Podcasts about Helms

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

On the latest episode of ‘From Phenom to the Farm,' former big leaguer Wes Helms discusses his twelve-year MLB career.Time Stamps(3:15) Being scouted in high school(11:30) Life in the GCL(14:50) Playing with teenage Andruw Jones(26:10) Being blocked by Chipper Jones(31:50) The worst players to play 3B against(38:20) How to pick a bat(45:54) Job description as a veteran role playerSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/from-phenom-to-the-farm/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

In this episode, Eric Trexler and Eric Helms begin by discussing Helms' competition updates and the sad state of affairs in academic publishing (that is, scientific journals). Eric and Eric then take a deep dive into the complexities of central fatigue, systemic fatigue, the accumulation of fatigue, and deloading strategies. The conversation emphasizes the importance of personalized approaches to recovery and the role of intensity in achieving hypertrophy. They close by discussing misconceptions surrounding fatigue management in bodybuilding, the necessity of understanding the mechanisms behind muscle growth, and how current trends in "evidence-based content" are leading new lifters astray. If you're in the market for new lifting gear or apparel, be sure to check out elitefts.com and use our code (MRR10) to get a 10% discount. Chapters 0:00 Introduction and Helms Bodybuilding Updates 5:17 A New Threat to the Integrity of PhDs 8:25 Academic publishing (i.e., scientific journals) is so over 26:52 Understanding Systemic and Central Fatigue 41:31 Holistic Approaches to Deloading and Fatigue Management 1:00:42 Tiger Balm and Icy Hot 1:08:04 Cardio (To Build Work Capacity for Bodybuilding) 1:15:41 Current trends in "evidence-based content" are leading new lifters astray

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Interview

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Lew and Ken share reports updates from the Monmouth Police and Fire Departments, the 2025 tax levy presentation, the AFSCME Union Contract, preview of the December bid for the lead service line project, and more on the WRAM Morning Show.

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

In this conversation, Eric Helms reflects on his recent competition experience, discussing the nostalgia of returning to a familiar stage and the significance of competing at a pro level. He emphasizes the importance of mindset during contest prep and the challenges of transitioning from a dieting phase to maintenance. The discussion also covers the psychological aspects of maintaining weight loss and the need for a lifestyle that supports health and fitness. Eric shares insights on setting realistic goals and the importance of community in the bodybuilding journey. In this conversation, Trexler and Helms delve into the complexities of dieting, weight maintenance, and the psychological challenges that accompany lifestyle changes. They discuss the importance of acceptance and compromise in post-diet life, the struggle of reintegrating comfort foods, and the need for empathetic approaches to dieting. The dialogue also touches on social eating dynamics and practical tips for navigating dietary choices in group settings, emphasizing the importance of self-awareness and honest conversations about food and lifestyle. If you're in the market for some gym gear or apparel, please support our friends over at elitefts.com and use code "MRR10" for 10% off your order Chapters: 00:00 The California Muscle Mayhem Experience 8:20 Personal Reflections 15:40 Discussion on Food Choices and Post-Competition Plans 24:38 Post-Diet Mentality and Maintenance Challenges 44:13 Finding Balance in Dietary Lifestyle Changes 58:39 Making Goal-Directed Food Choices 1:08:57 Striking a Balance With Step Counts 1:10:50 Energy Expenditure Scaling By Body Weight/Size 1:13:32 When People Criticize Your Dietary Choices

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Actor Ed Helms loves a deep dive into a snafu from the past. “I love the hubris, our amazing capacity for ineptitude and terrible decision-making.” He's turned that obsession into the hit podcast SNAFU, inviting guests to break down some of history's most entertaining bloopers. “The snafu is often not just the initial problem, but it's [a] sort of scurrying aftermath of people trying to cover their tracks.” Each prior season focused on one historical moment, but season four has a new one every episode—and “dramatically” more episodes. “It is proving to be a ton of work, but it's super fun.” Hit podcast host is a new turn for Helms, best known for his work in TV and film. “Office fans are just so, so sweet and delightful. Hangover fans can be a little more aggro, but that's good.” But it's that intimate relationship he creates with podcast fans that feels more earned: “Those feel like my deep peeps.” Subscribe to my newsletter: https://link.newsweek.com/join/for-the-culture Follow me: https://linktr.ee/halanscott Subscribe to Newsweek's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/newsweek See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tune in here to this Wednesday edition of The Brett Winterble Show! Brett kicks off the program by talking about his visit to the Jesse Helms Center and his exclusive interview with Senator Ted Budd, discussing the major challenges and policy debates unfolding in Washington, D.C. He also addresses the violent protests at UC Berkeley and calls out Governor Gavin Newsom’s response to the incident. Later, Brett examines national headlines including the U.S. Mint’s decision to end penny production and the rare sight of the Northern Lights over parts of the United States. Listen here for all of this and more on The Brett Winterble Show! For more from Brett Winterble check out his YouTube channel.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Iron Culture, Eric Trexler and Dr. Eric Helms discuss Helms' upcoming bodybuilding competition, his preparation journey, and the importance of nutrition and recovery. They delve into various topics including auto-regulated dieting, GI issues, mini cuts, step counts, energy expenditure, and more. If you're looking for some gym gear or apparel, please be sure to support our friends over at elitefts.com (and use code "MRR10" for 10% off your order) Chapters 00:00 Introduction (Helms bodybuilding plans and updates) 12:38 new MASS issue (and importance of expectancy effects) 27:13 mini-cuts (pros and cons) 35:33 overcoming low appetite while bulking 39:53 Helms updated protein targets 44:26 Lead in protein supplements (and using EAAs as your main protein source) 52:33 Cardio approaches (substrate utilization and recovery considerations) 1:00:44 Dealing with insufficient sleep 1:07:26 Relationship between step count and energy expenditure

Discussion on the monthly Building and Zoning/Woodard and Curran reports of ongoing projects, lead service line upgrades, a received grant for the lead service line project, a redevelopment agreement with Myers Autoworks, three-year agreement with the Fraternal Order of Police, an American Public Works Association award for Project of the Year for the Downtown Square project, a progress on Harlem Avenue, and more on the WRAM Morning Show.

You've heard it all: “The truth about carbs,” “The truth about hormones,” “The truth about fasting.” But here's the real truth—context matters, and no single “truth” out there applies to every woman, every body, or every season of life.In this episode, I break down why most health advice is only a sliver of the full picture—and why lasting change doesn't come from copying and pasting what worked for someone else. Instead, you'll learn how to approach your health like a scientist: with curiosity, patience, and small, consistent actions that actually get down into your cells. You're not broken. You're just stuck in the wrong story.Here's what we cover:Why most “truths” about health are missing contextThe real reason your results aren't changingHow long it actually takes to see change at the cellular levelThe drip-drip-drip method vs. the bucket approach to health5 evidence-based habits to start today: walk, track, sleep, plan, eat proteinWhat your biology needs (and what it doesn't)There's no magic protocol. Just consistent inputs over time. Start anywhere. Because anywhere is better than “someday.”Get Weekly Health Tips:  thrivehealthcoachllc.comLet's Connect:@‌ashleythrivehealthcoach or via email: ashley@thrivehealthcoachingllc.comPodcast Produced by Virtually You!Sources: • Barrès, R., Yan, J., Egan, B., Treebak, J. T., Rasmussen, M., Fritz, T., & Zierath, J. R. (2012). Acute exercise remodels promoter methylation in human skeletal muscle. Cell Metab, 15(3), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2012.01.001 • Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin. • Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2019). Biochemistry (9th ed.). W. H. Freeman. • Cohen, A. A., Milot, E., Yong, J., Seplaki, C. L., Fülöp, T., & Fried, L. P. (2016). Multi-system physiological dysregulation during aging. Mech Ageing Dev, 156, 86–94. • Guyton, A. C., & Hall, J. E. (2021). Textbook of medical physiology (14th ed.). Elsevier. • Lee, I.-M., Shiroma, E. J., Kamada, M., Bassett, D. R., Matthews, C. E., & Buring, J. E. (2020). Steps, intensity, and mortality in older women. JAMA Intern Med, 180(8), 1103–1112. • Lichtman, S. W., Pisarska, K., Berman, E. R., Pestone, M., Dowling, H., & Heymsfield, S. B. (1992). Self-reported vs actual caloric intake and exercise. N Engl J Med, 327(27), 1893–1898. • McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med, 338(3), 171–179. • Morton, R. W., Murphy, K. T., McKellar, S. R., Schoenfeld, B. J., Helms, E., & Phillips, S. M. (2018). Protein supplementation and resistance training. Br J Sports Med, 52(6), 376–384. • Richter, E. A., & Hargreaves, M. (2013). Exercise, GLUT4, and muscle glucose uptake. Physiol Rev, 93(3), 993–1017. • Spiegel, K., Tasali, E., Penev, P., & Van Cauter, E. (2004). Sleep curtailment lowers leptin, raises ghrelin. Ann Intern Med, 141(11), 846–850. • Turnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Mahowald, M. A., Magrini, V., Mardis, E. R., & Gordon, J. I. (2007). Obesity-associated gut microbiome. Nature, 444(7122), 1027–1031. • Van Cauter, E., Holmback, U., Knutson, K., Leproult, R., Miller, A., Nedeltcheva, A., & Spiegel, K. (2008). Sleep loss and metabolic function. Horm Support the show

Clinician-scientist Jill Helms is an expert on healing. Until about age 30, people heal easily, she says, but later on, not so well. Regenerative medicine suggests avenues for improvement, she promises. Her research focuses on understanding the physical and molecular processes of healing to design better therapies. One approach awakens “sleeper” stem cells to aid healing, a new drug in trial regenerates bone, and another avenue targets infections that appear near medical devices using gum-like tissues that create sealing barriers. In many ways, nature remains our best model for healing, Helms tells host Russ Altman on this episode of Stanford Engineering's The Future of Everything podcast.Have a question for Russ? Send it our way in writing or via voice memo, and it might be featured on an upcoming episode. Please introduce yourself, let us know where you're listening from, and share your question. You can send questions to thefutureofeverything@stanford.edu.Episode Reference Links:Stanford Profile: Jill HelmsConnect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>> Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / FacebookChapters:(00:00:00) IntroductionRuss Altman introduces guest Jill Helms, a professor of surgery at Stanford University.(00:03:42) Why Study Wound HealingJill shares what led her to explore how the body repairs itself after injury.(00:04:23) How Healing WorksExplanation of physical signals, stem cells, and the stages of tissue repair.(00:07:23) Healing Declines with AgeHow healing quality and speed drop significantly after age thirty.(00:10:48) Physical vs. Biological SignalsThe biological and physical signals that work together to guide healing.(00:13:21) Regenerative MedicineTherapies designed to restore healing capacity and accelerate repair.(00:16:55) Infection and ImplantsChallenges of preventing infections around skin penetrating medical devices.(00:21:54) Nature's BlueprintUsing biological models to inspire self-renewing wound interfaces.(00:26:19)  Biomimicry and Evolutionary InsightWhat scientists are learning from animals to inform human tissue repair.(00:30:51) Future In a MinuteRapid-fire Q&A: scientific curiosity, young researchers, and supportive environments.(00:33:04) Conclusion Connect With Us:Episode Transcripts >>> The Future of Everything WebsiteConnect with Russ >>> Threads / Bluesky / MastodonConnect with School of Engineering >>>Twitter/X / Instagram / LinkedIn / Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In tonight's episode of Iron Culture, Dr. Eric Helms returns with stories from his competition and associated travels. Topics include jet lag, dehydration, miscalculated use of laxatives and sleep aids, getting stitches in a Taiwan emergency room, autographed Eric Helms trading cards, Eric's 5th place finish at a pro show, autoregulated dieting, and much more. If you're in the market for some new gym gear or apparel, be sure to check out our friends at elitefts.com - use our code (MRR10) for a 10% discount. Time stamps 0:00 Intro 5:06 Bodybuilding "stars" in Taiwan (and autographed Eric Helms trading cards) 22:13 Navigating jetlag 29:48 Helms getting stitches in Taiwan 34:08 Inadvisable use of laxatives 41:47 Show placings 54:30 "Autoregulated dieting"

10/22/25: Robbie Saner Sullivan, N'ton at-large school committee candidate. CDH Surgeon Dr. Michelle Helms on Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Brian Adams w/ Grow Food Northampton's Farm & Land Mgr, Piyush Labhsetwar, & Co-Dir, Michael Skillicorn: what we grow & why. Chuck Collins "Burned by Billionaires: How Concentrated Wealth and Power Are Ruining Our Lives and Planet.”

In this episode, I discuss the answers to ten bulking FAQs I've collected in over six years of coaching 100+ clients and talking to many more people about their physique development process.Links and resources:“Effect of Small and Large Energy Surpluses on Strength, Muscle, and Skinfold Thickness in Resistance-Trained Individuals: A Parallel Groups Design” by Helms and colleagues – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37914977/ “Effect of nutritional intervention on body composition and performance in elite athletes” by Garthe and colleagues – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23679146/ “Nutrition Recommendations for Bodybuilders in the Off-Season: A Narrative Review” by Iraki and colleagues – https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/7/7/154 Sign up for one on one coaching with me: ⁠https://www.fittotransformtraining.com/coaching.html⁠Follow me on Instagram @nikias_fittotransform: ⁠http://instagram.com/nikias_fittotransform/⁠Visit my website: ⁠https://www.fittotransformtraining.com⁠Sign up for my free newsletter: ⁠https://mailchi.mp/157389602fb0/mailinglist⁠Sign up for the No Quit Kit email series on retraining your mindset for long-term fat loss success: ⁠https://mailchi.mp/4b368c26baa8/noquitkitsignup⁠Take my free “Should You Cut or Bulk First?” quiz: https://nikias-dddr9p81.scoreapp.com/ 

In ihrem Buch „Alles auf Anfang“ erklären Hadija Haruna-Oelker und Max Czollek, warum sie die deutsche Erinnerungspolitik für gescheitert halten. Sie fordern einen Neuanfang, um zu verhindern, dass sich die deutsche Gewaltgeschichte wiederholt. Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Lesart

In ihrem Buch „Alles auf Anfang“ erklären Hadija Haruna-Oelker und Max Czollek, warum sie die deutsche Erinnerungspolitik für gescheitert halten. Sie fordern einen Neuanfang, um zu verhindern, dass sich die deutsche Gewaltgeschichte wiederholt. Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Lesart

Helms has neglected to show up yet again, so Ep 347 is a solo show in which Dr Trex details a recent saga in which a paper about apple cider vinegar was retracted. The episode covers what the paper reported, how Trex & co pursued clarification, how the paper was eventually retracted, and (most importantly) what this means for "evidence-based" fitness. Even if you don't care about apple cider vinegar, there are important lessons to draw from an evidence-based view of fitness that acknowledges the fallibility of published evidence. By the way, if you're going to stock up on some lifting gear or apparel, please be sure to support our friends over at elitefts.com and remember to use our code "MRR10" for a 10% discount. Time stamps: 0:00 Intro 5:34 The original paper and findings 13:27 Our letter to the editor 17:54 The authors' response 23:59 The retraction 29:06 The statistical investigation 32:13 Why the retraction process doesn't actually work 38:30 How to be "evidence based" when unreliable evidence is routinely published

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Interview

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Helms, Franz-Paul www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Doug and Selah Helms saw their world turned upside down when a terrible car accident left their 17-year-old son, Peter, with a traumatic brain injury. They would face the greatest trial of their life and their faith in the Lord would be tested to the limit. Show notes: https://compelledpodcast.com/episodes/doug-selah-helms/ ++++++++++++ Compelled is a seasonal podcast using gripping, immersive storytelling to celebrate the powerful ways God is transforming Christians around the world. These Christian testimonies are raw, true, and powerful. Be encouraged and let your faith be strengthened! Want to help make new episodes? Either make a one-time gift, or become a Monthly Partner at: https://compelledpodcast.com/donate Perks of being a Monthly Partner include: EARLY ACCESS to each new Compelled episode 1 week early! FULL LIBRARY of our unedited, behind-the-scenes interviews with each guest... over 100+ hours of additional stories and takeaways! Become a Monthly Partner by selecting the "Monthly" option during check-out.  Show notes, emails, and more at: https://compelledpodcast.com Buy the Compelled book of testimonies, endorsed by Lee Strobel, Marvin Olasky, and more: ⁠https://compelledpodcast.com/book Compelled is a member of the Proclaim Podcast Network: https://proclaim.fm Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today we jump back 15 years to two back-to-back episodes of the PWTorch Livecast from Sept. 24 and 27, 2010.On the Sept. 24, 2010 episode, PWTorch assistant editor James Caldwell includes discussion with live callers for 30 straight minutes on last night's TNA Impact, RVD's return, the lack of vision for TNA's product, Goldberg in WWE, what Kofi Kingston needs to become a top star, future WWE stars over the next 5-10 years, Eric Bischoff's involvement in TNA, and more.In the previously VIP-exclusive Aftershow, Caldwell is joined by PWTorch columnist Pat McNeill to answer VIP Forum questions on the Impact Zone, what would happened if Kurt Angle went to MMA after the '96 Olympics, plus discuss Christian's injury and potential replacements in his slot, TNA's X Title switch at yesterday's house show, the value of titles, and more.On the Sept. 27, 2010 episode, PWTorch editor Wade Keller and PWTorch columnist Bruce Mitchell includes discussion with live callers on tonight's Raw, is it time to hit the panic button?, Chris Jericho's "I'm a heel" Tweet on "retirement" storyline stipulation, ideas on how to spark WWE Raw following the ratings drop below a 3.0, Christian's major pec injury, a preview of the 2010 Torch Fantasy Draft, Matt Greggory Hardy & Helms down on "youth movement," and much more.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wade-keller-pro-wrestling-podcast--3076978/support.

In this episode of Iron Culture, Eric Trexler welcomes back Eric Helms, who clarifies recent misunderstandings about his commitment to the iron game. Helms shares insights from his recent travels, including a global education event with TechnoGym in Bali, and discusses the importance of cultural experiences in fitness education. The conversation also covers strategies for managing jet lag during international travel, the mechanics of hypertrophy, and the significance of community in fitness. As Helms prepares for upcoming competitions, he reflects on his journey in bodybuilding and the evolving landscape of the fitness industry. Need some lifting gear? Use our discount code (MRR10) over at www.elitefts.com Chapters 00:00 Welcome Back to Iron Culture 03:50 Clarifying Misunderstandings 09:51 Eric's Upcoming Competition 14:52 Travel Adventures and Experiences 23:42 Jet Lag and Nutrition Strategies 32:00 Engaging with the Fitness Community 39:39 The Rise of Science in Fitness 48:50 Hypertrophy and Leverage Data 01:20:46 Wrapping Up and Future Plans

ABC's largest affiliate owner will play a tribute to Charlie Kirk during what was Jimmy Kimmel's hour on Friday, Erika Kirk is named TPUSA CEO and Chair of the Board, and SpaceX wins again in court. Get the facts first with Evening Wire. - - - Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3 - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy morning wire,morning wire podcast,the morning wire podcast,Georgia Howe,John Bickley,daily wire podcast,podcast,news podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Reality and Faith Prompts1. What are the formations or structures for how you know you are in reality in regards to your faith? Do you have indicators? Internal senses? External resources? 2. Who are you in active dialogue with in regards to your faith? Who that is living and who that is passed on? 3. When you encounter dissonance with your reality of faith, how do you stay grounded in your experience?TranscriptsDanielle (00:00):To my computer. So thank you Starlet. Thank you Tamis for being with me. I've given already full introductions. I've recorded those separately. So the theme of the conversation and kind of what we're getting into on this podcast this season is I had this vision for talking about the themes have been race, faith, culture, church in the past on my podcast. But what I really think the question is, where is our reality and where are our touchpoints in those different realms? And so today there's going to be more info on this in the future, but where do we find reality and how do we form our reality when we integrate faith? So one of the questions I was asking Tamis and Starlet was what are the formations or structures for how you know are in reality in regards to your faith? Do you have indicators? Do you have internal senses? Do you have external resources? And so that's where I want to jump off from and it's free flow. I don't do a whole lot of editing, but yeah, just curious where your mind goes when you hear that, what comes to mind and we'll jump from there.Starlette (01:12):I immediately thought of baptism, baptismal waters. My baptismal identity forms and shapes me. It keeps me in touch with my body. It keeps me from being disembodied. Also, it keeps me from being swindled out of authority over my body due to the dangerous irrationalism of white body supremacy. So that's one thing. Protest also keeps me grounded. I have found that acts of defiance, minor personal rebellions, they do well for me. They keep me spiritually that I feel like it keeps me in step with Jesus. And I always feel like I'm catching up that I'm almost stepping on his feet. So for me, baptismal identity and protesting, those are the two things come to me immediately.Tamice (02:04):Whoa, that's so deep. Wow, I never thought about that. But I never thought about protests being a thing that groundsBecause I mean I've just been, for me I would say I've been working on the right so, and y'all know me, so I got acronyms for days. But I mean I think that the radical ethical spirituality that's tethered to my tradition, that's a rule of life, but it's also a litmus test. So for me, if you can't tell the truth, we don't have conversations about non-violence and loving enemies. I don't get to ethical spirituality unless you come through the front door of truth telling and truth telling in that sense of the r. And the rest arrest mix tape is radical. Angela Davis says radical and that's grasping stuff at the root. So before we have conversations about forgiveness for instance, or Jesus or scripture or what is right and what is moral, it's very important that we first tell the truth about the foundations of those realities and what we even mean by those terms and whose those terms serve and where they come from. I talk about it asking to see the manager. We need see the manager(03:24):Me that grounds me is now if something comes in and it calls me to move in a different way or corrects me or checks me in a certain way, I say yes to it if it comes through the door of truth telling because it means I also got to be true and tell the truth to myself. So that keeps me grounded. That kind of acronym is kind of how I move, but it's also how I keep toxic ways of doing religion out. And I also have come back into relationship with trees and grass and the waters and that's been really powerful for moving down into different types of intelligence. For me, the earth has been pulling me into a different way of knowing and being in that part brings me to ancestors. Just like you starlet my ancestors, I keep finding them in the trees and in the water and in the wind. So it's like, well I need them real bad right now. So that's where I'm kind of grounding myself these days.But to your point about grounding and protest, I feel most compelled to show up in spaces where the ground is crying out screaming. I feel like it beckons me there. And we talked about the most recent news of Trey being found and you talked about truth telling and what resonated immediately. And it didn't sit right with me that African-American people, people of African descent know not to take their lives in that way because of the traumatic history that when you say things like you don't suspect any foul play, it sounds like what has historically been named as at the hands of persons unknown where that no one is held responsible for the death of African-American people. That's what ties it in for me. And I feel like it's an ancestral pool that they didn't leave this way, they didn't leave in the way that they were supposed to, that something stinks and that they're crying out to say, can you hear me? Come over here Terry a while here. Don't leave him here. Don't let up on it because we didn't call him here somebody. So I love that you said that you are, feel yourself being grounded in and call back to the earth because I do feel like it speaks to us,But there are telltale signs in it and that the trees will tell us too. And so I didn't have a hand in this. It was forced on me and I saw it all come and talk to me. Put your hand here, put your head here and you can hear me scream and then you can hear me scream, you can hear him scream. He was calling out the whole time. That's what I believe in. That's how I test reality. I tested against what the earth is saying like you said, but I think we have to walk the ground a bit. We have to pace the ground a bit. We can't just go off of what people are saying. Back to your point about truth telling, don't trust nobody I don't trust. I don't trust anybody that's going to stop because you can't fix a lie. So if you're going to come in with deception, there's not much else I can do with you. There's not much I can say to you. And I find that white body supremacy is a supreme deception. So if we can't start there in a conversation, there's nothing that I can say to youTamice (06:46):That's facts. It's interesting that you talked about baptism, you talked about grounding and I had this story pop up and while you were talking again it popped up again. So I'm going to tell it. So we are not going to talk about who and all the things that happened recently, but I had made some comments online around that and around just the choice to be blind. So I've been talking a lot about John nine and this passage where it is very clear to everyone else what's happening, but the people who refuse to see, refuse to see.So in that, I was kind of pulled into that. I was in Mississippi, I was doing some stuff for the book and this lady, a chaplain, her name is Sally Bevin, actually Sally Bevel, she walked up to me, she kept calling me, she was like, Tam me, she want to come. I have my whole family there. We were at the Mississippi Book Fair and she kept saying, Tam me, she want to come join, dah, dah, dah. Then my family walked off and they started to peruse and then she asked me again and I was like, no, I'm good. And I was screaming. I mean I'm looking in the screen and the third time she did it, it pulled me out and I was like, this woman is trying to pull me into being present. And she said to me, this is funny, starlet. I said, I feel like I need to be washed and I need a baptism because this phone feels like so on right now and the wickedness is pulling me. So she poured, she got some ice, cold water, it was 95 degrees, poured cold water on my hands, had me wash my hands and she took the cold water. She put a cross on my forehead. And you know what she said to me? She said, remember your baptism?She said, remember your baptism? And when I was baptized, even though it was by a man who will not also be named, when I was baptized the wind, there was a whirlwind at my baptism. It was in 2004, that same wind hit in Mississippi and then I felt like I was supposed to take my shoes off. So I walked around the Mississippi Festival with no shoes on, not knowing that the earth was about to receive two people who did not deserve to be hung from trees. And there's something very, I feel real talk, I feel afraid for white supremacy right now in the name of my ancestors and I feel like I'm calling on everything right now. And that's also grounding me.Starlette (09:36):I was with Mother Moses last week. I went to Dorchester County just to be with her because the people were here. Take me. I said, I'll leave them all here. I know you said there are a few here, but give me the names, give me the last names of the people because I don't have time for this. I see why she left people. I see why she was packing. So to your point, I think it's important that we talk to the ancestors faithfully, religiously. We sit down at their feet and listen for a bit about how they got over and how they got through it and let them bear witness to us. And she does it for me every time, every single time she grounds, she grounds meDanielle (10:23):Listening to you all. I was like, oh wait. It is like Luke 19 where Jesus is coming in on the show and he didn't ride in on the fanciest plane on a donkey. And if you're familiar with that culture that is not the most elevated animal, not the elevated animal to ride, it's not the elevated animal. You don't eat it. Not saying that it isn't eaten at times, but it's not right. So he rides in on that and then people are saying glory to God in the highest and they're praising him and the Pharisees are like, don't do that because it's shameful and I don't remember the exact words, but he's basically be quiet. The rocks are going to tell the story of what happened here. He's walking his way. It kind of reminds me to me. So what you're saying, he's walking away, he's going to walk and he's going to walk that way and he's going to walk to his death. He's walking it in two scenarios that Jesus goes in to talk about. Your eyes are going to be blind to peace, to the real way to peace. It's going to be a wall put around you and you're going to miss out. People are going to destroy you because you missed your chance.Starlette (11:50):Point again creation. And if you're going to be a rock headed people, then I'll recruit this rock choir. They get ready to rock out on you. If there's nothing you're going to say. So even then he says that creation will bear witness against you. You ain't got to do it. You ain't got to do it. I can call these rock. You can be rock headed if you want to. You can be stony hearted if you want to. I can recruit choir members from the ground,Tamice (12:16):But not even that because y'all know I'm into the quantum and metaphysics. Not even that they actually do speak of course, like words are frequencies. So when you hold a certain type of element in your hand, that thing has a frequency to it. That's alright that they said whatever, I don't need it from you. Everything else is tapped into this.Starlette (12:39):Right. In fact, it's the rocks are tapped into a reality. The same reality that me and this donkey and these people throwing stuff at my feet are tapped into.You are not tapped into reality. And so that's why he makes the left and not the right because typically when a person is coming to Saka city, they head towards the temple. He went the other direction because he is like it was a big fuck. I don't use power like this. And actually what I'm about to do is raise you on power. This is a whole different type of power. And that's what I feel like our ancestors, the realities that the alternative intelligence in the world you're talking about ai, the alternative intelligence in the world is what gives me every bit of confidence to look this beast in the face and call it what it is. This isTamice (13:52):And not going to bow to it. And I will go down proclaiming it what it is. I will not call wickedness good.And Jesus said, Jesus was so when he talks about the kingdom of heaven suffering violence and the violence taken it by force, it's that it's like there's something so much more violent about being right and righteous. Y'all have to use violence because you can't tell the truth.Danielle (14:29):Do you see the split two? There's two entirely different realities happening. Two different kingdoms, two entirely different ways of living in this era and they're using quote J, but it's not the same person. It can't be, you cannot mix white Jesus and brown Jesus. They don't go together. TheyStarlette (15:00):Don't, what is it? Michael O. Emerson and Glenn e Bracy. The second they have this new book called The Religion of Whiteness, and they talk about the fact that European Americans who are racialized as white Tahi says those who believe they are white. He says that there's a group of people, the European Americans who are racialized as white, who turn to scripture to enforce their supremacy. And then there's another group of people who turn to scripture to support and affirm our sibling.It is two different kingdoms. It's funny, it came to me the other day because we talk about, I've talked about how for whiteness, the perception of goodness is more important than the possession of it.You know what I mean? So mostly what they do is seek to be absolved. Right? So it's just, and usually with the being absolved means I'm less bad than that, so make that thing more bad than me and it's a really terrible way to live a life, but it is how whiteness functions, and I'm thinking about this in the context of all that is happening in the world because it's like you cannot be good and racist period. And that's as clear as you cannot love God and mammon you will end up hating one and loving the other. You cannot love God. You cannotStarlette (16:29):Love God and hate your next of kin your sibling. Dr. Angela Parker says something really important During the Wild Goose Festival, she asked the participants there predominantly European American people, those racialized as white. She said, do you all Terry, do you Terry, do you wait for the Holy Spirit? Do you sit with yourself and wait for God to move? And it talked, it spoke to me about power dynamic. Do you feel like God is doing the moving and you wait for the spirit to anoint you, to fill you, to inspire you, to baptize you with fire? You Terry, do you wait a while or do you just the other end of that that she doesn't say, do you just get up? I gave my life to Jesus and it's done right handed fellowship, give me my certificate and walk out the door. You have to sit with yourself and I don't know what your tradition is.I was raised Pentecostal holiness and I had to tear all night long. I was on my knees calling on the name of Jesus and I swear that Baba couldn't hear me. Which octave do you want me to go in? I lost my voice. You know them people, them mothers circled me with a sheet and told me I didn't get it that night that I had to come back the next day after I sweat out my down, I sweat out my press. Okay. I pressed my way trying to get to that man and they told me he didn't hear me. He not coming to get you today. I don't hear a change. They were looking for an evidence of tongues. They didn't hear an evidence, a change speech. You still sound the way that you did when you came in here. And I think that white body supremacy, that's where the problem lies with me. There's no difference. I don't hear a change in speech. You're still talking to people as if you can look down your nose with them. You have not been submerged in the water. You did not go down in the water. White supremacy, white body supremacy has not been drowned out.Terry, you need to Terry A. Little while longer. I'll let you know when you've gotten free. When you've been lifted, there's a cloud of witnesses. Those mothers rubbing your back, snapping your back and saying, call on him. Call him like you want him. Call him like you need him and they'll tell you when they see evidence, they'll let you, you know when you've been tied up, tangled up. That's what we would say. Wrapped up in Jesus and I had to come back a second night and call on the Lord and then they waited a while. They looked, they said, don't touch her, leave her alone. He got her now, leave her alone. But there was an affirmation, there was a process. You couldn't just get up there and confess these ABCs and salvation, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Why do you think they'll let you know when you got it?Danielle (18:56):Why do you think that happened? Why? I have a question for You'all. Why do you think that became the reality of the prayer in that moment? And we're talking about Africans that have been brought here and enslaved. Why do you think that happened on our soil that way? Why question?Tamice (19:12):I mean I'm wondering about it because when stylists talk and I keep thinking the Terry in and of itself is a refusal. It says what I see is not real. What's in front of me is not right. I'm going to wait for something else.I'm saying, the slave Bible, them taking stuff out of the Bible and it's like, but I feel like the ground, there was something about the ground that indigenous people, that indigenous people were able to help them tap into over here. It was waiting on that.Starlette (19:49):We didn't have punishment. We had a percussion session. So they ring shouted me. I didn't know what it was at the time. We didn't have all the fancy stuff. Everybody had put me in key. We didn't have, we had this and feet them people circled around me. We don't do that no more.Danielle (20:06):We don't do that no more. But don't you think if you're a person that is, and I believe Africans came here with faith already. Oh yes, there's evidence of that. So put that aside, but don't you think then even if you have that faith and it's not so different than our time and you're confronted with slave owners and plantation owners also preaching quote the same faith that you're going to have to test it out on your neighbor when they're getting saved. You're going to have to make sure they didn't catch that bug.Don't you think there's something in there? Block it. Don't you think if you know faith internally already like we do and run into someone that's white that's preaching the same thing, we have to wait it out with them. Don't you think our ancestors knew that when they were here they were waiting it out. I just noticed my spirit match that spirit. We have to wait it out. Yes, because and let's say they didn't know Jesus. Some people didn't know Jesus and they met Jesus here for whatever reason, and your example is still the white man. You have to wait it out to make sure you're not reflecting that evilness. I mean that's what I'm thinking. That's it's the absolutelyStarlette (21:20):Truth. There's a book titled Slave Testimony, and I know this because I just read about it. There's a testimony of an enslaved African-American, he's unnamed. It was written on June 26th, 1821. He's talking to Master John. He said, I want permission to speak to you if you please. He talked about, he said, where is it? Where is it? A few words. I hope that you will not think Me too bull. Sir, I make my wants known to you because you are, I believe the oldest and most experienced that I know of. He says in the first place, I want you to tell me the reason why you always preach to the white folks and keep your back to us is because they sit up on the hill. We have no chance among them there. We must be forgotten because we are near enough. We are not near enough without getting in the edge of the swamp behind you. He was calling him to account. He said, when you sell me, do you make sure that I'm sold to a Christian or heathen?He said, we are charged with inattention because of where their position. He said it's impossible for us to pay good attention with this chance. In fact, some of us scarce think that we are preached to it all. He says, money appears to be the object. We are carried to market and sold to the highest bidder. Never once inquired whether you sold to a heathen or a Christian. If the question was put, did you sell to a Christian, what would the answer be? I can tell you, I can tell what he was, gave me my price. That's all I was interested in. So I don't want people to believe that Africans who were enslaved did not talk back, did not speak back. They took him to task. He said, everybody's not literate. There's about one in 50 people who are, and I'm one of them and I may not be able to speak very well, but this is what I want to tell you. I can tell the difference. I know that you're not preaching to me the same. I know that when you talk about salvation, you're not extending it to me.Yikes. You need to know that our people, these ancestors, not only were they having come to Jesus meetings, but they were having come to your senses, meeting with their oppressor and they wrote it down. They wrote it down. I get sick of the narratives that we are not our answer. Yes we are. Yes I am. I'm here because of them. I think they called me. I think they call me here. I think the fussing that I make, the anger that I possess this need to resist every damn thing. I think they make me do thatTamice (23:35):Indeed, I think. But I didn't get my voice until they took the MLE off, had an honor with my ancestors and they came and they told me it's time. Take that mle off, MLE off. Shoot. Why Jesus ain't tell me to take no muzzle off. I'm going to tell you that now.Danielle (23:52):That's why I mean many indigenous people said, Jesus didn't come back for me because if that guy's bringing me Jesus, then now Jesus didn't come back for me.Starlette (24:07):Come on.Make it plain. Danielle, go ahead. Go ahead. Walk heavy today. Yeah, I meanDanielle (24:17):I like this conversation. Why Jesus, why Jesus didn't come back for us, the three of us. He didn't come back for us. It didn't come back from kids. He didn't come back for my husband. Nope. And so then therefore that we're not going to find a freedom through that. No, that's no desire to be in that.Tamice (24:33):None. And that's what I mean and making it very, very plain to people like, listen, I actually don't want to be in heaven with your Jesus heaven. With your Jesus would be hell. I actually have one,Starlette (24:47):The one that they had for us, they had an N word heaven for us where they would continue to be served and they wrote it down. It's bad for people who are blio foes who like to read those testimonies. It is bad for people who like to read white body supremacy For Phil. Yeah, they had one for us. They had separate creation narratives known as polygenetic, but they also had separate alon whereby they thought that there was a white heaven and an inward heaven.I didn't even know that. Starla, I didn't even know that because they said they want to make sure their favorite slave was there to serve them. Oh yes, the delusion. People tell me that they're white. I really do push back for a reason. What do you mean by that? I disagree with all of it. What part of it do you find agreeable? The relationship of ruling that you maintain over me? The privilege. White power. Which part of it? Which part of it is good for you and for me? How does it help us maintain relationship as Christians?Danielle (25:47):I think that's the reality and the dissonance we live in. Right?Starlette (25:51):That's it. But I think there needs to be a separation.Are you a white supremacist or not?Tamice (26:03):That's what I'm saying. That's why I keep saying, listen, at this point, you can't be good and racist. Let me just say that. Oh no, you got to pickStarlette (26:12):And I need to hear itTamice (26:13):Both. Yeah. I need you to public confession of it.Starlette (26:19):Someone sent me a dm. I just want to thank you for your work and I completely agree. I quickly turned back around. I said, say it publicly. Get out of my dms. Say it publicly. Put it on your page. Don't congratulate me. Within two minutes or so. I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to disturb you. You are right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Did he post anything? No. Say it publicly. Denounce them. Come out from among them.Very, very plain. As a white supremacist or na, as a kid, as children. HowDanielle (26:56):Hard is it? I think that's what made this moment so real and it's a kind of a reality. Fresher actually for everybody to be honest, because it's a reality. All certain things have been said. All manner of things have been said by people. This is just one example of many people that have said these things. Not the only person that's lived and died and said these things. And then when you say, Hey, this was said, someone's like, they didn't say that. You're like, no, some people put all their content on the internet receipts. They did it themselves. That's not true. And I went to a prayer vigil. I didn't go. I sat outside a prayer vigil this weekend and I listened in and they were praying for the resurrection like Jesus of certain people that have passed on. I kid you, I sat there in the car with a friend of mine and then my youngest daughter had come with me just to hang out. She's like, what are they praying for? I was like, they're like, they were praying for a certain person to be resurrected from the dead just like Jesus. And I was so confused. I'm so confused how we got that far, honestly. But I told my kid, I said, this is a moment of reality for you. This is a moment to know. People think like this.Starlette (28:13):Also, white bodyDanielle (28:14):Supremacy is heresy. Yes. It's not even related to the Bible. Not at all.Why I steal away. This is why even the mistranslated Bible, even the Bible that you could take,Starlette (28:33):ThisThe version Danielle started. If you wouldn't have said that, I wouldn't have said that. This is exactly why I steal away. This is exactly why I leave. Because you can't argue with people like that. Now we're resurrected. IAll I need, it's like away. This is exactly why, because I can't hear what Howard Thurman calls the sound of the genuine in that. It's just not going to happen.Danielle (29:01):Can you imagine what would've happened if we would've prayed for George Floyd to be resurrected? Listen, what would've happenedStarlette (29:08):That he called the scumbag.Danielle (29:10):Yeah, but what would've happened if we would've played for their resurrection? Adam, Adam Polito. ThatStarlette (29:19):Was foundTamice (29:19):Psychosis.Starlette (29:21):Yeah. What would've happened? See, don't push me now. I feel like I need to pack. As soon as I said fill away, it's like people keep saying, what are you going to do if gets worse? I'm going to leave my, I'll sell all this crapAbout this stuff. This booby trap of capitalism. I'll it all don't about none of it. What matters most to me is my sense of ness. And when you get to talking, I almost said talking out the side of your neck. Jesus God, today, lemme God Jesus of your neck. You just need to know that's a cultural thing. That's going to have to be reevaluated. God. It just came right on out. Oh Lord. When you start saying things that go against my sense of ness that you think that I have to defend my personhood, that you want to tell me that I don't exist as a person. I don't exist as a human. Back to your reality testament. It's time for me to leave. I'm not staying here and fighting a race war or a civil war. You mamas are just violent. It's what you've always been.Tamice (30:28):Why would I stand in the middle? Why would I stand in the middle of what I know is a confrontation with yourself?Starlette (30:36):Oh, okay. Alright. I'm going to justTamice (30:38):You all. What happened last week is it, it is a confrontation with a really disturbed self and they're trying to flip it. Oh yes. They're trying to make it. Yes. But this is like, I'm trying to tell people out here, this is beyond you, Jack, that was a prophetic witness against you because now you see that what you're fighting is the mirror. Keep me out of it. I won't fight your wars. Keep me out of it. Look, James Baldwin said, y'all have to decide and figure out why you needed a nigger in the first place.I'm not a nigger. I'm a man. But you, the white people need to figure out why you created the nigger in the first place. Fuck, this is not my problem. This is a y'all and I don't have anything invested in this. All I'm trying to do is raise my kids, man. Come on. Get out of here with that. I'm sorry.Danielle (31:48):No, you keep going and then go back to starlet. Why do you think then they made her Terry? They had to make sure she doesn't buy into that. That's my opinion.Tamice (32:00):It's funny too because I see, I mean, I wasn't Pentecostal. I feel like who's coming to mind as soon as you said that de y'all know I'm hip hop. Right? So KRS one.Starlette (32:12):Yes. Consciousness.Tamice (32:14):The mind. Oh yes, the mind, the imagination. He was, I mean from day one, trying to embed that in the youth. Like, Hey, the battlefield is the mind. Are you going to internalize this bullshit?Are you going to let them name you?Starlette (32:34):This is the word.Tamice (32:34):Are you going to let them tell you what is real for the people of God? That's That's what I'm saying, man. Hip hop, hip hop's, refusal has been refusal from day one. That's why I trust it.Because in seen it, it came from the bottom of this place. It's from the bottom of your shoe. It tells the truth about all of this. So when I listen to hip hop, I know I'm getting the truth.Starlette (32:57):Yeah. EnemyObjection. What did public enemy say? Can't trust it. Can't trust it. No, no, no, no. You got to play it back. We got to run all that back.Danielle (33:11):I just think how it's so weaponized, the dirt, the bottom of the shoe, all of that stuff. But that's where we actually, that's what got it. Our bodies hitting the road, hitting the pavement, hitting the grass, hitting the dirt. That's how we know we're in reality because we've been forced to in many ways and have a mindset that we are familiar with despite socioeconomic changes. We're familiar with that bottom place.Tamice (33:38):Yeah. I mean, bottom place is where God is at. That's what y'all don't understand. God comes from black, dark dirt, like God is coming from darkness and hiddenness and mystery. You don't love darkness. You don't love GodStarlette (33:56):Talk. Now this bottom place is not to be confused with the sunken place that some of y'all are in. I just want to be clear. I just want to be clear and I'm not coming to get you. Fall was the wrong day. TodayI think it's good though because there's so much intimidation in other communities at times. I'm not saying there's not through the lynchings, ongoing lynchings and violence too and the threats against colleges. But it's good for us to be reminded of our different cultural perspectives and hear people talk with power. Why do you think Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez wrote letters to each other? They knew something about that and knew something about it. They knew something about it. They knew something about why it's important to maintain the bonds. Why we're different, why we're similar. They knew something about it. So I see it as a benefit and a growth in our reality. That is actually what threatens that, that relationship, that bond, that connection, that speaking life into one another. That's what threatens that kingdom that you're talking about. Yeah.You just can't fake an encounter either.When I was tear, no matter what I've decolonized and divested from and decentered, I cannot deny that experience. I know that God was present. I know that God touched me. So when mother even made sister, even made, my grandmother would call me when I was in college, first person to go to college. In our family, she would say before she asked about classes or anything else, and she really didn't know what to ask. She only had a sixth grade education. But her first question was always you yet holding on?Right. She holding on. And I said, yes ma'am. Yes ma'am. Then she would, because it didn't matter if you couldn't keep the faith. There really wasn't nothing else for her to talk to you about. She was going to get ready to evangelize and get you back because you backslid. But that was her first thing. But what I've learned since then is that I can let go.The amazing thing is that the spirit is guiding me. I didn't let go all together. You got it. You got it. If it's real, if you're real, prove it. Demonstrate it. I'm getting chills now talk to me without me saying anything, touch me. I shouldn't have to do anything. Eugene Peterson says that prayer is answering speech. In fact, the only reason why I'm praying is because you said something to me first. It's not really on me to do anything. Even with the tear. I was already touched. I was already called. The reason why I was on my knees and pleading is because I'd already been compelled. Something had had already touched me. FirstThey called Holy Spirit. The hound of heaven. Damn right was already on my heels. I was already filled before I could even refuse. I was like, I don't want this. I'm going to always be star Jonah, get your people. I prefer fish guts. Throw me overboard. I don't like these people. Certified prophet because I don't want to do it. I never want to do it. I'm not interested at all. I have no too much history. I've had to deal with too much white body supremacy and prejudice and racism to want anything to do with the church. I see it for what? It's I'll never join one. By the way, are we recording? Is it on? I'm never joining a church ever. Until you all desegregate.You desegregate. Then we can talk about your ministry of reconciliation. Until then, you don't have one. Don't talk to me about a community day or a pulpit swap. I don't want to hear it. All Your praise. What did he say? A clinging, stumble, put away from me. Your conferences, all your multiracial. I don't want to hear none of it. Desegregate that part desegregate you, hypocrites, woe unto all of you white supremacists. If nobody ever told you that's not God. It's not of God. So I don't, for me, my reality is so above me, I know that Paul, because when I don't want to say anything, somebody is in my ear. Somebody was talking to me this morning. Somebody was writing a note in my ear. I had to get up. I said, please. I'm like, now I'm not even awake all the way. Stop talking to me. You can't fake that as much as I push against the Holy Spirit. You can't fake that. I don't want to do it. I don't want to say it. I'm of saying it. And yet I get up in the morning and it's like, say this, that post that. Write that. Somebody else is doing that. That's not me.As the mothers say, my flesh is weak. My flesh is not willing at all. I want to, all of y'all can go on. I'll pack this up and move somewhere else. Let them fight it to the death. I'm not going to, this is just my flesh speaking. Forgive me. Okay. This Raceless gospel is a calling friends. It's a calling. It's a calling, which means you coming into it. I'm an itinerant prophet. I'm heavy into the Hebrew scriptures. I come up with every excuse. My throat hurts. I got a speech impediment. The people don't like me. I'm not educated. It don't work. You need to know when people come to you and say, y'all need to get together, God speaking to you, the Pendo is coming. That's not like an invitation. That's kind of like a threat whether you want it or not. You're getting together.Everybody up. There's a meal ready, there's a banquet that is set and the food is getting cold and you are the reason why the drinks are watered down. That's go. You don't hear me calling you. ComeWhat I keep hearing. You have to know that God is speaking to people and saying that there's an invitation coming and you better get right. You better get washed up. Tam me said, you better let somebody pour that water over your hands. You better get washed up and get ready for dinner. I'm calling you. Come on in this house. Come on in this house. And this house is for everybody. Martin Luther King called it the world house. Everybody's coming in and you ain't got to like it doesn't matter. Get somewhere and sit down. That's that old church mother coming out of me and lemme just confess. I didn't even want to be on here this morning. I told God I didn't feel like talking. I told the Lord and you see what happened.Promise you. I'm a child. I'm full of disobedience.I was not in the mood. I said, I don't want to talk to nobody. I'm an introvert. I don't want to deal with none of this. Get somebody else to do it and look at it.Tamice (40:39):Yeah. It's funny because I woke up this morning, I was like, I'm not, I forgot. And then after all of the news today, I was like, I just don't have it in you, but this is, wait a minute. And it was three minutes past the time. Come on. And I was like, oh, well shoot. The house is empty. Nobody's here right now. I was like, well, lemme just log on. So this is definitely, it feels like definitely our calling do feel. I feel that way. I don't have time to bullshitSo I can't get out of it. I can't go to bed. I might as well say something. It won't let me go. I cannot do deceit. I can't do it. I can't sit idly by while people lie on God. I can't do that. I can't do it. It won't let up. And I'm trying to get in my body, get in this grass and get a little space. But I'm telling you, it won't let me go. And I feel it's important, Dee, you can't stop doing what you're doing. That's right. I mean is this thing of it is beyond me. It is living out of me. It's coming through me. And there has to be a reason for this. There's got to be a reason for this. And I don't know what it is because I know my eschatology is different, but I feel like, buddy, we got to manifest this kingdom. We have to manifest it until it pushes all that shit back. Come on. I'm telling you. Till it scurries it away or renders it and null and void, I'm talking. I mean, I want the type of light and glory on my being. That wicked logic disintegrate, wicked people drop dead. I mean that just in the Bible. In the Bible where Hert falls, headlong and worms eat em. Y'all celebrate that. Why can't I think about that? It's in your scriptures or daykin and the thing breaks and the legs of this false God break. I want that. I'm here for that. I'm going after that.Danielle (43:14):You think that this is what the definition of Terry is? That we're all Terry serious. I'm rocking the whole time. I'm serious. Right. That's what I told my kids. I said, in one sense, this is a one person of many that thinks this way. So we can't devote all our conversation in our house to this man. And I said in the other sense, because Starlet was asking me before he got here, how you doing? I said, we got up and I took calls from this person and that person and I told my kids, we're still advocating and doing what we can for the neighbors that need papers. And so we're going to continue doing that. That is the right thing to do. No matter what anybody else is doing in the world, we can do this.Tamice (43:56):Yeah, that's a good call. I mean, I'm headed to, I ain't going to say where I'm going no more, but I'm headed somewhere and going to be with people who are doing some innovation, right. Thinking how do we build a different world? How do our skillsets and passions coalesce and become something other than this? So I'm excited about that. And it's like that fire, it doesn't just drive me to want to rebuke. It does drive me to want to rebuild and rethink how we do everything. And I'm willing, I mean, I know that I don't know about y'all, but I feel like this, I'm getting out of dodge, but also I'm seeking the piece of the city. I feel both. I feel like I'm not holding hands with ridiculousness and I'm not moving in foolishness. But also I'm finna seek the piece of the city. My G I'm not running from delusion. Why would I? I'm in the truth. So I don't know how that maps onto a practical life, but we're finna figure it out. Out in it. I mean, the response of leadership to what has happened is a very clear sign where we are in terms of fascism. That's a very clear sign.What else y'all are looking for To tell you what it is.Danielle (45:36):But also we're the leaders. We are, we're the leaders. They're a leader of something, but they're not the leader of us. We're the leaders. We're the leaders. So no matter what they say, no matter what hate they spew, I really love Cesar Chavez. He's like, I still go out and feed the farm worker and I don't make them get on the boycott line because if they're pushed under the dirt, then they can't see hope. So people that have more economic power, a little more privilege than the other guy, we're the leaders. We're the ones that keep showing up in love. And love is a dangerous thing for these folks. They can't understand it. They can't grasp it. It is violent for them to feel love. Bodies actually reject it. And the more we show up, you're innovating. You're speaking Starla, you're preaching. We're the leaders. They're leaders of something. They're not leaders of us. We're leaders of freedom.Tamice (46:31):Come on now. D, we're leaders of give us thisStarlette (46:34):Bomb. We're leaders of compassion. You coming in here with the Holy Ghosts, acting like one of them church mothers. We were in the room together. She put our hand on us. YouDanielle (46:43):We're the ones that can remember Trey. We're the ones that can call for justice. We don't need them to do it. They've never done it. Right. Anyway. They have never showed up for a Mexican kid. They've never showed up for a black kid. They've never done it. Right. Anyway, we're the ones that can do it now. We have access to technology. We have access to our neighbors. We can bring a meal to a friend. We can give dollars to someone that needs gas. We're the the one doing it. We're the one that doing itTamice (47:11):Fill usDanielle (47:12):Up. They cannot take away our love.Starlette (47:15):Receive the benediction.Danielle: Yeah. They can't take it away. I'm telling you, if I saw someone shooting someone I hate, I would try to save that person. I don't own guns. I don't believe in guns, period. My family, that's my personal family's belief.And I would do that. I've thought about it many times. I thought would I do it? And I think I would because I actually believe that. I believe that people should not be shot dead. I believe that for the white kid. I believe that for the Mexican kid. I believe that for the black kid, we're the people that can show up. They're not going to come out here. They're inviting us to different kind of war. We're not in that war. That's right. We have love on our side and you cannot defeat love, kill love. You can'tTamice (48:04):Kill love and you can't kill life. That's the only reason somebody would ask you to be nonviolent. That's the only way somebody would've the audacity to ask that of you. Especially if you're oppressed. If the true is truth is that you can't kill love or life, damn man. It's hard out here for a pimp.Starlette (48:38):Really. Really? Yeah. Because what I really want to say isTamice (49:27):I can't. Your testimony a lie. No. Your testimony. That would be a lie. And like I said, truth telling is important. But there are days where I could be that I could go there, but I witnessed what happened that day. I watched the video. It's just not normal to watch that happen to anybody. And I don't care who you are. And the fact that we're there is just objectively just wow. And the fact that all of the spin and do y'all not realize what just happened? Just as a actual event. Right. What? You know, I'm saying how has this turned into diatribes? Right? We need reform. I, whichDanielle (50:29):Which, okay, so I have to cut us off. I have a client coming, but I want to hear from you, given all the nuance and complexity, how are you going to take care of your body this week or even just today? It doesn't have to be genius. Just one or two things you're going to do. Oh, I'm going toTamice (50:51):Take a nap. Yeah, you taking a nap? Y'all be so proud of me. I literally just said no to five things. I was like, I'm not coming to this. I'm not doing that. I won't be at this. I'm grieving. I'm go sit in the grass. Yeah, that's what I'm doing today. And I have stuff coming up. I'm like, Nope, I'm not available.Starlette (51:14):What about you Danielle? What are you going to do?Danielle (51:16):I'm going to eat scrambled eggs with no salt. I love that. I've grown my liver back so I have to have no salt. But I do love scrambled eggs. Scrambled eggs. That's the truth. Four. Four scrambled eggs.Starlette (51:31):And we thank you for your truth. BIO:The Reverend Dr. Starlette Thomas is a poet, practical theologian, and itinerant prophet for a coming undivided “kin-dom.” She is the director of The Raceless Gospel Initiative, named for her work and witness and an associate editor at Good Faith Media. Starlette regularly writes on the sociopolitical construct of race and its longstanding membership in the North American church. Her writings have been featured in Sojourners, Red Letter Christians, Free Black Thought, Word & Way, Plough, Baptist News Global and Nurturing Faith Journal among others. She is a frequent guest on podcasts and has her own. The Raceless Gospel podcast takes her listeners to a virtual church service where she and her guests tackle that taboo trinity— race, religion, and politics. Starlette is also an activist who bears witness against police brutality and most recently the cultural erasure of the Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C. It was erected in memory of the 2020 protests that brought the world together through this shared declaration of somebodiness after the gruesome murder of George Perry Floyd, Jr. Her act of resistance caught the attention of the Associated Press. An image of her reclaiming the rubble went viral and in May, she was featured in a CNN article.Starlette has spoken before the World Council of Churches North America and the United Methodist Church's Council of Bishops on the color- coded caste system of race and its abolition. She has also authored and presented papers to the members of the Baptist World Alliance in Zurich, Switzerland and Nassau, Bahamas to this end. She has cast a vision for the future of religion at the National Museum of African American History and Culture's “Forward Conference: Religions Envisioning Change.” Her paper was titled “Press Forward: A Raceless Gospel for Ex- Colored People Who Have Lost Faith in White Supremacy.” She has lectured at The Queen's Foundation in Birmingham, U.K. on a baptismal pedagogy for antiracist theological education, leadership and ministries. Starlette's research interests have been supported by the Louisville Institute and the Lilly Foundation. Examining the work of the Reverend Dr. Clarence Jordan, whose farm turned “demonstration plot” in Americus, Georgia refused to agree to the social arrangements of segregation because of his Christian convictions, Starlette now takes this dirt to the church. Her thesis is titled, “Afraid of Koinonia: How life on this farm reveals the fear of Christian community.” A full circle moment, she was recently invited to write the introduction to Jordan's newest collection of writings, The Inconvenient Gospel: A Southern Prophet Tackles War, Wealth, Race and Religion.Starlette is a member of the Christian Community Development Association, the Peace & Justice Studies Association, and the Koinonia Advisory Council. A womanist in ministry, she has served as a pastor as well as a denominational leader. An unrepentant academician and bibliophile, Starlette holds degrees from Buffalo State College, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School and Wesley Theological Seminary. Last year, she was awarded an honorary doctorate in Sacred Theology for her work and witness as a public theologian from Wayland Baptist Theological Seminary. She is the author of "Take Me to the Water": The Raceless Gospel as Baptismal Pedagogy for a Desegregated Church and a contributing author of the book Faith Forward: A Dialogue on Children, Youth & a New Kind of Christianity. Dr. Tamice Spencer - HelmsGod is not a weapon.  Authenticity is not a phase.Meet  Tamice Spencer-Helms (they/she). Tamice is a nonprofit leader, scholar-practitioner, pastor, and theoactivist based in Richmond, Virginia. For decades, Tamice has been guided by a singular purpose: to confront and heal what they call “diseased imagination”—the spiritual and social dis-ease that stifles agency, creativity, and collective flourishing. As a pastor for spiritual fugitives,  Tamice grounds their work at the intersection of social transformation, soulful leadership, womanist and queer liberation theologies, and cultural critique.A recognized voice in theoactivism, Tamice's work bridges the intellectual and the embodied, infusing rigorous scholarship with lived experience and spiritual practice. They hold two master's degrees (theology and leadership) and a doctorate in Social Transformation. Their frameworks, such as R.E.S.T. Mixtape and Soulful Leadership, which are research and evidence-based interventions that invite others into courageous truth-telling, radical belonging, and the kind of liberating leadership our times demand.​Whether facilitating retreats, speaking from the stage, consulting for organizations, or curating digital sanctuaries, Tamice's presence is both refuge and revolution. Their commitment is to help individuals and communities heal, reimagine, and build spaces where every person is seen, known, and liberated—where diseased imagination gives way to new possibilities. Kitsap County & Washington State Crisis and Mental Health ResourcesIf you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call 911.This resource list provides crisis and mental health contacts for Kitsap County and across Washington State.Kitsap County / Local ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They OfferSalish Regional Crisis Line / Kitsap Mental Health 24/7 Crisis Call LinePhone: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/24/7 emotional support for suicide or mental health crises; mobile crisis outreach; connection to services.KMHS Youth Mobile Crisis Outreach TeamEmergencies via Salish Crisis Line: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://sync.salishbehavioralhealth.org/youth-mobile-crisis-outreach-team/Crisis outreach for minors and youth experiencing behavioral health emergencies.Kitsap Mental Health Services (KMHS)Main: 360‑373‑5031; Toll‑free: 888‑816‑0488; TDD: 360‑478‑2715Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/Outpatient, inpatient, crisis triage, substance use treatment, stabilization, behavioral health services.Kitsap County Suicide Prevention / “Need Help Now”Call the Salish Regional Crisis Line at 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/Suicide-Prevention-Website.aspx24/7/365 emotional support; connects people to resources; suicide prevention assistance.Crisis Clinic of the PeninsulasPhone: 360‑479‑3033 or 1‑800‑843‑4793Website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/607/Mental-Health-ResourcesLocal crisis intervention services, referrals, and emotional support.NAMI Kitsap CountyWebsite: https://namikitsap.org/Peer support groups, education, and resources for individuals and families affected by mental illness.Statewide & National Crisis ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They Offer988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (WA‑988)Call or text 988; Website: https://wa988.org/Free, 24/7 support for suicidal thoughts, emotional distress, relationship problems, and substance concerns.Washington Recovery Help Line1‑866‑789‑1511Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesHelp for mental health, substance use, and problem gambling; 24/7 statewide support.WA Warm Line877‑500‑9276Website: https://www.crisisconnections.org/wa-warm-line/Peer-support line for emotional or mental health distress; support outside of crisis moments.Native & Strong Crisis LifelineDial 988 then press 4Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesCulturally relevant crisis counseling by Indigenous counselors.Additional Helpful Tools & Tips• Behavioral Health Services Access: Request assessments and access to outpatient, residential, or inpatient care through the Salish Behavioral Health Organization. Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/SBHO-Get-Behaviroal-Health-Services.aspx• Deaf / Hard of Hearing: Use your preferred relay service (for example dial 711 then the appropriate number) to access crisis services.• Warning Signs & Risk Factors: If someone is talking about harming themselves, giving away possessions, expressing hopelessness, or showing extreme behavior changes, contact crisis resources immediately. Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

On this episode Paul Helms from the Stick and String Life YouTube channel. We discuss his 2024 archery season where we discuss lessons learned, his current mobile hunting set up, his new Black Widow and new Sauk Trail Ascend and the Lancaster Classic. Enjoy the show! Stick and String Life Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@pitbullman4111 This Podcast is sponsored by you guys, the listeners! We intentionally do not accept or seek out sponsors for the show at this time, so I can use gear from around the industry and provide honest feedback throughout the year. If you enjoy that about our show, please consider supporting the channel by heading to our website and making a purchase, large or small, which keeps the lights on and conversations flowing here at Push HQ! Shop all Quivers and Gear: www.ThePushArchery.com Online Courses & Coaching: https://thepusharchery.teachable.com The Push Archery Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thepusharchery/ The Push Archery Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thepusharchery

On today's episode of Lever Time, comedian and writer Ed Helms (The Daily Show, The Office) takes David Sirota on a wild journey through some of history's greatest screw-ups — from nuclear war near-misses to secret ice tunnels in Greenland to attempts to blow up the moon. Helms, who hosts the podcast SNAFU, explores the risks of putting our trust in leaders who could do things that put us on the brink of extinction. What do America's biggest blunders teach us about our lack of control, our resilience, and what the future holds?Click here to learn more about Ed Helm's book, SNAFU: The Definitive Guide to History's Greatest Screwups.Click here for a full transcript of the episode.To leave a tip for The Lever, click here. It helps us do this kind of independent journalism.

In this episode, Drs Trexler and Helms discuss various topics including updates on Eric's surgery, the valuable (but very modest) effects of protein intake on muscle gains, incontinence after contest prep,  the relationship between sleep quality and nutrient timing, the recent ban on smelling salts in the NFL, and more. Time stamps: 00:00 Introduction 01:11  Preview of next week's episode (non-responders, hyper-responders, etc) 07:01 Trex's surgery update 12:11 Discussion on Protein Meta-Analyses and Research Updates (how much does protein intake actually matter for gains?) 33:10 Why meta-analyses differ from RCTs in terms of "expiration dates" 44:15 The Impact of Training vs. Nutrition (for muscle growth) 51:41 Q&A: Supplementation for Lifters (and Specifically Vegans Who Lift) 55:49 Incontinence, Increased Urine Output, and Contest Prep 59:16 Chrono Nutrition and Sleep Quality 01:11:28 The Role of Smelling Salts in Sports Performance (and Football)