Podcasts about The Hague

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 178 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Caitlin Byczko, who is partner with Marnes & Thornburg in their IP team. Ken is discussing dupe culture with her. Here is the profile of Caitlin Byczko https://btlaw.com/en/people/caitlin-byczko But before we launch into this very interesting interview, I have some news for you: On August 10th, 2026, Navitas Semiconductor filed suit against Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Renesas of infringing four US patents on gallium nitride semiconductor technology through its SuperGaN product lines. The filing follows a countersuit Renesas brought on July 22nd, 2026, accusing Navitas and two of its employees of misappropriating trade secrets. It shows how patent disputes and trade secret claims between competitors are increasingly being fought on multiple fronts at once, and often as tit for tat. It also emerged on August 12th, 2026, that an EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal by Atlas Global Technologies and ruled that its WiFi patent, EP 3 353 901, case T 1230/25, could not be maintained in any form at all, even though the original opponents, TP-Link and Vantiva, had already withdrawn their oppositions. That knocked out the basis for several parallel infringement suits at the Unified Patent Court, which were then withdrawn. For suppliers and implementers, the takeaway is that fighting a patent held by a non-practising entity can still be worth it, even once the original opponent has thrown in the towel. On August 10th, 2026, the Unified Patent Court in The Hague fully revoked Maxell’s patent EP 2 061 230, covering technology for handing off content to a second device, and at the same time dismissed Maxell’s infringement claim against several Samsung entities, in cases UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025. The judges found the patent to be nothing more than an obvious combination of routine adaptations, with no additional technical effect. And now – let's hear the interview with Ken and Caitlin! A dupe used to be a quiet, slow thing. You’d stand in the cereal aisle, notice the generic box next to the name brand, buy it, tell a friend. Word spread over months. That world is gone. On this episode of IP Fridays, Ken Suzan sat down with Caitlin Byczko, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, to talk about what’s replaced it: a TikTok-driven economy where a single video can sell out a dupe product within hours, sometimes before the original brand’s own team even knows it exists. Byczko litigates and prosecutes trademarks across retail, fashion, luxury goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals, and she’s watched dupe culture evolve from a marketing footnote into one of the more active battlegrounds in trademark law. Here’s what she told us, and why it matters even if your brand has never heard the word “dupe” used about it. Counterfeit and Dupe Are Not the Same Thing, Legally Byczko opened with what she called the most important distinction in this entire conversation: the difference between a counterfeit and a dupe. A counterfeit uses someone else’s actual trademark. Think of a fake Chanel bag stamped with the interlocking C’s, or a fake Louis Vuitton logo. That’s straightforward infringement, and above certain thresholds, a federal crime. A dupe is different. It mimics the look, feel, or performance of a product without using the name or the logo at all. Elf Cosmetics, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, and Quince have all built parts of their business on exactly this model. No one is pretending to be Chanel. They’re offering something that looks and performs similarly, at a fraction of the price, under their own name. Media and social media use “dupe” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. Legally, that’s sloppy, and it matters, because the two categories trigger completely different legal analyses. If There’s No Logo, What Are Brands Actually Suing Over? This is where trade dress comes in. Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product: packaging, color combinations, shape, label design. Byczko pointed out that most of us interact with trade-dress-protected products every day without realizing it. The test is likelihood of confusion. Courts look at how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, and whether there’s real evidence that people were confused. Byczko flagged one case as a genuine roadmap for this area: Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery, an ice cream trade dress dispute that came out of the Eastern District of New York. In her view, the strength of that case came down to how precisely the brand defined its trade dress for the packaging. That precision, she said, did a lot of the work toward the outcome. She’s also watching Lululemon v. Costco, which she expects to be significant partly because it doesn’t rely on trademark and trade dress alone. Byczko noted that brands are increasingly stacking causes of action together: trademark, patent, false advertising, all pointing at the same product. And she’s tracking Sol de Janeiro v. Macau Beauty, a case she finds notable because it pulls in influencer content and testimonials as evidence, not just packaging and trade dress claims. Macau Beauty, she noted, has already been sued multiple times across different jurisdictions. A note for readers outside the US: trade dress as a distinct doctrine doesn’t exist as such in Germany. The closest tools here are the three-dimensional trademark and, more practically, the wettbewerbsrechtlicher Nachahmungsschutz under Section 4 No. 3 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). That provision protects product shape, packaging, and get-up against imitation when the original has wettbewerbliche Eigenart, competitive distinctiveness, and the copy creates avoidable confusion about origin, unfairly exploits the original’s reputation, or was built on dishonestly obtained know-how. It’s a narrower, more fact-specific tool than US trade dress, but the underlying logic Byczko describes, define your product’s distinctive features early and precisely, applies just as much on this side of the Atlantic. Why the Evidence Problem Changed Everything Ken asked what’s actually driving the current wave of disputes, and Byczko’s answer was simple: evidence. Ten or twenty years ago, if you sent a cease-and-desist letter or went to trial, you had almost nothing concrete to show about how consumers actually perceived two products. Now you have TikTok comment sections, influencer testimonials, and entire genres of “dupe content” documenting exactly what shoppers think, in their own words, in real time. In the Sol de Janeiro case, Byczko noted that part of the complaint isn’t just about packaging and trade dress. It’s about what influencers said, what claims they made, and what that content reveals about actual consumer confusion or the absence of it. That’s evidence litigators simply didn’t have access to a decade ago, and it cuts both ways: it can prove confusion, or it can just as easily prove there wasn’t any. Why Dupes Took Off: Economics, Status, and a Generational Shift Byczko was careful to frame this part as her personal read, not a sociologist’s conclusion, but it’s a read shaped by watching these disputes up close. Part of it is straightforward economics. Gen Z is shopping under real affordability pressure, and dupes let them participate in trend cycles without the price tag. Byczko cited a projected $12.6 trillion in Gen Z spending power by 2030, a generation too significant for brands to write off. The other part is cultural. A generation ago, owning a visible logo was the status symbol. Now, for a lot of younger shoppers, being the savvy one, the person who finds the dupe first and tells their followers about it, carries its own status. It’s less “I have the real thing” and more “I outsmarted the markup.” Byczko also pointed to growing public skepticism toward paying five or ten times more for a product purely because of the name on the packaging, particularly in beauty and fashion. The PR Trap: When Enforcement Backfires One of the sharpest points in the conversation was about what happens after a brand decides to enforce. Suing over a dupe can read very differently in public than it does in a courtroom. Byczko put it directly: going after a dupe can easily look, to the public, like a big corporation coming down on a small competitor, or worse, on its own customers, the same people who made the original brand aspirational in the first place. She’s seen this dynamic play out repeatedly in high-profile cases. Her advice: treat enforcement as a communication strategy, not just a legal one. Sometimes the smarter move isn’t a lawsuit at all. It’s a quieter cease-and-desist letter, a takedown request, or doubling down on marketing that explains what actually makes the original worth the price. Charlotte Tilbury has leaned hard into this approach, building campaigns around the idea that the original simply can’t be remade. Olaplex ran a similar play with its “OlaDupe” campaign. Legal and marketing, Byczko said, have to work together on this, not in sequence. What Brands Should Actually Do Byczko laid out three practical layers, all before litigation ever enters the picture. First: register your trademarks, and where a product design is genuinely distinctive, pursue trade dress or design patent protection early, before a dupe exists and before you know whether the product will even take off. That timing problem is real. Brands rarely know in advance which product will become the one worth copying. Her advice was to look at long-standing anchor products, the ones that have quietly carried a brand identity for years, and ask whether they’re actually protected. Second: monitor. A large share of dupe disputes start on social media, not in a courtroom. That means someone needs to be watching hashtags and influencer content, not just from direct competitors, but from adjacent or even unrelated brands that could end up duping a product without anyone noticing until it’s already trending. Third, and the one Byczko clearly considers most underused: consumer education and brand storytelling. “This is the original” is a weak pitch on its own in a market flooded with cheap alternatives. What works better is explaining, specifically, what makes a product different: its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity. Give people a real reason to pay more, not just a claim to authenticity. Where This Goes Next Byczko doesn’t think dupe culture is a passing trend. Her expectation is closer to “there will eventually be a dupe of everything,” and she’s watching an interesting generational pattern where teenage shoppers are teaching their mothers about dupes, who are in turn teaching their own mothers. On the legal side, she expects more clarity as cases like Van Leeuwen work their way through the system, giving brands a clearer formula for how to define and defend trade dress. On the brand side, she expects less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in what’s genuinely hard to copy: real innovation, ingredient transparency, and storytelling that a dupe simply can’t replicate. One data point she raised stuck with us: search interest in the word “craftsmanship” is at its highest point in twenty years. After years of leaning into dupe culture, there are signs some consumers are swinging back toward wanting the original, the real ingredient, the real technique, the thing that can’t be copied to the same quality. For brands sitting on distinctive packaging, a signature shape, or a product identity they’ve never formally registered, that’s less a trend forecast than a to-do list. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Ralf. Our guest today on the IP Friday’s podcast is Caitlin Byczko. Caitlin is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg LLP and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Caitlin crafts and defends global brand strategies, protecting intellectual property assets with creative solutions and highly tactical advocacy. She excels in trademark prosecution and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and federal district courts, safeguarding trademarks and digital properties for businesses of all sizes and at every stage of the business life cycle. From startups to Fortune 500 companies, Caitlin manages clients’ intellectual property needs across diverse industries. Her experience spans retail, fashion, luxury goods, sports, technology, agriculture, venture capital and pharmaceuticals. Beyond trademark law, Caitlin brings valuable insights from her law school experience with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, and her previous work serving in a technology company’s in-house legal department. Her tenacious nature and clever problem-solving skills shine through in complex matters, earning praise from clients and colleagues alike. Caitlin is co-author of “Dupe Culture Meets the Courtroom,” published in Global Cosmetic Industry on March 16, 2026. Welcome, Caitlin, to the IP Friday’s podcast. Caitlin Byczko: Hi, Ken. Thank you so much. I’m very honored to be here. Ken Suzan: Yeah, so Caitlin, today we’re talking about dupe culture, a topic that is rapidly becoming front for many brands around the world. What’s the actual difference between a dupe and a counterfeit? Caitlin Byczko: That is one of my favorite questions. This is the most important distinction to draw when we are talking legally about dupes because the difference, because media and social media often use the words interchangeably and legally they’re very different. A counterfeit is a product that uses someone else’s actual trademark. We often think of a fake Chanel bag with interlocking C’s or a fake Louis Vuitton. It’s relatively straightforward trademark infringement and generally above certain thresholds is a federal crime. A dupe, by contrast, is a product that mimics the look, feel, or performance product without actually using the name or logo. We often think of it in the beauty products, in the fashion space, some brands like Elf Cosmetics, which was in the article you just mentioned, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, Quince, who are all very well known in the dupe space. Ken Suzan: What has led to the rise of dupe culture? I’m reading about it virtually every day. Caitlin Byczko: I feel very strongly about this and I’m always talking about it in my legal and non-legal worlds. It’s a very interesting societal change that I think we’ve seen over the past year. I am a lawyer, I am not a marketer, I am not a sociologist, but in my opinion, social media and influencer culture specifically has really created the kind of rise in dupes that we see today. I don’t think we can talk about modern dupe culture without talking about TikTok specifically. Dupe content is its own genre, essentially on TikTok and on Instagram. There’s a whole vocabulary that people are dupe influencers, where their whole product, everything that they’re doing and selling, all of the content they’re making is dupe related. What’s really changed is the speed, I think, around when other products or when a dupe product comes out, how it can be marketed and how people can find out about it. The speed of commerce itself has increased wildly as a result, in part because of social media. A product used to take months to build a reputation as a good alternative. When we think about things, generic cereal is one thing that I have been talking about with my parents with respect to dupe culture. It was one of the things that there used to be, you would go to the store and there would be the cereal, the name brand cereal, and then there would be the generic version of the cereal, which was usually less expensive. That in a way was a dupe. It took a long time. Your friends knew about the dupe cereal and then you knew about the dupe cereal. Then it all got around. Now a single video can send a dupe product sold out within days, within hours sometimes. Oftentimes, a brand’s own team doesn’t even know about the dupe until it’s already been wildly out. Part of it becomes this legal issue when there are claims coming around the dupe. In the Sol de Janeiro case against Macau Beauty, part of the complaint isn’t just about the trade dress and the packaging, which I think we’ll talk about. It’s about the influencer content and the testimonials and what people are saying about the dupes. There’s so much evidence now and there’s so much content and there’s so much out there regarding dupes on social media, on TikTok, and in other places. Ken Suzan: Yeah, and it’s an ever-evolving story. Every day there’s new social media content, more evidence for a potential gain, right? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. Ken Suzan: So if dupes aren’t using a particular brand name, how are companies suing over them at all? Caitlin Byczko: So this is really where trade dress comes in, and trade dress, as most of us know, has been around for a long time. There are a lot of very well-known things that you probably see or use every day that you don’t know are protected by trade dress, but they are. And the trade dress protects the overall kind of look and feel of a product. So if you think about things like packaging, color combinations, shape, label design, when that becomes distinctive enough, right? When consumers see that and kind of immediately understand it has the secondary meaning related to the brand owner, then it can become a protectable trademark. And so the test for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion. And courts will look at the factors of how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, whether there’s evidence that people were actually confused. I think one of the big cases in the trade dress space that came out since you and I discussed originally, Ken, is the Van Leeuwen versus Rebel Creamery ice cream case. And so for any of those interested, it’s a very interesting opinion. It just came out of the Eastern District of New York. I think that really helps people, brands specifically, kind of provide a roadmap with respect to how to define a trade dress. I think they did an excellent job there defining what the trade dress was for the packaging. And I think that that had a lot to do with the success. Ken Suzan: Yes. Ken Suzan: Why do you think younger consumers gravitate towards dupes so much more than past generations did? Caitlin Byczko: I think there are a few things that are kind of top of each other. The obvious one is economics. I think younger consumers, especially Gen Z, they’re shopping in an environment where there’s affordability pressure. And I think that dupes let them participate in certain trend cycles without the price tag. Gen Z is a significant demographic behind the growth of dupes. And they have a predicted spending power we saw recently, $12.6 trillion by 2030. Ken Suzan: Wow. That’s incredible. Caitlin Byczko: I think it is really also coupled with more of what I would say is a cultural shift. Again, I am a lawyer and this is just my opinion. But what feels aspirational is really changing, I think. And a generation ago, we saw in the fashion world, there was a really big, people really liked logos. Having a logo, owning a logo was the point. And now for a lot of younger shoppers or even more savvy shoppers, actually being a savvy shopper is the status symbol itself. So for a lot of creators, finding the dupe before anyone else or being the one who tells your followers about the dupe really has its own, and it’s less “I have this real thing” and more, “oh, I outsmarted the markup.” And I think it’s that kind of value. I think younger consumers are more publicly skeptical of the idea that something is worth five or ten times more just because of the name on the packaging. And I think that that becomes the case particularly in beauty and then clothing as well. And so I think it’s coupled with the question of craftsmanship and all of these different things. Like we can’t view anything in a vacuum, which is why I could talk for 500 years about this topic. Ken Suzan: Yeah, definitely. Now brands obviously want to protect themselves. That’s an important thing. But going after a dupe can backfire publicly, particularly on the internet. Can you comment on this possibility and what should brands do? Caitlin Byczko: Sure. I think the biggest thing is what you just said. So I think there’s the legal component. And when we’re assessing this for one of our brand clients, I think we cannot review one without the other. So I think you have to say, do we have this claim? Do we have a protectable trade dress or a look and feel claim? And what is the potential backlash in the public? I think it is also a joint PR concern, because what we see is suing over a dupe can very easily read to the public as, oh, this big brand or big corporation is coming down on a small competitor or on its own customers that made the original brand aspirational. I think that we see this in a lot of the big cases that are out right now. So brands, I think, can start to think about enforcement as a communication strategy first, because sometimes the smarter play isn’t necessarily filing a lawsuit. It’s kind of a quieter cease and desist, a takedown request, or separately, it might be really doubling down on the craftsmanship or on a marketing side of what makes the product worth the price. I think Charlotte Tilbury is a great example of this, who’s really leaned into this kind of “can’t be duped” or “you can’t remake the original” with respect to some of their really core products. And so I think people really need to, or brands really need to, assess: one, how can we define what it is that’s being duped? And again, that’s where I think that Van Leeuwen case, I think, will be really interesting over the next few years, with respect to kind of providing this roadmap to help people say, here is a way that we can try to really define what the trade dress is and then be able to protect it and be able to enforce it. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, are there cases right now, I know we just talked about the Van Leeuwen case, but are there cases right now that you think will actually set the tone for how this area of law develops? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. And I think some of the cases probably are even in the works, they’re not even filed yet, which is probably very exciting to us as trademark nerds. I do think the Lululemon versus Costco case will be a big one. It’s not just trademarks and trade dress, as many of them are not. I think a lot of times we see in these cases brands are very smartly using kind of all of the different types of causes of action that they bring: trademark, patent, false advertising, a lot of different things. And so I think that that one is definitely certainly one to watch kind of in the fashion space. And then the Sol de Janeiro versus Macau Beauty. Macau Beauty has been sued multiple times, I think, in various jurisdictions. And so I think part of that one is very interesting to me because I think it’s this, it loops not only trademark protection, but also it brings in false advertising, it brings in influencers, it brings in all of these different things. And so I think, like we had talked about previously, nothing is really viewed in a vacuum. And I think for all of these cases, one really important thing, maybe that we didn’t necessarily have access to 10 years ago, or certainly 20 years ago, is this like just ripe amount of evidence of potential confusion or potential non-confusion. When we go on social media and look at all of these things, and then read the comments and all of this different data that’s out there, it’s fascinating, because if you’re in trial, or if you’re going to trial, you’re sending a cease and desist letter, like there is evidence of what the consumers think right here in front of you, right? And the weight of that evidence obviously depends on what it is. But it’s fascinating the way that you can very quickly identify, you know, is there confusion? Is there not confusion, in a way that you likely could never have even thought to consider 10 to 20 years ago? Ken Suzan: Now beyond litigation, what should brands actually be doing to protect themselves in a dupe-driven market? Caitlin Byczko: I think one of the best things that we can do, right, is starting to register the trademarks. I think that’s an obvious one. And really start to consider where the product is genuinely distinctive. And so if it is genuinely distinctive, pursuing a trade dress or a design patent early, before a dupe exists, before anything happens. And I know that can be difficult, because oftentimes brands don’t know for sure what’s going to take off and what’s not. It can also be a surprise. But I think it’s really pushing brands that when you are innovating and when you are doing something that is truly unique and truly distinctive, or when you’re looking back on your brand assets and saying, this thing has been an anchor brand asset for 10 years, you know, have we sought trade dress protection? Is there a way that we can do that? The second layer really is monitoring, in my mind, because a lot of dupe disputes do start on social media. And I think it is important to have people within a company, if you have a product that you’re really keeping an eye on, or that you’re concerned about being duped or causing confusion, having someone who is keeping eyes on hashtags and influencer content and all of these various things. You know, we’re not watching just your direct competitors, we’re watching other completely different brands, or kind of made-up brands even, who could be duping the product. And then I think the third thing that I see as very important is this kind of consumer education and brand storytelling, which is when we kind of get outside of the purely legal side of it. And, you know, legal and marketing and brand and social kind of all need to work together, right? I think if the only pitch to consumers is “this is the original,” it kind of becomes a weak argument in a market where there are cheap alternatives everywhere. But I think the brands that really explain what actually makes their product different, in its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity, it really gives people a real reason to say, I want to pay more for this brand because of XYZ, you know, the technology or whatever that is. Charlotte Tilbury is one that I had mentioned. I know Olaplex kind of had a big campaign around “OlaDupe” is what they called it. So I think really unique and interesting marketing also assists with that. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, where do you see dupe culture heading? Is this a trend that plateaus or does it fundamentally change how brands operate? Caitlin Byczko: I think dupe culture itself is here to stay. I mean, I think we are only getting into a world where there is truly going to be a dupe of everything. And it’s not good or bad necessarily. I think it is just where we are in life. And I think, you know, things serve different purposes. And it all depends a lot on how the younger consumers shop. And it’s also changing how older consumers shop. You know, I’ve read a lot about teenage girls teaching their moms about dupes, who are then teaching their grandmothers about dupes, right? So on the legal side, I think we will get clarity eventually. I think right around, you know, all like all of these things, which seem so complex, and we’ll never know the answer. You know, five [years] from now, we will probably have certainly more clarity, because a lot of these cases will move forward. You know, the Van Leeuwen one, which I’ve now talked about multiple times, but I just obviously think it’s very fascinating. I think that that’s one where you have a roadmap, right? And it may be contested, or, you know, everything is very fact-specific in the trademark world. But I think it will open the door to allow people one more aggressive brand enforcement. But it will give people a roadmap proactively to kind of say, if we follow this formula for our trade dress, or, you know, defining our trade dress, then, you know, we have something we can potentially protect. And then I think on the brand side, we’ll likely see less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in things that are actually, you know, difficult to dupe: innovation, ingredient transparency, marketing, genuinely interesting brand storytelling is something that we’ve seen. I read this past week that searches for craftsmanship, just like generally the word craftsmanship, and kind of products with craftsmanship, is at an all-time high, than it’s been in like the past 20 years. And so it’s interesting, right, that we have gone from this kind of luxury item or high craftsmanship to this dupe culture that we are in now. But there is some potential shift where people are saying, you know, now, I’ve seen all of this and I have all of these options, but now actually what I do care about is the original, right, the innovation or the ingredient transparency or all of those things that can’t necessarily be copied to the same quality. So it’s why it will just provide us with endless topic of discussion, because I think it will only just keep changing forever. Ken Suzan: That’s right. Caitlin, I want to thank you for spending time with us on the IP Friday’s podcast. This has been very insightful, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about this issue in the months and years to come. Caitlin Byczko: Thank you so much, Ken. I really appreciate it. Ken Suzan: Thank you.

Devastating flash floods have killed more than 350 people near Nepal's border with Tibet. But the death toll remains fluid, with some 1,000 people still unaccounted for. Also, wildfires have raged for weeks in Indonesia, with smoke spreading into neighboring countries. And, former Serbian General Ratko Mladic, known as the "Butcher of Bosnia," has died at the age of 84 in a prison hospital at The Hague, where he was serving a life sentence. Plus, Paris opens its first shop devoted exclusively to French butter. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Why information can be hard to come by after the disastrous flash floods that have had hit Nepal and neighbouring Tibet, especially on the Chinese side of the border.Also in the programme: Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb commander who oversaw the worst atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, has died in prison in The Hague; the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - is finally given a trial date, in June 2028; and how climate change-related heatwaves in the Alps and Jura are likely to change the flavour of some prized French cheeses.(IMAGE: Flood survivor return to home following a flash flood in Devighat Village, Nuwakot district, Nepal, 27 August 2026 / CREDIT: Narendra Shrestha / EPA / Shutterstock)

The campaign against international justice is no longer taking place behind closed doors. The U.S. State Department has explicitly outlined plans to dismantle the International Criminal Court (ICC) and disable its operational capacity. With executive orders imposing aggressive financial sanctions against judges, prosecutors, and human rights investigators, international law is facing an unprecedented existential challenge. Independent media has never been more important. Please support this channel by subscribing here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g?sub_confirmation=1 Join this channel with a membership for exclusive early access and bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkbwLFZhawBqK2b9gW08z3g/join Five Minute News is a MeidasTouch Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world. Visit us online at http://www.fiveminute.news Follow us on Bluesky https://bsky.app/profile/fiveminutenews.bsky.social Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/fiveminnews Support us on Patreon http://www.patreon.com/fiveminutenews You can subscribe to Five Minute News with your preferred podcast app, ask your smart speaker, or enable Five Minute News as your Amazon Alexa Flash Briefing skill. CONTENT DISCLAIMER The views and opinions expressed on this channel are those of the guests and authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Anthony Davis or Five Minute News LLC. Any content provided by our hosts, guests or authors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything, in line with the First Amendment right to free and protected speech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Somewhere along the way, acting on a threat to all of humanity became a political act. Not a simple matter of science and economics, but a signal of whose side you are on.So, what would it take to change the political narrative around climate? This week, Christiana Figueres, Tom Rivett-Carnac and Paul Dickinson answer some difficult questions gathered for our live event at Bath Abbey, postponed when extreme heat made the venue unsafe - as if we needed another reminder of the urgency of this crisis.They ask: can we lift the climate out of party politics altogether? Does real leverage sit with the decisions made in national capitals, or is it only on the COP conference floor while the cameras are rolling? And if vested interests and lobbying can't be removed, how do we meet them head on, with an equal and opposite force.This episode tries to answer the challenge we all face: do we seek to depoliticise this crisis, or fight for it in the open? And, now that the climate crisis has become a political hot potato, can we change course in time?Learn More

I've seen a lot of people on social media expressing sadness and grief at the news of Biden's situation, and I agree it is very sad that this is happening. Joe Biden shouldn't be sitting at home dying of cancer, he should be sitting in a cell at The Hague dying of cancer. Reading by Tim Foley.

Từ sau Chiến tranh Triều Tiên, hàng trăm nghìn trẻ em Hàn Quốc đã được đưa ra nước ngoài làm con nuôi và Mỹ là điểm đến lớn nhất. Với nhiều gia đình phương Tây, đây từng được xem là hành động nhân đạo: cứu giúp những đứa trẻ mồ côi, nghèo đói, không có tương lai trong một đất nước vừa  ra khỏi chiến tranh. Nhưng sau hơn 70 năm, những câu chuyện được kể lại từ chính người con nuôi Hàn Quốc cho thấy một mặt khác của lịch sử: hồ sơ bị làm sai lệch, trẻ em bị tách khỏi gia đình ruột, quốc tịch không được bảo đảm, khủng hoảng bản sắc kéo dài và nỗi đau tìm lại cội nguồn không dễ chữa lành. Không chỉ là câu chuyện của những đứa trẻ được đưa tới một gia đình mới, đó còn là câu chuyện của chiến tranh, nghèo đói, kỳ thị xã hội, chủ nghĩa dân tộc huyết thống, nhu cầu gia đình của phương Tây, tôn giáo, thị trường nhận con nuôi và trách nhiệm chưa hoàn tất của cả quốc gia gửi con lẫn quốc gia nhận con. Lịch sử nhận con nuôi Hàn - Mỹ  Theo Namu-Wiki, chuyên trang bách khoa toàn thư phiên bản Hàn Quốc, lịch sử nhận con nuôi Hàn – Mỹ bắt đầu trong bối cảnh Hàn Quốc kiệt quệ sau Chiến tranh Triều Tiên. Đất nước bị tàn phá, nhiều gia đình ly tán, trẻ em mồ côi và trẻ bị bỏ rơi xuất hiện khắp nơi, trong khi hệ thống phúc lợi trẻ em gần như không đủ sức bảo vệ những nhóm yếu thế nhất. Đặc biệt, trẻ lai giữa binh sĩ Mỹ và phụ nữ Hàn Quốc trở thành một trong những nhóm đầu tiên bị đẩy ra khỏi xã hội Hàn Quốc thời hậu chiến. Những đứa trẻ này thường bị kỳ thị kép: vừa là con của phụ nữ nghèo hoặc bị xã hội phán xét, vừa bị xem là đe dọa đối với quan niệm “dân tộc thuần chủng”. Trong xã hội Hàn Quốc lúc bấy giờ, huyết thống và gia đình phụ hệ giữ vai trò rất lớn, trẻ lai gần như không có vị trí rõ ràng. Đưa các em sang Mỹ vì thế được trình bày như một giải pháp nhân đạo, nhưng cũng đồng thời là cách Hàn Quốc loại bỏ một nhóm trẻ mà xã hội không muốn nhìn nhận. Ở phía Mỹ, phong trào nhận nuôi trẻ em Hàn Quốc được thúc đẩy bởi truyền thông chiến tranh, các tổ chức Cơ Đốc giáo và bối cảnh Chiến tranh Lạnh. Hình ảnh trẻ em Hàn Quốc nghèo đói, mồ côi và cần được cứu giúp xuất hiện trong các chiến dịch bảo trợ, tờ rơi, ảnh chụp và phim tài liệu, tạo nên một làn sóng cảm thương trong công chúng Mỹ. Các tổ chức như World Vision và Everett Swanson Evangelistic Association, tiền thân của Compassion International, góp phần biến trẻ em Hàn Quốc thành đối tượng của các chương trình bảo trợ từ xa, rồi từ đó mở đường cho nhận con nuôi thực sự. Theo báo Christian Today, năm 1955, vợ chồng Harry và Bertha Holt, một cặp vợ chồng Tin Lành ở bang Oregon, nhận nuôi 8 trẻ em Hàn Quốc. Đây trở thành dấu mốc quan trọng trong lịch sử nhận con nuôi Hàn – Mỹ. Từ sự kiện này, chương trình Holt Adoption Program ra đời và về sau phát triển thành một trong những tổ chức nhận con nuôi quốc tế nổi bật nhất. Theo tài liệu về lịch sử Cơ Đốc giáo trong nhận con nuôi Hàn – Mỹ, trong giai đoạn 1953–2018, khoảng 170.000 trẻ em Hàn Quốc được nhận nuôi tại hơn 29 quốc gia, trong đó Mỹ nhận hơn hai phần ba, tương đương 114.117 trẻ. Ban đầu, câu chuyện được kể bằng ngôn ngữ của lòng nhân đạo: trẻ em nghèo được cứu giúp, trẻ mồ côi có gia đình, những đứa trẻ không tương lai được đưa đến một đất nước giàu có hơn. Nhưng theo thời gian, khi số lượng trẻ được đưa ra nước ngoài ngày càng lớn, hệ thống ấy bắt đầu bộc lộ một bản chất phức tạp hơn nhiều. Con nuôi người Hàn dần bị coi như món hàng công nghiệp  Khi việc nhận con nuôi được đưa vào một hệ thống có nhu cầu, có tổ chức, có phí, có hồ sơ và có quy trình vận chuyển, trẻ em dần bị nhìn theo một cách khác. Các em không còn là những đứa trẻ cần được bảo vệ, mà trở thành đối tượng trong một chuỗi cung ứng xuyên quốc gia: được chọn, kiểm tra sức khỏe, lập hồ sơ, chuyển giao và đưa sang nước ngoài. Nghiên cứu của giáo sư Kim thuộc đại học Suwon về nhận con nuôi xuyên quốc gia cho rằng không thể chỉ nhìn hiện tượng này như một hành động nhân đạo. Ở tầng sâu hơn, đây là dòng chảy một chiều: trẻ em từ các quốc gia nghèo, hậu chiến, thiếu hệ thống phúc lợi được đưa sang các quốc gia giàu hơn, phần lớn là vào các gia đình da trắng trung lưu. Dòng chảy ấy phản ánh sự chênh lệch quyền lực giữa nước gửi con và nước nhận con, giữa gia đình nghèo không có khả năng giữ con và gia đình giàu có nhu cầu nhận con nuôi. Ở phía Hàn Quốc, nhận con nuôi quốc tế dần trở thành một cách xử lý những vấn đề xã hội mà nhà nước chưa đủ năng lực hoặc chưa muốn giải quyết: trẻ mồ côi, trẻ lai, trẻ bị bỏ rơi, con của phụ nữ chưa kết hôn và trẻ em từ các gia đình nghèo. Thay vì xây dựng một mạng lưới phúc lợi đủ mạnh để hỗ trợ mẹ đơn thân, phụ nữ nghèo hoặc gia đình yếu thế tiếp tục nuôi con, hệ thống lại lựa chọn con đường đưa trẻ ra nước ngoài. Ở phía Mỹ và các nước phương Tây, nhu cầu nhận con nuôi cũng rất lớn. Một số gia đình không thể sinh con hoặc khó nhận trẻ trong nước, trong khi trẻ em Hàn Quốc được xem là “dễ thích nghi”. Hình ảnh người châu Á chăm chỉ, ngoan ngoãn, ít gây xung đột và có thể hòa nhập tốt vào xã hội phương Tây đã được chiếu lên chính những đứa trẻ Hàn Quốc. Trong mắt một số cơ quan và gia đình nhận nuôi, trẻ Hàn Quốc trở thành nhóm “an toàn”: có hồ sơ tương đối rõ, sức khỏe được kiểm tra, quy trình xuất cảnh ổn định và ít nguy cơ tranh chấp từ cha mẹ ruột. Chính từ đây, ranh giới giữa “cứu giúp trẻ em” và “đáp ứng nhu cầu của người lớn” trở nên mờ nhạt. Khi trẻ em bị đánh giá qua độ tuổi, giới tính, ngoại hình, tình trạng sức khỏe, hồ sơ và khả năng thích nghi, nhận con nuôi không còn thuần túy là hoạt động bảo vệ trẻ em. Nó bắt đầu mang dáng dấp của một thị trường. Điều đau đớn là trong thị trường đó, một số đứa trẻ bị tước đi những thứ căn bản nhất: tên thật, ngày sinh thật, thông tin cha mẹ ruột, ngôn ngữ mẹ đẻ và quyền được biết vì sao mình bị đưa đi. Sự hỗn loạn trong hệ thống nhận con nuôi  Khi trẻ em bị đặt vào logic của quy trình và thị trường, sai lệch hồ sơ không còn là lỗi hành chính nhỏ. Nó có thể trở thành vết nứt đi theo một con người suốt đời. Một trong những ví dụ tiêu biểu là câu chuyện của đạo diễn tài liệu người Mỹ gốc Hàn Deann Borshay Liem, theo Yonhap. Bà sinh ra với tên Kang Ok-jin, nhưng được đưa sang Mỹ năm 1966 dưới cái tên Cha Jung Hee. Khi đó, một gia đình Mỹ đã hoàn tất thủ tục để nhận nuôi một bé gái tên Cha Jung Hee tại một cô nhi viện ở Jeonju. Nhưng chỉ vài ngày trước khi cha mẹ nuôi đến Hàn Quốc, cha ruột của Cha Jung Hee xuất hiện và đưa con gái về nhà. Trước tình huống khó xử, cô nhi viện đã chọn một bé gái khác có độ tuổi và ngoại hình tương tự, tên thật là Kang Ok-jin, rồi đưa em sang Mỹ dưới danh tính Cha Jung Hee. Trên hộ chiếu và giấy tờ xuất cảnh, đứa trẻ ấy trở thành Cha Jung Hee. Khi sang Mỹ, bà có tên mới là Deann Borshay Liem, nhưng trong nhiều giấy tờ pháp lý, dấu vết của cái tên Cha Jung Hee vẫn tiếp tục tồn tại. Với Liem, vấn đề không chỉ là bị đổi tên. Đó là cảm giác sống trong thân phận của một người khác. Bà từng nói mình như đang đi trong đôi giày của Cha Jung Hee, sống một cuộc đời đáng lẽ thuộc về người khác. Hành trình đi tìm “Cha Jung Hee thật” sau này trở thành nội dung bộ phim tài liệu In the Matter of Cha Jung Hee, được PBS phát sóng tại Mỹ. Bộ phim không chỉ kể về một cuộc tìm kiếm cá nhân, mà còn đặt câu hỏi lớn hơn: bao nhiêu đứa trẻ Hàn Quốc đã bị đổi tên, đổi tuổi, đổi hồ sơ để phù hợp với quá trình nhận con nuôi? Năm 2025, Ủy ban Sự thật và Hòa giải Hàn Quốc kết luận rằng trong nhiều vụ nhận con nuôi quốc tế từ năm 1964 đến 1999, đã có các vi phạm nhân quyền như ghi trẻ còn cha mẹ thành trẻ mồ côi, làm giả tài liệu và thậm chí thay trẻ khác trong trường hợp trẻ dự kiến xuất cảnh qua đời trước ngày đi. Ủy ban cũng chỉ trích việc chính phủ Hàn Quốc từng ưu tiên đưa trẻ ra nước ngoài thay vì củng cố hệ thống phúc lợi trẻ em trong nước. Những phát hiện này cho thấy các bi kịch như Deann Borshay Liem chắc chắn không phải chỉ là ngoại lệ hi hữu. Chúng phản ánh một thời kỳ mà trẻ em có thể bị xử lý như hồ sơ, còn hồ sơ có thể bị điều chỉnh để hệ thống tiếp tục vận hành. Hệ quả của trẻ em không quốc tịch Một hồ sơ sai có thể khiến một người đánh mất gốc gác. Nhưng với nhiều con nuôi Hàn Quốc tại Mỹ, vấn đề còn đi xa hơn: họ lớn lên mà không có quốc tịch Mỹ. Emily, người được nhắc đến trong các bài viết về cộng đồng con nuôi Hàn Quốc tại Mỹ, là một ví dụ. Bà được nhận nuôi ở Minnesota khi mới 3 tháng tuổi, sống cả đời như một người Mỹ, nhưng đến tuổi ngoài 60 vẫn không có quốc tịch Mỹ. Cha mẹ nuôi của bà đã không hoàn tất thủ tục nhập tịch trước khi bà trưởng thành. Kết quả là Emily gặp khó khăn trong việc gia hạn bằng lái, tiếp cận bảo hiểm y tế và luôn sống trong nỗi lo bị trục xuất về Hàn Quốc. Joy Alessi là một trường hợp khác từng được đài KBS nhắc đến. Bà được đưa sang Mỹ khi còn rất nhỏ và lớn lên với niềm tin mình là công dân Mỹ. Nhưng đến năm 25 tuổi, khi xin hộ chiếu để đi Mexico, bà mới biết mình không có quốc tịch Mỹ. Điều tưởng như hiển nhiên – rằng một đứa trẻ được gia đình Mỹ nhận nuôi và lớn lên ở Mỹ sẽ là người Mỹ – hóa ra lại không được pháp luật bảo đảm. Bi kịch này xuất phát từ lỗ hổng trong quy trình nhập tịch. Đạo luật Quốc tịch Trẻ em của Mỹ năm 2000 giúp nhiều trẻ được nhận nuôi từ nước ngoài tự động có quốc tịch nếu đáp ứng điều kiện, nhưng bộ Ngoại Giao Mỹ nêu rõ luật này có hiệu lực từ ngày 27.2.2001 và không áp dụng cho những người đã từ 18 tuổi trở lên vào thời điểm đó. Vì vậy, nhiều người Hàn Quốc được nhận nuôi trước giai đoạn này mà cha mẹ nuôi không làm thủ tục đầy đủ đã bị bỏ ngoài hệ thống. Với họ, không có quốc tịch không chỉ là vấn đề giấy tờ, mà còn ảnh hưởng đến quyền đi lại, việc làm, bảo hiểm, phúc lợi, quyền bầu cử và cảm giác an toàn căn bản. Một số người thậm chí đối mặt với nguy cơ bị trục xuất về Hàn Quốc, nơi họ không nói được tiếng Hàn, không có gia đình, không có ký ức và không có nền tảng sống. Đây là nghịch lý đau đớn của lịch sử nhận con nuôi Hàn – Mỹ: những đứa trẻ được đưa đi với lời hứa về một tương lai tốt đẹp hơn, nhưng khi trưởng thành lại có thể bị chính đất nước nuôi mình lớn xem là người nước ngoài. Châu Âu cũng là điểm đến của những đứa trẻ bị bỏ rơi Mỹ là điểm đến lớn nhất của trẻ em Hàn Quốc được nhận nuôi, nhưng không phải là nơi duy nhất. Pháp, Đan Mạch, Thụy Điển, Na Uy, Hà Lan và nhiều nước châu Âu khác cũng từng tiếp nhận hàng nghìn trẻ em Hàn Quốc. Vì vậy, lịch sử này không thể chỉ được gọi là vấn đề Hàn – Mỹ. Nó là một hệ thống xuyên quốc gia, trong đó trẻ em từ Hàn Quốc được đưa vào các gia đình phương Tây trong nhiều thập kỷ. Theo KBS, Jean-Vincent Placé là một trong những trường hợp con nuôi Hàn Quốc nổi bật tại châu Âu. Ông sinh ra với tên Kwon Oh-bok, được đưa sang Pháp làm con nuôi năm 1975 khi mới 7 tuổi. Từ một đứa trẻ Hàn Quốc tại trại trẻ ở Suwon, ông trở thành Jean-Vincent Placé, lớn lên trong một gia đình Pháp, học tập, tham gia chính trường và sau này giữ chức Bộ trưởng Cải cách Nhà nước trong chính phủ Pháp. Câu chuyện của Placé thường được nhắc đến như một ví dụ thành công: một người con nuôi Hàn Quốc hòa nhập vào xã hội mới, đạt vị trí cao và trở thành cầu nối giữa Pháp với Hàn Quốc. Nhưng ngay cả trong câu chuyện ấy cũng có một vết đứt đoạn. Placé từng cố gắng xóa ký ức về Hàn Quốc vì nghĩ mình bị quê hương bỏ rơi. Chỉ khi trưởng thành, sau khi có con và trở lại Hàn Quốc, ông mới bắt đầu quá trình hòa giải với nơi mình sinh ra. Ở Bắc Âu và Tây Âu, những tranh luận về nhận con nuôi quốc tế cũng ngày càng mạnh. Nhiều người con nuôi trưởng thành lên tiếng về hồ sơ bị sai lệch, thiếu thông tin về cha mẹ ruột, cảm giác bị tách khỏi ngôn ngữ và văn hóa gốc. Một số quốc gia châu Âu đã bắt đầu xem xét lại hệ thống nhận con nuôi quốc tế, sau khi các cuộc điều tra và lời kể của người trong cuộc cho thấy các sai phạm không chỉ xảy ra ở một quốc gia nhận con. Điều đó cho thấy vấn đề không nằm ở riêng nước Mỹ hay một vài tổ chức cụ thể. Đó là một cấu trúc rộng hơn, trong đó các nước giàu nhận trẻ em từ các nước nghèo hơn dưới danh nghĩa nhân đạo, nhưng không phải lúc nào cũng bảo đảm đầy đủ quyền lợi, danh tính và tương lai pháp lý cho đứa trẻ.  Cơ hội hòa giải với nơi mình sinh ra  Đối với nhiều người con nuôi Hàn Quốc, trưởng thành không chỉ là bước vào đời sống người lớn. Đó còn là thời điểm họ bắt đầu tự hỏi: Tôi là ai? Tên thật của tôi là gì? Tôi có cha mẹ ruột không? Vì sao tôi bị đưa đi? Và Hàn Quốc có phải là quê hương của tôi không? Hành trình tìm về cội nguồn có thể đem lại hy vọng, nhưng không đơn giản. Nghiên cứu về người con nuôi xuyên quốc gia cho thấy họ thường đứng giữa nhiều ranh giới: giữa gia đình nuôi và gia đình ruột, giữa văn hóa Mỹ hoặc châu Âu và nguồn gốc Hàn Quốc, giữa cơ thể châu Á và môi trường da trắng nơi họ lớn lên, giữa cảm giác được cứu giúp và cảm giác bị tước mất một phần lịch sử cá nhân. Khi trở về Hàn Quốc, nhiều người có thể cảm thấy nhẹ nhõm khi lần đầu được ở giữa những gương mặt giống mình. Nhưng cảm giác ấy thường chỉ kéo dài đến khi họ nhận ra mình không nói được tiếng Hàn, không hiểu đầy đủ văn hóa Hàn và không dễ được xã hội Hàn Quốc xem là “người Hàn thực sự”. Họ có ngoại hình Hàn Quốc, nhưng lại mang ngôn ngữ, thói quen và ký ức của một đất nước khác. Đó là lý do nhiều nghiên cứu gọi bản sắc của người con nuôi xuyên quốc gia là “bản sắc vượt biên giới”. Họ không hoàn toàn là người Mỹ, cũng không hoàn toàn là người Hàn Quốc theo nghĩa truyền thống. Họ là những con người mang trong mình nhiều lớp lịch sử: được nuôi dưỡng ở một nơi, sinh ra ở một nơi khác, mất một gia đình, có một gia đình mới, và phải tự viết lại câu chuyện đời mình từ những mảnh hồ sơ rời rạc. Nhưng chính quá trình ấy cũng mở ra cơ hội hòa giải. Với Deann Borshay Liem, hòa giải bắt đầu từ việc tìm lại sự thật về cái tên Cha Jung Hee. Với Jean-Vincent Placé, hòa giải bắt đầu từ chuyến trở về Suwon, nơi ông từng sống trước khi sang Pháp. Với nhiều người con nuôi khác, hòa giải có thể bắt đầu từ một tờ hồ sơ, một xét nghiệm ADN, một cuộc gặp mẹ ruột, hoặc đơn giản là quyền được nói rằng: tôi không chỉ là người được cứu giúp, tôi là người có lịch sử riêng. Hòa giải không có nghĩa là quên đi việc bị đưa đi. Hòa giải là được biết sự thật, được tiếp cận hồ sơ thật, được quyền lựa chọn mức độ gắn bó với Hàn Quốc và được công nhận như một con người có tiếng nói, chứ không phải như biểu tượng của lòng nhân đạo hay thành công của hệ thống nhận con nuôi. Cơ hội trong tương lai: từ lời xin lỗi đến trách nhiệm thực chất  Ngày 2.10.2025, Tổng thống Lee Jae-myung đã gửi lời xin lỗi chính thức tới những người Hàn Quốc bị đưa ra nước ngoài làm con nuôi, tới gia đình nuôi và gia đình ruột của họ. Ông nói rằng, thay mặt Hàn Quốc, ông gửi lời xin lỗi và an ủi chân thành tới những người đã chịu đau khổ, đồng thời thừa nhận nỗi bất an, đau đớn và hỗn loạn mà nhiều người con nuôi phải trải qua khi bị đưa đến một đất nước xa lạ từ khi còn quá nhỏ để nói được tiếng mẹ đẻ. Lời xin lỗi này được đưa ra trong bối cảnh Hàn Quốc chính thức bước vào hệ thống của Công ước Hague về nhận con nuôi quốc tế. Theo Hội nghị La Hay về Tư pháp quốc tế tư, Công ước năm 1993 về bảo vệ trẻ em và hợp tác trong lĩnh vực nhận con nuôi quốc tế có hiệu lực với Hàn Quốc từ ngày 1.10.2025, sau khi nước này nộp văn kiện phê chuẩn vào tháng 6 cùng năm. Công ước nhấn mạnh nguyên tắc bảo vệ lợi ích tốt nhất của trẻ em, vai trò trách nhiệm của nhà nước và sự minh bạch trong toàn bộ quy trình nhận con nuôi. Tuy nhiên, lời xin lỗi chỉ có ý nghĩa nếu được nối tiếp bằng hành động cụ thể. Với những người con nuôi Hàn Quốc ở Mỹ và châu Âu, điều họ cần không chỉ là sự thừa nhận muộn màng. Họ cần quyền tiếp cận hồ sơ gốc, cơ chế sửa sai các giấy tờ bị làm giả, hỗ trợ tìm cha mẹ ruột, tư vấn tâm lý, hỗ trợ pháp lý về quốc tịch và một hệ thống minh bạch để không ai tiếp tục bị bỏ rơi trong chính lịch sử của mình. Hàn Quốc cũng cần nhìn lại cách xã hội từng đối xử với phụ nữ nghèo, mẹ đơn thân và trẻ em sinh ngoài hôn nhân. Nếu không có chính sách hỗ trợ để các gia đình yếu thế có thể nuôi con, việc nhận con nuôi quốc tế sẽ luôn có nguy cơ trở thành cách che giấu thất bại của phúc lợi xã hội. Bảo vệ trẻ em không thể chỉ là đưa các em đến một gia đình giàu hơn ở nước ngoài, mà trước hết phải là bảo vệ quyền được sống an toàn trong gia đình gốc, nếu điều đó còn có thể. Với Mỹ và các nước nhận con nuôi, trách nhiệm cũng chưa kết thúc. Một đứa trẻ được nhận nuôi từ nước ngoài phải được bảo đảm quốc tịch, quyền pháp lý và quyền được chăm sóc sau nhận nuôi. Không thể có chuyện một người được đưa sang Mỹ từ khi còn nhỏ, lớn lên như người Mỹ, rồi nhiều thập kỷ sau mới phát hiện mình không có quốc tịch và có thể bị trục xuất về một đất nước xa lạ. Lịch sử con nuôi Hàn – Mỹ là một vết thương khó lành không phải vì nó thuộc về quá khứ, mà vì hậu quả của nó vẫn hiện diện trong đời sống hiện tại. Nó sống trong những người không biết tên thật của mình, trong những người mang ngày sinh của người khác, trong những người đi tìm mẹ ruột bằng hồ sơ bị sai, trong những người sợ bị trục xuất khỏi đất nước đã nuôi mình lớn, và trong những người trở về Hàn Quốc nhưng không thể nói chuyện với gia đình ruột bằng cùng một ngôn ngữ. Điều Hàn Quốc cần làm từ nay không phải chỉ là xin lỗi vì đã từng là “quốc gia xuất khẩu trẻ em”. Điều cần thiết hơn là bảo đảm rằng những đứa trẻ từng bị đưa đi sẽ không bị bỏ rơi thêm một lần nữa – lần này là trong hành trình đi tìm sự thật, quốc tịch, bản sắc và quyền được công nhận như những con người trọn vẹn.

Dutch journalist and podcaster Rico Brouwer discusses the fallout of COVID-19 and his successful legal battle against the Dutch state to protect the rights of independent journalists to film court cases, framing it as a victory against government overreach. He talks EU, WW3, and also comments on the Great Reset project to strip us of our assets, citing examples in Holland of unrealized capital gains proposals. Given his background in IT, he touches on the loss of individual agency in a cloud-based digital economy. Finally, he pays tribute to the late John C. Dvorak, reflecting on the changing landscape of independent media and the proliferation of influence operations within the podcasting space. Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rumble / Substack / YouTube *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.com Donate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donations Consult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Listen Ad-Free for $4.99 a Month or $49.99 a Year! Apple Subscriptions https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/geopolitics-empire/id1003465597 Supercast https://geopoliticsandempire.supercast.com ***Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopolitics American Gold Exchange https://www.amergold.com/geopolitics Escape The Technocracy (15% off w/ GEOPOLITICS!) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopolitics Expat Money (FREE “WW3 Plan-B” Report!) https://expatmoney.com/geopolitics PassVult https://passvult.com Sociatates Civis https://societates-civis.com StartMail https://www.startmail.com/partner/?ref=ngu4nzr Wise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites Potkaars https://potkaars.nl Rico on X https://x.com/ricobrouwer Potkaars on X https://x.com/Potkaars YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@Potkaars About Rico Brouwer Potkaars is citizen journalism via podcast with a candle in a jar, a guitar, a webcam (for those who want an image) and integrally recorded conversations with guests and a positive story. They are made by Rico Brouwer from Almere. Usually in my studio at home, sometimes on location such as at a demonstration. Since the 2008 financial crisis, I've been trying to read and listen to podcasts a lot to find out and understand what's going on around me in the world you don't hear about on TV. The podcast has existed since December 20, 2018 with a broadcast every week about activism, (geo) politics and what is current. “Potkaars – talk to everyone” who does things, activists and specialists who provide interpretation. People who give me hope. Potkaars is the report of my search. After my training as a Social Pedagogical Counselor I worked in ICT at ao. Tridion, ING, the Academic Computing Center Amsterdam and as a teacher at Global Knowledge. The crisis in 2008 changed my view of the world and it brought me back to school. In 2014 I became an activist. The reason was when – after Edward Snowden – Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane was grounded in the EU on behalf of the United States because Morales joked that he might grant Snowden asylum and take him with him from Moscow. “If the power in the Netherlands lies in The Hague, then perhaps the way to make things better is through politics? ” I would try and so I became a politician in the 2017 House of Representatives elections: candidate # 3 and campaign leader for the Pirate Party. After those elections, I continued as an activist with “Real Fairytales”. In music these are the reverse of fake news: the difficult themes in fun songs. In 2018 I became a journalist. Now I do interviews with specialists on all subjects from all over the world. What my guests share is a message of hope. I am writing a book about and with whistleblowers and live with my wife, our two children and the dog Sachi – in the Verzetwijk of Almere. *Podcast intro music used with permission is from the song “The Queens Jig” by the fantastic “Musicke & Mirth” from their album “Music for Two Lyra Viols”: http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

Enjoy these back to back throwback episodes! Forbidden Knowledge Network https://forbiddenknowledge.news/ FKN Link Treehttps://linktr.ee/FKNlinksMake a Donation to Forbidden Knowledge News https://www.paypal.me/forbiddenknowledgenehttps://buymeacoffee.com/forbiddenFKN Merch!https://galactecfire.com/fkn/We are back on YouTube! https://youtube.com/@forbiddenknowledgenews?si=XQhXCjteMKYNUJSjBackup channelhttps://youtube.com/@fknshow1?si=tIoIjpUGeSoRNaEsDoors of Perception is available now on Amazon Prime!https://watch.amazon.com/detail?gti=amzn1.dv.gti.8a60e6c7-678d-4502-b335-adfbb30697b8&ref_=atv_lp_share_mv&r=webDoors of Perception official trailerhttps://youtu.be/F-VJ01kMSII?si=Ee6xwtUONA18HNLZListen to Forbidden Knowledge News on clearair.fm every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday 12:15pm CSThttps://clearair.fm/Pick up Independent Media Token herehttps://www.independentmediatoken.com/Be prepared for any emergency with Prep Starts Now!https://prepstartsnow.com/discount/FKNStart your microdosing journey with BrainsupremeGet 15% off your order here!!https://brainsupreme.co/FKN15Book a free consultation with Jennifer Halcame Emailjenniferhalcame@gmail.comFacebook pagehttps://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561665957079&mibextid=ZbWKwLWatch The Forbidden Documentary: Occult Louisiana on Tubi: https://link.tubi.tv/pGXW6chxCJbC60 PurplePowerhttps://go.shopc60.com/FORBIDDEN10/or use coupon code knowledge10Johnny Larson's artworkhttps://www.patreon.com/JohnnyLarsonSign up on Rokfin!https://rokfin.com/fknplusPodcastshttps://www.spreaker.com/show/forbiddenAvailable on all platforms Support FKN on Spreaker https://spreaker.page.link/KoPgfbEq8kcsR5oj9FKN ON Rumblehttps://rumble.com/c/FKNpGet Cory Hughes books!Lee Harvey Oswald In Black and White https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FJ2PQJRMA Warning From History Audio bookhttps://buymeacoffee.com/jfkbook/e/392579https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jfkbookhttps://www.amazon.com/Warning-History-Cory-Hughes/dp/B0CL14VQY6/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=72HEFZQA7TAP&keywords=a+warning+from+history+cory+hughes&qid=1698861279&sprefix=a+warning+fro%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1https://coryhughes.org/Our Facebook pageshttps://www.facebook.com/forbiddenknowledgenewsconspiracy/https://www.facebook.com/FKNNetwork/Instagram @forbiddenknowledgenews1@forbiddenknowledgenetworkXhttps://x.com/ForbiddenKnow10?t=uO5AqEtDuHdF9fXYtCUtfw&s=09Email Forbidden Knowledge News forbiddenknowledgenews@gmail.comsome music thanks to:https://www.bensound.com/ULFAPO3OJSCGN8LDDGLBEYNSIXA6EMZJ5FUXWYNC6WJNJKRS8DH27IXE3D73E97DC6JMAFZLSZDGTWFIBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/forbidden-knowledge-news--3589233/support.

All of the latest stories in music are about pissing and shitting and farting. There's just no getting around it. Also The Hague is having a Shrek Rave, possibly to lure Netanyahu to the ICC with the type of lame rave Zionists love. Subscribe to Fortune Kit on Patreon: www.patreon.com/c/fortunekit Join the Discord: discord.com/invite/HabqgJf

This Day in Legal History: The First Hague ConventionOn July 29, 1899, delegates from twenty-six nations signed the first Hague Convention, the product of an international peace conference convened at the initiative of Russia's Tsar Nicholas II. It was one of the founding moments of modern international law—an attempt, at the close of a violent century, to subject the conduct of war and the resolution of disputes between nations to legal rules rather than raw power.The 1899 Convention did two enduring things. First, it began the codification of the laws and customs of war—rules on the treatment of prisoners, the protection of civilians, and limits on certain weapons—laying groundwork that would grow into the modern law of armed conflict and, eventually, the Geneva Conventions. Second, and just as important, it created the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, the first standing international institution designed to let states resolve their disputes through neutral arbitration instead of on the battlefield. The idea was radical for its time: that sovereign nations would voluntarily submit their quarrels to a legal process.The Hague system was, of course, imperfect—the twentieth century that followed was the bloodiest in human history, and the conventions did not prevent two world wars. But the significance of July 29, 1899 is that it planted the institutional and conceptual seeds of everything that came after: the League of Nations, the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the international criminal tribunals, and the entire architecture of treaties and adjudication that structures relations between states today. It reflects an enduring aspiration—one that runs through so much of what we cover—that disputes are better settled by law than by force. It's a fitting backdrop for a day whose stories, in their own ways, are all about turning conflict over to the legal system rather than settling it by other means.A federal appeals court has revived a proposed class action accusing Chobani of deceiving consumers by marketing some of its Greek yogurt as “zero sugar.” The Seventh Circuit in Chicago ruled that consumers can proceed with claims under state consumer-protection laws, because Chobani Zero Sugar yogurt contains about four grams per serving of allulose, a naturally occurring sweetener. Here's the wrinkle that makes this interesting. Allulose is chemically a sugar, but the body barely metabolizes it, so the FDA lets manufacturers leave it out of the “sugars” lines on the Nutrition Facts panel. Chobani leaned on exactly that, saying its panel accurately shows zero grams of total and added sugar. But the court focused on the big front-of-package promise—”Zero Sugar”—and found persuasive an FDA brief explaining that “total sugars” actually includes all monosaccharides, allulose among them. Under FDA rules, a product generally can't be labeled “zero sugar” or “sugar free” unless it has less than half a gram of sugar per serving. Writing for the court, Judge Thomas Kirsch said it was not implausible that consumers—here, a couple who bought the yogurt at a Costco near Chicago—were “fooled” by that absolute promise. The significance is a reminder that the technically-accurate fine print on the back doesn't necessarily save a bold marketing claim on the front. This is how consumer-protection law polices the gap between what a label shouts and what a product actually contains, and the ruling lets the plaintiffs try to prove that gap misled shoppers.Chobani must face lawsuit over zero-sugar yogurt claim, US appeals court rules | ReutersYahoo Finance · Insurance JournaleBay and three of its former executives have agreed to pay roughly $56 million to settle a civil suit brought by a Massachusetts couple who were the targets of one of the more disturbing corporate harassment campaigns in recent memory. The couple, Ina and David Steiner, publish an e-commerce trade newsletter, and back in 2019 several eBay employees—furious over the Steiners' coverage of the company—orchestrated a campaign to terrorize them: shipping cockroaches, live spiders and fly larvae, and a bloody pig Halloween mask to their home, sending threatening messages, and conducting covert surveillance. It grew out of internal communications in which senior executives discussed taking the couple “down.” The criminal side of this played out years ago, with multiple former employees prosecuted and sentenced. This week's news is the civil resolution: eBay will pay about $46 million to the couple plus millions more in charitable contributions, and the former executives are personally on the hook—two million dollars from former CEO Devin Wenig, and smaller sums from two others. The significance here is corporate accountability, and specifically accountability for retaliation against the press. A powerful company weaponized its resources to punish two journalists for critical coverage—the kind of retaliation that strikes at the heart of a free press—and while the criminal cases addressed the individual foot soldiers, this settlement attaches a very large price tag to the company and the executives at the top. It's a stark example of the civil justice system doing what the criminal system often can't: reaching the institution and its leadership, and making them pay.eBay, former executives to pay $56 million to settle couple's harassment case | ReutersCNN · CNBCAnd finally, prosecutors have offered their most detailed account yet of why they believe activist Charlie Kirk was killed, arguing in a new court filing that the man accused of shooting him targeted Kirk for his political and religious views. Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and ally of President Trump, was shot and killed in September 2025 at a university in Utah; Tyler Robinson, who is 23, is charged in his death. In the filing, prosecutors pointed to Kirk's opposition to gay marriage and transgender rights, and cited a letter from a board member of Kirk's organization describing him as the face of a political and religious movement. They allege Robinson's own lifestyle ran contrary to Kirk's views and that he targeted Kirk because of his “political expression.” Robinson's defense attorney pushed back, arguing that the materials the state is relying on show nothing about whether Robinson actually disagreed with Kirk or what was in his mind. And that disagreement is the legal heart of this. Motive is not, strictly speaking, an element the prosecution must prove to establish murder—but it is powerful evidence, it helps a jury make sense of a killing, and in a serious case it can bear heavily on how the crime is characterized and punished. What we're watching is the perennial challenge of proving why someone did something: the state assembling external evidence to reconstruct a defendant's internal state of mind, and the defense insisting that inference isn't proof. The significance is that a case already saturated with political meaning will now turn, in part, on a genuinely hard legal question—how, and whether, prosecutors can establish motive—and the coming proceedings will test whether their theory holds up under the rules of evidence.Prosecutors say Charlie Kirk was attacked for his politics, cite anti-LGBT views | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Member states of the International Criminal Court have voted to remove its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, by an overwhelming majority. The court's oversight body concluded in June that he had committed serious misconduct in connection to allegations of sexual abuse. Mr Khan has repeatedly denied all the allegations against him. Also: Ukraine opens a probe after a deadly Russian ballistic missile attack at a defence event near Kyiv that had been heavily promoted, despite the risks. Israeli settlers attack several Palestinian villages in the occupied West Bank following a major confrontation that left six people dead. Hundreds of thousands of people have been evacuated across France and Spain as intense wildfires continue to burn across Europe. Student protests in India spread beyond Dehli to other cities with thousands marching for education reform in Mumbai and Calcutta. A special report looking at the human cost of South Korea's ultra-convenient overnight deliveries. Canada withdraws invitation of US dignitaries to a joint bridge-opening celebration after Donald Trump's latest tariff threat on Ottawa. And how the book genre "romantasy" went from a niche online interest to one of publishing's biggest commercial success stories.The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@bbc.co.ukPhoto: An exterior view of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands. Credit: LINA SELG/EPA/Shutterstock

Captain James Fanell reports China is escalating physical violence against Philippine Navy personnel at Second Thomas Shoal, including "poking, prodding, and beating" sailors. Fanell explains this "petulant" behavior coincides with the 10th anniversary of a Hague ruling that invalidated China's maritime claims. Simultaneously, China and Russiaconducted joint live-fire drills in Japan's exclusive economic zone. These coordinated actions signal Beijing's intent to ignore international law and forcibly challenge the sovereignty of its neighbors. (13)LA

SCHEDULE FOR THE JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW, 7-24-20261940 BERLINJeff Bliss reports from Los Angeles, where Mayor Karen Bass's "Inside Safe" program faces scrutiny as figures show 41% of participants returned to homelessness. Encampments have expanded significantly, with Skid Row growing from five blocks to over 50. Bliss notes that organized crime cartels reportedly rent dilapidated RVs to the homeless, profiting from government stipends. Despite rising homelessness rates and disappointing results, local politicians are criticized for a lack of accountability and for fostering a "homelessness industry." (1)Jeff Bliss notes the Oakland Athletics are preparing for a move to Las Vegas, with high-profile investor Mark Cubanjoining as a minority owner to boost the franchise's profile. Development plans include a unique heart-shaped hotel on a previously failed ferris wheel site near the future stadium. Meanwhile, Hollywood faces "creative destruction" as Pixarinitiates layoffs despite box office success. Additionally, location shoot bookings in Los Angeles have dropped 13%, signaling a shift in the film industry. (2)Richard Epstein critiques the Smithsonian's "Many Voices, One Nation" exhibit for its "woke" portrayal of American history. He argues the exhibit unfairly reduces Benjamin Franklin to an "alleged racist" while ignoring his foundational contributions. Epstein highlights the complexity of figures like Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence yet held restrictive views on immigration. The discussion underscores a perceived ideological mono-culture within the history profession that prioritizes narrative over factual nuance. (3)Richard Epstein analyzes the Trump administration's reintroduction of tariffs, now targeting allies like Australia and the EU under the guise of combating "forced labor." Epstein characterizes these moves as "lawfare" and "mindless isolationism," noting that these allies often have superior working conditions compared to the U.S. He warns that such policies alienate essential partners needed to counter global threats from Russia, Iran, and China, effectively driving allies to organize independently. (4)Jim McTague reports from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where Costco gas prices have reached $4.09, causing "mind-numbing" costs for residents. While some business slowdowns are noted, local diners remain full, supported by a robust retiree demographic with "deep pockets." The real estate market is exceptionally tight, with only 200 homes available as New Yorkers continue to bid up prices for high-quality housing. McTague concludes with observations on local tourism and his upcoming road trip to Kentucky. (5)Lorenzo Fiato reports Italy is battling severe wildfires in Sicily and Sardinia amid a prolonged heatwave. Fiato reports that Italians face exorbitant fuel costs, reaching $9.50 per gallon on motorways due to heavy taxation. To avoid over-tourism in cities like Florence, he recommends visiting Ascoli Piceno, the "town of the 100 towers," known for its travertine architecture. He concludes with culinary recommendations, including the traditional Spaghetti Ascolana paired with local Pecorino or Rosso Piceno wines. (6)Bob Zimmerman reports Rocket Lab has secured major Pentagon contracts for hypersonic test launches, potentially utilizing a remote new facility in Alaska. SpaceX is rumored to be planning a massive spaceport in Louisiana, while Northrop Grumman is successfully deploying robotic satellite-servicing pods. Conversely, Zimmerman criticizes "leftist governments" in the UK and Australia for stifling their domestic space industries with excessive red tape and "meaningless bureaucratic jargon," which forces young aerospace talent to seek opportunities abroad. (7)Bob Zimmerman highlights the "bankruptcy" of modern academia, citing a study where half of social science papers failed replication tests. He discusses an upcoming Falcon 9 rocket impact on the moon scheduled for August 5th and new data from the Juno mission revealing Io's subsurface temperatures. Additionally, scientists are investigating whether a suspected asteroid is actually a failed 1980s Soviet Mars probe, although Zimmerman remains skeptical of speculative theories involving alien technology. (8)Henry Sokolski examines a proposed deal to provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear power that has sparked intense proliferation concerns. While the Department of Energy initially signaled a "green light," the Trump administration later conditioned the agreement on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords. Sokolski warns that without "Additional Protocol" inspections, the kingdom could use the technology to develop a "bomb option." This follows the Crown Prince's 2018 assertion that Saudi Arabia would seek nuclear weapons if Iran acquired them. (9)Henry Sokolski continues: the Saudi nuclear deal remains "contradictory," with the White House and Department of Energy appearing out of sync. Media criticism reportedly prompted the president to demand a "quid pro quo"—Saudi recognition of Israel—to justify the proliferation risks. Israel remains in a difficult position; while desiring normalization, it privately opposes a Saudi nuclear program that could trigger a regional arms race. The deal's progress depends on whether it is submitted to Congress by late September. (10)Peter Huessy explains "extended deterrence," the U.S. nuclear umbrella protecting allies from aggression. Huessy critiques a proposal to delegate nuclear authority to a "three-key" system involving France and the UK, arguing it would create dangerous indecision during a crisis. He notes that allies increasingly doubt U.S. resolve. Strategy has shifted toward "counterforce" targets, aiming to disable an enemy's leadership and military capability rather than destroying cities, to provide "flexible response" options. (11)Peter Huessy notes Russia holds a 20-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in "theater" or tactical nuclear weapons, which Putinuses for "nuclear blackmail" to keep NATO out of the Ukraine conflict. Huessy argues the U.S. must deploy survivable, sea-based theater weapons to restore a credible deterrent. Reflecting on the realistic horror of the 1984 film Threads, he warns that even a single tactical exchange could rapidly escalate into a global catastrophe that ends civilization. (12)Captain James Fanell reports China is escalating physical violence against Philippine Navy personnel at Second Thomas Shoal, including "poking, prodding, and beating" sailors. Fanell explains this "petulant" behavior coincides with the 10th anniversary of a Hague ruling that invalidated China's maritime claims. Simultaneously, China and Russiaconducted joint live-fire drills in Japan's exclusive economic zone. These coordinated actions signal Beijing's intent to ignore international law and forcibly challenge the sovereignty of its neighbors. (13)Captain James Fanell reports China recently conducted its first submarine-launched ballistic missile test in the South Pacific in 40 years. Fanell reports that China has shifted to a "first use" nuclear policy and is completing its triad with the H-20 stealth bomber. He uses the "boiling frog" analogy to describe China's incremental aggression, warning that the U.S.must recognize these self-evident intentions before a "shot" is taken against regional forces or allies like Taiwan. (14)Conrad Black disputes Prime Minister Mark Carney's characterization of Canada as a "middle power," arguing the term is obsolete for a G7 nation with a larger economy than Russia. He critiques Carney's attempt to foster ties with China, noting China's "tatters" economy and history of disregarding trade agreements. Black maintains that Canada should prioritize its vital relationship with the U.S. while embracing a more ambitious and patriotic view of its global influence. (15)Veronique de Rugy argues autonomous vehicles like Waymo could reduce road fatalities by 94%, yet their adoption is stalled by opposition from trial lawyers and unions. Unions fear job losses for taxi, truck, and delivery drivers, though de Rugy argues automation historically transitions workers into higher-paying, less tedious roles. She emphasizes that driverless cars would provide life-changing accessibility for rural and elderly populations who currently lack reliable transportation options. (16)

Darrell Castle discusses the concept of a war criminal. Who gets to define what a war crime is and once that is established, who determines when someone has committed one of the criminal acts defined as a war crime? Transcription / Notes WHAT IS A WAR CRIMINAL? Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 24th day of July in the year of our Lord 2026. My beat is still war today, but with the added distinction of talking about what some choose to call war criminals. The question for today then is who gets to decide what a war crime is and who decides if someone has committed one of those crimes he has defined as a war crime. The International Criminal Court, established by the 1998 Rome Statute and beginning operations in 2002 has been given the right to declare certain people war criminals and to issue indictments against that person which should involve arrest and prosecution. We know from our American system that charges and indictment do not make one guilty, but in the minds of certain people it gives an opportunity for selectively prosecuting those with whom they politically disagree. This war crimes talk started again when NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani ran for office on a promise to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he ever came to New York. Well, Bibi has announced that he will attend the United Nations meeting in NYC to be held in September. The mayor's plans, announced in an interview with the New York Times, brought a storm of protests from supporters of Bibi including the President of the United States who declared on social media that the mayor's plans would not and could not happen. In response the mayor admitted that he is not the president and is not even congress or the U.S. attorney general so his plans would not be fulfilled. He went on video and said his legal team had exhausted “every avenue available” under the law and concluded “we do not have the independent legal authority” to arrest the head of state of a foreign country who is attending a UN meeting which happens to be located in NYC. Some may have reacted with outrage if the mayor had ordered the NYPD to arrest Netanyahu but since he is now not planning to risk that those people are reacting with outrage anyway and calling him a dishonest politician. I want to leave the mayor and talk about war crimes in general but I can't do so until I mention the first lady of the city of New York. Yes, right now, as I record this she is conducting a conference for Muslim women with the stated purpose of informing them that Mary, yes that Mary. The mother of Jesus, who delivered the child on that Christmas was not only not Jewish but was actually a Muslim. What, how can that be. Well, it can't because of a fact apparently unknown to the first lady of our greatest city. That fact is that when Jesus was born, Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was not born for another 570 years. Well, be that as it may facts are often lost on people today especially when those facts do not fit a person's world view. Back to the International Criminal Court which issued the indictment against Prime Minister Netanyahu and has often referred to him as a war criminal. The ICC has no jurisdiction in the United States which refused to join the 125 nations which signed the agreement. I remember the debates around it quite well and the US representatives were afraid that it would be used to prosecute members of the US military engaged in combat in some politically sensitive spot. Congress instead did the opposite by passing the American Servicemember's Protection Act which was designed to shield the US personnel from ICC prosecution. The ICC might be seen as a kind of virtue signaling organization or perhaps it is deeply idealistic and committed to peaceful resolution of conflict. How does it select its targets or how does it decide who is a war criminal and who should be left alone. Do you need to be engaged in actual war to be a war criminal or can you simply commit acts of extreme violence. My own view is that the term war criminal or war crimes is decided by winners. Would Hitler, his generals and bureaucrats have been criminals if they had won the war. Would some division of the UN have ordered them arrested, no of course not, but instead many of them were hanged and some chose cyanide as the best option. Over in Japan several Japanese officers were hanged as war criminals. One general split his stomach open in 1945 but American doctors saved his life so he could be hanged in 1948. Back in 1908 there was another tribunal, at that time at the Hague, which decided to define rules for the conduct of armed conflict. That tribunal dealt primarily with humane treatment of prisoners of war and dignified rules for how civilians were to be treated. Keep in mind that in 1908 war planes, poison gas, and machine guns had not been invented. I don't think those people could have imagined the horror that would rain from the sky onto civilian populations for over the next 100 years. I have studied the war archives from World War ii as much as I could especially after the internet made them all available to anyone. My conclusion is that the US authorities went out of their way to abide by the rules of the Geneva Convention which was part of the Hague series of international agreements. The Geneva convention defined how prisoners of war were to be treated and most nations knew that if they followed it their enemies were more likely to do so. So, with a few exceptions, it was the policy of the US to follow it and even NAZI Germany followed it to a large degree. The Japanese however, had other ideas. Their treatment of American prisoners was exceptionally brutal. The percentage of prisoners who died in captivity under the Germans was about 2% but under the Japanese it was more like 60%. Now, let's return to Bibi for a moment. Is he or is he not a war criminal. To some extent it's a matter of opinion and is usually determined by the winners. Right now, I would call him a loser at least in the matter of international politics and especially in the matter of armed conflict. He has no friends and everyone in the UN except the US hates him. His cities and military bases are badly damages by Iranian missiles and drones but does any of that make him a war criminal. No, but he and his IDF have violated virtually every one of the rules for armed conflict established by the various international conventions I just mentioned. He has repeatedly targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure. In fact, he doesn't recognize the difference between civilian and military targets. Testimony accuses him of mistreating, even torturing prisoners of war and many have accused IDF soldiers of brutally raping them with objects that destroyed their intestines. Testimony seems to indicate that he intends to destroy an entire people group through warfare and starvation. I would call those things war crimes, but remember the victors get to determine such things and as long as the US military is solidly behind him it's hard to say he is defeated. In fact, he and his country most likely would cease to exist without the US. He would be arrested if he set foot out of Israel without the US. That brings up an interesting point and that point is that if Donald Trump is his enabler and before Trump Joe Biden received more money in the form of contributions, donations, bribes, or whatever you choose to call them does that make them war criminals too. During the Nuremberg trials of NAZI officers, a new charge was invented to cover the massive crimes of which those people were accused. Since the normal criminal code of any of the victorious allied nations was insufficient they invented the crime they called crimes against humanity. Is Bibi guilty of crimes against humanity, is Donald Trump. The president has vowed to attack civilian infrastructure as a result of Iranian attacks against Hormuz shipping and the deaths of US. Soldiers. When I saw that a 19-year-old woman was killed in a missile attack against her base in Jordan I was very destressed. Many of those men who landed at Omaha Beach were 19 years old but they were not beautiful young women with babies ahead of them. In fact, those men fought for people back home like her. They fought for each other and for their families and their way of life which were threatened by a terrible enemy. The death of that young woman just lays out the complete moral depravity that has infected this government and the entire globalist system. I pray for her family and that we can find a way to prevent such willful death and destruction. Finally, folks, we've talked about the subjective nature of the term War criminal but sometimes the label may be appropriate. I'm certainly tired of sending teenaged women to fight and die for the benefit of a foreign leader and his vision. This country seems to be looting our tax dollars for people who are not American and might legitimately be called war criminals. God forgive us if that is true. At least that's the way I see it, Until next time folks, This is Darrell Castle, Thanks for listening.

This Week In White Supremacy 1HOOD talk wildfire smoke and the lettuce-linked “explosive diarrhea” scare, how Spain's World Cup win sparks discussion of racism from fans and the sport's long history of anti-Blackness, with Argentina, Trump's renewed claims that China compromised US voter data to potentially undermine midterm election certification, and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani's comments on potentially arresting Netanyahu sending him to the Hague. This Week In White Supremacy continues to provide a platform for insightful and critical discussions, balancing humor, and seriousness to tackle pertinent cultural and political issues. 1HOOD's vibrant conversations serve to enlighten and engage audiences, encouraging broader awareness and action against injustice. Join them next week as they continue to expose white supremacy and advocate for a more equitable society for all people. -- To help us build liberated communities through arts, education, and social justice visit our website 1hood.org to purchase your official 1HOOD apparel or consider making a tax-deductible donation to 1Hood Media.   -- WATCH THE SHOW: youtube.com/@twiws -- FOLLOW 1HOOD  youtube.com/@1hood facebook.com/1hoodmedia instagram.com/1hoodmedia x.com/1hood -- DISCLAIMERS: The views and opinions expressed during this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of 1Hood Media, 1Hood Power, and or its affiliates. We do not own the copyrights to the selected songs, audios and/or videos shared in this broadcast. This Week In White Supremacy is brought to you by the 1HOOD Media Network Explicit Language Parental Discretion is Advised TV-MA   Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join Jim and Greg for the Tuesday 3 Martini Lunch as they discuss Twitch streamer Hasan Piker's love and admiration for Mao Zedong, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani's threat to have Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrested, the U.S. Treasury stopping nearly $100 million in payments bound for dead people, and Daniel Ortega scrapping elections in Nicaragua for good.First, Jim and Greg react to a clip of Hasan Piker calling the Chinese communist dictator Mao Zedong "one of the great leaders of this world" and "a man who changed the entire universe," insisting he never has and never will criticize him. Jim and Greg remind us that Mao's Great Leap Forward starved tens of millions of his own people to death in what's considered the deadliest famine in history.Next, they dig into Mamdani saying on a New York Times podcast that Prime Minister Netanyahu "belongs in The Hague" and wanting to arrest Netanyahu if he visits the city for September's U.N. General Assembly. Jim says the mayor has no legal authority to do so, and President Trump has already said that Netanyahu will not be taken into custody on American soil.Then, Jim and Greg welcome some good news as the Treasury stopped nearly $100 million in payments to deceased recipients, more than triple what was caught before Trump returned to office. The Treasury says its new verification system could stop up to $350 million in fraudulent payments before the year is out. Jim and Greg agree that while this may be a drop in the bucket compared to the national debt, any improvements should be celebrated.Finally, they cover Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega abolishing elections, effectively extending his term indefinitely and closing off any path for the opposition to take over. Jim and Greg note the 80-year-old has been around for decades. The Reagan administration famously supported the Contra freedom fighters against Ortega's Sandinista government in the 1980s.Please visit our great sponsors: BetterHelpDon't let stigma stand in the way of support. Start therapy with BetterHelp. Sign up and get 10% off at https://BetterHelp.com/3MLLarinecoRight now, Larineco is offering our listeners up to 50% off at https://BuyLarine.com/3MLNew episodes every weekday. 

In this segment, host Tara Servatius examines the political clash surrounding the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the extradition of high-profile political figures. Following an announcement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the U.S. will not cooperate with or extradite anyone to the ICC—and will sanction allies that do—New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani stated that he believes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu belongs in The Hague as a war criminal and is reviewing whether the NYPD can enforce an ICC warrant if Netanyahu attends the UN General Assembly in September. Servatius argues that Mamdani's statements, alongside rhetoric from high-profile Democrats like James Carville suggesting future administrations could refuse to protect political figures or military leaders from international prosecution, are part of a broader strategy to establish legal precedents for extraditing political opponents to international tribunals.

Ralph welcomes back his old running mate, Native American activist, Winona LaDuke, who has devoted her life to advocating for Indigenous control of their homelands, natural resources, and cultural practices to talk about her latest incarnation: hemp farmer. Then, we'll speak to Hal Weitzman, from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, about how Elon Musk's feud with Delaware may transform corporate America. Plus, we tick off Robert Reich's ten policy prescriptions the Democratic Party should fight for to beat the GOP in the upcoming midterms.Winona LaDuke is an activist, economist, and author, who has devoted her life to advocating for Indigenous control of their homelands, natural resources, and cultural practices. She is also a two-time vice-presidential candidate with Ralph Nader. Ms. LaDuke lives and works on the White Earth Ojibwe reservation in northern Minnesota, where she runs Winona's Hemp & Heritage Farm. She is also a member of the Indigenous Hemp & Cannabis Farmer's Cooperative.I'm looking first at seed sovereignty. We're growing [European hemp] varieties and then we're growing these feral hemp varieties. They're called feral varieties (which of course, that's something that I love) which means that when they eradicated hemp in the 1930s with the Marijuana Prohibition Act—well, they missed some spots. And those guys kept growing. And so 80 years of being illegal—isn't that great? Something that's illegal for 80 years is still with us, rocking out. And so I figure if you grew illegally for 80 years, you are really a tough hemp plant…And so we are growing out these hemp varieties and built a cooperative because we want to own the seeds and we want to own the technology (the value-added processing), and we want to use this hemp as a part of our future as tribes.Winona LaDukeMy grandsons are farming. I don't know who else can say their grandchildren are farming—let me know. My grandchildren are farming. They're running the horses. They're running the farms. You know, that's a retirement plan. My 401k will be worth nothing, but my grandchildren will feed me. This is my strategy.Winona LaDukeHal Weitzman is Executive Director for Intellectual Capital at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, editor-in-chief of Chicago Booth Review, and host of The Chicago Booth Review podcast. A former Financial Times editor and foreign correspondent, he is the author of Latin Lessons: How South America Stopped Listening to the United States and Started Prospering and What's the Matter with Delaware?: How the First State Has Favored the Rich, Powerful, and Criminal—and How It Costs Us All.There is a race to the bottom. There's been a race to the bottom for many decades. That's not new. I think it's accelerated somewhat. Delaware has joined that race from having been something of a “premium product” in terms of incorporating companies—Delaware has become a bit more “cut-price” I would say, and in that sense has followed Texas and Nevada. So the conclusion that we have a race to the bottom and it may be worse than Delaware—actually I think Delaware's already there. So it's not that it's getting worse outside of Delaware, it's getting worse including Delaware.Hal WeitzmanThe trend I think we're seeing is the exclusion of small shareholders completely—regardless of the status of your shares, this is about how big you are. And if you're a small shareholder there is no corporate democracy for you… It was practice in the past for activist groups, campaigning groups, to buy one share of a company and then to go to the shareholder meeting so they could make the point that they wanted to make. Now that kind of shareholder democracy is being encroached on. And the extent now is to say: unless you have a large position (regardless of the size of the company and the cost of the shares), you will not be allowed to bring suits against the executives for the correct running of the company.Hal WeitzmanNews 7/17/26* Our top story this week is New York Governor Kathy Hochul's decision to impose a one-year “pause” on the construction of AI data centers across the state. ABC7 reports that this is the first such moratorium in the nation, despite similar attempts in several states, most notably Maine where Governor Janet Mills vetoed a bill to this effect. Hochul argues that the pause is necessary so lawmakers and regulators can formulate “Guardrails to reduce the risk to our energy grid, minimize land disruption, noise pollution, and protect our natural resources, especially our water supply.” Hochul's move comes amidst a broader push against AI data centers from the left. Semafor reports Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a nationwide ban in March and many progressives running for state and local office in the midterms have made this a cornerstone of their campaigns. According to this piece, “In February, polling from Marquette Law School found 70% of all Wisconsinites agreeing that ‘the costs of the data centers outweigh the benefits.' Among Democrats, the number was 85%.”* Another progressive Member of Congress quite literally stepped into another hot-button political issue this week. While visiting a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank Wednesday, Al Jazeera reports armed settlers stopped the van of Representative Ro Khanna and were “later joined by Israeli soldiers who continued to block the road.” In a video, Khanna points out, settlers can be seen “brandishing M4s [rifles], kicking the tyres of our van, laughing at us, mocking at us, videotaping us.” This continued for over an hour and was only resolved when he reached out to the American Embassy, according to Khanna. Israel has responded to this fiasco by blaming Khanna, accusing the congressman of failing to coordinate his trip with the Israeli government; Khanna retorted that “The [Israeli military] is lying” and called for the arrest of the violent settlers. Conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson excoriated U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, writing “An American member of congress is threatened by foreign terrorists carrying American rifles, backed by a foreign military paid for by American taxpayers, and the US ambassador to that country says not a word in defense of his own countryman…It's too much, too insulting and humiliating to America.”* Following his return from occupied Palestine, Khanna again teamed up with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky to sponsor an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would have removed the “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” from the must-pass legislation. Responsible Statecraft describes the initiative as “an unprecedented integration of the U.S. and Israeli military industrial complexes,” by creating “an executive agent within the Department of Defense whose sole responsibility is furthering U.S. and Israeli military tech integration across nearly every facet of the defense process.” This article also notes that “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described this shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship as ‘my plan.'” However, House leadership is not backing this commonsense, bipartisan amendment. In a letter, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he would vote against the amendment, calling it “overly broad” and claiming the amendment would “restrict our country's ability to confront Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of both the United States and Israel,” per the Times of Israel. However, Jeffries pledged not to whip votes against the amendment and indeed the House Minority Whip, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, voted for the amendment as did Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, despite the opposition of Jeffries and House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. The Congressional Progressive Caucus reportedly whipped votes in favor of the amendment.* In more Israel-related news, this week Marco Rubio – who serves as Secretary of State as well as the acting National Security Advisor – announced that the State Department will launch a “sweeping campaign to dismantle…the International Criminal Court.” CNN observes that “The administration's ire against the ICC goes back to President Donald Trump's first term, when it targeted the ICC for seeking to investigate alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan,” and that since taking office for the second time, the Trump administration has “imposed a slew of sanctions against ICC officials for their attempts to investigate the US and Israel.” CNN also quotes a State Department official who said that top officials, including Secretary Rubio and US ambassadors, “are calling countries as part of a campaign to diplomatically isolate the International Criminal Court.” It is worth noting that “all American presidents since the ICC's ratification have maintained that the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Americans,” and that Congress even passed a law calling for an invasion and occupation of the Hague if any American serviceman was ever prosecuted by the ICC, implying that this crackdown on the court is not about American sovereignty at all but rather the prosecution of Israeli officials for their war crimes in Gaza.* In another stunning story starring Marco Rubio, the New York Times reports the Secretary of State is functionally “running Venezuela from afar.” The Times story characterizes Rubio's position as the “de facto viceroy of Venezuela,” effectively controlling the country's “finances, the distribution of its natural resources and its government.” This story makes clear that while Delcy Rodríguez, the former Vice President of Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro, nominally occupies the presidency, Rubio is the one really calling the shots, with Rubio setting the conditions on what Venezuela's export revenue “can be spent on, and by whom,” and having the authority to approve or deny key governmental appointments in the country, such as the minister of defense. In short, the United States has established a shocking explicitly neo-colonial regime in the country, fulfilling the gravest prognostications of anti-imperialist critics of American intervention in the Bolivarian Republic.* Closer to home, Bloomberg reports the federal government has officially launched a grand jury investigation into the United Auto Workers and the union's outspoken president, Shawn Fain. The investigation stems from accusations made by the union's Vice President, Rich Boyer, who alleged that Fain used his position to secure benefits for his fiancée and her sister – and when Boyer refused to approve the benefits, Fain retaliated by stripping Boyer of his duties as chief negotiator with Stellantis NV. Fain has called the allegations “false” and is accusing Boyer of seeking to influence the upcoming UAW leadership election. Fain also claims that Boyer is the one retaliating after Fain “refused the vice president's request to hire family members to positions in the union.” Fain has long maintained that the Justice Department, and specifically the DOJ-appointed monitor, Neil Barofsky, has a political grudge against him because “the UAW took an anti-war stance about what was happening in Gaza.” According to Bloomberg, “Both Fain and Boyer have slates running and each is accusing the other of attempting to abuse their positions to benefit family.”* This week, another victim of harassment by the federal government, student activist Mahmoud Khalil, filed a landmark civil rights suit alleging that the government conspired with a number of private groups – including the Heritage Foundation, Betar, and Canary Mission – to “suppress criticism of Israel through a coordinated campaign to dox, jail and ultimately deport student activists.” According to the lawsuit, said activists were “nearly automatically targeted by the Federal Defendants for arrest and removal.” Khalil's lawyers argue that this “public-private partnership” could violate the “Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era law that sought to restrict government coordination with vigilante groups.” The suit is led by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The AP reports “Soon after his arrest, both Canary Mission and Betar boasted of their role in flagging Khalil's noncitizen status to the government.” Since Khalil's arrest, Betar has agreed to “dissolve its nonprofit status,” following a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Betar's members of harassing Palestinians.* Turning to the state level, this week 12 state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance, controlled by the Trump-aligned David Ellison. The proposed, $110 billion merger was approved by the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department last month, which reached the dubious conclusion that the merger is “not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers.” In the filing, Bonta and the state AGs for Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington allege that the merger “would extinguish competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflict substantial harm on movie theatres, basic cable distributors, and, ultimately, audiences nationwide.” This from Reason.* In the world of philanthropy, CNBC reports Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, has “excluded the Gates Foundation from his sizable annual charitable donations.” As this report notes, the Gates Foundation has been among the top recipients of his annual Berkshire donations, totaling $47 billion worth of Berkshire stock since 2006. The reason for the exclusion of the Gates Foundation has been much speculated upon, in particular, whether it was due to the recent revelations about Gates' relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Asked about this, Buffett said that he had “read a great deal…in terms of what happened, with Bill and Epstein,” calling their relationship “distasteful,” but also saying that he “found nothing in there that was beyond what [he] could picture [himself] doing.” Instead of the Gates Foundation, all of this year's donations will go to foundations linked to the Buffett family.* Finally, British multinational diamond conglomerate De Beers, famous for coining the “A Diamond is Forever” tagline in 1947, reported this week that they plan to halt work at their “flagship” Venetia mine in South Africa as demand for the stones wanes. The BBC highlights both slackening consumer demand as well as competition from lab-grown diamonds, particularly those produced in China. That said, the closing of the Venetia mine – the biggest in South Africa, accounting for over 40% of the country's diamond production – will send shockwaves through that country's already shaky economy. That mine alone employs more than 4,000 people, while the mining sector employs nearly half a million. De Beers said they plan to reopen the mine in two years; in the meantime, they are looking to expand copper mining to keep up with demand from AI data centers.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

The International Criminal Court, the ICC, is based in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002 under the Rome Statute, the ICC is the first and only permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The ICC is intended to complement, not replace, national judicial systems. It can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. The Court has brought charges against high-profile international leaders and in some cases has imprisoned them. Countries that are not parties to the ICC and do not recognize its jurisdiction include China, India, Russia, Israel and the United States. Recorded at the Oxford Union.

The common definition of a mercenary is a soldier paid to fight in an armed conflict for a country that is not his or her own. The terrorist organization Hizballah operates in Lebanon, fighting against Israel, with financial, material and organizational support from Iran, and frequently under the direction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Under the common definition, could Hizballah be considered mercenaries fighting for Iran? Royce de Melo, Doug Brooks, and I discuss this question in this episode of the Ancient Art of Modern Warfare.   References:   Hague 1907: Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. (definition of lawful combatant) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-conv-iv-1907 Article 47, Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 (definition of mercenary) (The United States is not a party to this Protocol) https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries United Nations Mercenary Convention: International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-against-recruitment-use-financing-and&ved=2ahUKEwi47cCQ6M-VAxV4M1kFHX_OGsAQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1fCthlNI1AV0DjEGZmeTVl (As of the date of this episode, only 38 governments had ratified this treaty. Only two NATO countries are parties to the convention.) Music: Liszt, F., and the USMC Band, Les Preludes. Public Domain Kiilstofte, P. Mercenaries, Machinamasound (Licensed)

On today's show, Andrew and Bill begin by parsing the economic data released by the PRC this week, including slower-than-expected growth, the Party's response to the status quo, export-powered growth that is widening trade imbalances, and the questions all of this will raise for foreign policymakers. From there: The Party's findings on Ma Xingrui, questions that remain unanswered, and cadre risk aversion for the next 18 months. Then: PRC messaging around openness in AI, an ongoing U.S. debate over open-source AI models, three chip bills that may end up in the NDAA, and the continued adventures in China policy on Capitol Hill. At the end: Reflections on the 10th anniversary of The Hague ruling on the PRC's territorial claims in the South China Sea, as well as the state of play today.

In 1978, an Exxon scientist asked a question in capital letters: were the oceans dissolving coral reefs? By 1982, Exxon's own scientists had the answer, in writing. So did Shell by 1986. This episode traces a newly published Oxford University study that dug through more than fourteen thousand pages of fossil fuel industry documents and found that the world's biggest oil and gas companies understood, decades before the public did, exactly how their product would wreck coral reefs. We walk through what the industry knew and when, how a funded think tank report in 2012 was built to look like an official government climate assessment while contradicting the industry's own internal science, and where coral reefs stand today after the largest global bleaching event ever recorded. Along the way, we cover the coral chemistry that makes reefs vulnerable to rising CO2, the internal Exxon and Shell documents at the center of the Oxford study, and how this paper trail is now showing up as evidence in real courtrooms, including a landmark January 2026 ruling in The Hague. This isn't a story to leave you paralyzed. It closes with four concrete actions you can take this week, from sharing what you now know to pushing the emissions lever that actually moves the needle. If you care about coral reefs, or you just want the receipts on one of the biggest corporate cover-ups tied to the ocean, this episode is for you. Support Independent Podcasts: https://www.speakupforblue.com/patreon Need help with your ocean non-profit, company, or project? Get the help you need with Pisces Oceans Inc.: https://www.piscesoceans.ca Connect with Speak Up For Blue Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc YouTube: www.speakupforblue.com/youtube  

MARCO RUBIO VS. THE HAGUE: AMERICA IS THE WORLD'S POLICE This morning we walk into the two rooms trying to run your life without a single vote from you, one in a Dutch office park and one in a Hollywood suite, and we ask why an unelected court and an unelected casting department both got told no in the same week. We break down Marco Rubio's whole-of-government campaign to take the International Criminal Court apart brick by brick, then we roll through Hollywood's casting war from Andy Serkis to Christopher Nolan and let the box office start settling it. Then economist Nick Cooper sits down to follow the money and the incentives running the Hague before you ever hear another word about "international justice." ⚖️ We dig into Rubio's July 13 announcement and the ICC's own record, a court that burned through two billion dollars and twenty-three years to convict barely a dozen people, every last one of them African, while its chief prosecutor sits suspended over a sexual misconduct investigation of his own.

John Wehner joins the show! What did Wehner see from Esmerlyn Valdez over the weekend? Without him, the Pirates would not have won either game on Saturday. He says that Valdez's approach is elite for someone his age. The pitching staff is getting shelled and Bill Murphy is getting bad press. Matt Hague has not been talked about enough and deserves more credit according to Hague. When things go well, no one gets credit. When things go badly, their name is the only thing you hear.

7-13 Fan Morning Show 8am Hour: Our very own Dan Zangrilli joins the show to recap the Pirates' successful weekend. Dan and Dorin were bad at math in school. Dan says he likes the trade the Pirates made but wouldn't say they 'won' the deal. He also likes that the Pirates addressed a need and says a different GM wouldn't make that trade if Cherington had tons of job security. Is Dan confident that the Pirates can make the playoffs? They need to win 39 games to reach the 89 win mark, which Dan says would be the threshold for making the playoffs. It is doable, but reaching that mark will be difficult. Dan says that "anyone with an arm" needs to have a good second half for the Pirates to have a great second half of the season, specifically Mitch Keller. Producer Charlie may or may not have said my fiancée sounds like a grazing cattle when she chews gum. Crowley has gum in his mouth and is paranoid people can hear him chewing. Exactly how bad of a year has Mitch Keller had? John Wehner joins the show! What did Wehner see from Esmerlyn Valdez over the weekend? Without him, the Pirates would not have won either game on Saturday. He says that Valdez's approach is elite for someone his age. The pitching staff is getting shelled and Bill Murphy is getting bad press. Matt Hague has not been talked about enough and deserves more credit according to Hague. When things go well, no one gets credit. When things go badly, their name is the only thing you hear. There is a viral video going around of a grown man being tossed around like a small child by a buffalo. How much would you be paid to get into a ring with a buffalo? My theory is that the buffalo wanted to trample the woman in the Dolphins jersey but was respectful enough to go after the grown man in the overalls instead.

Prashanth Shanmugan is an accomplished geo-strategist, government affairs advisor, and international business specialist whose career spans academia, corporate diplomacy, and business. A global citizen, his career has taken him to key financial and diplomatic hubs such as London, Amsterdam, The Hague, and Sydney, Australia. In addition to his corporate work, Prashanth is the Chairman of Somewhere Nowhere, a creative production company that pushes the boundaries of media and storytelling. Along the way we discuss – Followership (5:00), Teaching the Law of War (8:30), Traveler vs. Tourist (12:00), Australia (14:00), Pax Ludens – Peace Games (17:45), Australian Football (29:15), Davos and the World Economic Forum (33:00), and One Leads in Hope (37:15).  This podcast is teamed with LukeLeaders1248, a nonprofit that provides scholarships for the children of military veterans. Help us sponsor 5 scholarships for 2026. Send a donation, large or small, through our website @ www.lukeleaders1248.com, PayPal, or Venmo @LukeLeaders1248. 

After the Second World War the SAS was disbanded, but when a communist insurgency broke out in the British Imperial possession of Malaya, the SAS was reformed. In the years following the Regiment came under the command of an extraordinary soldier, George Lea, veteran of Arnhem and known as the soldier's General. Joining today is Rupert Hague Holmes, author of Lea's biography as we discuss the man and the Special Air Service as it evolved from a distrusted regiment to a finely tuned counter-insurgency unit, and the envy of the United States. Don't forget, get in touch with Rupert here for a signed copy. Rupert Hague Holmes Links The Soldier's General ⁠The Soldier's General⁠ - Signed Copy ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠History Book Club Shop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Oliver Webb-Carter Links ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Who Cares Who Wins? ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Paean to Patrick Leigh Fermor⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email me: owcpods@gmail.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Richard Lyntton's life has taken him from Cold War Moscow to the deserts of the Gulf War and the shattered streets of Sarajevo. In this powerful episode, he recalls studying in the Soviet Union during the hopeful Gorbachev years, travelling across Russia by train, and later serving as a tank commander during the First Gulf War. At the heart of this conversation is Bosnia, where Richard witnessed the siege of Sarajevo, came face to face with Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadžić, and narrowly escaped trouble after secretly filming General Ratko Mladić. Richard also describes documenting the aftermath of ethnic cleansing, filming evidence of war crimes, and later testifying at The Hague. He shares his extraordinary journey from North London schoolboy and Russian-language student to British Army officer, UN observer, filmmaker, actor and thriller writer. His new book, Crown Deception, is out now. It is a story of danger, moral complexity and survival — but also of humanity, resilience and the strange absurdities of war. Check out Richard's books here https://amzn.to/4vh5fgx Curated episode extras https://coldwarconversations.com/episode464/ Help me preserve Cold War history via a simple monthly donation, You'll become part of our community, get ad-free episodes, and receive a sought-after CWC coaster as a thank-you, and you'll bask in the warm glow of knowing you are helping to preserve Cold War history. Just go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://coldwarconversations.com/donate/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ If a monthly contribution is not your cup of tea, we also welcome one-off tips via the same link. Find the ideal gift for the Cold War enthusiast in your life! Just go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://coldwarconversations.com/store/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ CONTINUE  THE COLD WAR CONVERSATION o BlueSky ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/coldwarpod.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ o Threads ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.threads.net/@coldwarconversations⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ o Twitter/X ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/ColdWarPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ o Facebook ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/coldwarpod/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ o Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/coldwarconversations/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ o Youtube ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtube.com/@ColdWarConversations⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Plan for the future, episode 70 of Leadership Kung Fu is here! Today Jen and Sandi welcome Doug Stephens to the show to talk about his latest book The Future of Competitive Advantage: A Business Plan to Save Your Customers, Your Company, and Democracy and how to navigate a leadership role in an uncertain business world. Join them in their dive into the texts and discuss: Doug's accolades as an author and futurist How workplaces are changing as political and economical climates change How silence is no longer considered "neutral" An example of Patagonia and Bear's Ears Monument as an act of defending a value core to the brand Doug's 3 main ideas in his newest novel What collective prosperity looks like What "stoking white male anxiety" has done to workforces over the decades of different workforces DEI and the role in male anxiety Where the workforce has trended due to these factors Bryce Hoffman's American Icon The difference between fairness and equality and much more! Thank you so much for joining us on Leadership Kung Fu, Doug! You can connect with Doug on LinkedIn, check out his blog, and his business website!  As a business owner or leader, are not alone in your fears for our society and the future. Knowing that there are other business leaders and executives out there who are just as concerned as you, who are seeking to learn more about how they and their organizations can become part of the solution to saving democracy. Doug recommends establishing or joining a community of like- minded business leaders. Here are few places he suggests you might start: https://leadershipnowproject.org/ Leadership Now Project (U.S.): A membership organization of business leaders who believe democracy is the foundation for a thriving economy and a politically engaged citizenry. LNP invests in leaders, influences policy, responds to risks, and partners to drive solutions. LNP's membership is national, with members in more than 25 states and chapters in 8, drawing on extensive business and alumni networks to drive local and national impact. https://www.wfd.org/ The Westminster Foundation for Democracy (U.K.): WFD is a public body dedicated to strengthening democracy around the world. Through its programs, expertise, and international partnerships, WFD helps solve problems of democracy so that democracies can address challenges, from climate change to corruption. https://www.bfa.us/ Business for America (U.S.): Business for America is a nonpartisan nonprofit business organization that focuses solely on improving America's civic health by increasing civic participation and voter turnout, restoring trust in elections and democratic institutions, reducing gridlock and polarization, and setting a positive example for business engagement in the political sector. https://www.civicalliance.com/ Civic Alliance (U.S.): The Civic Alliance is a nonpartisan coalition of businesses united by a commitment to democracy. The Civic Alliance supports its member companies as they inspire their employees and consumers to engage in civic life and their communities. https://www.isdglobal.org/ Institute for Strategic Dialogue (U.S. and Europe): This group is dedicated to safeguarding democracy and human rights by reversing the rising global tide of polarization, extremism, and authoritarianism. https://defenddemocracy.eu/about/mission/ Defend Democracy: Defend Democracy is an independent, non-partisan, nonprofit civil society organization with the mission of strengthening and defending democracy against foreign, domestic, and technological threats. Defend Democracy is registered as a non-profit foundation in The Hague, the international city of peace, justice, and security, and while most of its day- to- day work is done in Brussels, it engages both European and transatlantic allies. https://www.samaracentre.ca/ Samara Centre for Democracy (Canada): This nonpartisan charity produces research and holds events that advance a vibrant culture of civic engagement across Canada. The Samara Centre works to support a resilient democracy with responsive institutions, shaped by an engaged public. Thank you so much for listening! If you like what you hear, leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform, and make sure to check out the video over on the Leadership Kung Fu Youtube Channel! Connect with Jen on LinkedIn and visit her website Own Up!® Connect with Sandi on LinkedIn and visit her website Satori Consulting, Inc! Have a comment, question, or topic for Sandi and Jen? Email us at podcast@dramafreeworkforce.com or leave us a comment on LinkedIn.

In today's show Scott and David reflect on the career of the greatest surfer/shaper ever from The Hague, pen a eulogy to Scott's SUP career, plot an investment strategy to buy new boards before pioneer shapers retire, acknowledge Slater's unrivaled Teahupo'o resume before writing him off, finally determine an objective way to measure waves (thanks Henet Wave!), and receive a naturalistic remedy option to cure addiction. Plus Dukes and Kooks! Enjoy!

From the courtroom to The Hague, Greek-Australian, Her Honour Chrissa Loukas-Karlsson has built a remarkable legal career spanning more than four decades across Australia and the international stage.Joining Tom and Nick in The Distillery, the retired Supreme Court Judge reflects on a journey that began with the Aboriginal Legal Service and Legal Aid before leading to some of the highest offices in the legal profession. From appearing before international tribunals prosecuting war crimes to serving on the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Chrissa shares the experiences, challenges and defining moments that shaped her career.A fascinating conversation with one of Australia's most distinguished legal minds!This episode is brought to you by our good friends at:Pryor Tzannes and Wallis: https://ptwlaw.com.au/The Greek Providore: https://thegreekprovidore.com.au/Send us Fan Mail Support the showEmail us at ouzotalk@outlook.comSubscribe to our Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@OuzoTalkFollow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OuzoTalkFollow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ouzo_talk/

Mental health and systemic tactics meant to drive me crazy-how being kind to ppl makes them show their true hand to take advantage-when I feel bad for irrational rants the system ante up on the tactics-they amplify harassment to provoke me to make physical threats but when I tear down the psyche they get extra irrational that Im not self destructing-most of my life has been having to dumb down my ability to cater to other mediocre people-future sacrificial lambs-how vultures will pretend to care after I die-the long term effects of doing too much gossip-Dreams-cogs giving creeps carte blanche while putting me through 80 million purity tests-no one can match my realness-factions doing Howard Stern tactics-not gonna feel bad about cogs future sob stories-vultures doing behind the scene tactics to make it look like Im going on the offensive when Im constantly playing defense-always being followed-envisioned convos-having bigger fish to fry than dealing w new recruits-if I break balls ppl who dish it out can't take it-who gets propped up in what era-turning genuine plight and turning it into culture wars-trying to break free from consuming the fundamentalist entertainment industry-bailing out of social shit when ppl get too comfy around me-using my vulnerability to my advantage-not much music releases-Lil Uzi rehab leak-white parties by billionaires-fed influence in hip hop discourse-incentive for extreme fandom-streamers doing a gen z fuck boy version of what Stuttering John used to do-Jay Z casino bid discourse-gimmicked ways to keep beef era going-BET awards antics toward SZA/Doechii-normalizing anti women sentiment-identity politics being used in the most on surface way-initiated cogs-fundamentalism in all industries-not being able to truly confide in anyone in the game-current tv shows-Louis CK comedy special Using politics and race for discourse with WNBA-Tucker's third party-end times prophecy-fake libs help the right by denying any conspiratorial elements-Hague discourse-gimmicked discourse over Taylor Swift arranged showbiz marriage-blind fandom-turning politics into TMZ style-funded extremists-fandom shocked their fav celebs are supporting fascism-self immolation-fake left and libs gimmicked fighting-DSA storylines and some wrestling discourse that is getting boring-Recaps of AEW Collision, Smackdown and TNA

In this week's Legal Speak episode, Law.com reporter Alex Anteau and Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Sarah Fackrell examine a recent federal appeals court decision that could reshape how intellectual property lawsuits are served on defendants in China. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined the Second Circuit in holding that service by email is not permitted under the Hague Service Convention. The May 29, 2026 ruling is expected to have significant implications for the high-volume Schedule A trademark and copyright infringement cases frequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As one of the earliest scholars to study Schedule A litigation, Fackrell breaks down what the decision means for IP practitioners, international service of process, and the future of cross-border enforcement actions in this episode.   Hosts: Cedra Mayfield & Patrick Smith Reporter: Alex Anteau Guest: Sarah Fackrell Producer: Charles Garnar

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023).

The United States has traditionally been a great promoter of international justice – forging the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II and leading the way in creating tribunals to address genocides in Yugoslavia and Rwanda after the Cold War. Yet the US views the International Criminal Court – the culmination of the tribunal-building process – as a dire threat. The US voted against its establishment, passed legislation threatening to invade The Hague, and tried to destroy the ICC with economic sanctions. Delving into the uneasy relationship between the world's superpower and one of its most prominent international institutions, Above the Law: The United States and the International Criminal Court (Cambridge UP, 2026) explains how the desire to shield American soldiers from unwanted ICC scrutiny is the ultimate source of tension. Offering a sophisticated analysis of the ICC's track record that shows how American fears are overblown, Daniel Krcmaric argues that a more cooperative US policy toward the ICC would benefit both sides. Our guest is Daniel Krcmaric, an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Northwestern University. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

For the 47th episode of Reading the Art World, host Megan Fox Kelly speaks with Ruth Bernard Yeazell, Sterling Professor of English at Yale University, about "Vermeer's Afterlives," published by Princeton University Press.Vermeer's Afterlives traces how Vermeer, who died in 1675 and was largely forgotten within decades, was reconstructed by the critics, forgers, poets, and novelists who encountered his work over the following two centuries. Yeazell argues that the quiet, enigmatic Vermeer we revere was shaped as much by the process of recovery as by the paintings themselves: by the order in which his canvases were reattributed, by the near-absence of biographical record, and by the frameworks critics brought to an artist they were meeting for the first time.The conversation moves through those afterlives in full: Théophile Thoré, the French journalist who encountered Vermeer in The Hague in 1842 and assembled a catalogue—more than three-quarters of which no longer holds—but whose act of naming shaped what Vermeer would become; Han Van Meegeren, whose forged Supper at Emmaus was declared the greatest Vermeer ever painted because it supplied a scholarly gap critics had convinced themselves was waiting to be filled; and the writers who have tried to narrate the stories his paintings leave untold. The conversation closes on Proust, who Yeazell argues grasped what most literary respondents missed: Vermeer's paintings stage acts of looking, not storytelling.For anyone interested in Dutch Golden Age painting, the history of artistic reception, or how a body of work accumulates meaning across time and discipline, this episode is essential listening.ABOUT THE AUTHORRuth Bernard Yeazell is Sterling Professor of English and Director of Graduate Studies at Yale University. Her books include "Picture Titles: How and Why Western Paintings Acquired Their Names" and "Art of the Everyday: Dutch Painting and the Realist Novel," both published by Princeton University Press. Her writing has appeared in the New York Review of Books and the London Review of Books.PURCHASE THE BOOKhttps://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691277820/vermeers-afterlivesSUBSCRIBE, FOLLOW AND HEAR INTERVIEWS:For more information, visit meganfoxkelly.com, hear our past interviews, and subscribe at the bottom of our Of Interest page for new posts.Follow us on Instagram: @meganfoxkelly"Reading the Art World" is a podcast featuring live interviews with leading authors and writers on important new art books. Megan Fox Kelly is an art advisor and past President of the Association of Professional Art Advisors who works with collectors, estates and foundations.Music composed by Bob Golden

From digital assessment to systems transformation, what's changing, and what it matters. About Dr. Jenny Gillett Dr. Jenny Gillett is a Senior Expert in the International Baccalaureate's Education Innovation team, based in The Hague. She has worked with the IB for more than 15 years across curriculum and assessment, including leading reviews of the Diploma Programme philosophy, history, global politics and Theory of Knowledge. Her work has included curriculum development, assessment design, and supporting wider developments across IB programmes. Before joining the IB, Jennifer taught at Oakham School and Bedford School in the UK. She brings a strong mix of classroom experience, curriculum leadership, and assessment expertise, making her well placed to discuss how assessment, curriculum, and international education are evolving. Dr. Jenny Gillett on Social Media LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-gillett-87a19b22/  Resources https://ibo.org/ https://www.ibo.org/programmes/collaborative-review-of-the-dp-and-cp/systems-transformation/  https://www.ibo.org/programmes/collaborative-review-of-the-dp-and-cp/ https://www.mulgrave.com/senior-schoolgrades-10-12/ib-systems-transformation  John Mikton on Social Media LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jmikton/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/jmikton Web: beyonddigital.org Dan Taylor on social media: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/appsevents  Twitter: https://twitter.com/appdkt  Web: www.appsevents.com Listen on: iTunes / Podbean / Stitcher / Spotify / YouTube Do a full security audit of your Workspace for free at https://workspaceaudit.com Would you like to have a free 1 month trial of the new Google Workspace Plus (formerly G Suite Enterprise for Education)? Just fill out this form and we'll get you set up bit.ly/GSEFE-Trial

 Shell Oil, Miss America PageantLencola Sullivan Verseveldt is a American news anchor, singer and former beauty queen who has competed in the Miss America pageant & the 1st Black Runner-Up ever in that Pageant. She was the first African-American to be crowned Miss Arkansas.The oldest of five children born to Richard and Macie Sullivan. She attended the University of Central Arkansas where she received a degree in broadcasting.Sullivan won the Miss Arkansas title in July 1980 and represented Arkansas in the Miss America 1981 pageant held later that year in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Sullivan and Doris Hayes (Washington) became the first African-American women to win preliminary talent awards in the pageant. She was also the first to place among the top five, where she was fourth runner-up.Lencola became a news reporter on KARK-TV in Little Rock, Arkansas, and later moved to New York City. She has also worked for KTTV-TV in Austin, Texas, and sang with renown music artists Stevie Wonder, Kool & the Gang (for example on the album Unite) and Jazz Legend Lionel Hampton & his Orchestra, among many other things.She married Roel P. Verseveldt, a native of the Netherlands, in Little Rock, Arkansas. She and her husband have since been involved in international business activities. Among other things, Sullivan also works at Royal Dutch Shell and teaches and guest-lectures at the University of Groningen, both in the area of diversity and inclusion. She currently lives in The Hague. ~© 2026 Building Abundant Success!!2026 All Rights ReservedJoin Me on ~ iHeart Radio @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBAS

A devastating injury nearly ended her dreams of becoming a pilot. SUMMARY Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jannell MacAulay '98, Ph.D., says the accident was merely the first chapter in a career defined by perseverance, service and leadership. Listen to this inspiring story on Long Blue Leadership.   SHARE THIS EPISODE FACEBOOK  |  LINKEDIN DR. MACAULAY'S TOP 10 LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS 1. Choose your hard: You don't escape difficulty in life or leadership, you intentionally pick the hard path that aligns with who you want to become. 2. Let vision — not other people's verdicts — define you by holding a clear internal picture of your future that outvotes external “no's.” 3. Train your mind to eliminate the noise — unhelpful thoughts, doubts and narratives — to stay focused on what truly serves your goals. 4. Aim to harmonize your roles (leader, parent, partner, professional) across seasons of life rather than chasing a perfect work-life balance. 5. Be the calm in the storm by regulating your own stress response so your presence stabilizes your team instead of amplifying chaos. 6. Stop glorifying exhaustion and competitive stress and instead model healthy, high performance built on sleep, focus and quality over quantity. 7. Use simple daily mental skills — like mindfulness reps, the waterfall technique and a mindful minute at transitions — to protect clarity and compassion. 8. Replace “How are you doing?” with “What's going well for you today?” to surface real insight, build hope and better detect those sliding toward hopelessness. 9. Practice present, personalized recognition, because small, intentional gestures of appreciation can forge lifelong trust and loyalty. 10. When you hit a crucible moment and feel unsure you're ready, choose to commit and let the challenge grow you rather than hesitate.   CHAPTERS 00:00:00 – Introduction, Jannell's Academy injury, broken femur, and redefining “no” as possibility 00:05:54 – Her father's influence, early visions of command and flight, and limitless expectations 00:09:26 – “Choose your hard,” setting vision, eliminating noise, and turning barriers into options 00:12:22 – Air Force career breadth, strategy path, and introduction to the Syria chemical weapons mission 00:16:31 – Saying yes to Syria as a mother, family conversations, and the weight of the mission 00:19:00 – Syria as a crucible moment, inner critic vs external “no,” and committing through discomfort 00:22:17 – Identity beyond the uniform, family strain, rare eye disease, and pivot to mental performance work 00:27:06 – What stress really is, burnout, competitive stress culture, and leaders as calm vs storm 00:36:35 – Mindful leadership in action: no-email Fridays, recognition calls, and the “waterfall” technique 00:52:16 – “Breathless,” stories of Syrian mothers, legacy, and final advice to young leaders   ABOUT DR. MACAULAY BIO Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jannell MacAulay, Ph.D. '98, is a combat veteran who served 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, as a pilot, commander, special operations consultant, international diplomat and professionalism instructor. With her innovative leadership style, she was the first leader to introduce mindfulness as a proactive performance strategy within the United States military. Throughout her career she gained experience leading and building teams, designing and implementing complex organizational change, and creating innovative solutions to optimize the human weapon system when operating in rugged and high-stress environments. With over 3,000 flying hours in the C-21, C-130 and KC-10, and extensive education in performance and wellness, she specializes in high-performance under stress with a holistic approach. Dr. MacAulay currently serves as a leadership and human performance consultant for the Department of War, government sector and corporate America. She is the co-founder of Warrior's Edge, a high-performance mindset training program she developed with Pete Carroll of the Seattle Seahawks and high-performance sports psychologist, Dr. Michael Gervais. Dr. MacAulay is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, has a master's degree in kinesiology from Pennsylvania State University, and a Ph.D. with work in the field of strategic health and human performance. She is a certified wellness educator, yoga instructor and holds a certificate in plant-based nutrition. Dr. MacAulay is a TEDx speaker, military spouse and mother of two.     CONNECT WITH JANNELL LINKEDIN  |  WEBSITE   CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LINE PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Ted Robertson | Producer and Editor:  Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org   Ryan Hall | Director:  Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org  Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor:  Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer:  Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org     ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE AT USAFA.ORG/LONGBLUELEADERSHIP AND ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS     FULL TRANSCRIPT Guest, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Jannell MacAulay, Ph.D. '98  |  Host, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99    Lt. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 0:00 Leadership begins the moment someone tells you what you can't do, and you decide they don't get to write the rest of your story. Lt. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 0:00 I'm Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. Long Blue Leadership starts now. Well, Dr. Janelle McCauley, Class of '98 welcome to Long Blue Leadership. This is an amazing time for us. Excited to have you.   Lt. Col. Jannell MacAulay 0:19 Thank you so much for having me. I know this has been a long time coming, so I'm excited to be here with you to start a conversation.   Lt. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 0:24 Absolutely, you know, I do want to highlight some of the things you've done. It's probably true that the list is shorter for me to say what you haven't done, but pilot, combat veteran, you're a leadership strategist, you're a mother, a wife, author — we'll talk about that later. You know, also really getting into the space of a human performance specialist, a commander, all of these things that you've done and, gosh, 20 years in the Air Force, and now having been out, so excited to talk today. Lt. Col. Jannell MacAulay 0:51 Thank you so much for that amazing introduction. I don't know if I could live up to even what you just said, in some ways. But yeah, I just would love to share with your listeners how amazing the Air Force Academy can be for the potential and the possibilities for someone's future. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 1:07 Absolutely, so let's actually jump into a time early in your cadet days, so we'll tie it right to the Air Force Academy. There was a moment in time where you literally broke your femur. I'm curious, did it break your dreams too, of being a cadet at the time? Col. Jannell MacAulay 1:21 It almost did. And there's a story to that, so I'll go into that a little bit. So, during basic training, I developed a stress fracture. You know, running in combat boots, especially the old black version that we used to run in. Lt. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 1:35 Yes, I remember.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 1:36 Not a good thing for your body. And so I had developed this pain in my right quad to the point where I could not even stand on my right leg to put my left pant leg on, during, you know, as you're rushing to — banging on the doors, we'll be dressed, like, “Open the doors, you will be dressed,” yeah, and I would be, you know, Welcome to the Jungleplaying —   Lt. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 1:55 I remember that.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 1:56 I'm putting up my pants and I'm in pain, and my roommate's like, “What is happening?” Like, “You need to go to the doctor,” and I refused to, at first, of course, right? Push through it, right? And then when I finally went, they were like, “Here's the Ace bandage and some vitamin M, you know, Motrin. And, of course, I didn't know anything different, so I kept going. And then it was three days after basic training had finished, and I was at cheerleading practice, and I was doing a back flip, and my femur, like, literally snapped in half. It sounded like a tree branch. It was — I just collapsed to the floor, and this was before we had cell phones, right? So, if you can imagine, I'm 17 years old, so I hadn't turned 18 yet, and so they couldn't give me any pain medication, you know. The emergency — the ambulances rushing into the emergency room at the Academy hospital, which was not equipped to deal with what just happened to me. So, they sent me up to the Army hospital in Denver at the time, was Fitzsimmons. They couldn't understand why a 17-year-old's femur would just snap, and no one wanted to really address the fact that maybe it was a stress fracture at the time, so they actually told me I had cancer. So, they did — a bone type, a bone type of cancer, and so they did a biopsy on the bone. I lived in traction for 10 days while all my classmates were continuing on with their freshman year. So I was about — they eventually determined that this was not cancer, this was actually stress fracture, and so the two choices they gave me was a cast from my hip to my toe for about six months, or they were going to put a rod and four screws. So a rod the length of my femur, two screws of screws on my knee, two screws in my hip. And then the doctor said, “Either way, you're never flying airplanes,”   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 3:36 And that was your dream?   Col. Jannell MacAulay 3:38 That was my dream. Yes, my uncle had flown Marine 1 for President Reagan, so I grew up watching him fly helicopters in the Marine Corps, fly the President, and just he was the coolest person ever, and I wanted to be just like him. He took me to the air shows, so yes, it was a crushing moment. You know, it was something where I thought I could either let what people were telling me, the doctor saying, “You're never gonna bend your leg like this, you're never gonna be a runner, you're never gonna be a pilot,” and I could let that define me, or I could choose to define myself and what I was going to be capable of, and what the possibilities would be for me in the future. And so it was very hard for 17-, 18-year-olds to process all of this, but my dad used to give, tell me a quote, and it was, “Vision is the art of seeing the invisible,” and he would always tell me, “If you could see it for yourself, you can make it happen,” and so when it came time for being pilot qualified, I actually chose to get all of the metal removed out of my leg, just so that there was no reason for them to not allow me to go to pilot training. And so I went through that, which was — Col. Naviere Walkewicz 4:49 Another surgery, wow. Col. Jannell MacAulay 4:50 Yes. So through all of that, I have learned that was the first experience where I learned a lot about myself and what I was, what I could focus on, how I could set a vision for myself in the future, and how I could start to eliminate the noise — that's what I call it now. I didn't have language for it at the time, but it's eliminate the noise that does not serve us in pursuit of our passions, in pursuit of our dreams. And that was what I had started to do, which it's kind of full circle that that is now my career, to help other people do it. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 5:26 I want to peel that back a little bit. There's so many things. I mean, your dad's quote: “Vision is when you can see the invisible. I think I paraphrased that a bit. One more time.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 5:33 It's actually a Jonathan Swift quote, and that “vision is the art of seeing the invisible.” Col. Naviere Walkewicz 5:39 OK, so were you always that way growing up because you had, you know, your dad in your life sharing that kind of thought with you, or has it been a series of experiences that you've had that have kind of really made you that way? Col. Jannell MacAulay 5:54 So, my dad has always been a very positive role model in the sense of eliminating barriers and dreaming big. So, when I was 7 years old, and I was a ballerina, he used to tell anyone that — and I distinctly remember this as a little girl — he would tell anyone that would listen that I was going to grow up to be a submarine warfare commander or a combat pilot. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 6:16 Oh, wow, not a swan, no ballerina, you know — Col. Jannell MacAulay 6:18 And I would literally be in my tutu, and he would tell strangers at the grocery store, right, “This is my daughter, Jannell, she's gonna grow up and do these amazing things.” And in the '80s, women couldn't do it, right? We weren't there yet, right? We were not allowed to — and so I didn't know that. I didn't grow up thinking that there were barriers on what I could become, and I think that's a, we have this role as parents to help our children see what's possible, because you know they can either be told where the limits are or they could be told where the possibilities exist, and I think my dad did a lot of that for me, and so that I think is a lot of my story is, like, journeying through challenge and trauma to figure out that I didn't have to listen to that voice. I could create a new one, and my dad taught me how to do that, and then I've kind of developed, what I think, are skills and training, because it's hard. It is very hard to do, and so I like that's been what my Ph.D. work and my research has been focused on, is how can I help other people who don't have maybe that those resources or their parents in their life that have taught them those things. How can I give them those tools?   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 7:27 So you were a cadet when you made the decision that you still wanted to be a pilot, and you didn't want there to be anything that said you couldn't, so you made the decision to have the metal removed from your body. As we think about decisions that we have to make in life, that could be dream-opening decisions or dream-closing decisions. How did you come to that decision? And you know what would you share to someone who's at a similar crossroads in their life? Like, how do you navigate? That's a tough decision you made.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 7:54 It was a huge decision. I think part of it is understanding what are you passionate about? Who do you want to become? And not just about what you want to do, what type of person you are. That's a lot of what I think mental skills work is as well, is like, who's the person underneath, because once you figure that out, then the doing follows, right? Like, you could do anything, and I was the type of person underneath it all that did not like to be told no, right? Or I loved it when someone would say, “You can't do that,” right? It's like the challenge is what inspires me and motivates me, and so when they were saying you will not be a pilot, it was like, OK, well, then how do I get to yes? And part of that path was I had to have the metal removed. Now, there were some arguments, like, “Maybe you'll be fine.” I don't want to take the risk, right? I was like, “Nope, I don't want to give anyone an excuse to take something away from me.” That was kind of the mindset at the time. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 9:00 So, I think that really dives into this idea of, you can, when you said yourself: The no in front of you is kind of like, “How do I turn that into a yes?” You know, clear out the noise. How did that play into your life as an Air Force officer? Because I'm sure that you came across a lot of what we're seemingly no's. What did that look like? Col. Jannell MacAulay 9:22 So, here's, but, and this goes back to the Academy as well. I tell young people today, my greatest gift is to tell them, “Choose your hard.”   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 9:34 Choose your hard.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 9:35 Choose your hard, right. Anytime I'm asked to speak to a college, you know, high school audience, like, I do mental skills, but a lot of times the theme is “choose your hard,” because I think people are — young people are always in pursuit of the easy button, and then when they encounter hard, like, “Oh, there's got to be a better way.” The lesson is, it's all hard, right? It's all hard. So, determine what you want to do, or who you want to be more, and how you're going to get there, set the vision, and then navigate through the hard. And I would argue you need to equip yourself with the mental skills to do that, and in pursuit of that, there is going to be no right, there are going to be challenges, and part of it is accepting the challenges instead of being afraid of them, because it is through those challenges that we're actually going to accomplish great things, and we're going to get to reach our dreams and our goals. And I think that that is something I struggled with, but I found a way and a path through it. So, I think that there's always going to be no in your life, and I like to create opportunities, so then I have, I get the choice instead of just having to default to someone else telling me no, like even when I left the Academy, I applied for pilot training for grad school, for physical therapy school. Because I wanted to have opportunities, so then I got to choose which path I wanted in the future, which hard I was going to choose for myself in that moment.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 11:03 I just — I'm thinking about you, went into the Air Force as a pilot, and you talk about choosing your hard, and you also are a mother. Let's talk about that piece. I think just navigating the and in being a mother and a leader and an Air Force officer and a combat veteran, a pilot, etc. I mean, that's a lot.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 11:23 It is a lot, but I think underneath it all, the person that I am is one who not balances my life but harmonizes it and all the roles that I get to play. I think that's the greatest thing about the Air Force. You list all those things that I've done. I was watching the cadets yesterday, I was one of them, with just a bright future and so much possibility. And under one organization, I got to fly multiple airplanes, I got to go back to school numerous times, study a lot of interesting topics, from my degree in exercise physiology, from Penn State to my Ph.D. in strategy. So I got to study all these different things. I got to work in chemical weapons, which I know we're going to talk about later. I got to fly around the world, I got to lead people all under one team, right, one organization, and that is the greatest thing I think the Air Force can give people if they take those opportunities that are in front of them. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 12:23 Yes. Well, let's, let's jump into a time — you actually brought up Syria. And so let's go there, because I think I would like to hear more about the story, and how it kind of unfolded around the chemical weapons there. Col. Jannell MacAulay 12:36 So, I got sent to — it's post… So I went to the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies — SAASS time, and my husband and I were actually the first married couple to go through SAASS together. And stayed married at the end. There was one other married concept that it were exactly that. There was one other married couple with us at the time, which is really unique, but I took — you know, through SAASS, you get a strategy focus, and you have to go do a strategy job somewhere for your staff to work. OK, and so my husband really wanted to go work at the Pentagon, so he was on the joint staff working on the Israel-Palestine desk for the chairman, and I was like, “What else can I do in DC to keep my family together, that would be interesting?” And there was this job at this little organization called the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and DTRA, as they're known, is the brain trust for everything weapons of mass destruction, so chemical, biological, nuclear weapons, planning, research, execution of mission, that is all run out of DTRA, and so I was like, “That sounds interesting, I've never done anything in any of this space, but it'll be an easy job,” is what I thought, because I was about to have my second baby, and every time I call them, no one ever answered, like, past 3 o'clock so I'm like, “Great job.” Exactly. Like, I got my staff tour done, and I get to do something new. But I was a fish out of water, you know, like former pilots, like going into this situation, the WMDs. They gave me that job also, because no one wanted it, it was almost asking people who are experienced in the world of chemical weapons to do an impossible task, right, to handle an impossible problem. And so, at the time, nobody really wanted to put their name to it, because there was a no-win. We don't have diplomatic relations with Syria, like this — a bad civil war was happening there with an evil dictator, right? Like, how were we going to solve that problem without any type of relations? And then, you know their proxy of Russia, right? So then it's like we don't even have — we didn't have the greatest relations with them. So when August of 2013 occurred, and Assad used chemical weapons against a civilian population, 1,400 people died almost instantaneously from sarin gas. Sarin gas is one of the most awful chemicals, immediately, right? It's like paralysis. It makes your eyes water, like you become — it's a horrific way to die. And when that happened, my life changed, because all of a sudden it was like, “Oh my gosh, this is real. And, “Who's been studying this problem?” And at the time, it was you and your team. And so we kind of got thrust — I got — I went to London almost immediately to start briefing our international partners on what we had been building and studying, and luckily we had been, for the better part of six months, working on this problem. And then shortly after that, I went to the Hague, because Syria did turn over their chemical weapons to the international community, and there's a whole story behind that. Obviously, we got the Russians to help with that. And then I got sent to the Hague to work at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons — the OPCW is who has all the inspectors and the teams who helped destroy and inspect the status of these chemical weapons — and so I got sent there to work with them and negotiate directly with the Syrians and the Russians to build the plan. And I remember my boss was like, “You have to go, and I don't know when you're coming back, we need someone over there to be running point on this mission,” and yeah, he sent me, and he said I didn't have to go writing my little kids, Andrew just turned 1, but he said, you know, “We need you, and this is what I picked you for, this mission, and this is what it's for.” So, yeah. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 16:31 Wow, what did you — what went through your mind when you were asked to go, and you had the opportunity to make that decision? What do you mind besides the fact that you have young children? Col. Jannell MacAulay 16:44 Well, of course, like, I think, like most mothers, you never are like, “I still want to leave my kids,” right? I want to go, but I knew it was the right thing to do, because I had the ability to make an impact and a difference, because I knew the mission inside and out. I was the right person at the right time, and I was ready. I distinctly remember I went home to talk to my children. Well, Ally, she was 6 at the time, and I remember talking to her, and I said, 'Mommy has to go away to handle this mission. And what I'm going to do while I'm away is there's some really bad stuff that some really bad people have, and I'm going to work to take that stuff away from them, so that they cannot hurt anyone anymore, and she looks up, and she's, you know, crying. We're both crying, and she said, “Mommy, like a superhero?” And, I just, like, kind of nodded, and she's like, “You can go, Mommy,” like, “You can go.” And it was in that moment that I realized, like, that's why we do these jobs. It was to protect her, to model to her that, like, I can be a mom, I can be a strong mom, and I can also go do things in the service of my country and the service of my nation and it was important for me to go, and then — so that was a driving force, like knowing that my family was going to be OK and supportive, but the other driving force was thinking about the mothers in Syria who lost their children, and thinking, here I was holding mine and they will never get to hold their children anymore. I mean, hundreds of children died and were put in mass graves after this, and mothers didn't get to say goodbye, mothers didn't get to hold their children, and they suffered immensely in those moments. And so I kept thinking about the Syrian mothers, and how if I could do anything to help prevent something like that from happening again, then I had to go, right, I had to do that for them. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 18:44 Would you say that that mission, or that part, that time in your career, was something that was so impactful in your life it changed you, or it maybe shifted your focus on things you were going to do later, or was it just at that time, this is where I need to be doing and making an impact? Col. Jannell MacAulay 19:01 There's a whole story behind it, where we were dismissed, and we came up with the innovative idea of how to solve this problem by destroying these chemical weapons on a boat, ship — sorry, Navy — on a ship in the middle of the Mediterranean. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 19:12 Was that because you were told it couldn't be done that way? Col. Jannell MacAulay 19:14 Yeah, exactly. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 19:15 Oh, interesting. Col. Jannell MacAulay 19:17 We had to actually start a whisper campaign within the Pentagon, and the State Department and the National Security Council to get our idea heard. And eventually, it was. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 19:28 So I'd like to take a little bit of time in that space of when you recognize that need to keep pushing for, right, the choosing your hard. How do you navigate that? What would you recommend to somebody who has been no, no, no, no, no, no, no. How do you work your way through that? Col. Jannell MacAulay 19:45 Well, I would first ask, where is the no coming from? Because if the no is coming from your inner critic, right, I know how to get rid of that and eliminate that, and that is actually what most people — like, that is what prevents most people from doing great things. I like to say that we all have these crucible moments in our life, a moment where we're asked to do something that we really don't think we could do, right? Like, we're kind of like, “Oh my God, deep down you're like, “Oh, I don't think I'm gonna do this. Can I do this?” And in that moment, we have the opportunity to either hesitate or commit. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 20:24 Was Syria your yes? Col. Jannell MacAulay 20:26 It was very much a crucible moment. You could either hesitate and say, “Oh no, I can't do this, it's too big for me,” like, “I can't take this responsibility,” or “I can't make this decision,” or “I can't believe in my idea,” because the voice in your head says so. But sometimes it could even be real people telling you and dismissing you and saying, like, “You can't do this.” So, “Where does the no come from?” is always the first question. And if it's an internal no, you can train your mind to eliminate that noise. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 20:54 Yes. OK, I like that, because then you — it opened up your eyes to the possibilities of who you might connect with that can then help navigate through some of that challenge. Col. Jannell MacAulay 21:03 And here's the reason why we, as humans, love this: What happens when you step into discomfort, right? You're at that moment, that crucible moment, and then you decide to commit, and you step into discomfort, and you navigate through it, and you get to the other side. How does that feel? Col. Naviere Walkewicz 21:18 Amazing. Col. Jannell MacAulay 21:18 Right? You throw your arms up in the air: “I'm a badass! Look at what I just did.” And even you're like, I didn't think I could do that, and I did it. That is what we live for as humans. I don't think people realize that, right? Like, we want those moments, but we don't want the discomfort that comes in getting them. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 21:35 We want to be at the other end, right?   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 21:37 We just want to be at the other end of that, because we love that moment where you throw — so you're not gonna throw your hands up if you're like, “Oh yeah, that was so easy.” Col. Naviere Walkewicz 21:43 That's a good point. Col. Jannell MacAulay 21:44 Right. You wouldn't be like, “I feel so good about it.” I'll come—   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 21:45 We wouldn't share with people if everybody could do it. Col. Jannell MacAulay 21:47 Right? Exactly, so we do love those moments as humans, and I think that is part of what — I teach people how to not be afraid of discomfort, to get more opportunity and more times, more reps of those throw your hands up in the air and be a badass. Right? Like, and that's really what I think it's about, is being ready for that moment, and the more often you're ready for that moment, the more often you step into discomfort, the more throw your hands up in the moments you get.. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 22:18 So, if humans are chasing that, and that feeling of, like, you know, commit, raise your hand, get through it, and you know, kind of bask in like that, that moment, because you loved it so much. There's probably a desire to seek more of those opportunities. How did you navigate your career after that? I know you served 20 years. Was there a point where you're like, “It's time for me to move into this space,” or did you just happen to really decide to commit to this new world of mental performance and toughness? Col. Jannell MacAulay 22:49 So, I, like, most military members, I went through a phase where I got really caught up in my identity as an Air Force officer, Air Force pilot, and it can be scary to leave that identity with the one you've always known, the one that you've been comfortable with, and even though I'm successful in — and even though I do enjoy challenge and discomfort, it was scary, right? It is scary, and I think that, well, first, part of my story was, I don't know that I was necessarily completely ready to leave, but the Air Force was making it really difficult for my family. My husband and I, he was a maintenance officer, pilot, you would think maintenance and pilot, very like cohesive, compatible. We would be able to be stationed together. We spent six years apart, and two of the last three that I was in the Air Force, we did not live together. OK, and that was hard. Our kids are getting older, and I distinctly remember I was in New Jersey, commanding a squadron. My husband was in New Mexico, commanding a group. Note to the Air Force: New Mexico and New Jersey are only close in the alphabet, right? These are not close locations, not at all. And full disclosure, I had the kids with me and an au pair, because I couldn't have done it otherwise. And I remember my husband flew home, you know? He thought he would get in at like 2 a.m. on Friday night and have sleep for 10 a.m. on Sunday morning, right? Get back. I remember we woke up our son, he was four at the time, and he looks up and he goes, “Mom, Dad, you're together,” and I was like, “No, this is not OK.” Like I don't want my children to just wake up or just be grateful when their parents are in the same room, like, that's not what I want for their childhood experience. And so I actually gave up my command six months early, and that was one of the hardest things I've ever done, because I loved being a commander, but I was at a point in my life where I realized my squadron will get another commander who cares so much about them, just like I do, but my kids only have like one mom, yeah, and they had one dad, and they needed us together. And so that was a hard decision, but it did set me like on a trajectory to think about retirement, to think about, you know, what I could do on the outside, and actually it was like divine intervention, I actually lost my pilot qualification. I have a rare eye disease, and so I've gone very blind to my central vision, like 80% blind to my right eye. So I was going to get my pilot qualification taken from me, and so I think that was God's way of saying, “It's time, this is not your path anymore. You have a different gift,” right? Flying was a great gift, leading in the Air Force was a great gift. “There's a different path for you.” And so that's when I retired, and then kind of realized there were so many people that wanted to hear this information. There were so many people that were struggling with this idea of “How do I perform? How do I manage stress? How do I get those badass, like, throw my hands up in air moments?” And I started by working with high-performing teams, the military, first responders, hospital workers, you know. Then COVID hit, and I realized everybody, everybody needs it, stress, like psychological disorders, like they're on the rise, anxiety, and if I knew how to help people, why would I keep that to myself, right? Like, it's just became something I'd be passionate about. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 26:29 Goodness, that's probably something that people don't know just by looking at you, that you actually have an eye disease that you battle through, and I'm curious on when you started into this work, like you said, COVID hit, and you realize everybody needed this. It almost is a bit of, maybe reinvention is not the right word, but you literally change your trajectory completely, even though you had all that schooling. So, my question is, how did you actually, how do you determine who you work with, because the land is so vast of who needs it, you know? I mean, how do you actually do that? Col. Jannell MacAulay 27:06 There's only one of me. It has been hard. My tribe is always the military, and even though I do spend a lot of time in the private sector working with, you know, companies from Amazon, NBC Universal, like, hotel chains, different industries — which I love — anytime a military commander reaches out and says, “We need help,” whether it's burnout, whether it's just not optimizing performance, whether it's stress-management, because if you look at the majority of DOCS today, people are burnout and stressed out, and—   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 27:47 Oh, the organizational climate service.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 27:49 Yes, yes, the climate service. And so most of the time, how do you, how do you manage that as a commander? Because, and here's the thing about stress and burnout: Stress is a perceived emotion. People don't think about it, but the actual what stress is, is your perception as to whether you have the mental resources to meet the demands of a given moment. So, your brain, when you're faced with a stressor, something comes at you, and it's a stimulant, right? And your environment, whether it was like a contentious conversation, traffic, it was like a big decision, like flying a plane in combat, right, whatever that is coming at you, your brain does a like split-second calculation as to whether you have the mental resources to meet the demands of that moment, and if your brain says, “Oh hell no,” it becomes overwhelming, it becomes stress, it be it sends you into this like spiral of like anxiety, which is like — what anxiety actually is, it's your mind's creation of what you think is going to happen in the future. It actually hasn't happened to you. Anxiety is a complete creation of the mind, right? It is. Our minds are fantastic at mental time travel. They will take us in catastrophizing about the future. I like to tell people, the majority of the catastrophes you will experience in your lifetime, they will only happen inside your head, right? They will feel very real, because our minds are fantastic at this time travel. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 29:11 Then it turns physical. Col. Jannell MacAulay 29:12 Yes, then it becomes like part of our physiology. So that's what this is, what leads to chronic stress. It leads to preventive illness that sets in, because we live our lives in this chronic state of stress, and stress again is a perception. So you could also be stimulated by that stressor, and instead of getting overwhelmed, you could say, “Bring it on.” Like, this is a challenge and I've got the resources to meet this moment. It's a choice. Again, I get people, “It's not as simple as that.” It is as simple as that, but it's hard in practice, and most of that is because we have spent 20, 30, 40 years training and wiring our brains for one direction, which is to strat for stress and survival, right. And so when I do ask people to flip it, you can't just flip it over, but these are not soft skills. This is why what I teach is very hard, because you're rewiring your brain. The good news is it's called neuroplasticity. We can rewire our brains, but it does take work and deliberate commitment, and that's why, you know, I see this all the time with spouses. They're like, “I don't see what is the big deal. My wife is freaking out,” or vice versa, like in a cockpit. Like, I'm calm, and I'm like, “Why is my co-pilot freaking out?” It's that perception, and how our brain deals stressors. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 30:27 So, we have a lot of listeners that are leading people. How do you navigate their ability to help others through that, or is it really more dependent on the individual themselves? Like, do you need the individual to do with the work with you, or can you work with the leader and help them navigate that with their folks? Col. Jannell MacAulay 30:46 You can absolutely work with the leader, and as a leader, you can role model the behaviors. So, there's some real science behind this. For example, how often is a leader creating a storm instead of being the calm in the storm, right?   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 31:02 More often than people realize.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 31:03 Right, it really is, and it's almost one of those things where later can be the calm in the storm, right? But when they're not, they embody the stress that then pervades through the organization, right? Like they create that culture, and so if you have a boss that comes in every day stressed out, you have a boss that's not sleeping. I absolutely, this is what drives you crazy about leaders in the Air Force, who will say things like, “I only sleep three, four hours a night,” and like, you are bragging your suboptimal, right, from someone who studies performance and psychology, and like, you are literally telling people, “I am not ready to make decisions on your behalf or be your leader today.” Col. Naviere Walkewicz 31:42 I like how you said that: “You are bragging your suboptimal.” That is right, there, those words, that's fantastic. Col. Jannell MacAuley 31:48 Right, but we — it's part of our culture, right, to even kind of be like proud of it. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 31:51 How much did I actually, you know, keep myself up to get more done? Col. Jannell MacAulay 31:55 Yes, yes. And so here's another example. I'll tell a quick story. I was a commander, sat down Monday morning meeting with my peers, and one guy says, “Oh, I worked all day Sunday on performance reports, like, I have a sick kid at home, so I only got like two hours of sleep, like barely had time to grab coffee, you know, but I'm here to be a badass.” And then the next guy goes, “Well, let me tell you something. I worked Saturday and Sunday on all my performance reports, and, oh, by the way, two sick kids at home, so I didn't sleep last night.” Wow, you know, “I didn't have time to grab coffee, but like, I'm here to be a badass.” And then they turned to me, like, expecting me to one up them on my stress. It's a culture of competitive stress that we live in. And instead, I said, “Well, my husband doesn't live with me. I had to get all my work done last week, so I can spend the weekend with my kids,” but mind you, I had the OSS, the flying squadron, so I had triple the size squadron, “but I got all my work done last week because I was more focused in my work. Then I hung out with my kids, everyone slept great, like no one's sick, we're all good. I've got my yummy green smoothie to start the day,” and instead of anyone at that table saying, “Oh my gosh, how do you do that?” The sentiment was, “Well, she's obviously not working hard now.” That's our culture, like our culture is one of, if you're not stressed, if you're not showing how busy you are, you're not valued, and actually that is not the path to performance. The path to performance is quality over quantity, it's sleeping, it's demonstrating to stay calm, it's making good decisions, it's, you know, so we as leaders can either set that tone that we're in this competitive stress, which then makes our captains not want to be us, like that's a huge problem, right? But if you're the type of leader who stays calm, if you're the type of leader that they see, “Oh, they go home every night on time, they do spend — they do leave early sometimes to go to their kids' soccer game.” That could, should be OK, but it never — I never didn't perform my job right, I was still working hard and doing the things I needed to do every day, I just was more efficient. Here's the stat: We mind-wander half our waking moments. Do you know what that means? Like, we've all read a page in the book, back to the bottom. Yep, don't know what I read. Drove in your car someplace, don't know how I got there. Yep,   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 34:06 Yep, autopilot   Col. Jannell MacAulay 34:06 That's when you have an off-task thought, your brain, your attention system goes off task during an ongoing task or activity. I'm telling my brain to pay attention to driving or reading, it goes elsewhere. It's unintentional, and when our brain does that. t mind-wanders towards stressors, worries, catastrophes, Col. Naviere Walkewicz 39:41 To-do lists.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 34:22 To-do lists, exactly. All of those horrible things that then make you more angry and distraught and unhappy, right? So, what if we could get control of that, stop spending so much time in that distraction and be more focused? Well, you do that by not having your phone all the time, you do that by looking at people and actually listening, because this is where leadership comes in. If we're having a conversation and I'm telling you something important, you're my, you're my commander, and I look at you and I'm like, “She's looking at me but not listening.” You can feel that as you can see. And so leaders can be mindful and focused and pay attention. It doesn't take that much, but it takes awareness. That's really what we're training when we train our minds. We are training our awareness. I'm not saying that I am perfect at being focused, I am not perfect at staying calm. The difference is, is when I start to get out of control, I recognize it quickly, and I redirect. When I notice myself not paying attention to our conversation, I redirect very quickly. That's the skill, and that's what we're not teaching enough leaders, I don't think. We're getting there, because I think leaders can set the talent, leaders can set the example, and when I was a commander, I collected data, and we found that, you know, 60, over 60% of the leaders I was interacting with on a daily basis changing their life based on the things I was teaching them, based on the way I was modeling behaviors, and then a greater squadron, it was like 35% and that's — I didn't even teach them anything, I just demonstrated an example. So imagine once you start teaching people how much more those stats will grow and how people's lives will change. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 36:04 Right. well, one of my favorite stories, I think, that you know, and I'm thinking about our leaders that are listening in here as they, as they think about how they can be better leaders. One of the stories you shared previously was actually recognizing someone by calling someone important in their life to share their good news, and it took like two minutes. I think what a wonderful lesson, like being a great leader and championing someone does not have to take a long time, but the impact lasts — could be forever. Do you mind sharing that story? Because I just think that's such a wonderful one. Col. Jannell MacAulay 36:35 I love that story. So, I had an airman who got below-the-zone senior airman, and I used to do a thing where, you know, whether it was a coin or whether it was an award or whether it was just a job all done, and we wanted to celebrate someone in the squadron, you know, you could send someone an email. I hate email, which I did — also as a commander, No- Email Friday. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 36:56 Really?!   Col. Jannell MacAulay 36:56 Did not check my emails on Fridays because I wanted one day where I wasn't chained to my desk, like I was like, in fact, you know how my wing commander found out I was doing No-email Friday? Col. Naviere Walkewicz 37:06 Because they emailed and you didn't email back? Col. Jannell MacAulay 37:08 He got my out-of-office response. Welcome to No-email Friday. “I'm not checking my email today. If you really need to get a hold of me, call me. There's my phone number.”   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 37:15 I love that.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 37:16 So I did that to ensure that I could spend more time with, like, how do you lead people if you don't know them?   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 37:23 Right, you can't.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 37:24 And if you're sitting behind your desk or you're checking emails, like, you can't know people. So I would spend Friday down and about, and we used to do this thing where I would call someone special first for someone, if maybe they had a big event or whatever we were celebrating. So one day, this gentleman got below the zone, and I asked him to pull out his phone, because I used to call people, and people don't answer strange numbers anymore. So that stopped working. I was like, “You pick — pull out your phone, let's call someone special that you pick, and because everyone's gonna answer their kids, right? And I actually talked to, like, spouses, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, like brothers, sisters of people, yeah, over the course of my commands, and I asked him to pull out his phone, called his dad. I got to brag on him a little bit, saying, like, “Hey, this is what your son is doing,” and most of the time kids don't even tell their parents what they're doing in the Air Force, so it was an opportunity for that. At the end of the conversation, I remember it just like it was yesterday. The dad said, “I'm so proud of you, I love you, son.” And I looked up, and my airman just had tears streaming down his face, and I was getting choked up, and my airman said, my dad has never said that to me before. So we're busy as leaders, like we are, go, go, go, we are in a competitive stress environment, whether we want to be or not, and I'm just asking leaders to pause, right, and it doesn't have to take a lot of time, right, just pause. Those types of interactions you have with an airman, the next time you need them to work late, the next time you need them to take the hill, the next time you need them to go deploy, or whatever it is, you've built a level of trust that only happens when you're paying attention, and that's what the future fight is about. The future fight is about connecting as human beings and focusing when we're doing those hard and challenging things, and the way we do both of those is by training our attention system. You know, we have to pay attention to each other, and we have to pay attention to our job, so that we can be high performing when it's hard.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 39:25 This has been excellent. I didn't — wow. Got me… Tears. Eyes are sweating here in the studio. No, this is wonderful. I'm curious, with all the work that you do in helping others, what is something you're doing every day to stay sharp yourself in this space to be better as a leader, what's something you do?   Col. Jannell MacAulay 39:46 I am really big on continuously challenging myself, like I always want to have a goal or something hard in my future, like I think that that, especially as we get older, I think it's really important. And so, on a personal front, I just signed up to run 50 miles.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 40:04 Oh my goodness.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 40:04 I got five friends to do it with me, so I'm like excited. Yeah, it's not all in one day, it's like you run a 5k, 10k, half-marathon, marathon over the course of four days. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 40:14 And so the longest race at the end. Wow. Col. Jannell MacAulay 40:16 At the end. Yes, that's why it's a big challenge. And so that's my next one. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 40:22 When is that?   Col. Jannell MacAulay 40:23 That is in January. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 40:24 Oh my goodness, so yeah.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 40:25 Just about. And again, for someone who was told you will never be a runner, I think that's also why I want to do it, you know, just to prove to myself that I can, so that's kind of a personal challenge, but on the leadership front, you know, I challenge myself every day. Writing a book was scary, right? You know, when I go and work with each team, whether it's someone in the, you know, like a company or whether it's a military unit, I try to take my time to like customize exactly what they need. It's not just going to be like cookie cutter for everyone, and so that's like my continuous challenge is, can I go into an environment and lead and instruct and educate and train in a way that's meaningful to that group, and that's, you know, what I would, I do for my job, but most importantly, I love this sentiment that you can be everything to someone or you can be someone to everyone. Sometimes in my job I get on a stage, I talk to thousands of people, and I'm someone to a lot of people, right? I can give them a little piece of what I teach, but I also have two young people in my life, my children, that my role to be everything to them is also very important, and so I try to harmonize that the best I can, because it's easy. They get caught up in, like, I'm just gonna go out there and keep sharing this message and forget that there's people closest to me. You know, leadership is about influence, right? Your 3-foot circle, which one of my classmates at the academy, Ronnie Buller, taught me, right? Your 3-foot circle is who you interact with, whether it's your family, your team, your neighbors, your community, and so you have the ability to continuously lead, and that's I want to continuously lead by example and teach people that we need to train their minds. It's not a whoo whoo thing, it's a hard thing that requires deliberate and consistent practice, and it will pay dividends if you give it the focus and time it deserves. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 42:28 I appreciate that you use the word that you like to harmonize things in your life versus balance. I think that's a very distinct difference. It's really impressive. If you could go back in time and talk to Janelle, young Janelle, or maybe it's even just talking to your daughter once you're young girl. What advice would you give her in the space of leadership? Col. Jannell MacAulay 42:48 Well, I would say to choose your hard, and I wish somebody would have imparted that a little bit more on me. I had that sentiment, and I had a lot of grit, and I had a lot of determination, and that's why I did accomplish a lot when I was younger, but it was more difficult than it needed to be. I'm not here to say, like, it makes it easy, it can be easier when correspondingly, like, you're, you're, you have great, you have determination, you're repetitively challenging yourself, that builds mental strength. But if I had known that I could also train my mind in a deliberate way, in parallel, just to make it a little bit easier, and to also find the joy in the journey. There's a picture of me when I got back from a KC-10 deployment, and I'm holding my daughter. She was 15 months, so it was like the first time I had deployed when she was young, and that was a hard deployment. And I remember, like, I look at that picture, and I can see in my face and in my eyes, that I was always already worried about the next thing. Like, instead of being joyful that I was holding my daughter, I was like, in this great moment—   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 44:04 That's what I was expecting you to actually explain, that's crazy. Col. Jannell MacAulay 44:07 I wasn't there, like, my mind was already like, “OK, gotta go again,” like, “When's the next thing?” like, “When is was my next three-week trip that I have to leave her, when is the next thing that I'm gonna miss in her life?” And, you know, we spend a lot of time living our lives, stressful moments, a stressful moment to stressful moment, and I wish that I could have learned earlier to embrace the moments in between, to see them, right? I mind-wandered through many of them, I was just worried, I was catastrophizing. I mean, how many of us spend time in the military? As soon as you get to your first, your next assignment, you're already worried about what your next one is, right? You're like, OK, what do I need to do? Like, like, yes. And you're for me as a joint-spouse couple, there was no protections for us back then. Like, I love that they're finally gone, and I better know, yes, right? I'm so grateful for that, because we did not have those protections. It was like, here's where he's going, here's where you're going, and unless you had a commander or a leader that cared enough to make a phone call, you're going separate ways. And so I wish that somebody would have told me then to stop worrying so much about the next thing and just live more in the moment, I would have saved myself a lot of extra stress, a lot of extra angst, and I would have had more joy. And so that's really what I want for this generation, and that's why I work so hard, and I'm so passionate about this, is because if I could do it again, that's what I would want to remember.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 45:31 So, with so many listening and watching, this is your opportunity to be, you know, something for many. What is the thing that they might do? A small thing they could do, just in their lives, to be a little bit better in their mental space and their mental capacity or performance.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 45:48 Gosh, I have, like, an 8-hour course.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 45:51 I know. That's why I was like, “Here's a nugget everybody, pay attention.”   Col. Jannell MacAulay 45:56 OK, I'm going to give you — can I give you three? Which ones to pick? The first one is to start practicing mindfulness, to start doing mental pushups. You cannot layer in productive thinking, you cannot pivot your mind unless you eliminate the noise. Like, that's the first thing you have to do. You have to be able to see the thoughts inside your head and make a conscious choice not to follow them. Because a lot of them are not providing value to you, right? And the skill set that does that is mental pushups, is mindfulness, and it's this idea of the definition of mindfulness is being in the present moment without any emotional reactivity or judgment. Like, just be here now without judgment, that's what it means. And it's a deliberate practice of continuously being here now without judgment, so that when you are in a moment with lots of judgment, you can filter right, and especially that's where greatness comes from. It's not because of a great moment, it's because of what you do in the moments you're given. Second thing is, for leaders, stop asking people, “How are you doing?” I want them to rephrase that question and ask, “What's going well for you today?” And the reason we do that is for those two reasons: The first one is when you ask someone how they're doing, you're gonna get — most people are just gonna give you like, “Busy,” right? “Good,” “Fine,” “Liiving the dream,” whatever, right? But did I, as a leader, get any information from you when you say any of those in response? No. And then what we do as leaders? We get, “How are you doing?” “How are you doing?” “How are you doing?” And then we—   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 47:36 Check the box, check the box, check the box.   Col. Jannell MacAulay 47:37 Yes. And if you happen to have someone who's like, "Oh my gosh, let me tell you,” you're almost like, “Oh my God, good for you.” I didn't mean for you guys to tell me, because that's our cluster again, right? So I want leaders to start asking people what's going well for you, and that does two things. Now I'm going to get information from you based on your answer, and that information is also going to start training your mind and your psychological framework toward optimism and hope, because do you know the biggest problem for leaders today? I think is missing the hopeless people. We think that there's this binary of optimism and pessimism, and so the optimistic people, we can find them easy, and the pessimistic people, we can find them easy too, right? They're usually, I'm usually focused on the pessimism, because they're noisy and they're loud and they're annoying and they're bothering us and they're bothering the whole unit, right? And sometimes we're like, “Oh my gosh, Bob is so negative and angry,” like, “We should worry about Bob.” But the thing is, is that actually Bob's not your worry, because people who are pessimistic understand they're on a sliding scale. A pessimist thinks that there's a genuine belief that things could get worse, but if you believe things can get worse, you know they can also get better, right? Which is what optimism is. I genuinely believe things will get better. So, a pessimist — it's not binary. I want people at leaders to open up the aperture. There's optimism, pessimism, and then there's hopelessness and hope. That's the second thing. And then the last thing is leaders suffer from what I call compassion fatigue. OK, it's a very real thing. How many of us spend all day at work — it's kind of a combination of decision fatigue and compassion fat. You spend all day at work making decisions for other people, you make, you spend all day at work taking other people's problems, and if you're an empathetic person, like you take it on, right? You're like, “Oh my god, feel so bad, like airmen that are struggling with all these things.” Then you go home and someone at home says, “What's for dinner,” and you flip out about what's for dinner, right? And it's like, oh my gosh, where did that come from? Like, I didn't mean to snap, or someone in your — it's very important to you, and your whole life comes to you and needs you, needs your attention, and you're like, I have no more attention to give you, I have no more compassion to offer, because I am done, like I am burnt, so it's a very real thing, and it's not an excuse, I might have given people a label for what's happening, like it's this thing—   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 49:57 I have compassion fatigue. Col. Jannell MacAulay 49:59 Which is very true, and it's a very real thing, and I'm not giving you an excuse, I'm telling you, you need to fix it, and here's how you need to every time, like the whole time you're at work during the day, you need to shed all the mental distress that happens. You need to shed the empathy, right? Your empathetic, the empathy that you use when you're in an interaction with someone builds like extra stress into your. It's actually in your like body, yes? Right? Like, exactly. you take on those physical, and it becomes a physical manifestation. You need to shed that. So, what I have is called a waterfall technique.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz 50:36 Waterfall?   Col. Jannell MacAulay 50:38 So when you're, yeah, yep, so when you're engaging with people, remember we don't want to be distracted and not paying attention. So, put your phone away once you invite someone in your office. I don't have it. It distracts you by 20% if you have it on your body or in your view, right? Just have it put away. So now you're more attentive. Then I'm going to listen to you when you tell me whatever's going on in your life, and I'm going to envision we're at the top of the waterfall. Visualization is very powerful for our minds, so we're going to visualize that waterfall, and I'm talking to you, we're having a conversation, I'm fully present. You might have some stuff going on in your life, like I might have to take a note, I might be OK, follow up, I might give you some mentorship, but when we're done, your problems go down the waterfall, right? Like, we want to feel, “Oh, I'm  their commander.” No, it's still not your problem, right? The problem goes down the waterfall, so then the next person can come in. Now you're at the top of the waterfall again. I'm fully present with my next person that's coming in. I'm paying attention, I'm not thinking about the other conversation. Then when we're done, your problems get to go down the waterfall. It will protect your energy, it will protect your compassion, and so that when you go home, it'll just offer, you know. And then the other technique is before you walk in the door, do a mindful, mindful minute. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 51:48 Mindful minute right there. Col. Jannell MacAulay 51:49 Right. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 51:49 Well, I'm glad you shared three, because I think you know, I think that's what it's about when you're on your leadership journey, and I think leadership is a lifelong journey, and I think anything we can do better, not only to help others but to help ourselves as well, is really important. So, thank you for sharing that. Well, I want, before we close, I want to go into this moment, because you said yourself is a little bit vulnerable, you've written a book. Let's talk about Breathless, and this journey you've now undertaken. Col. Jannell MacAulay 52:17 So, Breathless is the story of mothers, and it's my story. And one of the women that worked on my Syria team with me, she was an Army officer, and we were both mothers of very young children at the time, and we also have two mothers in Syria that are sharing their stories with us, and they lost their children in a chemical attack. And so it's a story of mothers persevering through unimaginable odds, us working breathlessly to solve this problem, and basically having kind of this weight of the world on us to come up with a solution that would work and solve the problem, and then these mothers living in this horrible genocide, right, in this horrible time of a civil war, and under a ruthless dictator, and so they, the only reason why we're able to share their stories is because Assad, right, the liberation happened. Col. Naviere Walkewicz 53:16 I was like, I was going to say they're actually featured in your book. Gotcha. Col. Jannell MacAulay 53:20 Yes, and we originally started writing this book without their stories, and then once Assad fell, like we reached out and we got two mothers to share their story, and one of the mothers, her children were just slightly older than my children, and she lost both of them. The other mother lost her daughter, and her daughter was in prison during the Arab Spring. Her son traded out with her daughter because she was afraid of the conditions and what was going to happen to her daughter in prison. So the brother traded out with his sister, and the mother didn't find out until — her name is Amsaeed — she did not find out that her son Saeed had died, executed with 25 other prisoners before Assad left the country, so she didn't find that out till after liberation, so she lost a son, she lost a daughter, this other mother had two children taken from her, and so the story is about both of our struggles. Sarin literally takes her breath away, and we were working breathlessly, you know, to help them, and just the story of what it means to be a mother, like what a mother's love, what a mother's heart will do. And I just talked to Amsaeed last week, we coordinated a Zoom together, and I got to hear her story firsthand. She got to meet me and understand my story, and it was very evident to me that she said something that was very pertinent. She , “The world has a short memory, and people have probably already forgotten about Syria,” right? Like, oh yeah, something with chemical weapons, bad dictator, like it's another part of the world. And so part of writing this book also is to keep her story alive, to not let the awful things that happened to these women, I mean, to the whole community of Syrians, right, civilians, but especially the mothers who had to not even get to bury their children, and to help their stories surviv

Last month Janet sent Steph off to round up interesting speakers at the IBA war crimes conference held in The Hague and see what they had to say about the future of international justice. If it's interesting, do like, subscribe and leave us a review. Want to find out more? Check out all the background information on our website including hundreds more podcasts on international justice covering all the angles: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/ Or you can sign up to our newsletter: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/newsletters/ Did you like what you heard? Tip us here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/support-us/ Or want to support us long term? Check out our Patreon, where - for the price of a cup of coffee every month - you also become part of our War Criminals Bookclub and can make recommendations on what we should review next, here: https://www.patreon.com/c/AsymmetricalHaircuts Asymmetrical Haircuts is created, produced and presented by Janet Anderson and Stephanie van den Berg, together with a small team of producers, assistant producers, researchers and interns. Check out the team here: https://www.asymmetricalhaircuts.com/what-about-asymmetrical-haircuts/

The Trombone Corner Podcast is brought to you by Bob Reeves Brass and The Brass Ark.  Join hosts Noah and John as they interview Harry Ries and Markus Leuchter.   About Harry: Harry Ries is a Dutch trombonist and early music specialist, born in 1947 in Kerkrade, Netherlands. After completing his studies in The Hague, he built a distinguished orchestral career, serving as principal trombonist with both the Limburg Symphony Orchestra in Maastricht and later the Gürzenich Orchestra in Cologne. In 1978, he was appointed principal trombonist of the West German Radio Symphony Orchestra in Cologne, a position that further established his reputation as a leading orchestral musician. Alongside his orchestral work, Ries became deeply involved in historically informed performance, collaborating with many of Europe's most prominent early music ensembles. His credits include performances with groups such as Hesperion XXI, the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra, La Petite Bande, and Concerto Palatino, working with leading figures in the early music movement. In addition to his performing career, he has been an influential educator, teaching trombone and chamber music at the conservatories of Maastricht and Aachen. Over time, his artistic focus increasingly shifted toward early brass instruments, particularly the sackbut, contributing to the revival and evolution of historical trombone performance practice.   About Markus: Markus Leuchter is a German trombone maker specializing in both historical brass instruments and modern trombones. His workshop is located in Herzogenrath, near Aachen, Germany. Markus apprenticed with the renowned trombone builder Heribert Glassl in Nauheim, and has collaborated with trombonists Harry Ries, Christoph Schwarz, and Noah Gladstone on a variety of models and instrument designs. He is particularly well known for his alto, bass, and contrabass trombones, as well as his work in historical brass. He maintains a small workshop near his home, where he handcrafts each instrument from start to finish. His instruments are used by professional performers in early music as well as players in leading radio and symphony orchestras across Europe.  

Social affairs minister Hans Vijlbrief cans the cabinet's plans to extend the retirement age in the hope of avoiding a summer of strikes. Accusations fly in parliament in a bad-tempered debate on asylum, as the reception centre in Ter Apel continues to strain at the seams. The sale of DigiD is blocked at the last minute to the dismay of Donald Trump's man in The Hague. Schiermonnikoog wants to use heat-seeking drones to round up its stray cats. And a Dutchman is king of the hill in the ancient English sport of cheese rolling.

This season's much anticipated auctions in New York have brought some records and eye-popping prices, including for works by Jackson Pollock, Constantin Brancusi and Mark Rothko, and some more middling results. Ben Luke talks to Judd Tully, who has been reporting on some of the sales for The Art Newspaper. The largest show of the art of James McNeill Whistler in Europe for more than 30 years has just opened at Tate Britain in London, and travels later in the year to the Netherlands, where it forms two shows, at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and The Mesdag Collection in The Hague. Ben takes a tour of the Tate show with its lead curator Carol Jacobi. And this episode's Work of the Week is the frieze made by Edvard Munch in 1922 for the women's canteen of the Freia Chocolate Factory in Oslo. The frieze remains in the collection of the Freia chocolate company today, but is on temporary loan to MUNCH, the museum in the Norwegian capital for the exhibition Edvard Munch and the Chocolate Factory. Our digital editor, Alexander Morrison, went to Oslo to speak to the curator of the exhibition, Ana María Bresciani, about the frieze.James McNeill Whistler, Tate Britain, London, until 27 September 2026; before splitting into two parallel presentations in the Netherlands, Whistler: Dandy and Disruptor, Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam; Whistler: Loving The Netherlands, The Mesdag Collection, The Hague, both 16 October-10 January 2027.Edvard Munch and the Chocolate Factory, MUNCH, Oslo, until 11 October. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Iran takes US war crimes to The HagueTrump exploits a shooting to sell his bribe-funded ballroomParamount and CNNHis own voters want him impeachedScience gets gutted. . . and moreSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.