Podcasts about Groundhog Day

"Momentum is in favor of the market to continue to go up," argues Adam Coons. He says we're back to where we started at the beginning of 2025, with valuations at elevated levels and a "very, very thin" margin of error that comes with it. Adam expects the FOMC not to cut interest rates in July and makes the case that the Fed doesn't need to cut anytime soon. On stocks, he sees financials doing well in the back half of the year and labels Alphabet (GOOGL) as an undervalued Mag 7 company.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Is this movie great or is it just bad in disguise?Welcome to the Movies to Watch Before You Die Podcast with Gab and Dylan!Movies To Watch Before You Die merch here - https://moviestowatchbeforeyoudie-shop.fourthwall.com/Look up the movie here - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095705/Find us everywhere here - https://linktr.ee/moviestowatchbeforeyoudie00:00 Welcome02:41 What's it about?13:08 Opinion Time42:20 Let's get to the facts53:02 VerdictsWe're a member of the Hall of Pods, find links for our podcasting friends here - https://linktr.ee/hallofpodsWho are we: A former actress and video editor but more than anything we're movie fans like you.Why listen? Why not! We're gonna talk about movies you love, movies you hate, and movies you've never heard of. We can't wait to hear what you think of them too. If you want to tell us your opinion on whether or not a movie is one we should watch before we die, tell us we're wrong, or tell us you like the show send us an email or voice message at moviestowatchbeforeyoudie@gmail.com . We can't wait to hear from you and we can't wait to talk movies!Thanks to Scott Interrante for the music in our intro!Thanks to Brian Maneely for our artwork!Movies Dylan and Gab agree you should watch before you die: Vampire's Kiss, Die Hard, Tropic Thunder, Wag the Dog, The Legend of Billie Jean, You've Got Mail, True Lies, The Room, Game Night, The Truman Show, The Great Gatsby, Whiplash, The Lost Boys, The Fugitive, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, My Cousin Vinny, Shutter Island, Starship Troopers, Big, Joy Ride, The Jerk, Alien/Aliens, Best in Show, Freaky Friday, Over the Garden Wall, North, Catch Me If You Can, Clue, Jerry Maguire, Groundhog Day, The Great Mouse Detective, Chicago, Wall-E, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Breakdown, Cool Runnings, Ruthless People, Mean Girls, Borat, A League of Their Own, City Slickers, Jingle All the Way, Saw, The Lion King, Little Big League, The Naked Gun, and Young Frankenstein

I veckans avsnitt bjuder vi på en extremt pantad diskussion huruvida Måndag hela veckan (Groundhog Day) är en kultklassiker, mainstreamrulle eller mästerverk. Filmen som ledde till att Harold Ramis och Bill Murray började avsky varandra är förstås ett måste att bocka av för alla filmälskare, men hur bra är egentligen alla time loop-filmers gudfader? Det försöker vi reda ut i veckans avsnitt där vi även bjuder på poddens kanske största skrattattack hittills.    Handlingen: När meteorologen Phil vaknar en morgon, upptäcker han till sin förvåning och fasa att samma dag utspelar sig om och om igen. Medverkande Bill Murray Andie MacDowell Chris Elliott Stephen Tobolowsky Brian Doyle-Murray Regissör Harold Ramis Mycket nöje! Superlänk till alla plattformar: https://linktr.ee/Filmsmakarna    #filmsmakarna #groundhogday #måndaghelaveckan #billmurray 

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

Documentation isn't just a system—it's a daily habit that you can master.When was the last time you actually enjoyed documenting a meeting or your thought process?  For most of us, documentation feels tedious and intimidating. Just the idea of making things “official” can stir up fear that it might one day be used against us. Fortunately, this week's guest brings a fresh perspective on why documentation is worth embracing and mastering.Today's guest is Adrienne Bellehumeur. Adrienne is the owner of Risk Oversight, a consulting firm specializing in SOX, CSOX, internal control, and internal audit programs. She is also the author of The 24-Hour Rule—and Other Secrets for Smarter Organizations, which you can think of as the first “mass market” book on documentation best practices. She regularly speaks about documentation, workflow, and productivity best practices to professional groups and organizations of all sizes and industries.In this episode, Adrienne breaks down the Big D vs. Little D concept, revealing why daily, individual habits matter more than fancy systems.You'll learn how simply processing meeting notes within 24 hours can save your team hours of frustration and rework.We also explore practical strategies, such as using central repositories and establishing team-wide documentation standards. Additionally, we dive into the value of handwritten notes vs. digital tools, and how to avoid “Groundhog Day” meetings by writing things down.If your team keeps having the same conversations or you're buried in sticky notes, this episode is a must-listen.Join the conversation now!Get FREE mini-episode guides with the big idea from the week's episode delivered to your inbox when you subscribe to my weekly email.Conversation Topics(00:00) Introduction(01:47) Big D vs. little D: What you need to know about documentation(04:08) Common manager struggles with meeting notes(08:05) The 24-hour rule explained(12:23) How client audits benefit from quick documentation(18:03) How to capture and present a big chunk of information(22:25) Handwritten notes vs. digital tools: Which works better?(27:19) Keep up with Adrienne(28:18) [Extended Episode Only] How to effectively organize digital documents (34:52) [Extended Episode Only] When to get feedback to avoid rewriting your draftAdditional Resources:- Get the extended episode by joining The Modern Manager Podcast+ Community for just $15 per month- Read the full transcript here- Follow me on Instagram here - Visit my website for more here- Upskill your team here- Subscribe to my YouTube Channel here- Check out The Bullet Journal Method here Keep up with Adrienne Bellehumeur- Follow Adrienne on LinkedIn here- Get a copy of her book here- Check out Risk Oversight here for more information- Visit Adrienne's official website here to keep up with her workFREE 6 Steps of Dynamic Documentation + Productivity as a Team Sport WorkbookAdrienne is giving members of Podcast+ 2 incredible PDFs. First, the 6 Steps of Dynamic Documentation. Whatever your current go-to practices for personal productivity, information management, and documentation look like, these 6 steps will give you simple strategies to work smarter, faster, and better—for yourself, your team, and your whole organization.And second, Productivity as a Team Sport Workbook. This workbook shares the 8 Super Secrets of Team Productivity that have been tested with organizations and professional groups across industries. The focus? Real, lasting results for knowledge workers that teams can apply immediately.To get this bonus and many other member benefits, become a member of The Modern Manager Podcast+ Community.---------------------The Modern Manager is a leadership podcast for rockstar managers who want to create a working environment where people thrive, and great work gets done.Follow The Modern Manager on your favorite podcast platform so you won't miss an episode!

The death of Diogo Jota has rocked the football community, we remember him with Daniel Garb. The SCG curator, Adam Lewis, tells us about a week of heavy criticism for his turf. The lawn in Wimbledon is pristine, what about the vibes among Aussies like Alex De Minaur and Daria Kasatkina? Wally Masur breaks it down. While the Aussie top order has struggled again in a cricketing equivalent of Groundhog Day. Featured: Daniel Garb, football reporter, ABC Sport. Wally Masur, ex-Davis Cup Captain. Tom Decent, cricket reporter, Sydney Morning Herald. Adam Lewis, SCG curator.Subscribe to the ABC Sport Newsletter

Is Punxsutawney Phil really the weather expert we treat him as every February 2nd, or just a lovable groundhog caught in a centuries-old publicity stunt?In this episode, we dig into a recent Fox News report that took a closer look at Phil's 2025 prediction of “six more weeks of winter.” Spoiler alert: it didn't quite pan out. The lower 48 states were actually 0.4°F warmer than average in the six weeks following Groundhog Day. So was Phil wrong? Or are we misinterpreting what he's actually predicting?Speaker 1 cites the national data and questions Phil's legitimacy as a forecasting icon. Meanwhile, Speaker 2 and Speaker 3 jump in to defend the furry forecaster, noting that Phil has been correct in several key years—including 2016, 2020, and 2024. They suggest that judging him on national averages might be unfair when his predictions originate from Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. Should Phil be held to national weather trends—or just local ones?The conversation quickly expands beyond weather accuracy. Is Phil's role more about tradition and spectacle than science? Should we expect meteorological precision from a rodent? Or is Phil's prediction just part of the fun that kicks off each February?Things get even more interesting as the group touches on the politicization of weather reporting. Is it possible that interpretations of Phil's predictions are being filtered through partisan lenses? Does making Phil “wrong” or “right” carry weight in climate debates? Or are we overthinking a tradition that's mostly for show?No matter your stance, there's no denying Phil's iconic status. Groundhog Day draws national attention every year, and his shadow (or lack thereof) still makes headlines. But in an era of data-driven meteorology and climate scrutiny, some are asking: is it time to retire the idea that Phil is anything more than entertainment?We also take a moment to explore the culture and tourism surrounding Punxsutawney, how Phil has become a symbol far beyond weather, and why this light-hearted event endures in American pop culture.So what do you think? Is Phil just a furry meteorological mascot—or should he be held accountable when his shadow misleads millions?

Welcome to Episode 310 of the Good Girls Get Rich Podcast and I'm your host, Karen Yankovich. Ever wish you could snap your fingers and have the TODAY Show or Forbes calling you for your expertise? Well, until you hire that pricey publicist, this episode is your DIY shortcut. This week, I'm joined by the unstoppable Jill Lublin — global publicity expert, four-time bestselling author (hello Guerrilla Publicity!), and the queen of making media feel oh-so-doable for entrepreneurs like us. Jill Lublin is a 25+ year Media Magnet.  She is a world-renowned publicity expert, international speaker and 4x Best Selling author. Jill has made thousands of stage appearances alongside celebrities such as Tony Robbins, Barbara Corcoran and Jack Canfield, to name a few. She has worked with over 100,000 clients implementing her signature formula for getting media attention, creating next-level visibility in the marketplace that results in boosted sales.  These lead and profit generating formulas are included in her signature program, the Media Mastery Intensive and her monthly Kindness Circles. #GoodGirlsGetRich  We want to hear your thoughts on this episode! Leave us a message on Speakpipe or email us at info@karenyankovich.com.   Episode Highlights: Why publicity matters more than ads (and is often free!) How borrowing someone else's credibility — like a podcast host — is your secret fast pass to trust and sales. The problem-solution formula for pitches that get opened (and booked!). Holiday and headline hacks: Using National Day Calendar, trending news, and even Groundhog Day to stand out with creative story angles. Why kindness is a PR superpower — and how Jill's Kindness Circles are changing the way we do business. Jill generously unpacks easy, practical steps for snagging media attention without the overwhelm — from pitching podcasts the right way, to crafting irresistible story hooks journalists crave. And because y'all know I'm LinkedIn-obsessed, we also riff on how PR and LinkedIn go hand-in-hand to build your thought leadership, land dream clients, and shortcut your path to credible visibility. Must-Hear Moments: The truth about HARO (Help A Reporter Out) — and why 20 responses can be life-changing for your business. How one well-placed podcast guest spot launched entire coaching businesses. The power of asking — and exactly what to say to pitch yourself with confidence and context. If you loved this episode, take 30 seconds to rate & review it on Apple Podcasts. It helps more brilliant women like you get rich in every way that matters. See you next week, my fabulous friends — and remember, more media = more impact, more income, and more influence. Let's get you seen!   Magical Quotes from the Episode: Jill Lublin: "Kind companies get more publicity. Kindness is actually a currency that makes the media pay attention." "The best pitch? One problem, three real solutions — in plain language, serving their audience first." "Progress, not perfection. Start where you are — even one radio interview can launch a whole business." Karen Yankovich: "Borrow my credibility — that's why podcast interviews work. It's trust, and it's free PR magic." "People don't really care about you — they care about how you help them. That's your message, every time." "Media opportunities are the shortcut to credibility, especially if you don't have a million testimonials yet." Resources Mentioned In This Episode: Connect with Jill on socials: LinkedIn: https://Linkedin.com/in/jilllublin Twitter:  http://twitter.com/JillLublin Instagram: http://instagram.com/jilllublin Facebook: http://facebook.com/jilllublin Facebook business page: http://facebook.com/publicitycrashcourse  Jill Lublin's Free Publicity Action Guide NationalDayCalendar.com -  your new BFF for timely story hooks. She's LinkedUp — get your PR + LinkedIn strategy dialed in with me!   Help Us Spread The Word! It would be awesome if you shared the Good Girls Get Rich Podcast with your fellow entrepreneurs on Twitter. Click here to tweet some love! If this episode has taught you just one thing, I would love if you could head on over to Apple Podcasts and SUBSCRIBE TO THE SHOW! And if you're moved to, kindly leave us a rating and review. Maybe you'll get a shout out on the show!   Ways to Subscribe to Good Girls Get Rich: Click here to subscribe via Apple Podcasts Click here to subscribe via PlayerFM Good Girls Get Rich is also on Spotify Take a listen on Podcast Addict

Depart with us as we go into the terminal to discuss the first Final Destination.Welcome to the Movies to Watch Before You Die Podcast with Gab and Dylan!Movies To Watch Before You Die merch here - https://moviestowatchbeforeyoudie-shop.fourthwall.com/Look up the movie here - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095705/Find us everywhere here - https://linktr.ee/moviestowatchbeforeyoudie00:00 Welcome01:02 What's it about?05:14 Opinion Time35:20 Let's get to the facts47:02 VerdictsWe're a member of the Hall of Pods, find links for our podcasting friends here - https://linktr.ee/hallofpodsWho are we: A former actress and video editor but more than anything we're movie fans like you.Why listen? Why not! We're gonna talk about movies you love, movies you hate, and movies you've never heard of. We can't wait to hear what you think of them too. If you want to tell us your opinion on whether or not a movie is one we should watch before we die, tell us we're wrong, or tell us you like the show send us an email or voice message at moviestowatchbeforeyoudie@gmail.com . We can't wait to hear from you and we can't wait to talk movies!Thanks to Scott Interrante for the music in our intro!Thanks to Brian Maneely for our artwork!Movies Dylan and Gab agree you should watch before you die: Vampire's Kiss, Die Hard, Tropic Thunder, Wag the Dog, The Legend of Billie Jean, You've Got Mail, True Lies, The Room, Game Night, The Truman Show, The Great Gatsby, Whiplash, The Lost Boys, The Fugitive, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, My Cousin Vinny, Shutter Island, Starship Troopers, Big, Joy Ride, The Jerk, Alien/Aliens, Best in Show, Freaky Friday, Over the Garden Wall, North, Catch Me If You Can, Clue, Jerry Maguire, Groundhog Day, The Great Mouse Detective, Chicago, Wall-E, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Breakdown, Cool Runnings, Ruthless People, Mean Girls, Borat, A League of Their Own, City Slickers, Jingle All the Way, Saw, The Lion King, Little Big League, The Naked Gun, and Young Frankenstein

Send us a textIn this unforgettable episode, we're revisiting a conversation that blew our minds—and helped reframe everything we thought we knew about ADHD, motherhood, and what it means to be “too much.”Tracy Otsuka is the host of the wildly popular ADHD for Smart Ass Women podcast and author of the book by the same name. A former attorney and certified ADHD coach, Tracy has become a global voice for women who are tired of being pathologized—and ready to celebrate what makes them different.In this conversation, we cover:Why ADHD in women is often misunderstood, masked, and misdiagnosedHow “smart girl syndrome” leads to high achievement—and high self-doubtThe difference between the default mode network (DMN) and task positive network (TPN), and why they matter so much to ADHD brainsThe real reason motherhood can feel like Groundhog Day for women with ADHDHow to get out of your head and into aligned actionThe truth about trauma, shame, and learned helplessness in ADHD womenWhy perfectionism and creativity often co-exist in neurodivergent womenHow Tracy's approach brings humor, empowerment, and healing to thousands of womenThis isn't just a conversation—it's a reframe. If you've ever felt like the “too much” girl who couldn't keep up with motherhood, or like you're sitting on a pile of potential you just can't access, this episode is for you.Featured Guest: Tracy Otsuka is a certified ADHD coach, former SEC attorney, and the creator of the ADHD for Smart Ass Women podcast and book. Her podcast has over 5 million downloads and reaches listeners in 160 countries. She's been featured in Forbes, ADDitude Magazine, and The Goal Digger Podcast, and moderates a Facebook group with nearly 100,000 members.Resources & Mentions:Tracy Otsuka's Podcast: ADHD for Smart Ass WomenDr. Sharon SalineDr. Christine Li (The Procrastination Coach)MOTHER PLUS INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/mother_plus_podcast/MOTHER PLUS FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/motherpluspodcastMOTHER PLUS PERMISSION SLIP: https://www.motherplusser.com/Permission-SlipMOTHER PLUS NEWSLETTER: https://www.motherplusser.com/signup-pageMOTHER PLUS BLOG: https://www.motherplusser.com/blog

Arafat and Mohammed are joined by resident Canadian, Adam to discuss the Canadian GP- Is Oscar at fault?- Is Ferrari broken?- Is Lando broken??- Does Max move to Mercedes and Kimi to Ferrari???

You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!Welcome back to Bad Dads Film Review! This week we're spinning in circles—in the best possible way—with our Top 5 Loops in film and television. Whether they're time loops, narrative loops, or just delightfully circular plot structures, these stories keep us guessing and coming back for more. We're also checking out Armando Iannucci's razor-sharp satire In The Loop and revisiting the chronologically chaotic world of Power Rangers Time Force.

The Daily Quiz - Entertainment, Society and Culture Today's Questions: Question 1: What is the marketing slogan of Apple? Question 2: What is the term for a period of unusually warm weather in the autumn? Question 3: Who won the 1977 Academy Award for Best Leading Actress for playing the role of Annie Hall in Annie Hall? Question 4: What Was The Gang Name Of John Travolta And His Cohorts In The Movie Grease? Question 5: In Norse mythology, who is the ruler of all gods? Question 6: What item of clothing is traditionally worn with a wide belt as part of Highland dress? Question 7: What Is The Name Of The Summer Camp In The Friday The 13th Movies? Question 8: In which year was Groundhog Day released? Question 9: On which day of the week does Lent begin? This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Timeline shifts are happening all around you, but are you choosing them consciously? In this episode, I reveal how timeline shifting works and why most people unknowingly stay trapped in “Groundhog Day” cycles, repeating the same lessons over and over. Learn how to break free from looping patterns, connect with your spirit guides, and align with the multidimensional path that leads to your true purpose.

You can now text us anonymously to leave feedback, suggest future content or simply hurl abuse at us. We'll read out any texts we receive on the show. Click here to try it out!Welcome back to Bad Dads Film Review! This week, we're bending time, smashing starships, and looping through one of the most mind-bending episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation: Season 5, Episode 18 – "Cause and Effect". It's a perfect example of how sci-fi can take a deceptively simple concept—what if you're stuck in a time loop?—and turn it into a suspenseful, clever, and surprisingly rewatchable piece of television.

Send us a textThis week's episode features a heaping helping of Chris Zane and Chad Lee! After touching on our week apart from one another, we dive headfirst into the nitty-gritty sports news. It's a light week of NFL as mini-camps are still underway, and we will start to shift gears into the MLB, which will be one of our main focuses after we return from our week break. We break down JJ Spaun's incredible win at Oakmont in the US Open. We touch on a gripping Canadian GP with McLaren crashes and Mercedes dominance. We finish out the show with the NBA Finals and the Stanley Cup Final, which came to a close after we wrapped. This week's DDOE is Gage Wood, the first pitcher to throw a no-hitter in the MCWS in over 60 years, and the third to do so, all while striking out 19 and setting that record!Support the showThanks for tuning in! We are now on Youtube @fringe_fanatics and streaming live weekly at 5:30 pm MST Tuesday night on Twitch.tv/fringe_fanatics!!! Please make sure to Like, Share, Subscribe, and Follow Us and leave us a review and rating. It really helps us in the long run!linktr.ee/fringe_fanatics To find us on all social media, find where to stream or watch the show, and find out how to donate to the show!!!Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @fringe_fanatics and Facebook @Fringe Fanatics - if you would like to reach out to us through email, you can do so at fringefanaticspodcast@gmail.com

Burnie and Ashley discuss box beds, sleep cycles, marketing turned standalone hits, 23andme changes ownership to the same owner, fake Chinese CEOs, Louvre overtourism, Groundhog Day as a genre, TLOU's sophmore issues, and stop motion nightmares.Support our podcast at: https://www.patreon.com/morningsomewhereFor the link dump visit: http://www.morningsomewhere.comFor merch, check out: http://store.morningsomewhere.com

We'll need to watch our Phraseology as we deal with flimflam from this weeks guest, KeenMachine, and 1962's The Music ManWelcome to the Movies to Watch Before You Die Podcast with Gab and Dylan!Find more KeenMachine and the Gone Phishing podcast here - https://open.spotify.com/show/6pmYS8YX8TJ2x7MTUWLC5TMovies To Watch Before You Die merch here - https://moviestowatchbeforeyoudie-shop.fourthwall.com/Look up the movie here - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095705/Find us everywhere here - https://linktr.ee/moviestowatchbeforeyoudie00:00 Welcome01:24 What's it about?05:30 Opinion Time50:50 Let's get to the facts01:07:01 Mail Time01:17:31 VerdictsWe're a member of the Hall of Pods, find links for our podcasting friends here - https://linktr.ee/hallofpodsWho are we: A former actress and video editor but more than anything we're movie fans like you.Why listen? Why not! We're gonna talk about movies you love, movies you hate, and movies you've never heard of. We can't wait to hear what you think of them too. If you want to tell us your opinion on whether or not a movie is one we should watch before we die, tell us we're wrong, or tell us you like the show send us an email or voice message at moviestowatchbeforeyoudie@gmail.com . We can't wait to hear from you and we can't wait to talk movies!Thanks to Scott Interrante for the music in our intro!Thanks to Brian Maneely for our artwork!Movies Dylan and Gab agree you should watch before you die: Vampire's Kiss, Die Hard, Tropic Thunder, Wag the Dog, The Legend of Billie Jean, You've Got Mail, True Lies, The Room, Game Night, The Truman Show, The Great Gatsby, Whiplash, The Lost Boys, The Fugitive, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, My Cousin Vinny, Shutter Island, Starship Troopers, Big, Joy Ride, The Jerk, Alien/Aliens, Best in Show, Freaky Friday, Over the Garden Wall, North, Catch Me If You Can, Clue, Jerry Maguire, Groundhog Day, The Great Mouse Detective, Chicago, Wall-E, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Breakdown, Cool Runnings, Ruthless People, Mean Girls, Borat, A League of Their Own, City Slickers, Jingle All the Way, Saw, The Lion King, Little Big League, The Naked Gun, and Young Frankenstein

It's Groundhog Day for today's letter-writer—every time she meets with her direct report for a one-on-one, they spend the entire meeting trauma dumping. It's gotten to the point where this manager is feeling herself zoning out during their time together, and she's worried she's become a bad manager. Is it her job to be the team's emotional sponge, regardless of all the other responsibilities she's juggling? Listen in as Sara and Jen help this letterwriter set clear boundaries—and reexamine what should (and shouldn't) be on her managerial plate.Links:Sign up for a 1:1 strategy session or our async course Team Up by June 20 and save $100Learn how to get your needs met with the SURE ModelGot a work situation eating away at you? Send it to us! Submit your dilemma at PMLEshow.com

In the latest episode of Storycomic Presents, I had the pleasure of speaking with Liza Woodruff, a Vermont-based children's book author and illustrator, about her newest picture book, Phil's Big Day. The story follows Phil, a young groundhog grappling with anxiety as he prepares for his big moment on Groundhog Day. Through Phil's journey, Liza addresses the universal theme of facing fears and the importance of support from loved ones. Liza shared her creative process, from initial sketches to final illustrations, and how her experiences living in Vermont influence her work. With over twenty books to her name, she brings a wealth of knowledge about the intersection of art and storytelling. Our conversation delved into how children's literature can be a powerful tool for discussing complex emotions, and how Liza's work aims to provide comfort and understanding to young readers. For more information on Liza Woodruff and her work, visit her website at lizawoodruff.com. The Title sequence was designed and created by Morgan Quaid. See more of Morgan's Work at: https://morganquaid.com/   Storycomic Logo designed by Gregory Giordano See more of Greg's work at: https://www.instagram.com/gregory_c_giordano_art/   Want to start your own podcast?  Click on the link to get started: https://www.podbean.com/storycomic   Follow us: Are you curious to see the video version of this interview?  It's on our website too! www.storycomic.com www.patreon.com/storycomic www.facebook.com/storycomic1 https://www.instagram.com/storycomic/ https://twitter.com/storycomic1 For information on being a guest or curious to learn more about Storycomic? Contact us at info@storycomic.com   Thank you to our Founders Club Patrons, Michael Winn, Higgins802, Von Allan, Stephanie Nina Pitsirilos, Marek Bennett, Donna Carr Roberts, Andrew Gronosky, and Matt & Therese. Check out their fantastic work at: https://marekbennett.com/ https://www.hexapus-ink.com/ https://www.stephanieninapitsirilos.com/ https://www.vonallan.com/ https://higgins802.com/ https://shewstone.com/ https://mrfuzzyears.com/ Also to Michael Winn who is a member of our Founders Club!

Do you feel like you eat, drink, and scroll too much — and wish you didn't? I drank too much for years. I overate for years too. And while I didn't hate it all the time, towards the end… I just felt stuck. Every day felt like Groundhog Day. Every Monday felt like I was starting again. I wasn't making progress in the areas that mattered to me. I felt unfit, tired, and sluggish all the time. My clothes didn't feel right, and I didn't feel good in my skin. In this episode, I'm sharing how I broke free from each of those habits. I used a different strategy for alcohol and for food — and both have changed my life in different ways. Tune in to hear: The big turning point in my alcohol journey Why I had to handle sugar and emotional eating differently What's actually changed in my life since healing from both If you're stuck in that cycle and don't know how to break it — I hope this helps.

From originating the role of Mopsa in Broadway's Head Over Heels, to taking on the role of Catherine Parr in Six: The Musical, Taylor Iman Jones is here! U Guys, this week's BroadwayWorld Recap has all the latest Bway news, brought to you by my pals at BroadwayWorld.com. Then I am joined by Broadway actor Taylor Iman Jones, currently starring in the world premier production of A Wrinkle In Time at Arena Stage. Originally from California, Taylor made their way to NYC and eventually to Broadway, making their debut in Groundhog Day. After originating the role of Mopsa in Broadway's Head Over Heels opposite Bonnie Milligan, Taylor went on to join productions of Hamilton, and Six. In this episode, we discuss everything from the journey of playing roles in community theater to originating roles in Broadway-bound musicals, and beyond. U don't wanna miss this episode! Follow Taylor on Instagram: @taylorimanjones Follow the pod on Instagram: @ohmypoduguys Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What if the universe was stuck in an eternal cosmic Groundhog Day? Picture traveling backwards through time past the Big Bang only to discover you've looped right back to where you started - like a cosmic snake eating its own tail. Explore the mind-bending possibility that our entire universe repeats itself in endless cycles, where infinite copies of you exist scattered across millions of light years, all having this exact same conversation at different stages of cosmic evolution. Join cosmologist Niayesh Afshordi from the University of Waterloo and Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, and science communicator Phil Halper, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, as they dive into Roger Penrose's controversial time loops and the heated scientific battles between cosmologists who engage in academic warfare. Discover the wild world where the universe literally forgets what's big and what's small, why some scientists think this cyclical cosmos is the answer to everything, while others call it pure fantasy - and why both camps might be having religious wars instead of scientific debates. This episode is based on Afshordi and Halper's new book "Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins" from University of Chicago Press, which explores these cosmic battles and 25 different Big Bang models: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo244963115.html --- Find out more about Gaby's science fiction short story! Here are the links for the anthology. The physical copy can be ordered here : https://www.neonhemlock.com/books/luminescent-machinations-queer-tales-of-monumental-invention The ebook can be ordered here: https://www.neonhemlock.com/ebooks/luminescent-machinations-queer-tales-of-monumental-invention

Dive into a compelling discussion of The White Lotus Season 3, Episode 5 as hosts Dan and Charles unpeel layers of hypocrisy, unexpected revelations, and the fascinating ways characters (and people) perform. They explore the episode's subtle genius and its uncomfortable truths about privilege, values, and human behavior.In This Episode:The Unsung Role of the 'Boring' Ladies: Charles acknowledges feeling "bad for how bored I'm getting of the three ladies and their story". Dan, however, highlights their "really important" narrative function, explaining that White included them as a "normal level" to contrast with the "extreme" behaviors in the series. Dan shares how show creator Mike White's inspiration for their dynamic came from observing real-life vacationers gossiping, and Charles then states that this type of gossiping behavior "is not an exclusive behavior to ladies either".Full Moon Festival: A Tale of Two Reactions: The hosts contrast their perceptions of the Full Moon Festival. Charles expresses that it "looks so miserable to me" and he'd "be locked in my hotel room" if he were there. Dan, conversely, wishes his past Times Square New Year's Eve experience "was that much fun" as the festival appeared. Dan then recounts his own "nightmare" experience at Times Square as a college student, detailing issues with crowds, closed businesses, and the lack of bathrooms. Charles shares his strategic approach to crowds at Groundhog Day in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, prioritizing restroom access, leading to a consensus on the value of VIP experiences.The Ratliff Family Dynamics: A Study in Fragility:Saxon's "Secret of Life": The discussion heavily focuses on the Ratliff family. Dan and Charles unpack Saxon's unsettling philosophy that "people are just waiting to be used". Dan offers a more charitable, albeit stretched, interpretation of Saxon's comment, linking it to Piper's quest for purpose at the meditation center. Charles calls this a "charitable interpretation" that is "over the top".Hypocrisy and Peer Pressure: Charles highlights Saxon's hypocrisy, noting his judgmental stance on MDMA despite being a perpetual Adderall user. Both hosts share personal insights into peer pressure. Dan admits to sometimes giving in to friends' pushes despite later resentment. Charles boasts of resisting social influence, even threatening to "ruin the night for everybody else" before doing something he didn't want to do.The Sibling Kiss & Family Taboos: They analyze the shocking sibling kiss between Lachlan and Saxon, noting Chloe as the instigator. Dan links this behavior to the family's awkward history with sex, describing it as "taboo" and "handled awkwardly". Charles expresses disbelief at crossing such boundaries, even under the influence of drugs.Parental Values & Modeling Behavior: Charles criticizes the parents' failure to instill strong values, emphasizing that children "model what you do, not what you tell them". Dan points out that kids often model behavior from online sources, such as YouTubers.Timothy's Descent and Gaitok's Dilemma: The hosts delve into Timothy's alarming spiral into suicidal ideation after stealing a gun. Charles critiques Gaitok's decision to delay immediate action, viewing it as a selfish choice to protect his job over a pending emergency. They discuss the inadequacy of Victoria's attempts to comfort Timothy by highlighting his privilege, agreeing that such responses miss the point when someone is distressed.Rick and Frank: Over-Sharing, Empathy, and Performance: Charles shares a compelling personal anecdote about meeting former addicts in Bible college who traded old addictions for a new one: constantly discussing their past. This frames their analysis of Support the show

In this episode of Catholic Answers Live, we explore a fascinating Gospel mystery: When Jesus began His public ministry, did anyone recognize Him as the same child who once astonished the elders in the Temple? We dig into Scripture and tradition to consider whether that moment left a lasting impression—and why the Gospels remain silent on this point. Help support the work we do by donating! Catholicanswersradio.com Join The CA Live Club Newsletter: Click Here Invite our apologists to speak at your parish! Visit Catholicanswersspeakers.com Questions Covered: 02:45 – I hope this email finds you well. I'm a longtime admirer of your work in Catholic apologetics and your thoughtful approach to complex questions. I have a hypothetical theological question inspired by the movie Groundhog Day that I'd love to hear your perspective on. In the film, Phil Connors is trapped in a time loop, reliving February 2nd repeatedly, with only his memory carrying over each day. From a Catholic perspective, if someone in a real-life time loop committed sins during earlier iterations of the loop, but then they broke the cycle, waking up on February 3rd, would they need to confess the sins from the previous loops? Since the loop resets the world and only the person remembers their actions, do those sins carry moral or sacramental weight after the loop ends? 12:18 – Hi, I am a mega fan of Jimmy Akin’s Mysterious World, I am fourteen and I have a weird question for you. First, in Lord of the Rings, how culpable are people for mortal sin when they wear the One Ring? I am asking because it is possible to ignore the temptation of the Ring. 20:20 – My second question is does the Holy Spirit guide other sects of the Catholic church such as Greek Orthodox or the Coptic? Keep the great work up, and it would make my day if you answer my questions on weird questions with Jimmy Akin. 22:28 – Is the website created by soon to be canonized Bl. Carlos Acutis a relic? For that matter, are the writings of Saints, whether in written or digital form, relics? 28:45 – Studies show that everyone likely has at least one doppelgänger. Could it be when we make life altering decisions, that a doppelgänger is actually split from us and onto a separate timeline? Like, for example, what if a doppelgänger of me actually stayed with that guy I dated and is now living the life I would have led had I not dumped him? 35:15 – Everyone seems to believe aliens, if they exist, must be strange and non-human like. But, isn't it possible that life on another earth like planet could mirror ours? And, if so, what if the mysterious Man from Taured was actually an alien human from another earth like planet? 46:30 – Could Melchizedek have been a Zoroastrian?

From 'Play Tessie' (subscribe here): Another day, another disappointing way for the Red Sox to lose one-run games. Gordo, Sammy, and Pat share their frustrations on why the same mistakes and errors keep getting made. Also, wondering if its time to throw in the white flag on the 2025 season this early. And, reports of the Padres potentially having interest in Jarren Duran seemingly could make him the odd outfielder out. Would this be the right trade for the Sox to make? To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

From 'Play Tessie' (subscribe here): Another day, another disappointing way for the Red Sox to lose one-run games. Gordo, Sammy, and Pat share their frustrations on why the same mistakes and errors keep getting made. Also, wondering if its time to throw in the white flag on the 2025 season this early. And, reports of the Padres potentially having interest in Jarren Duran seemingly could make him the odd outfielder out. Would this be the right trade for the Sox to make? To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

https://vimeo.com/1084072093?share=copy You know that feeling of GroundHog Day, where no matter what you do that pattern is just repeating again, and then again, and then again, and then again, and again til you're just like, you know what,  I'm really done with that pattern.  Well your subconscious is running the show and creating that pattern again, and you can shift it. Today's conversation with  Judy Kane gives us a way forward. Tune in to find out more! Judy Kane gave many years of her professional life to IT management. After seeing PSYCH-K in action, she knew she had to learn to facilitate it to help herself and others. Fourteen years later, Judy Kane has had extensive training in the principles and processes used in PSYCH-K.  Judy Kane teaches  PSYCH-K at workshops offered to professional behavioral, health and life coaches.  Judy works virtually with individual clients from around the world. She is committed to partnering with her clients, encouraging them to access their inner wisdom and discover what beliefs are holding them back from the life they really want. Judy Kane uses muscle testing to confirm what beliefs are not supported in the subconscious mind. Together, Judy and her clients identify what changes need to be made and the steps to take in order to make those changes happen. The creation of new subconscious beliefs that align with conscious goals are the result. Watch or listen to the show to discover ways to create new subconscious beliefs that align with your conscious goals. You're Invited! READ: Your 4 Truths https://www.amazon.com/Your4Truths-Beliefs-Impact-Your-Life/dp/1737263815/ FREE RESOURCES: 7 Signs Your Subconscious Is Running the Show https://www.alignedconsciousness.com/resources/   JUDY KANE BIO Judy Kane, author of "Your4Truths: How Beliefs Impact Your Life," is a transformative coach dedicated to helping individuals get past barriers that are keeping them stuck or causing them discomfort. She helps people change the limiting, subconscious beliefs that are holding them back. Through speaking engagements, workshops, and individual client work, Judy empowers others to achieve their goals. LINKS Web:http://www.alignedconsciousness.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/judy.kane.5/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/judykanepsychk/   YOUR GUIDE TO SOUL NECTAR: KERRI HUMMINGBIRD I love mentoring women to rewrite the story of their lives through inner transformation, connection to essence, remembrance of purpose, and realignment to authenticity and truth. If you don't want to settle for anything less than a life of passion and purpose, book a Discovery Call and let's talk! Schedule today! http://bit.ly/2CpFHFZ FREE GIFT: The Love Mastery Game, an oracle for revealing your soul's curriculum in every day challenges. http://www.kerrihummingbird.com/play JOIN SOUL NECTAR TRIBE! https://kerrihummingbird.com/membership Do you lack the confidence to trust yourself and go for what you want? When you take actions towards your dreams, does self-doubt infect your certainty? Do you find yourself distracting and numbing while also feeling something is missing inside? Do you feel disrespected and like your wisdom is being dismissed? Do you have a hard time asking for what you need? You may benefit from healing the Mother Wound and reconnecting with the Divine Mother for love. Find out more at www.motherwoundbook.com You may be a member of The Second Wave, here to uplift human consciousness from the inside out by healing patterns of suffering that run through your ancestry. Find out about “The Second Wave: Transcending the Human Drama” and receive a guided meditation at www.thesecondwave.media

Hey Team, hope you’re great! I’m being an awesome son for a day or two, so I thought we’d revisit this episode that I recorded a while back, which was really well received, and I think it might be timely for some at the moment. *Treading water. Spinning our metaphoric wheels. Stuck in a Groundhog Day of mediocrity, dissatisfaction and frustration. Wasted time, talent and energy. Thinking, habits, behaviours, rituals and fears that keep us trapped in a prison of our own making. This episode is a workshop (of sorts) about stepping up, breaking through and getting unstuck. Enjoy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hey Team, hope you’re great! I’m being an awesome son for a day or two, so I thought we’d revisit this episode that I recorded a while back, which was really well received, and I think it might be timely for some at the moment. *Treading water. Spinning our metaphoric wheels. Stuck in a Groundhog Day of mediocrity, dissatisfaction and frustration. Wasted time, talent and energy. Thinking, habits, behaviours, rituals and fears that keep us trapped in a prison of our own making. This episode is a workshop (of sorts) about stepping up, breaking through and getting unstuck. Enjoy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Do we think this movie is super duper or should it be burned with fire?Welcome to the Movies to Watch Before You Die Podcast with Gab and Dylan!Movies To Watch Before You Die merch here - https://moviestowatchbeforeyoudie-shop.fourthwall.com/Look up the movie here - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095705/Find us everywhere here - https://linktr.ee/moviestowatchbeforeyoudie00:00 Welcome01:28 What's it about?03:52 Verdicts07:51 Opinion Time25:13 Let's get to the facts34:02 Mail Time39:51 Verdicts, againWe're a member of the Hall of Pods, find links for our podcasting friends here - https://linktr.ee/hallofpodsWho are we: A former actress and video editor but more than anything we're movie fans like you.Why listen? Why not! We're gonna talk about movies you love, movies you hate, and movies you've never heard of. We can't wait to hear what you think of them too. If you want to tell us your opinion on whether or not a movie is one we should watch before we die, tell us we're wrong, or tell us you like the show send us an email or voice message at moviestowatchbeforeyoudie@gmail.com . We can't wait to hear from you and we can't wait to talk movies!Thanks to Scott Interrante for the music in our intro!Thanks to Brian Maneely for our artwork!Movies Dylan and Gab agree you should watch before you die: Vampire's Kiss, Die Hard, Tropic Thunder, Wag the Dog, The Legend of Billie Jean, You've Got Mail, True Lies, The Room, Game Night, The Truman Show, The Great Gatsby, Whiplash, The Lost Boys, The Fugitive, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, My Cousin Vinny, Shutter Island, Starship Troopers, Big, Joy Ride, The Jerk, Alien/Aliens, Best in Show, Freaky Friday, Over the Garden Wall, North, Catch Me If You Can, Clue, Jerry Maguire, Groundhog Day, The Great Mouse Detective, Chicago, Wall-E, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Breakdown, Cool Runnings, Ruthless People, Mean Girls, Borat, A League of Their Own, City Slickers, Jingle All the Way, Saw, The Lion King, Little Big League, and The Naked Gun

Murph & Markus - The Big Hit: Is it Groundhog Day? Giants fall to Tigers 3-1 (again!) & did Bob Melvin get ejected to fire up the team?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Murph & Markus - Hour 1: Is it Groundhog Day? Giants fall to Tigers 3-1 (again!) & did Bob Melvin get ejected to fire up the team?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Murph & Markus - Hour 1: Is it Groundhog Day? Giants fall to Tigers 3-1 (again!) & did Bob Melvin get ejected to fire up the team?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Murph & Markus - The Big Hit: Is it Groundhog Day? Giants fall to Tigers 3-1 (again!) & did Bob Melvin get ejected to fire up the team?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Subscribe to Bright Side Daily

One listener comes to us with a demand for an apology to Terence, and Eoin and Calvin are getting caught in the crossfire.There's a chance at living a Groundhog Day, and Terry finds the perfect 24 hours to re-live.Calvin makes the case for the greatness of the octopus, but Terry has a problem with the lack of effort and commitment shown by the animals in the zoo, and he's offering sly digs as show of his love.Send all of your questions and comments to talkingbollox@goloudnow.com

Some of you may remember the movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray. The plot was based on the same day repeating over and over again. Each new day was the same day as before. Oftentimes, today's conservative news cycle feels just about the same. When do we break free? When will there be real change? Now, do you believe in this ministry? If you do, you can keep us on the air as a radio program and podcast by visiting our website, It is vastly more urgent than ever that you do. https://truth2ponder.com/support. You can also mail a check payable to Ancient Word Radio, P.O. Box 510, Chilhowie, VA 24319. Thank you in advance for your faithfulness to this ministry.

In this episode, Carly and Joe chat with Karen King, aka The Escapepreneur, about what it really takes to build a business that lets you work from anywhere. From discovering your true passions to keeping things ridiculously simple (think: Facebook group + PayPal), Karen shares her journey from burnout to freedom and how you can do the same. Whether you're craving more flexibility, family time, or just want out of your Groundhog Day routine, this conversation will have you rethinking what's possible, and maybe even booking a one-way ticket.Being a solopreneur is awesome but it's not easy. It's hard to get noticed. Most business advice is for bigger companies, and you're all alone...until now. LifeStarr's SoloSuite Intro gives you free education, community, and tools to build a thriving one-person business.  So, if you are lacking direction, having a hard time generating leads, or are having trouble keeping up with everything you have to do, or even just lonely running a company of one, be sure to check out LifeStarr Intro!Access LifeStarr Intro

Another night, another lifeless Pirates offense. In this episode of the North Shore Nine Postgame Show powered by Primanti Bros, Neil and Doug react to the Pirates' 7–1 loss to the Reds and dive into the all-too-familiar script: wasted starting pitching, a bullpen collapse, and zero offensive spark. They break down: The repeat failures of the Pirates' hitting approach Bullpen arms that were supposed to be reliable but aren't Whether anything can realistically change under the current regime Why this feels like Groundhog Day all over again RSVP to the NS9 Tailgate on May 24th at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/ns9-tailgate-tickets-1320142454619?aff=oddtdtcreator Use Promo Code NS930 for 30% off your first order at https://www.defer.coffee Use Promo Code NS9 for 30% off your first order at https://www.gritily.com Use Promo Code NORTHSHORENINE for $20 off your first order at https://www.seatgeek.com LIKE and SUBSCRIBE with NOTIFICATIONS ON if you enjoyed the show! NS9 MERCH: https://northshorenine.myshopify.com ►Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/NorthShoreNine ►Website: https://www.northshorenine.com ►Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/northshorenine ►TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@northshorenine ►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/northshorenine ►Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northshorenine ►Discord: https://discord.gg/3HVYPg544m ►BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/northshorenine.bsky.social

Another lifeless loss from the Pirates last night has this season turning into Groundhog Day. The Reds left PNC Park with a 7-1 win and a few things from last night annoyed Poni more than usual, capped by David Bednar smiling when he's coming off the mound following a bad outing that allowed the Reds to pile on. The guys feel bad for callers like Chuck in Uniontown, who are seemingly stuck loving this team to no end because of whatever reason. The Pirates are alienating fans with every game.

Another lifeless loss from the Pirates last night has this season turning into Groundhog Day. The Reds left PNC Park with a 7-1 win and a few things from last night annoyed Poni more than usual, capped by David Bednar smiling when he's coming off the mound following a bad outing that allowed the Reds to pile on. The guys feel bad for callers like Chuck in Uniontown, who are seemingly stuck loving this team to no end because of whatever reason. The Pirates are alienating fans with every game. Where are fans at on the Pirates right now? Bucco Minute – Poni was confused by TJ Friedl playing in front of hometown fans. Brett Keisel had a video go viral last night, showing the low attendance at the ballpark.

The Leafs lose yet another game seven and the boys preview the Eastern Conference Final matchups.

Jonas and James dissect another game seven disaster for the Maple Leafs, how a team can have 'too many passengers, and not being on the same page', the failure of the Shanahan plan, and the end of an era for this roster.Hosts: Jonas Siegel and James MirtleProducer: Jeff Domet Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In Episode 2 of I'm in This Movie, Chelsea begins to dive deeper into what drives her - her desire to be kind and to inspire others - through the lens of another of her favorite movies, Groundhog Day! Contact Chelsea Instagram - @ChelseaLeeH17 Letterboxd An American Workplace | A Retrospective The Office Podcast Crossroads of Destiny | An Avatar: TLA Universe Podcast Cinescope Instagram - @cinescopepodcast YouTube Website Email thecinescopepodcast@gmail.com

Matt Crawford speaks with Columbia Law Professor Susan Sturm about her book, What Might Be: Confronting Racism to Transform Our Institutions. Even as anti-racism practices seemed to be gaining momentum, the nation shows signs of falling back into long-standing patterns of racial injustice and inequality. Leaders who introduce anti-racist approaches to their organizations often face backlash from white colleagues and skepticism from colleagues of color, leading to paralysis. In What Might Be, Susan Sturm explores how to navigate the contradictions built into our racialized history, relationships, and institutions. She offers strategies and stories for confronting racism within predominantly white institutions, describing how change agents can move beyond talk to build the architecture of full participation. Sturm argues that although we cannot avoid the contradictions built into efforts to confront racism, we can make them into engines of cross-racial reflection, bridge building, and institutional reimagination, rather than falling into a Groundhog Day–like trap of repeated failures. Drawing on her decades of experience researching and working with institutions to help them become more equitable and inclusive, Sturm identifies three persistent paradoxes inherent in anti-racism work. These are the paradox of racialized power, whereby anti-racism requires white people to lean into and yet step back from exercising power; the paradox of racial salience, which means that effective efforts must explicitly name and address race while also framing their goals in universal terms other than race; and the paradox of racialized institutions, which must drive anti-racism work while simultaneously being the target of it. Sturm shows how people and institutions can cultivate the capacity to straddle these contradictions, enabling those in different racial positions to discover their linked fate and become the catalysts for long-term change.

Is trying to understand spiritual truth a futile task? Is it all beyond words and beyond the logical understanding of the human mind? In this Q&A episode of Wisdom of the Sages, Kaustubha Das, with guest host Kishori Gopi, takes on one of the deepest questions of spiritual life—whether the ultimate reality can be known, described, or even spoken of. Drawing from the ancient dialectic between Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti Vedanta, they explore how the Absolute is perceived across different schools of Indian philosophy, and whether Krishna's teachings are meant to be understood—or simply surrendered to. Then, things get bold and existential: If we're not the body or the mind… why not just commit suicide? This intense question opens the door to a profound discussion on karma, the soul's journey, and why trying to “opt out” is ill advised. Morgan Freeman shows up. So does Groundhog Day. Somehow it all makes sense. Key Highlights * The Bhakti perspective: Krishna can be understood—and described—in rich detail * How Shankara's “neti neti” approach led to the idea of the indescribable Absolute * Karma as a cosmic reformatory system * Why suicide doesn't break the cycle—just moves it like a whack-a-mole * What Newton might say about karma (and why we're not totally convinced) * “They muddy the waters to make them seem deep.” — Nietzsche, and also Kaustubha

You know that meme of Ebenezer Scrooge shouting out the window? “Hey boy, what tariff regime is it today?” Sam Altman again implies ChatGPT usage has exploded. If you're coding with AI, a big new vulnerability you need to know about. And is Apple pivoting the Vision Pro to the type of product I thought they should have done all along?Sponsor:Freshbooks.comLinks:Apple, Nvidia Score Relief From US Tariffs With Exemptions (Bloomberg)Sony raises PlayStation 5 prices in Europe citing ‘challenging' economic environment (CNBC)ChatGPT Hits 1 Billion Users? ‘Doubled In Just Weeks' Says OpenAI CEO (Forbes)LLMs can't stop making up software dependencies and sabotaging everything (The Register)AI-hallucinated code dependencies become new supply chain risk (Bleeping Computer)Apple Readies Pair of Headsets While Still Looking Ahead to Glasses (Bloomberg)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sometimes, the title of a movie manages to become shorthand for entire life situations—think "The Matrix," "Gaslight," and “The Devil Wears Prada.” Also, this collection illustrates my deep appreciation for the pleasure of examples. Resources & links related to this episode: More Happier episode My “24 for 24” list Get in touch: podcast@gretchenrubin.com Visit Gretchen's website to learn more about Gretchen's best-selling books, products from The Happiness Project Collection, and the Happier app. Find the transcript for this episode on the episode details page in the Apple Podcasts app. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.