Where it is accessible to that SMB-focused partner, what does the on-ramp look like? Erin Gertner: It’s absolutely accessible for that SMB partner. I also have the SMB part of our business, so this conversation is very close to my heart. Given the IT skills shortage that is very dominant in the Canadian market, we are seeing a lot of customers who don’t want to manage their own network. As customers grow – let’s say they were a very small customer four or five years ago and they chose more of a consumer-grade solution at that time – as they want to move into a more enterprise-type solution with security and all the other bells and whistles embedded in it, a lot of those customers are choosing not to manage that themselves. But they want to be in the same place as their competitors, because the expectation is they grow and scale just as fast, probably faster in fact, as a big company. A lot of those companies are born in the cloud, leveraging tons of cloud applications, so the way they create their foundation is even more critical than ever. We have a bunch of great small to mid-size partners who are doing awesome things in that space and growing pretty significantly, actually gaining a lot of market share because of their agility and their ability to manage something at a cost-effective price. Robert Dutt: You mentioned the importance of data sovereignty in the conversation. The federal government has launched a call for proposals for sovereign AI data centres of over 100 megawatts, and we’ve seen Cohere get a lot of federal backing for their data centre build. Is data sovereignty a driver in this enterprise refresh, or is it a parallel conversation that’s happening at the same time? Erin Gertner: I think it’s a bit of a parallel conversation, but it’s certainly driving a huge – not even refresh – just huge modernization effort. A lot of it is centred around Canadian organizations who are worried about data sovereignty, or who are worried that sovereignty requirements might hit them in the next few years. They’re trying to prepare themselves by building out new types of data centres on-premise – new data centres to support applications coming back on-prem. While maybe they haven’t built everything on-prem today, we are seeing a massive surge in companies starting to think about what that might look like. For customers who had almost all of their applications in the cloud previously, their data centre network didn’t necessarily support the low-latency, really high-bandwidth requirements that would come into play if they start putting mission-critical applications back on-prem. We are seeing a lot of customers starting to think about what they would need to build to support sovereignty requirements, or if they’re going to continue to live in a hybrid world – which, let’s be honest, the majority of Canadian organizations are probably going to live in that world, and that’s all good – the network they have today probably doesn’t support that in the way they’d like either. Robert Dutt: Let’s talk about what you’re doing to support partners through this process. What are the incentives, enablement resources, the programs that are particularly relevant to Canadian partners who are looking at this opportunity and going after it? Erin Gertner: I think we’ve been pretty declarative about wanting to be the critical infrastructure for the AI era. We’re doing a lot of enablement with our partners. We’ve aligned our incentives, both front-end and back-end, to this opportunity. We’re doing a lot of workshops to help our partners understand where those opportunities lie and help them understand how to go out and capture them. We’ve also been running a lot of demand generation alongside our partners around our AI strategy, what that looks like, as well as showcasing the innovation that Jeetu has put forward in our portfolio around network and security coming together, because I do think it’s a great story and one that maybe not everybody knew. Some people probably think we’ve still got two different platforms with Catalyst and Meraki, where the truth is those have come together in the last year. With our acquisition of Splunk, there’s a lot that’s been infused into the network. Jeetu has also done a fantastic job of creating a really innovative security portfolio, a lot of which is actually embedded into the network layer. So there’s been a lot of education that we’ve had to do with both our partners and our customers to make sure they’re able to go out and tell that story to the market. I think Tim Coogan said this best – our job is to create that innovation, and then our job is also to help enable our partners to go out and be an extension of our sales force and help them deliver value to customers based on that innovation. Robert Dutt: What do you see as separating the partners who are winning these refresh deals from those who aren’t? What are the best partners doing differently? Erin Gertner: Again, I think really leading with that outcomes-based conversation and not just doing a like-for-like refresh. The ones who are going out and really taking a consultative approach, they’re winning a lot more and they’re winning much larger deals. I was on with a partner yesterday who was showcasing some of the work they’d been doing around AI and sharing with us some of the success they had just recently had, and they’re winning amazing deals by taking a very consulting-led approach. What we have seen in the past from certain partners is they go in and focus very much on that refresh opportunity, and then they almost leave the door open for another partner to come in and have a conversation around networking, observability, and all the other aspects around that critical infrastructure. So the best partners are the ones who are leading with the whole portfolio. I know we’re going to talk about 360 as well, but we’re really trying to incentivize our partners to build a lot of skills and technical depth around our solutions, and the ones who are really good at being able to tell the story of how our whole portfolio comes together – that “One Cisco” story that we often talk about – they’re the ones who are winning the most. Robert Dutt: If I’m a Canadian partner listening to this and I haven’t really started leaning into that refresh opportunity yet, what should I be doing about this on Monday morning when I show up to work? And looking further out, we’re in the top of the first – what do you see the second and third innings looking like here in Canada? Erin Gertner: Firstly, reach out to us. However you engage with Cisco, whether it’s through one of our distributors – who are amazing and have access to all of our tools – or reach out to your partner account manager at Cisco. We can provide all the training required on how to have the right conversation, as well as access to all the data you need to help you figure out where you should start and which customers are due for a refresh or have a refresh opportunity in the next six months. We can make it really easy for our partners to know where to spend their time and get a pretty fruitful payoff, both on the front-end and the back-end with us. What do I think the second and third innings might look like? I think we’re still really at the infancy of that. We’ve seen a few customers go down the refresh path – probably our largest customers have gone down the refresh path. Some of them have modernized networks or they’ve gotten to where they think they need to be to support AI applications. But I do think we’re going to see some of our smaller customers start to catch up. I also think we’re still really at the infancy of the success of AI. We talk a lot about the role of agentic AI and how that’s going to proliferate through organizations in the future. I don’t know that many customers have figured that out yet today. There are some who are really at the edge of innovation and who’ve done an amazing job with that, but it isn’t mainstreamed yet. As agentic AI really starts to roll out, the demands on your network and the demands around security especially become even more complex and even more critical. I think that’s going to be the next wave. A lot of companies have done a good job of finding one or two use cases, maybe small ones, that have delivered value for them in AI. But there are very few organizations – and we talked about it through the AI Readiness Index – very few organizations who have really found tremendous value from AI today, but they will in the future. Robert Dutt: I think you’ve done a great job of setting up the game for Canadian partners here. Good luck with the rest of the ballgame, and thanks so much for taking the time. Erin Gertner: Thank you. Robert Dutt: There you have it, Erin Gertner from Cisco Canada. I’d like to thank Erin for her time on this one, and thank you for listening. A couple of things that stood out to me. First, how strongly the consulting and assessment-led approach is paying off. Partners who are going in and helping customers understand the full picture – security, AI readiness, network modernization – aren’t just winning deals. They’re winning deals that are three and four times the size of a like-for-like refresh. And the other is something Erin said that I think is worth sitting with: there’s no AI without a network. Simple statement, but it reframes the entire refresh conversation for partners who aren’t sure where AI fits into what they do. If you’re enjoying In The Channel, you can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and most podcast directories. Follow, subscribe, leave a rating or a review if you’re feeling generous. It all helps. Till next time, I’m Robert Dutt for ChannelBuzz.ca, and I’ll see you in the channel.

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen on Let's Get Legal. Caren discusses appealing property taxes and the percentage of people who receive a reduction. Plus, she answers listeners’ questions about how to lower their taxes if they are 65 or older and combine PIN […]

On today's episode, we sit down with Danielle Gertner — keynote speaker, self-mastery mentor, and the powerhouse MC hyping up crowds at HYROX events around the world. Danielle shares how she went from fitness coach to one of the most recognizable voices in the HYROX community, what it's really like behind the scenes at one of the fastest-growing fitness competitions, and how she helps people “Own Their Sh*t™” to build radical confidence and self-trust.We dig into how she channels energy on stage, the mindset shifts that separate performance from embodiment, and why confidence isn't about being loud — it's about being authentic. Danielle brings her signature no-BS approach to mindset, movement, and motivation, and this one will leave you fired up to take ownership of every part of your life.Follow Danielle: @daniellegertnerCheck out her website: www.daniellegertner.comListen to her podcast: Own Your Sh*t PodcastYou can follow us on Instagram @businessmusclepodcast, @elisecaira, and @dr.ariel.dpt.

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen filling in for Lisa Dent to discuss property taxes. Gertner shares the process that Cook County uses to assess property taxes. She shares how people can appeal their property tax bills for 2026.

Caren Gertner, President & Managing Partner at the Law Office of Gertner & Gertner, joins Jon Hansen on Let’s Get Legal. Caren talks about how Cook County determines assessed value, how and when to file an assessment appeal, and more! For more information, visit gertnerandgertnerltd.com or call 312-782-9222.

Wednesday - "She's Acting Single (I'm Drinking Double)" - Mowing the Leaves Instead of Piling 'em Up [Hello and Welcome! This is Ben fillin' in for Becky. Ready to get my twang on!] [0:00:00] Dando Shaft - "Sometimes" - Dando Shaft [Sometimes, English folk just hits the spot. Sometimes is most times.] [0:03:48] Music behind DJ: Rick Deitrick - "Abedonia" - River Sun River Moon [blah blah blah.] [0:07:15] My Morning Jacket - "Heartbreakin' Man" - The Tennessee Fire [A lil MMJ, if ya dig. Vocals recorded in an abandoned grain silo, as the story goes...] [0:08:45] Greg Freeman - "Gallic Shrug" - Burnover [Good ol' Greg Freeman. Also love "curtain" from this record.] [0:11:53] Acre Memos - "Hair Ties" - A Collection of Bird Songs [From a collab album with the lovely Lomelda.] [0:16:45] Alex G - "Powerful Man" - Rocket [Davie broke the law. Again...] [0:20:18] Music behind DJ: [blabbing.] [0:23:34] David Grisman Quintet - "EMD" - The David Grisman Quintet [EAT MY DUST] [0:25:11] Beetkeepers - "Since He's Been Gone" - Beetkeepers [Good ol' Ohio sounds!] [0:27:47] The Sadies - "Anna Leigh" - New Seasons [Thanks to my dad for showing me this one.] [0:29:55] Son Volt - "Ten Second News" - Trace [Jay Farrar, you have a way...] [0:33:18] Music behind DJ: [yapping!!!] [0:36:58] The Pale Fountains - "Just a Girl" - Longshot For Your Love [top 5 fiddle solo. The english can do it too, it seems.] [0:39:54] Bill Callahan - "Free's" - Apocalypse [Im standing in a field.] [0:44:11] Dan Reeder - "havana burning" - Dan Reeder [Thanks to my dear friend Rory for showing me this one.] [0:47:25] Lucinda Williams - "Overtime" - World Without Tears [Penultimate song! A heartbreaker. Thanks for listenin'. If you like this, check out my fill in show "Gert Alert!" or follow me on the gram @bengertner. Shameless plug] [0:50:08] Music behind DJ: [blabbing, once again. Does this guy ever shut it?] [0:53:37] https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/158828

Wednesday - "She's Acting Single (I'm Drinking Double)" - Mowing the Leaves Instead of Piling 'em Up [Hello and Welcome! This is Ben fillin' in for Becky. Ready to get my twang on!] [0:00:00] Dando Shaft - "Sometimes" - Dando Shaft [Sometimes, English folk just hits the spot. Sometimes is most times.] [0:03:48] Music behind DJ: Rick Deitrick - "Abedonia" - River Sun River Moon [blah blah blah.] [0:07:15] My Morning Jacket - "Heartbreakin' Man" - The Tennessee Fire [A lil MMJ, if ya dig. Vocals recorded in an abandoned grain silo, as the story goes...] [0:08:45] Greg Freeman - "Gallic Shrug" - Burnover [Good ol' Greg Freeman. Also love "curtain" from this record.] [0:11:53] Acre Memos - "Hair Ties" - A Collection of Bird Songs [From a collab album with the lovely Lomelda.] [0:16:45] Alex G - "Powerful Man" - Rocket [Davie broke the law. Again...] [0:20:18] Music behind DJ: [blabbing.] [0:23:34] David Grisman Quintet - "EMD" - The David Grisman Quintet [EAT MY DUST] [0:25:11] Beetkeepers - "Since He's Been Gone" - Beetkeepers [Good ol' Ohio sounds!] [0:27:47] The Sadies - "Anna Leigh" - New Seasons [Thanks to my dad for showing me this one.] [0:29:55] Son Volt - "Ten Second News" - Trace [Jay Farrar, you have a way...] [0:33:18] Music behind DJ: [yapping!!!] [0:36:58] The Pale Fountains - "Just a Girl" - Longshot For Your Love [top 5 fiddle solo. The english can do it too, it seems.] [0:39:54] Bill Callahan - "Free's" - Apocalypse [Im standing in a field.] [0:44:11] Dan Reeder - "havana burning" - Dan Reeder [Thanks to my dear friend Rory for showing me this one.] [0:47:25] Lucinda Williams - "Overtime" - World Without Tears [Penultimate song! A heartbreaker. Thanks for listenin'. If you like this, check out my fill in show "Gert Alert!" or follow me on the gram @bengertner. Shameless plug] [0:50:08] Music behind DJ: [blabbing, once again. Does this guy ever shut it?] [0:53:37] https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/158828

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer 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@nexfirm.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 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.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.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@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.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@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and 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 an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.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@nexfirm.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@substack.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.substack.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, November 26. 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

The initial time period where a TV remote control was developed was pretty short. And it shows how two different people perceive their work, and how that work is perceived differently over time by their employer. Research: Adler, R. “Control System.” Dec. 17, 1957. U.S. Patent Office. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9a/fb/1a/619d2580b08526/US2817025.pdf AFX News. “COMPANY NEWS; MOTOROLA TO BUY ZENITH ELECTRONICS NETWORK SYSTEMS.” New York Times. July 20, 2000. https://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/20/business/company-news-motorola-to-buy-zenith-electronics-network-systems.html Benson-Allott, Caetlin. “Remote Control.” Bloomsbury Academic. 2015. Dowling, Stephen. “The Surprising Origins of the TV Remote.” BBC. Aug. 31, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180830-the-history-of-the-television-remote-contro Fox, Margalit. “Eugene Polley, Conjuror of a Device That Changed TV Habits, Dies at 96.” New York Times. May 22, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/business/eugene-t-polley-inventor-of-the-wireless-tv-remote-dies-at-96.html Gertner, Jon. “A Clicker Is Born.” New York Times Magazine. Dec. 30, 2007. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/magazine/30Adler-t.html Gregory, Ted. “Remote’s Inventor Hopes to Push Buttons of History.” Press of Atlantic City. Feb. 5, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/926298372/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “Heritage.” Zenith. https://zenith.com/heritage/ “Man who glued TV watchers to the couch dies.” Cnn.com (via AP). Feb 16, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070219040307/http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/obit.remote.control.ap/index.html “Now … a Flash of Light Without wires!” (Advertisement.) The Salt Lake Tribune. Nov. 20, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/598655702/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic Polley, Eugene J. “Control System.” U.S. Patent Office. Sept. 8, 1959. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/02/b1/5716b40ac9c0fc/US2903575.pdf “Robert Adler.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/inductees/robert-adler “Robert Adler - TV Wireless Remote.” Lemelson-MIT. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/robert-adler Schofield, Jack. “Eugene Polley Obituary.” The Guardian. May 23, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/may/23/eugene-polley Slodysko, Brian. “Eugene Polley dies at 96; inventor of wireless TV remote control.” May 23, 2012. https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-eugene-polley-20120523-story.html Stroh, Michael. “The Couch Potato’s Best Friend.” Baltimore Sun. Nov. 22, 2006. https://www.newspapers.com/image/173151815/?match=1&terms=eugene%20polley “TV remote control inventor Eugene Polley dies at 96.” BBC. May 22, 2012. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-18164200 “You have to see it to believe it!” (Advertisement.) Syracuse herald-Journal. Sept. 27, 1955. https://www.newspapers.com/image/1088093208/?match=1&terms=Flash-matic “Zenith Space Command …” Evening World Herald/ Dec. 26, 1956. https://www.newspapers.com/image/883665550/?match=1&terms=%22Space%20Command%22 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today:Retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner discusses a Department of Justice gone rogue, as top department officials suggest ignoring court orders.And, Michael Curry of the Mass League of Community Health Centers and NAACP discusses the impacts of conservative attacks on diversity.

In today's episode, I'm joined by the incredible Danielle Gertner - speaker, emcee, self mastery mentor and podcast host. We talked about radical ownership, redefining success, the pivot from hustle to self-mastery, and how embracing play can actually fuel your growth as a human and entrepreneur. Danielle brings the kind of raw, contagious energy that makes you want to reevaluate your routines and reconnect to what really matters. If you're craving a more joyful, embodied approach to business and life—this one's for you.

Danielle Gertner joins Something For Everybody this week. Danielle is a speaker, emcee, self-mastery mentor and community builder.  In this conversation, Danielle and I explore the themes of personal transitions, the complexities of relationships, the impact of grief on personal growth, and the transformative power of fitness. We discuss how understanding differences in communication styles can enhance relationships, the importance of community support in fitness, and the journey of building confidence through self-trust. The conversation emphasizes the significance of owning one's journey and the intertwined nature of grief and love in shaping our experiences. - Timestamps: 00:00 Navigating Transitions and Personal Growth 02:57 Understanding Relationships and Communication 06:00 The Impact of Grief on Personal Identity 11:56 Exploring Emotions: Relief, Hope, and Guilt 18:01 The Role of Grief in Life Transitions 23:51 Coaching Through Grief and Emotional Depth 34:06 Holding Space for Emotions 39:02 The Journey of Fitness and Movement 49:55 Building Confidence Through Self-Trust 54:35 Owning Your Shit: Radical Responsibility 56:21 Hyrox - See discounts for all the products I use and recommend: https://everybodyspod.com/deals/ - Shop For Everybody  Use code SFE10 for 10% OFF

From the eagle's nest, high above the ECW arena, this is the Extreme Three Way Dance! In this episode, JT, Jenny and Matt review the next three episodes of ECW television from January 2000! The troublesome trio pay tribute to the late Sabu and then talk about the fallout from Guilty as Charged, the ongoing issues between ECW and TNN, escalation between Cyrus and Gertner, a sick Mexican Death Match, an all time episode of ECW TV, Rob Van Dam being elevated to the main event and so much more! So jump on board, grab a chair and get ready to join this threesome for an extreme journey through time!

HYROX MC Danielle Gertner talks about owning your sh*t, moving with purpose, and firing people up on race day. Then, we meet the team behind MetriX—a new fitness racing format pulling a younger crowd than HYROX. Think: less running, more strength, and a party-first vibe. Big moves are coming for 2026. This show covers HYROX, DEKA, The Deadly Dozen, and the evolving world of fitness racing—featuring athletes, event directors, and industry insiders.

Today:Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner rings alarm bells on Trump's attack of the American legal system, comparing his intimidation and consolidation of power to that of Hungary's Viktor Orban.And, Cuban-born jazz pianist Zahili Zamora joins for Live Music Friday, at the Boston Public Library.

In episode 110, Ste is joined by Danielle Gertner (Hyrox Emcee, Founder of Warrior Women and Own Your Sh*t) for a deep discussion about grief, embracing fear, the meaning of success, and taking control of your life. Danielle also shares powerful wisdom on creating meaningful relationships and becoming a leader in all areas of your life.  Radical Health Radio is produced by Heart & Soil, a beef organ supplements company helping hundreds of thousands of people achieve radical health. Heart & Soil was founded by Dr. Paul Saladino, a double board-certified MD and founder of the animal-based eating philosophy. Visit heartandsoil.co to reclaim your birthright to radical health with the most nutrient-dense foods on the planet.

From dot-com dreams in Prague to cutting-edge 3D CPQ with AI, dive into the journey of Matthew Gertner, CEO of Salsita Software. Discover how his unique background in linguistics and computer science fuels a company revolutionizing custom product sales. We explore the rise of web-based CPQ, the power of 3D configurators, and how AI is shaping the future of online sales. Learn how Salsita is helping businesses, especially those in custom manufacturing, simplify complex pricing and reach global audiences. Tune in to hear about their innovative tech stack and why they believe AI-assisted configurator creation is the next big thing. Connect with Matthew and his team at salsita.ai. Salsita Software contact information: Website: https://salsita.ai/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthewgertner/ 

Less than a month into Donald Trump's second term, his administration's aggressive restructuring of the government and flirtation with defying court rulings threaten to spark a constitutional crisis. "He could have done all of that lawfully, and instead what he's done is testing the limits of his power in a way we have never seen in this country," says retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner.During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump dismissed concerns about executive overreach and claimed he would respect court decisions. But legal experts warn his broad view of presidential power crosses long held boundaries and is propelling the country into a constitutional crisis. On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, Gertner, who is consulting on several cases challenging the administration's actions and is a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and The Intercept's senior counsel and correspondent Shawn Musgrave discuss the federal courts' response so far and what it demonstrates about our system of checks and balances.“I hope that they will realize that one of the two checks on an aggressive president doing unlawful things is that the courts are functioning as a check on his power. I fear that the other takeaway is that Congress is not. The concern about Trump wiping out programs that Congress has approved is a concern that should bother every legislator — Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. That is a core, foundational checks-and-balances issue. And the fact that there is not an outcry from Congress is troubling,” says Gertner.Musgrave adds that it is a real test of governmental structure. “We're in a moment that illustrates the fragility of the system of checks and balances that's held for a couple hundred years. The system that was set up in the Constitution isn't guaranteed; it has to be protected. And so far, it looks like it's going to be up to the courts to do that,” he says.Gertner says there is another check that isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but is just as important. “The public will speak in two years in the midterm elections,” she says. “So the public, although it doesn't have a specific role in the next two years before we can vote again on national issues, the public is important here. I think that people should stand up if they think that what's going on is illegal and unconstitutional.”To hear more of the conversation, check out this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

DOGE is running wild in the District of Columbia. Chaos reigns supreme. Trump 2.0 has been frightening and it's all been happening so fast. But there are lots of people fighting back, as they try to slow the damage. And the courts are exactly where the pushback has been most fierce. One of the teams of people leading the charge includes former Judge Nancy Gertner, one of the many legal professionals suing the Trump administration. Judge Gertner's case is about the list of rank and file FBI agents threatened with retribution and the public disclosure of their names, because they did their jobs and prosecuted January 6th cases. Gertner is involved with a slew of cases from the State Democracy Defenders Fund. She talks with host Dahlia Lithwick about the many wins against the administration in court this past week, and whether they matter. Next, Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern joins Dahlia to update us on the DOGE litigation and the Birthright Citizenship cases. Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Retired federal judge Nancy Gertner argues we need to take a step back and look at the pattern of Trump's behavior in the context of authoritarian playbooks, not just individual executive orders. And, she tells us about her work with State Democracy Defenders.And, we zoom in on one issue with Sophia Hall of the Lawyers for Civil Rights, challenging Trump's order to get rid of birthright citizenship on behalf of pregnant undocumented women who fear their children will be born without a state. 

In this episode of THE MENTORS RADIO, Host Dan Hesse talks with multi-award-winning writer Jon Gertner about what many believe was the most innovative institution—public or private—in the world, Bell Labs. It is the topic of Gertner's first book, The New York Times best-seller, The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. Bell Labs' inventions and discoveries are too long to list, but include the vacuum tube, the transistor, the silicon chip, the solar cell, microwave and fiber optic transmission, UNIX, and for you TV fans, even the Big Bang Theory.  A seasoned science and technology feature writer with The New York Times Magazine, Jon's writing and book reviews have also appeared in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Book Review, and Wired Magazine. Additionally, Jon is the author of The Ice at the End of the World: Greenland's Buried Past and Earth's Perilous Future, and he is currently working on a book about NASA's long-running Voyager Mission, tentatively titled How to Build Something the Lasts Forever. Listen to THE MENTORS RADIO podcast anywhere, any time, on any platform, click here! SHOW NOTES: JON GERTNER: BIO: BIO: Jon Gertner BOOKS: The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation, by Jon Gertner The Ice at the End of the World: Greenland's Buried Past and Earth's Perilous Future, by Jon Gertner X: @jongertner

BPR Full Show 6/25: Judge Gertner

Welcome to The Tara Talk, your go-to podcast for all things mindset + movement! Today Tara connects with Danielle Gertner to discuss how to own your shit, connect with your inner critic, and move through emotions. Danielle is a Speaker, Emcee, Self Mastery mentor, expert community builder, and podcast host who is on a mission to unlock the world's radical confidence with her signature Own Your Shit™️ method. She uses a unique blend of neurolinguistic programming, hypnosis, trauma-informed somatic work, story work, and primal play to help her clients make soul-shifting transformations that last a lifetime. Episode Highlights: Expressing and receiving loveHow to navigate griefMoving through emotions & letting yourself FEELThe power of connecting with your breathHow to own your shitBuilding community When you're not a “girls girl”Living in the feminine and masculine Becoming an entrepreneurRedefining happiness & success Whose story are you living?Chatting with your inner critic Working with all parts of youConnecting with movement again Are you ready to uplevel your health & fitness with Legion?  Use code TaraTalk for 20% off your first order and double loyalty cash back any order after that when you shop at LegionAthletics.comIf this episode resonated please leave a rate & review and share with friends! Your support means so much! Watch the episode on YouTube HERE. You can learn more about Danielle @daniellegertner and her programs, resources, and more at daniellegertner.comFollow along on @taralaferrara for no BS fitness + life advice. Follow along on @thetaratalk for episode updates and extra content. Sign up for the newsletter HERE and never miss an update!Work with Tara:1:1 coaching (apply to see if this is a fit for you)TL Method (get a FREE week of workouts!)

Best Of BPR: Judge Gertner On Trump Trial & Khalil Gibran Muhammad On DEI Criticism

In episode 11, Deanne Gertner shares her journey from a decade-long career dedicated to the arts to her current role in content marketing, highlighting the seamless integration of her passion for art into every aspect of her life. With a background in aiding arts nonprofits, curating art for corporate collections, and founding an experimental arts agency, Deanne has relentlessly worked to make art accessible to all, irrespective of financial or educational standing. The discussion unveils her projects that weave art into public spaces, transforming them into hubs of creativity and community.Transitioning from the art world, Deanne has embraced a career in marketing, specifically focusing on demystifying complex healthcare programs. Despite this shift, her core mission remains unchanged - to make valuable information accessible and understandable to everyone.Furthermore, the episode touches on Deanne's personal growth and self-care practices, including meditation, comedy, and insights from Esther Perel, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balance between professional achievements and personal well-being. Deanne's story is about the power of creativity, adaptability, and the impact of art beyond conventional spaces, encouraging listeners to find and foster their creative spark in every facet of life.Guest Information:Connect with Deanne Gertner on Instagram, Linkedin, or her website.References:Hey Hue ArtHeinrich MarketingEsther PerelDon't forget to subscribe and leave a review if you enjoyed this episode.Credits and Acknowledgements:Hosted, Produced, and Edited by Heather Pridemore. Thank you for tuning into small acts of rebellion. Ready to start a revolution? Please share it with others who aspire to redefine success on their own terms.Don't forget to subscribe for more stories of personal and professional defiance. For additional content, follow us on Instagram @smallactsofrebellionpodcast & @PridemoreCoaching and visit us at PridemoreCoaching.com.Keep owning your story!

Danielle is a Speaker, Emcee and owner/operator of her Self Mastery Mentorship Courses. She introduced me to different vocabulary and perspective all throughout the episode. Learn what "self mastery" means to Danielle, what tools she used early in her journey as well as today to navigate hardship, and the lessons she's learning today. She's been a force in every room we've occupied together since I met her in 2022... find out more of why and how in this episode.   Connect with Danielle HERE. Apply for 1:1 Coaching with Claire HERE.

On this week's episode, Danielle Gertner, a self-mastery mentor, shares her transformative journey from seeking external validation to finding true empowerment through fitness and personal growth. She and Brianna delve into the importance of taking radical responsibility for one's life, discussing the power of internal validation and the transformative "ownership method." Danielle also explores the significance of embracing change, the role of shadow work in personal growth, and the impact of community and movement, as exemplified by her involvement in Warrior Women ATX. This episode is a treasure trove of insights for anyone seeking to deepen their journey of self-discovery and empowerment.More About Danielle:Driven to inspire people everywhere to take ownership over their excuses and unleash their fullest potential, in 2016, Danielle Gertner founded Gertner Grind, a platform that challenges the mainstream approach to wellness and inspires people to see the world as their gym.She was tired of trying to fit the idea of wellness that society had created so she decided to go on a journey to make wellness fit her world, no matter what that world looked like at the time. This sparked her passion for guiding others along the way to build a powerful foundation for their own lifelong transformation.Over the last four years, Danielle's passion to impact has only continued to evolve and today, she travels the world as an functional fitness coach, serving hundreds of people through her online transformation programs, customized workshops and retreats.Danielle believes that in order to live the life you have always imagined for yourself, you need to do only one thing - own your shit. And so she is on a mission to own her shit so unapologetically that anyone who comes across her message are inspired to as well.Danielle has worked with high school and college students, athletes, business professionals and those that fall somewhere in between.Danielle has also had the pleasure of sharing her message alongside brands such as Under Armour, PopSugar, Voyage MIA, GoSesh, RedCon1 and many more.The best way to summarize her coaching philosophy?Work to own your truths loud and proud. Once you do that, the world is yours.Connect with Danielle!Website: https://www.daniellegertner.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/daniellegertner/Podcast: https://www.daniellegertner.com/app-landing-pageConnect with Brianna!Instagram: @mombossinaustinLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/briannademikeFollow the Podcast on Instagram: @badassbasicbitchLove the podcast? We would love if you would leave a review!Thank you to this week's sponsors! Shopify: Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/bbb

This week Ashley Scott Meyers talks with Producer and Filmmaker Jordan Gertner. Our guest, Jordan Gertner is a Producer of well known movies such as Buffalo '66 (1998), Bully (2001) and Spring Breakers (2012). He talks about how he went from that to being the Writer/Director and Producer of the Action/Thriller Sheroes (2023). Among the […]

Former U.S. federal judge Nancy Gertner was appointed to the bench of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts by President Bill Clinton in 1994, retiring in 2011 to teach at Harvard Law School, and is working on a book featuring interviews with people she imprisoned. Gertner is in New Zealand for the Criminal Bar Association conference, discussing, among other things, Donald Trump's chances of being re-elected, should he be convicted.

“It's all about mental health and wellness.” - Lorne GertnerJeffrey Feldberg and Lorne Gertner discuss Lorne's extraordinary business success across multiple industries. As a futurist, Lorne has fine-tuned his craft to identify industry inflection points early to create market disruptions. As a result, Lorne is the benefactor of multiple successful liquidity events. Lorne has create over $3 billion in value for shareholders across multiple industries.Lorne shares his approach to business and from the trenches strategies that entrepreneurs must master to create massive success. Jeffrey goes beyond the headlines and has Lorne reveal his thinking, thought process, and how as leaders we can uncloak inflection points to grow a business and create a market disruption.Lorne shares his thesis on why psychedelic drugs will not only be legalized for general consumption, but forever change life and society as we know it.Click here to subscribe to The Deep Wealth Podcast to save time and effort.SELECTED LINKS FOR THIS EPISODEBooks: From Strength to Strength: Finding Success, Happiness, and Deep Purpose in the Second Half of LifeBooks: Fantastic Fungi: Expanding Consciousness, Alternative Healing, Environmental Impact // Official Book of Smash Hit DocumentaryVideo: Fantastic FungiVideo: How to Change Your MindCockroach Startups: What You Need To Know To Succeed And ProsperFREE Deep Wealth eBook on Why You Suck At Selling Your Business And What You Can Do About It (Today)Book Your FREE Deep Wealth Strategy CallResources To Have You Thrive And ProsperThe Deep Wealth Podcast brings you a wealth of world-class thought leaders who share invaluable resources and insights. Click the link below to access the resources, gear, and books that either our guests or the Deep Wealth team leverage to increase success:https://www.deepwealth.com/thriveContact Deep Wealth: Tweet @JeffreyFeldberg LinkedIn Instagram Subscribe to The Deep Wealth Podcast Email podcast[at]deepwealth[dot]com Help us pay it forward by leaving a review.Here's to you and your success!As always, please stay healthy and safe.

For Flick City episode 89 we have three interviews: The Last Rider's Greg LeMond and writer/director Alex Holmes, Sheroes filmmaker/writer Jordan Gertner, and Love Gets A Room writer/director Rodrigo Cortés.Sheroes is now available on Digital and hit theaters Friday, June 23. Rent/purchase Sheroes** on Amazon to support CinemAddicts!Love Gets A Room hit theaters Friday, June 23 and releases On Demand June 30.The Last Rider is exclusively in theaters as of Friday, June 23. Timestamps:(0:00) - Intro(12:50) - The Last Rider interview with Greg LeMond and Alex Holmes(23:16) - Sheroes interview with filmmaker/writer Jordan Gertner(34:54) - Love Gets A Room Trailer(36:44) - Love Gets A Room interview w/ director/writer Rodrigo Cortés**We receive a slight commission whenever you purchase through our Amazon links (I'm an Associates member). Rent/purchase your movies using our Amazon site stripe.**Support our CinemAddicts podcast by giving us a rating/review on Apple Podcasts!1.  Subscribe to our Deepest Dream YouTube Channel2. Like Our CinemAddicts Facebook Page.3. Join our CinemAddicts Facebook Group for daily movie recommendations!4. Check out our Deepest Dream website for more entertainment news and reviews5. Questions/comments email Greg Srisavasdi at editor@deepestdream.com.6. Our website for entertainment news, reviews, and podcast coverage is Deepest Dream: https://deepestdream.com/7. Email Bruce (brucepurkey@gmail.com) if you have movies you would love to put in the box!!8. Eric Holmes can be reached at hamslime@gmail.com9. Anderson's latest project Loaded for Bear: The Documentary: https://loadedforbeardoc.com/Atty's Antiques is on Facebook MarketplaceHAVE A CHAT WITH ANDY HERETHE COLD COCKLE SHORTSRULES OF REDUCTIONMORMOANTHE CULT OF CARANOGROUPERS TRAILERSupport the show

Jordan Gerner has been part of several films we've discussed on the show before including American Psycho. He's made his writing/directing debut with the new film Sheroes, the tale of four friends who go to Thailand and get into a mess of trouble. The film comes to streaming platforms and select theaters on June 23, 2023.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/show/the-projection-booth-podcast_2/support.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5513239/advertisement

Jordan Gerner has been part of several films we've discussed on the show before including American Psycho. He's made his writing/directing debut with the new film Sheroes, the tale of four friends who go to Thailand and get into a mess of trouble. The film comes to streaming platforms and select theaters on June 23, 2023.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5513239/advertisement

Esther Rochel Gertner combines her background in psychology and special education along with her life experience as a parent to empower parents and teachers to successfully advocate for their child's needs, whilst providing a safe and nurturing environment. She is an Educational Consultant with a masters in psychology and has over 25 -years of experience working with both the students directly and the team around the child. She is passionate about helping families and educators tap into the strengths and delights of each individual by integrating educational, social and emotional functioning to help the whole child. _______________________________________________________ Become a JOWMA Member! www.jowma.org  Follow us on Instagram! www.instagram.com/JOWMA_org  Follow us on Twitter! www.twitter.com/JOWMA_med  Follow us on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/JOWMAorg/ Stay up-to-date with JOWMA news! Sign up for the JOWMA newsletter! https://jowma.us6.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=9b4e9beb287874f9dc7f80289&id=ea3ef44644&mc_cid=dfb442d2a7&mc_eid=e9eee6e41e

Danielle Gertner teaches us how to own our $h1t. In This Episode: 05:40 - Early leadership 11:00 - If you're not a leader, you're not valuable 12:40 - What is water? 14:30 - Compassionate self observation 17:00 - Stuff 19:40 - The Amazon experience 24:40 - Fail fast, fail forward 26:30 - Gator grind 29:30 - Not fearing the "no" 32:50 - The Netflix of fitness 35:20 - Moving to Austin 37:20 - Honoring your sacred no 39:30 - What does a "F yes" feel like? 42:30 - Living to your potential 44:00 - People pleasing 49:00 - Bleed good energy 50:50 - Taking ownership over your life 52:20 - Rapid fire questions 01:05:00 - Where your fear is, your task is 3-Tip Tuesday's - Marketing Tips to Attract More Leads! From followers to clients in 7-easy steps. Get all links, resources, and show notes at: www.coreyhi.com/podcast/090

Today on Boston Public Radio: We started the show with listener reactions to the U.S. military shooting down multiple unidentified objects in North American airspace. Michael Curry discussed a new study that finds childbirth is deadlier for Black families even when they're wealthy; and a 15-year-old in Massachusetts staying in a hospital for 40 days because DCF couldn't place him. Curry is President and CEO of the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers. He's also a Member of the National NAACP Board of Directors, where he chairs the board's Advocacy & Policy Committee. Charlie Sennott discussed the string of unidentified objects shot down in US airspace; and the latest with the earthquake on the border of Turkey and Syria. Sennott is the founder and editor-in-chief of The GroundTruth Project. Retired judge Nancy Gertner discusses the Supreme Court weighing an ethics code; and former vice president Mike Pence getting subpoenaed related to the events on January 6, 2021. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Reverends Irene Monroe and Emmett Price discussed the Super Bowl, which made history for both quarterbacks being Black. Reverend Irene Monroe is a syndicated religion columnist and the Boston voice for Detour's African American Heritage Trail. Emmett G. Price III is founding pastor of Community of Love Christian Fellowship in Allston, the Inaugural Dean of Africana Studies at Berklee College of Music. Together they host the All Rev'd Up podcast. We closed the show with listener comments on whether restaurants should ban children, as one New Jersey establishment has just done.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by asking listeners whether they're optimistic or pessimistic for the year to come. Trenni Casey updated us on the status of Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin, who collapsed mid-game on Monday under cardiac arrest. She also shared her thoughts on broader safety concerns in the world of sports, from lacrosse to hockey. Casey is an anchor and reporter with NBC Sports Boston, and a BPR contributor. Juliette Kayyem weighed in on a recent attack in New York, where a man from Maine attacked police officers in Times Square with a machete. She also dissected Republican Rep. George Santos' various lies, and shared how a potential re-opening of a criminal investigation into his past by Brazilian officials could complicate his time in Congress. Kayyem is former assistant secretary for homeland security under President Barack Obama, and the faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Gina McCarthy discussed the future of climate action in the U.S., and concerns over the Earth's dwindling resources in the midst of climate change. McCarthy served as the first ever White House national climate advisor, serving President Joe Biden, the EPA administrator under President Obama and is co-chair of Governor-elect Maura Healey's climate change transition policy committee. Nancy Gertner shared her thoughts on the final Jan. 6 committee hearing. Gertner is a retired federal judge, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, and a BPR regular. Corby Kummer talked about the rise of drive-throughs, ghost kitchens, and delivery apps over the course of the pandemic, as well as The Cheesecake Factory's enduring legacy. Kummer is executive director of the Food and Society policy program at the Aspen Institute, a senior editor at The Atlantic, and a senior lecturer at the Tufts Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy. We ended the show by talking with listeners about America's fascination with The Cheesecake Factory.

Today I'm joined by Ownership Coach Danielle Gertner. An Austin local, she is known for her magnetic personality. Today we dive deep, talking about grief and how to own all parts of what make you who you are. We also get practical in how to build a toolkit that allows you to grow beyond the boxes that you find yourself in life. Make sure you hit subscribe and leave a review, it helps us more than you know! Connect with Cory on IG: @corycamp Connect with Danielle on IG: @daniellegertner Tik Tok: @foreverathlete Forever Athlete website: www.forever-athlete.com Forever Athlete IG: @foreverathletellc --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/cory-camp/message

Today on Boston Public Radio: We opened our show with a call-in segment, asking listeners about their thoughts regarding the recent spike in COVID-19, flu, and RSV cases, and if they are choosing to mask again. Nancy Gertner discussed the latest news coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court and former President Donald Trump's legal woes. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Trenni Casey joined the show to talk about the sudden death of American journalist Grant Wahl in Qatar, and the return of Brittney Griner from Russia. Casey is a sports anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu joined us for this month's edition of “Ask the Mayor.” She fielded questions from listeners at home and members of the audience at the Boston Public Library. Wu has been the mayor of Boston since her election in 2021. Comedian Chris Fleming joined the show ahead of his performance at the Wilbur on Dec. 17. We closed the show with Jim and Jared's thoughts regarding house guests, both how they deal with them and sharing their own stories of being guests.

Today on Boston Public Radio: We began the show by talking with listeners about the controversies surrounding this year's World Cup. Trenni Casey shared her thoughts on the process behind FIFA picking World Cup host countries. Casey is an anchor and reporter for NBC Sports Boston. Nancy Gertner discussed allegations against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito over leaking Court decisions. Gertner is a retired federal judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School. Keith Lockhart previewed the Boston Holiday Pops' upcoming season. Lockhart is a conductor for the Boston Pops. Marcela Garcia talked about the push for Mass. lawmakers to make in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants who are state residents a priority. Garcia is a columnist for the Boston Globe, she also serves on the editorial board. John King updated us on the latest political headlines, focusing on Kari Lake suing Maricopa County officials in Arizona after her gubernatorial election loss. King is a CNN Chief National Correspondent, and the host of “Inside Politics.” We ended the show by talking with listeners about holiday office parties.

The search for intelligence beyond Earth has long entranced humans. According to Jon Gertner, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine, this search has been defined “by an assumption that extraterrestrials would have developed radio technologies akin to what humans have created.”However, Mr. Gertner writes, “rather than looking for direct calls to Earth, telescopes now sweep the sky, searching billions of frequencies simultaneously, for electronic signals whose origins can't be explained by celestial phenomena.”What scientists are most excited about is the prospect of other planets' civilizations being able to create the same “telltale chemical and electromagnetic signs,” or, as they are now called, “technosignatures.”This story was written by Jon Gertner and recorded by Audm. To hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.