Podcasts about in american

Lots of talk these days about ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Along with confusion about what in the heck they are or what they're not, how bad they are for us, and what ought to be done about them. A landmark in the discussion of ultra-processed foods has been the publication of a book entitled Ultra-processed People, Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. The author of that book, Dr. Chris van Tulleken, joins us today. Dr. van Tulleken is a physician and is professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He also has a PhD in molecular virology and is an award-winning broadcaster on the BBC. His book on Ultra-processed People is a bestseller. Interview Summary Chris, sometimes somebody comes along that takes a complicated topic and makes it accessible and understandable and brings it to lots of people. You're a very fine scientist and scholar and academic, but you also have that ability to communicate effectively with lots of people, which I very much admire. So, thanks for doing that, and thank you for joining us. Oh, Kelly, it's such a pleasure. You know, I begin some of my talks now with a clipping from the New York Times. And it's a picture of you and an interview you gave in 1995. So exactly three decades ago. And in this article, you just beautifully communicate everything that 30 years later I'm still saying. So, yeah. I wonder if communication, it's necessary, but insufficient. I think we are needing to think of other means to bring about change. I totally agree. Well, thank you by the way. And I hope I've learned something over those 30 years. Tell us, please, what are ultra-processed foods? People hear the term a lot, but I don't think a lot of people know exactly what it means. The most important thing to know, I think, is that it's not a casual term. It's not like 'junk food' or 'fast food.' It is a formal scientific definition. It's been used in hundreds of research studies. The definition is very long. It's 11 paragraphs long. And I would urge anyone who's really interested in this topic, go to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization website. You can type in NFAO Ultra and you'll get the full 11 paragraph definition. It's an incredibly sophisticated piece of science. But it boils down to if you as a consumer, someone listening to this podcast, want to know if the thing you are eating right now is ultra-processed, look at the ingredients list. If there are ingredients on that list that you do not normally find in a domestic kitchen like an emulsifier, a coloring, a flavoring, a non-nutritive sweetener, then that product will be ultra-processed. And it's a way of describing this huge range of foods that kind of has taken over the American and the British and in fact diets all over the world. How come the food companies put this stuff in the foods? And the reason I ask is in talks I give I'll show an ingredient list from a food that most people would recognize. And ask people if they can guess what the food is from the ingredient list. And almost nobody can. There are 35 things on the ingredient list. Sugar is in there, four different forms. And then there are all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce. There are lots of strange things in there. They get in there through loopholes and government regulation. Why are they there in the first place? So, when I started looking at this I also noticed this long list of fancy sounding ingredients. And even things like peanut butter will have palm oil and emulsifiers. Cream cheese will have xanthum gum and emulsifiers. And you think, well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to make your peanut butter out of peanuts. In fact, every ingredient is in there to make money in one of two ways. Either it drives down the cost of production or storage. If you imagine using a real strawberry in your strawberry ice cream. Strawberries are expensive. They're not always in season. They rot. You've got to have a whole supply chain. Why would you use a strawberry if you could use ethyl methylphenylglycidate and pink dye and it'll taste the same. It'll look great. You could then put in a little chunky bit of modified corn starch that'll be chewy if you get it in the right gel mix. And there you go. You've got strawberries and you haven't had to deal with strawberry farmers or any supply chain. It's just you just buy bags and bottles of white powder and liquids. The other way is to extend the shelf life. Strawberries as I say, or fresh food, real food - food we might call it rots on shelves. It decays very quickly. If you can store something at room temperature in a warehouse for months and months, that saves enormous amounts of money. So, one thing is production, but the other thing is the additives allow us to consume to excess or encourage us to consume ultra-processed food to excess. So, I interviewed a scientist who was a food industry development scientist. And they said, you know, most ultra-processed food would be gray if it wasn't dyed, for example. So, if you want to make cheap food using these pastes and powders, unless you dye it and you flavor it, it will be inedible. But if you dye it and flavor it and add just the right amount of salt, sugar, flavor enhancers, then you can make these very addictive products. So that's the logic of UPF. Its purpose is to make money. And that's part of the definition. Right. So, a consumer might decide that there's, you know, beneficial trade-off for them at the end of the day. That they get things that have long shelf life. The price goes down because of the companies don't have to deal with the strawberry farmers and things like that. But if there's harm coming in waves from these things, then it changes the equation. And you found out some of that on your own. So as an experiment you did with a single person - you, you ate ultra-processed foods for a month. What did you eat and how did it affect your body, your mood, your sleep? What happened when you did this? So, what's really exciting, actually Kelly, is while it was an n=1, you know, one participant experiment, I was actually the pilot participant in a much larger study that we have published in Nature Medicine. One of the most reputable and high impact scientific journals there is. So, I was the first participant in a randomized control trial. I allowed us to gather the data about what we would then measure in a much larger number. Now we'll come back and talk about that study, which I think was really important. It was great to see it published. So, I was a bit skeptical. Partly it was with my research team at UCL, but we were also filming it for a BBC documentary. And I went into this going I'm going to eat a diet of 80% of my calories will come from ultra-processed food for four weeks. And this is a normal diet. A lifelong diet for a British teenager. We know around 20% of people in the UK and the US eat this as their normal food. They get 80% of their calories from ultra-processed products. I thought, well, nothing is going to happen to me, a middle-aged man, doing this for four weeks. But anyway, we did it kind of as a bit of fun. And we thought, well, if nothing happens, we don't have to do a bigger study. We can just publish this as a case report, and we'll leave it out of the documentary. Three big things happened. I gained a massive amount of weight, so six kilos. And I wasn't force feeding myself. I was just eating when I wanted. In American terms, that's about 15 pounds in four weeks. And that's very consistent with the other published trials that have been done on ultra-processed food. There have been two other RCTs (randomized control trials); ours is the third. There is one in Japan, one done at the NIH. So, people gain a lot of weight. I ate massively more calories. So much so that if I'd continued on the diet, I would've almost doubled my body weight in a year. And that may sound absurd, but I have an identical twin brother who did this natural experiment. He went to Harvard for a year. He did his masters there. During his year at Harvard he gained, let's see, 26 kilos, so almost 60 pounds just living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But how did you decide how much of it to eat? Did you eat until you just kind of felt naturally full? I did what most people do most of the time, which is I just ate what I wanted when I felt like it. Which actually for me as a physician, I probably took the breaks off a bit because I don't normally have cocoa pops for breakfast. But I ate cocoa pops and if I felt like two bowls, I'd have two bowls. It turned out what I felt like a lot of mornings was four bowls and that was fine. I was barely full. So, I wasn't force feeding myself. It wasn't 'supersize' me. I was eating to appetite, which is how these experiments run. And then what we've done in the trials. So, I gained weight, then we measured my hormone response to a meal. When you eat, I mean, it's absurd to explain this to YOU. But when you eat, you have fullness hormones that go up and hunger hormones that go down, so you feel full and less hungry. And we measured my response to a standard meal at the beginning and at the end of this four-week diet. What we found is that I had a normal response to eating a big meal at the beginning of the diet. At the end of eating ultra-processed foods, the same meal caused a very blunted rise in the satiety hormones. In the 'fullness' hormones. So, I didn't feel as full. And my hunger hormones remained high. And so, the food is altering our response to all meals, not merely within the meal that we're eating. Then we did some MRI scans and again, I thought this would be a huge waste of time. But we saw at four weeks, and then again eight weeks later, very robust changes in the communication between the habit-forming bits at the back of the brain. So, the automatic behavior bits, the cerebellum. Very conscious I'm talking to YOU about this, Kelly. And the kind of addiction reward bits in the middle. Now these changes were physiological, not structural. They're about the two bits of the brain talking to each other. There's not really a new wire going between them. But we think if this kind of communication is happening a lot, that maybe a new pathway would form. And I think no one, I mean we did this with very expert neuroscientists at our National Center for Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, no one really knows what it means. But the general feeling was these are the kind of changes we might expect if we'd given someone, or a person or an animal, an addictive substance for four weeks. They're consistent with, you know, habit formation and addiction. And the fact that they happened so quickly, and they were so robust - they remained the same eight weeks after I stopped the diet, I think is really worrying from a kid's perspective. So, in a period of four weeks, it re-altered the way your brain works. It affected the way your hunger and satiety were working. And then you ended up with this massive weight. And heaven knows what sort of cardiovascular effects or other things like that might have been going on or had the early signs of that over time could have been really pretty severe, I imagine. I think one of the main effects was that I became very empathetic with my patients. Because we did actually a lot of, sort of, psychological testing as well. And there's an experience where, obviously in clinic, I mainly treat patients with infections. But many of my patients are living with other, sort of, disorders of modern life. They live with excess weight and cardiovascular disease and type two diabetes and metabolic problems and so on. And I felt in four weeks like I'd gone from being in my early 30, early 40s at the time, I felt like I'd just gone to my early 50s or 60s. I ached. I felt terrible. My sleep was bad. And it was like, oh! So many of the problems of modern life: waking up to pee in the middle of the night is because you've eaten so much sodium with your dinner. You've drunk all this water, and then you're trying to get rid of it all night. Then you're constipated. It's a low fiber diet, so you develop piles. Pain in your bum. The sleep deprivation then makes you eat more. And so, you get in this vicious cycle where the problem didn't feel like the food until I stopped and I went cold turkey. I virtually have not touched it since. It cured me of wanting UPF. That was the other amazing bit of the experience that I write about in the book is it eating it and understanding it made me not want it. It was like being told to smoke. You know, you get caught smoking as a kid and your parents are like, hey, now you finish the pack. It was that. It was an aversion experience. So, it gave me a lot of empathy with my patients that many of those kinds of things we regard as being normal aging, those symptoms are often to do with the way we are living our lives. Chris, I've talked to a lot of people about ultra-processed foods. You're the first one who's mentioned pain in the bum as one of the problems, so thank you. When I first became a physician, I trained as a surgeon, and I did a year doing colorectal surgery. So, I have a wealth of experience of where a low fiber diet leaves you. And many people listening to this podcast, I mean, look, we're all going to get piles. Everyone gets these, you know, anal fishes and so on. And bum pain it's funny to talk about it. No, not the... it destroys people's lives, so, you know, anyway. Right. I didn't want to make light of it. No, no. Okay. So, your own experiment would suggest that these foods are really bad actors and having this broad range of highly negative effects. But what does research say about these things beyond your own personal experience, including your own research? So, the food industry has been very skillful at portraying this as a kind of fad issue. As ultra-processed food is this sort of niche thing. Or it's a snobby thing. It's not a real classification. I want to be absolutely clear. UPF, the definition is used by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to monitor global diet quality, okay? It's a legitimate way of thinking about food. The last time I looked, there are more than 30 meta-analyses - that is reviews of big studies. And the kind of high-quality studies that we use to say cigarettes cause lung cancer. So, we've got this what we call epidemiological evidence, population data. We now have probably more than a hundred of these prospective cohort studies. And they're really powerful tools. They need to be used in conjunction with other evidence, but they now link ultra-processed food to this very wide range of what we euphemistically call negative health outcomes. You know, problems that cause human suffering, mental health problems, anxiety, depression, multiple forms of cancer, inflammatory diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's and dementia. Of course, weight gain and obesity. And all cause mortality so you die earlier of all causes. And there are others too. So, the epidemiological evidence is strong and that's very plausible. So, we take that epidemiological evidence, as you well know, and we go, well look, association and causation are different things. You know, do matches cause cancer or does cigarettes cause cancer? Because people who buy lots of matches are also getting the lung cancer. And obviously epidemiologists are very sophisticated at teasing all this out. But we look at it in the context then of other evidence. My group published the third randomized control trial where we put a group of people, in a very controlled way, on a diet of either minimally processed food or ultra-processed food and looked at health outcomes. And we found what the other two trials did. We looked at weight gain as a primary outcome. It was a short trial, eight weeks. And we saw people just eat more calories on the ultra-processed food. This is food that is engineered to be consumed to excess. That's its purpose. So maybe to really understand the effect of it, you have to imagine if you are a food development engineer working in product design at a big food company - if you develop a food that's cheap to make and people will just eat loads of it and enjoy it, and then come back for it again and again and again, and eat it every day and almost become addicted to it, you are going to get promoted. That product is going to do well on the shelves. If you invent a food that's not addictive, it's very healthy, it's very satisfying, people eat it and then they're done for the day. And they don't consume it to excess. You are not going to keep your job. So that's a really important way of understanding the development process of the foods. So let me ask a question about industry and intent. Because one could say that the industry engineers these things to have long shelf life and nice physical properties and the right colors and things like this. And these effects on metabolism and appetite and stuff are unpleasant and difficult side effects, but the foods weren't made to produce those things. They weren't made to produce over consumption and then in turn produce those negative consequences. You're saying something different. That you think that they're intentionally designed to promote over consumption. And in some ways, how could the industry do otherwise? I mean, every industry in the world wants people to over consume or consume as much of their product as they can. The food industry is no different. That is exactly right. The food industry behaves like every other corporation. In my view, they commit evil acts sometimes, but they're not institutionally evil. And I have dear friends who work in big food, who work in big pharma. I have friends who work in tobacco. These are not evil people. They're constrained by commercial incentives, right? So, when I say I think the food is engineered, I don't think it. I know it because I've gone and interviewed loads of people in product development at big food companies. I put some of these interviewees in a BBC documentary called Irresistible. So rather than me in the documentary going, oh, ultra-processed food is bad. And everyone going, well, you are, you're a public health bore. I just got industry insiders to say, yes, this is how we make the food. And going back to Howard Moskovitz, in the 1970s, I think he was working for the Campbell Soup Company. And Howard, who was a psychologist by training, outlined the development process. And what he said was then underlined by many other people I've spoken to. You develop two different products. This one's a little bit saltier than the next, and you test them on a bunch of people. People like the saltier ones. So now you keep the saltier one and you develop a third product and this one's got a bit more sugar in it. And if this one does better, well you keep this one and you keep AB testing until you get people buying and eating lots. And one of the crucial things that food companies measure in product development is how fast do people eat and how quickly do they eat. And these kind of development tools were pioneered by the tobacco industry. I mean, Laura Schmidt has done a huge amount of the work on this. She's at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in California. And we know the tobacco industry bought the food industry and for a while in the '80s and '90s, the biggest food companies in the world were also the biggest tobacco companies in the world. And they used their flavor molecules and their marketing techniques and their distribution systems. You know, they've got a set of convenience tools selling cigarettes all over the country. Well, why don't we sell long shelf-life food marketed in the same way? And one thing that the tobacco industry was extremely good at was figuring out how to get the most rapid delivery of the drug possible into the human body when people smoke. Do you think that some of that same thing is true for food, rapid delivery of sugar, let's say? How close does the drug parallel fit, do you think? So, that's part of the reason the speed of consumption is important. Now, I think Ashley Gearhardt has done some of the most incredible work on this. And what Ashley says is we think of addictive drugs as like it's the molecule that's addictive. It's nicotine, it's caffeine, cocaine, diamorphine, heroin, the amphetamines. What we get addicted to is the molecule. And that Ashley says no. The processing of that molecule is crucially important. If you have slow-release nicotine in a chewing gum, that can actually treat your nicotine addiction. It's not very addictive. Slow-release amphetamine we use to treat children with attention and behavioral problems. Slow-release cocaine is an anesthetic. You use it for dentistry. No one ever gets addicted to dental anesthetics. And the food is the same. The rewarding molecules in the food we think are mainly the fat and the sugar. And food that requires a lot of chewing and is slow eaten slowly, you don't deliver the reward as quickly. And it tends not to be very addictive. Very soft foods or liquid foods with particular fat sugar ratios, if you deliver the nutrients into the gut fast, that seems to be really important for driving excessive consumption. And I think the growing evidence around addiction is very persuasive. I mean, my patients report feeling addicted to the food. And I don't feel it's legitimate to question their experience. Chris, a little interesting story about that concept of food and addiction. So going back several decades I was a professor at Yale, and I was teaching a graduate course. Ashley Gerhardt was a student in that course. And, she was there to study addiction, not in the context of food, but I brought up the issue of, you know, could food be addictive? There's some interesting research on this. It's consistent with what we're hearing from people, and that seems a really interesting topic. And Ashley, I give her credit, took this on as her life's work and now she's like the leading expert in the world on this very important topic. And what's nice for me to recall that story is that how fast the science on this is developed. And now something's coming out on this almost every day. It's some new research on the neuroscience of food and addiction and how the food is hijacking in the brain. And that whole concept of addiction seems really important in this context. And I know you've talked a lot about that yourself. She has reframed, I think, this idea about the way that addictive substances and behaviors really work. I mean it turns everything on its head to go the processing is important. The thing the food companies have always been able to say is, look, you can't say food is addictive. It doesn't contain any addictive molecules. And with Ashley's work you go, no, but the thing is it contains rewarding molecules and actually the spectrum of molecules that we can find rewarding and we can deliver fast is much, much broader than the traditionally addictive substances. For policy, it's vital because part of regulating the tobacco industry was about showing they know they are making addictive products. And I think this is where Ashley's work and Laura Schmidt's work are coming together. With Laura's digging in the tobacco archive, Ashley's doing the science on addiction, and I think these two things are going to come together. And I think it's just going to be a really exciting space to watch. I completely agree. You know when most people think about the word addiction, they basically kind of default to thinking about how much you want something. How much, you know, you desire something. But there are other parts of it that are really relevant here too. I mean one is how do you feel if you don't have it and sort of classic withdrawal. And people talk about, for example, being on high sugar drinks and stopping them and having withdrawal symptoms and things like that. And the other part of it that I think is really interesting here is tolerance. You know whether you need more of the substance over time in order to get the same reward benefit. And that hasn't been studied as much as the other part of addiction. But there's a lot to the picture other than just kind of craving things. And I would say that the thing I like about this is it chimes with my. Personal experience, which is, I have tried alcohol and cigarettes and I should probably end that list there. But I've never had any real desire for more of them. They aren't the things that tickle my brain. Whereas the food is a thing that I continue to struggle with. I would say in some senses, although I no longer like ultra-processed food at some level, I still want it. And I think of myself to some degree, without trivializing anyone's experience, to some degree I think I'm in sort of recovery from it. And it remains that tussle. I mean I don't know what you think about the difference between the kind of wanting and liking of different substances. Some scientists think those two things are quite, quite different. That you can like things you don't want, and you can want things you don't like. Well, that's exactly right. In the context of food and traditional substances of abuse, for many of them, people start consuming because they produce some sort of desired effect. But that pretty quickly goes away, and people then need the substance because if they don't have it, they feel terrible. So, you know, morphine or heroin or something like that always produces positive effects. But that initial part of the equation where you just take it because you like it turns into this needing it and having to have it. And whether that same thing exists with food is an interesting topic. I think the other really important part of the addiction argument in policy terms is that one counterargument by industrial scientists and advocates is by raising awareness around ultra-processed food we are at risk of driving, eating disorders. You know? The phenomenon of orthorexia, food avoidance, anorexia. Because all food is good food. There should be no moral value attached to food and we mustn't drive any food anxiety. And I think there are some really strong voices in the United Kingdom Eating Disorder scientists. People like Agnes Ayton, who are starting to say, look, when food is engineered, using brain scanners and using scientific development techniques to be consumed to excess, is it any wonder that people develop a disordered relationship with the food? And there may be a way of thinking about the rise of eating disorders, which is parallel to the rise of our consumption of ultra-processed food, that eating disorders are a reasonable response to a disordered food environment. And I think that's where I say all that somewhat tentatively. I feel like this is a safe space where you will correct me if I go off piste. But I think it's important to at least explore that question and go, you know, this is food with which it is very hard, I would say, to have a healthy relationship. That's my experience. And I think the early research is bearing that out. Tell us how these foods affect your hunger, how full you feel, your microbiome. That whole sort of interactive set of signals that might put people in harmony with food in a normal environment but gets thrown off when the foods get processed like this. Oh, I love that question. At some level as I'm understanding that question, one way of trying to answer that question is to go, well, what is the normal physiological response to food? Or maybe how do wild animals find, consume, and then interpret metabolically the food that they eat. And it is staggering how little we know about how we learn what food is safe and what food nourishes us. What's very clear is that wild mammals, and in fact all wild animals, are able to maintain near perfect energy balance. Obesity is basically unheard of in the wild. And, perfect nutritional intake, I mean, obviously there are famines in wild animals, but broadly, animals can do this without being literate, without being given packaging, without any nutritional advice at all. So, if you imagine an ungulate, an herbivore on the plains of the Serengeti, it has a huge difficulty. The carnivore turning herbivore into carnivore is fairly easy. They're made of the same stuff. Turning plant material into mammal is really complicated. And somehow the herbivore can do this without gaining weight, whilst maintaining total precision over its selenium intake, its manganese, its cobalt, its iron, all of which are terrible if you have too little and also terrible if you have too much. We understand there's some work done in a few wild animals, goats, and rats about how this works. Clearly, we have an ability to sense the nutrition we want. What we understand much more about is the sort of quantities needed. And so, we've ended up with a system of nutritional advice that says, well, just eat these numbers. And if you can stick to the numbers, 2,500 calories a day, 2300 milligrams of sodium, no more than 5% of your calories from free sugar or 10%, whatever it is, you know, you stick to these numbers, you'll be okay. And also, these many milligrams of cobalt, manganese, selenium, iron, zinc, all the rest of it. And obviously people can't really do that even with the packaging. This is a very long-winded answer. So, there's this system that is exquisitely sensitive at regulating micronutrient and energy intake. And what we understand, what the Academy understands about how ultra-processed food subverts this is, I would say there are sort of three or four big things that ultra-processed does that real food doesn't. It's generally very soft. And it's generally very energy dense. And that is true of even the foods that we think of as being healthy. That's like your supermarket whole grain bread. It's incredibly energy dense. It's incredibly soft. You eat calories very fast, and this research was done in the '90s, you know we've known that that kind of food promotes excessive intake. I guess in simple terms, and you would finesse this, you consume calories before your body has time to go, well, you've eaten enough. You can consume an excess. Then there's the ratios of fat, salt, and sugar and the way you can balance them, and any good cook knows if you can get the acid, fat, salt, sugar ratios right, you can make incredibly delicious food. That's kind of what I would call hyper palatability. And a lot of that work's being done in the states (US) by some incredible people. Then the food may be that because it's low in fiber and low in protein, quite often it's not satiating. And there may be, because it's also low in micronutrients and general nutrition, it may be that, and this is a little bit theoretical, but there's some evidence for this. Part of what drives the excess consumption is you're kind of searching for the nutrients. The nutrients are so dilute that you have to eat loads of it in order to get enough. Do you think, does that, is that how you understand it? It does, it makes perfect sense. In fact, I'm glad you brought up one particular issue because part of the ultra-processing that makes foods difficult for the body to deal with involves what gets put in, but also what gets taken out. And there was a study that got published recently that I think you and I might have discussed earlier on American breakfast cereals. And this study looked at how the formulation of them had changed over a period of about 20 years. And what they found is that the industry had systematically removed the protein and the fiber and then put in more things like sugar. So there, there's both what goes in and what gets taken out of foods that affects the body in this way. You know, what I hear you saying, and what I, you know, believe myself from the science, is the body's pretty capable of handling the food environment if food comes from the natural environment. You know, if you sit down to a meal of baked chicken and some beans and some leafy greens and maybe a little fruit or something, you're not going to overdo it. Over time you'd end up with the right mix of nutrients and things like that and you'd be pretty healthy. But all bets are off when these foods get processed and engineered, so you over consume them. You found that out in the experiment that you did on yourself. And then that's what science shows too. So, it's not like these things are sort of benign. People overeat them and they ought to just push away from the table. There's a lot more going on here in terms of hijacking the brain chemistry. Overriding the body signals. Really thwarting normal biology. Do you think it's important to add that we think of obesity as being the kind of dominant public health problem? That's the thing we all worry about. But the obesity is going hand in hand with stunting, for example. So, height as you reach adulthood in the US, at 19 US adults are something like eight or nine centimeters shorter than their counterparts in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, where people still eat more whole food. And we should come back to that evidence around harms, because I think the really important thing to say around the evidence is it has now reached the threshold for causality. So, we can say a dietary pattern high in ultra-processed food causes all of these negative health outcomes. That doesn't mean that any one product is going to kill you. It just means if this is the way you get your food, it's going to be harmful. And if all the evidence says, I mean, we've known this for decades. If you can cook the kind of meal, you just described at home, which is more or less the way that high income people eat, you are likely to have way better health outcomes across the board. Let me ask you about the title of your book. So, the subtitle of your book is Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. So, what is it? The ultra-processed definition is something I want to pay credit for. It's really important to pay a bit of credit here. Carlos Montero was the scientist in Brazil who led a team who together came up with this definition. And, I was speaking to Fernanda Rauber who was on that team, and we were trying to discuss some research we were doing. And every time I said food, she'd correct me and go, it is not, it's not food, Chris. It's an industrially produced edible substance. And that was a really helpful thing for me personally, it's something it went into my brain, and I sat down that night. I was actually on the UPF diet, and I sat down to eat some fried chicken wings from a popular chain that many people will know. And was unable to finish them. I think our shared understanding of the purpose of food is surely that its purpose is to nourish us. Whether it's, you know, sold by someone for this purpose, or whether it's made by someone at home. You know it should nourish us spiritually, socially, culturally, and of course physically and mentally. And ultra-processed food nourishes us in no dimension whatsoever. It destroys traditional knowledge, traditional land, food culture. You don't sit down with your family and break, you know, ultra-processed, you know, crisps together. You know, you break bread. To me that's a kind of very obvious distortion of what it's become. So, I don't think it is food. You know, I think it's not too hard of a stretch to see a time when people might consider these things non-food. Because if you think of food, what's edible and whether it's food or not is completely socially constructed. I mean, some parts of the world, people eat cockroaches or ants or other insects. And in other parts of the world that's considered non-food. So just because something's edible doesn't mean that it's food. And I wonder if at some point we might start to think of these things as, oh my God, these are awful. They're really bad for us. The companies are preying on us, and it's just not food. And yeah, totally your book helps push us in that direction. I love your optimism. The consumer facing marketing budget of a big food company is often in excess of $10 billion a year. And depends how you calculate it. I'll give you a quick quiz on this. So, for a while, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was by far the biggest funder of research in the world on childhood obesity. And they were spending $500 million a year to address this problem. Just by which day of the year the food industry has already spent $500 million just advertising just junk food just to children. Okay, so the Robert V. Wood Foundation is spending it and they were spending that annually. Annually, right. So, what's, by what day of the year is the food industry already spent that amount? Just junk food advertising just to kids. I'm going to say by somewhere in early spring. No. January 4th. I mean, it's hysterical, but it's also horrifying. So, this is the genius of ultra-processed food, of the definition and the science, is that it creates this category which is discretionary. And so at least in theory, of course, for many people in the US it's not discretionary at all. It's the only stuff they can afford. But this is why the food industry hate it so much is because it offers the possibility of going, we can redefine food. And there is all this real food over there. And there is this UPF stuff that isn't food over here. But industry's very sophisticated, you know. I mean, they push back very hard against me in many different ways and forms. And they're very good at going, well, you're a snob. How dare you say that families with low incomes, that they're not eating food. Are you calling them dupes? Are you calling them stupid? You know, they're very, very sophisticated at positioning. Isn't it nice how concerned they are about the wellbeing of people without means? I mean they have created a pricing structure and a food subsidy environment and a tax environment where essentially people with low incomes in your country, in my country, are forced to eat food that harms them. So, one of the tells I think is if you're hearing someone criticize ultra-processed food, and you'll read them in the New York Times. And often their conflicts of interest won't be reported. They may be quite hidden. The clue is, are they demanding to seriously improve the food environment in a very clear way, or are they only criticizing the evidence around ultra-processed food? And if they're only criticizing that evidence? I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of salt they'll be food-industry funded. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that a little more. So, there's a clear pattern of scientists who take money from industry finding things that favor industry. Otherwise, industry wouldn't pay that money. They're not stupid in the way they invest. And, you and I have talked about this before, but we did a study some years ago where we looked at industry and non-industry funded study on the health effects of consuming sugar sweetened beverages. And it's like the ocean parted. It's one of my favorites. And it was something like 98 or 99% of the independently funded studies found that sugar sweetened beverages do cause harm. And 98 or 99% of the industry funded studies funded by Snapple and Coke and a whole bunch of other companies found that they did not cause harm. It was that stark, was it? It was. And so you and I pay attention to the little print in these scientific studies about who's funded them and who might have conflicts of interest. And maybe you and I and other people who follow science closely might be able to dismiss those conflicted studies. But they have a big impact out there in the world, don't they? I had a meeting in London with someone recently, that they themselves were conflicted and they said, look, if a health study's funded by a big sugary drink company, if it's good science, that's fine. We should publish it and we should take it at face value. And in the discussion with them, I kind of accepted that, we were talking about other things. And afterwards I was like, no. If a study on human health is funded by a sugary drink corporation, in my opinion, we could just tear that up. None of that should be published. No journals should publish those studies and scientists should not really call themselves scientists who are doing it. It is better thought of as marketing and food industry-funded scientists who study human health, in my opinion, are better thought of as really an extension of the marketing division of the companies. You know, it's interesting when you talk to scientists, and you ask them do people who take money from industry is their work influenced by that money? They'll say yes. Yeah, but if you say, but if you take money from industry, will your work be influenced? They'll always say no. Oh yeah. There's this tremendous arrogance, blind spot, whatever it is that. I can remain untarnished. I can remain objective, and I can help change the industry from within. In the meantime, I'm having enough money to buy a house in the mountains, you know, from what they're paying me, and it's really pretty striking. Well, the money is a huge issue. You know, science, modern science it's not a very lucrative career compared to if someone like you went and worked in industry, you would add a zero to the end of your salary, possibly more. And the same is true of me. I think one of the things that adds real heft to the independent science is that the scientists are taking a pay cut to do it. So how do children figure in? Do you think children are being groomed by the industry to eat these foods? A senator, I think in Chile, got in hot water for comparing big food companies to kind of sex offenders. He made, in my view, a fairly legitimate comparison. I mean, the companies are knowingly selling harmful products that have addictive properties using the language of addiction to children who even if they could read warning labels, the warning labels aren't on the packs. So, I mean, we have breakfast cereals called Crave. We have slogans like, once you stop, once you pop, you can't stop. Bet you can't just eat one. Yeah, I think it is predatory and children are the most vulnerable group in our society. And you can't just blame the parents. Once kids get to 10, they have a little bit of money. They get their pocket money, they're walking to school, they walk past stores. You know, you have to rely on them making decisions. And at the moment, they're in a very poor environment to make good decisions. Perhaps the most important question of all what can be done. So, I'm speaking to you at a kind of funny moment because I've been feeling that a lot of my research and advocacy, broadcasting... you know, I've made documentaries, podcasts, I've written a book, I've published these papers. I've been in most of the major newspapers and during the time I've been doing this, you know, a little under 10 years I've been really focused on food. Much less time than you. Everything has got worse. Everything I've done has really failed totally. And I think this is a discussion about power, about unregulated corporate power. And the one glimmer of hope is this complaint that's been filed in Pennsylvania by a big US law firm. It's a very detailed complaint and some lawyers on behalf of a young person called Bryce Martinez are suing the food industry for causing kidney problems and type two diabetes. And I think that in the end is what's going to be needed. Strategic litigation. That's the only thing that worked with tobacco. All of the science, it eventually was useful, but the science on its own and the advocacy and the campaigning and all of it did no good until the lawyers said we would like billions and billions of dollars in compensation please. You know, this is an exciting moment, but there were a great many failed lawsuits for tobacco before the master settlement agreement in the '90s really sort of changed the game. You know, I agree with you. Are you, are you optimistic? I mean, what do you think? I am, and for exactly the same reason you are. You know, the poor people that worked on public health and tobacco labored for decades without anything happening long, long after the health consequences of cigarette smoking were well known. And we've done the same thing. I mean, those us who have been working in the field for all these years have seen precious little in the ways of policy advances. Now tobacco has undergone a complete transformation with high taxes on cigarettes, and marketing restrictions, and non-smoking in public places, laws, and things like that, that really have completely driven down the consumption of cigarettes, which has been a great public health victory. But what made those policies possible was the litigation that occurred by the state attorneys general, less so the private litigating attorneys. But the state attorneys general in the US that had discovery documents released. People began to understand more fully the duplicity of the tobacco companies. That gave cover for the politicians to start passing the policies that ultimately made the big difference. I think that same history is playing out here. The state attorneys general, as we both know, are starting to get interested in this. I say hurray to that. There is the private lawsuit that you mentioned, and there's some others in the mix as well. I think those things will bring a lot of propel the release of internal documents that will show people what the industry has been doing and how much of this they've known all along. And then all of a sudden some of these policy things like taxes, for example, on sugared beverages, might come in and really make a difference. That's my hope. But it makes me optimistic. Well, I'm really pleased to hear that because I think in your position it would be possible. You know, I'm still, two decades behind where I might be in my pessimism. One of the kind of engines of this problem to me is these conflicts of interest where people who say, I'm a physician, I'm a scientist, I believe all this. And they're quietly paid by the food industry. This was the major way the tobacco industry had a kind of social license. They were respectable. And I do hope the lawsuits, one of their functions is it becomes a little bit embarrassing to say my research institute is funded [by a company that keeps making headlines every day because more documents are coming out in court, and they're being sued by more and more people. So, I hope that this will diminish the conflict, particularly between scientists and physicians in the food industry. Because that to me, those are my biggest opponents. The food industry is really nice. They throw money at me. But it's the conflicted scientists that are really hard to argue with because they appear so respectable. Bio Dr. Chris van Tulleken is a physician and a professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He trained at Oxford and earned his PhD in molecular virology from University College London. His research focuses on how corporations affect human health especially in the context of child nutrition and he works with UNICEF and The World Health Organization on this area. He is the author of a book entitled Ultraprocessed People: Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. As one of the BBC's leading broadcasters for children and adults his work has won two BAFTAs. He lives in London with his wife and two children.

The Tortoise and the Hare: How Strategic Patience Lets Conservatives Win While Progressives Burn OutIn the culture war, it's not ideology that wins. It's tempo. Progressives operate in existential now-or-never mode. Conservatives move like tectonic plates. One sprints. The other strategizes. One demands transformation overnight. The other sits silently, waiting for the overreach—and then strikes.Progressives are the hare. They lurch forward, propelled by urgency. Climate catastrophe. Trans suicide rates. Racism. Abortion. Every issue is a crisis. Every delay is violence. So they sprint ahead, sure of their moral position and shocked when the rest of the country doesn't keep up.Conservatives are the tortoise. They rarely push forward. They don't need to. Their goal isn't to change the world, but to preserve it. So they wait. They accept setbacks—like the 1994 assault weapons ban—with stoicism. They don't riot. They buy bolt-actions and wait 10 years. When the ban expires, they don't just reclaim their rights. They expand them. Since 2004, constitutional carry has spread to over half the country. Patience, rewarded.Nowhere is this clearer than the post-Roe abortion fight. The Right spent 49 years quietly building the legal scaffolding to reverse it. Meanwhile, the Left treated Roe as settled. When it fell, progressives wailed—but had no fallback plan. No state-level fortifications. No legal infrastructure. The tortoise had already passed them.This isn't about intelligence. Progressives often mock conservatives as yokels—NASCAR fans, Jesus freaks, dip chewers. But a man who loves monster trucks may also have a 140 IQ, a 30-year plan, and a long memory. He doesn't waste time arguing online. He runs for school board. He takes the sheriff's seat. He teaches his kids to shoot, pray, and vote. Then, when the time comes, he acts—methodically, relentlessly.The hare laughs until the tortoise wins.There's a second metaphor here, and it must remain distinct: the frogs in the pot. These are not the activists. These are the normies. The moral majority. The 80% who tolerate change—until it starts to feel like a boil. Drag queen story hour. Pronoun policing. Puberty blockers for kids. Decolonized math. At some point, the temperature hits critical mass, and the frogs jump. Not toward the Left—but away from it.Progressives don't seem to understand this dynamic. They confuse silence for consent. But most Americans are simply conflict-averse. They'll tolerate the weirdness, up to a point. But the moment the cultural revolution starts targeting their children, redefining biology, or punishing dissent, they recoil. Then they vote Republican—not because they're cruel, but because they want the heat turned down.You cannot sprint people into transformation. You must shepherd them, carefully. The progressive movement acts like a sheepdog panicked by the slow herd. They bark louder. They nip at the heels. But push too hard, and the herd doesn't obey—it stampedes. The stampede tramples everything, including the cause itself.If progressives want to win long-term, they must understand what conservatives already know: the real race isn't won in viral moments. It's won through patient, generational strategy. Through zoning boards, state legislatures, curriculum policy, and quiet legal warfare. It's won by letting the hare exhaust itself in front of the cameras—while the tortoise lays the foundation for permanence behind the scenes.In American politics, the tortoise doesn't just finish the race.He builds the track.

In American history, tariffs have been one of the most controversial and divisive economic issues. Today, tariffs are back in the news as President Trump has levied massive import fees on various goods coming into the United States from around the world--but what is a tariff? How are these fees calculated? And who is really benefiting from these fees coming into America's ports?We are honored to welcome Dr. Roberto Salinas León to Developing Classical Thinkers to talk about tariffs, the disruption they cause, and the value that free trade brings to consumers.Roberto Salinas León is President of the Mexico Business Forum, where he works on assorted projects of policy analysis, media, investment advisory, and economic consultancy. He is currently the Director of the Center for Latin America of Atlas Network. He holds a B.A. in Political Economy, History and Philosophy from Hillsdale College, Michigan; and an M.A. and Ph. D. in Philosophy, Purdue University, Indiana. Dr. León serves as a debate fellow for the Calvin Coolidge Foundation.

Join us for 8 weeks of live classes, 650+ slang words, phrasal verbs and idioms AND a community of learners from all over the world in Real Life English: From Classroom to Conversation. Don't miss out before the deadline on May 10th. Get more info >> HERE

Welcome to episode #50 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast! This episode will teach you 24 phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms for talking about music. Music is the heart and soul of many cultures. It can do things from waking you up in the morning or putting you to sleep at night, to help you celebrate life's happiest moment or survive the darkest ones. In American culture and most cultures around the world, it's very important to know how to talk about music. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to confidently about music and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Don't forget to get your FREE Study Guide, which includes:Words & DefinitionsExample sentencesPractice exercisesTranscriptGet it right >> HERE

What does it mean to be “immortal? In Greek mythology, Zeus, Athena and Apollo were among their immortal gods, those who lived forever and had powerful influence over the mortal world. When someone achieves extraordinary levels of greatness in their field, they are often spoken of as being immortal. In American baseball, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays are “immortalized” by the way they played the game. These examples show us that immortality can be applied to mean someone or something as never dying, be it in a physical or an intellectual sense. So, how does the Bible define immortality? As we explore this question, we will see a clear and focused reasoning emerge that elevates what immortality is and who will have it. Immortality: Inherent or a gift? Exploring the biblical concept of immortality requires focusing on its New Testament definition and implications. The Bible defines immortality as the inability to die or decay. This meaning is derived from two Greek words: athanasia (deathlessness) and aphthartos (incorruptibility). The Apostle Paul's writings, especially 1 Corinthians 15, describe how humanity must transform from mortal (liable to die) and corruptible (subject to decay) to immortal and incorruptible in order to inherit the heavenly kingdom of God. These findings clearly indicate that immortality is not an inherent human trait. Rather, it is a rare gift from God. It is given only to faithful followers of Christ who demonstrate self-sacrifice, discipline and obedience to God's truth. Therefore, achieving immortality requires a life dedicated to spiritual growth and living by God's will. So, what about everyone else who has ever lived? These masses of people are offered eternal life—a perpetual existence reliant on God's sustenance. Eternal life allows for the possibility of death if one strays, whereas immortality ensures complete deathlessness. The resurrection and Day of Judgment play crucial roles in offering eternal life to humanity. God's ultimate plan ensures eternal harmony between spiritual and earthly creations, with immortality reserved for a select few who serve as reconcilers. Understanding these levels of existence helps us appreciate God's power, love, justice and wisdom in a deeper way.

Welcome to episode #49 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast! This episode will teach you 26 phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms for talking about the future. In a society like the U.S.A., we're all about planning for and talking about our future. Talking about the future is a HUGE part of our culture, especially when we're talking about our hopes, dreams and career goals. In American culture and most cultures around the world, it's very important to know how to talk the future and the new things you're planning to do. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to confidently about the future and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Don't forget to get your FREE Study Guide, which includes:Words & DefinitionsExample sentencesPractice exercisesTranscriptGet it right >> HERE

While the formal separation of church and state is a vital element of America's constitutional order, the success of our long-running experiment in self-government has always depended on a healthy interdependence between republican freedom and religious faith. So argues Jonathan Rauch in his new book Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy. "In American civic life, Christianity is a load-bearing wall," writes. "When it buckles, all the institutions around it come under stress, and some of them buckle, too."On this episode of The Permanent Problem podcast, Rauch joins host Brink Lindsey to discuss secularization and the rapid decline of organized Christianity in recent decades -- in Rauch's words, the combination of "thin Christianity" in the mainline denominations and increasingly "sharp Christianity" among self-described evangelicals. They examine the underlying causes of these developments, how they stoke polarization and undermine democratic values and institutions, and what a healthier "thick Christianity" might look like. 

Chinese don't like to say “thank you”?系列：有趣的文化差异第一集：中美“谢谢”的用法差异在中国，“谢谢”是礼貌的基本表达。但在日常生活中，亲近的人之间反而不太频繁说“谢谢”。比如你妈妈给你盛了一碗饭，你一般不会抬头说“谢谢妈”，因为这种表达在家庭关系里会显得有点“见外”。但在美国，“thank you”几乎无处不在。无论是服务员倒水、同事帮个小忙，甚至家人递个东西，他们都会习惯性地说“thanks”或者“thank you”。如果你不说，还会显得不礼貌。这种差异反映了中美文化中“人情”与“平等”的不同价值观：​ 中国文化中，亲密关系意味着不需要客套，讲的是情分。​ 美国文化则强调个人独立和平等，哪怕是再亲近的人，也需要表达尊重和感激。这也解释了为什么很多美国人来中国时，会觉得中国人“不太说谢谢”；而中国人去了美国后，则可能被“thank you”“thank you”搞得有点受宠若惊。我个人的经历 在出国以前，我也不爱说谢谢，除非特别重大的事情。但是，在澳洲待了几年之后，我也常常说谢谢了。Series: Interesting Cultural DifferencesEpisode 1: The Different Ways “Thank You” Is Used in China and the U.S.In China, saying “thank you” is a basic expression of politeness. However, in daily life, people don't often say it to those they are close to. For example, if your mom serves you a bowl of rice, you wouldn't usually look up and say, “Thanks, Mom.” In fact, doing so might feel a bit too formal or distant within a family setting.In contrast, in the U.S., “thank you” is used almost everywhere. Whether it's a waiter pouring water, a colleague offering help, or a family member handing you something, people naturally say “thanks” or “thank you.” If you don't, it might even come across as impolite.This difference reflects the distinct values behind “relationships” in Chinese culture versus “equality” in American culture:In Chinese culture, closeness often means you don't need to be overly polite—what matters is emotional connection.In American culture, individualism and equality are emphasized, so even the closest relationships require verbal expressions of respect and appreciation.This also explains why many Americans visiting China might feel that Chinese people “don't say thank you very often,” while Chinese people going to the U.S. might be surprised or even overwhelmed by all the “thank yous” they hear.My personal experience:Before going abroad, I didn't say “thank you” much either—unless it was for something really significant. But after living in Australia for a few years, I find myself saying it all the time now!

Welcome to episode #47 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast! This episode is part 2 of my education series where I'll be teaching you 19 phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms for the college and the university  experience. In American culture and most cultures around the world, it's very important to know how to talk about colleges and universities. Whether or not you're interested in attending an American school or whether you just want to boost your English vocabulary, this is the episode for you! After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak colleges and universities confidently and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Don't forget to get your FREE Study Guide, which includes:Words & DefinitionsExample sentencesPractice exercisesTranscriptGet it right >> HERE

Welcome to episode #46 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast! In this episode, I'll be teaching you 15 phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms all about school and being in the classroom. In American culture and most cultures around the world, it's very important to know how to talk about school and being in the classroom. For this reason, it's important to know vocabulary related to this topic. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak being in the classroom confidently and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Don't forget to get your FREE Study Guide, which includes:Words & DefinitionsExample sentencesPractice exercisesTranscriptGet it right >> HERE

Welcome to episode #45 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast! In this episode, I'll be teaching you 15 phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms all about reading and books. In American culture, there has been a reading revolution in the past few years, where more people than ever are taking an interest into reading (mostly reading physical books). For this reason, it's important to know vocabulary related to this topic. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak about reading and books confidently and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.To get this episode's FREE Study Guide >> CLICK HERE

Recommended Reading Buy Now 30 % Discount Code: nyuconf30 Episode 2986 of the Vietnam Veteran News Podcast will feature an interview conducted by Andy Pham with Temple University professor Ralph Young who discusses his new book American Patriot. In American … Continue reading →

Hi there! Welcome to episode #40 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast!In this episode, you'll be learning 18 popular slang words, phrasal verbs, and idioms all about conspiracies. In American culture, conspiracies and conspiracy theories are a very popular topic of conversation. There's always speculation about government secrets and cover ups. For this reason, it's very important that you learn how to talk about conspiracies and government secrets in English. After listening to this episode, you'll be able to speak about conspiracies with CONFIDENCE and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Get your FREE Study Guide >> HERE

Property Law What is Property? Property is a legally protected interest in something tangible or intangible. It can be classified into real property (land and attachments) and personal property (movable items and intangible rights). The Bundle of Rights Theory views property rights as a collection of individual rights, including possessing, using, excluding others from, and transferring ownership. History of Property Law Property law originated from English common law and developed through feudalism, market economies, and American colonial history. The feudal system transitioned into a system of private ownership. In American history, property law played a role in nation-building (Homestead Act of 1862) but was also used to dispossess Native Americans and justify slavery. Ways to Acquire Property First Possession, Adverse Possession, Discovery, Capture, Creation, Gift Key Doctrines and Concepts Estates and Future Interests, Rule Against Perpetuities, Co-Ownership Key Concepts in Property Ownership and Possession, Legal and Equitable Ownership Land Use and Zoning Regulations and Laws, Zoning Controversies Government's Power Over Property Eminent Domain, Kelo v. City of New London (2005) Private Land Use Controls Easements, Covenants, Equitable Servitudes, Nuisance Law Transfer of Property Voluntary Transfers, Involuntary Transfers, Contracts for Sale and Escrow, Title Searches and Insurance Mortgages and Financing Mortgage, Types, Foreclosure, Key Considerations Landlord-Tenant Law Types of Tenancies, Landlord Obligations, Tenant Obligations, Disputes and Protections Intellectual Property as Property Intellectual Property (IP), Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, Ownership and Licensing, Emerging Issues Environmental and Natural Resource Law Regulatory Frameworks, Natural Resource Management, Policy Debates Policy Considerations and Reforms Access to Affordable Housing, Equity in Property Ownership, Technological Innovations, Proposed Reforms

April 2024, party for the College of Charleston. (Vintage Oscar de la Renta skirt, Cos blouse) 2024 has been a revolutionary year for me—apparently, even-numbered years tend to be life-changing. I describe it as revolutionary because it has brought me back to my core self. Now that I feel so well, I eagerly look forward to what 2025 will bring. I've heard that odd-numbered years are even better! (Of course, this prediction has no scientific basis; it's just my ultimate optimism and best wishes for everyone!)I recently had a conversation with a dear friend (I know she reads this, and I want to make sure she knows I'm listening!) who suggested I start sharing my style insights and some of the clothes I wear to inspire my age group—the older crowd. I'm incredibly flattered that she thinks I have this talent!However, I wouldn't be comfortable doing this on social media. I am way too private and inconsistent; I don't feel the need for adulation from people I don't know! My only reason for posting on Instagram is an easy way to stay in touch with friends I don't see regularly. I'm not trying to brand myself, nor do I share the details of where my clothes come from. Oh, and just to clarify, my account is private.Nevertheless, good advice deserves consideration, so I'm writing this post about my style and sharing a few of my dressing rules.I don't own a full-length mirror at home. I know, I know. As I get ready to go out, I look at myself in the bathroom mirror from the waist up, and in a mirror leaning against a wall for the waist down. Then, I take a photo with my phone to see if the whole look works. Sometimes, it does; other times, I have to rethink and change the entire outfit with only a few minutes to spare.I dress for myself (not for men or other women) and consider how I feel that day and the image I want to portray: elegant, glamorous, and confident. I don't want to scream anything; I want to be true to myself and feel comfortable in my clothes. That confidence allows me to walk into a room with my head held high and a smile. Feeling good is my only guiding principle.I love mixing high and low—should I say vintage and new? I repeat my clothes often and change accessories to fit the season and the event I'll be attending. Basics like black trousers, great blazers, and white blouses take me everywhere. Slim skirts work for both day and evening events, and I like prints that are perfect for hosting at home.I look for good-quality fabrics, shapes that fit my body type, and looks that are flattering to my 6-foot height. Sizing can be random; French clothes fit differently than Italian or Spanish ones. In American brands, I often have to size up. Even within designer clothing, patterns and fits can differ greatly. A dress from Oscar isn't the same as a dress from Carolina. Plus, I always have to purchase “tall” sizes in high-street stores. The point is that yes, size matters. Trying on clothes is essential to achieve the right fit.The questions I ask myself while choosing clothes are:- Is this going to last more than this year?- How often can I wear this?- Do I have other items to mix this with?- Can I dress it up or down?- Will it work in all the different places I usually travel to?A friend told me the other day that as she has aged, she feels like no one looks at her. She misses the attention from her younger years and feels “see-through.” To me, it's all about attitude and confidence. It's not about looking young but about looking appropriate and put-together. It's about wearing clothes that fit well and make you feel great. Clearly, at my age, I won't be wearing yoga pants or tank tops in public (or even in private, for that matter!).My body has changed, I have changed; my needs are different, and my message is no longer “Look at me,” but rather “Here I am.” Clothes tell the story you want others to know about you—how you feel, how you want them to see and perceive you, and what message you want to convey to the world. They act as both a shield that protects us and a subliminal message to those around us. Making an effort to look my best is part of my mental health. Wouldn't it be great if clothes were tax-deductible?I also love uniforms—a great pair of jeans, a perfect white shirt, a fitted blazer. With a good pair of moccasins and gold jewelry, I'm ready to take on the world!My advice? Try on your clothes, ensure they fit well, and clear your closet of anything that doesn't make you feel like a million bucks. You know the ones I mean, right? And then, wear those you keep on repeat. And with that, I leave you. Sincerely,The Serial HostessAlemais An Australian designer with wonderful prints made using natural linens and cotton. They show an eclectic mix of handmade embroideries using artisanal techniques. Antik Batik Bohemian style is made in India using artisans and workrooms that showcase their wonderful mix of colors and textures. Banana Republic Love its latest designs that are classic and very wearable. Carolina Herrera. Look at the CH collection for solid-colored evening dresses to wear forever. Cos. Cos is very lineal, contemporary, and minimalist. Reasonably priced. J. Crew is My favorite place for jeans and long-sleeved tee shirts. Menina Step. Charming and inexpensive shoes made in Spain. Manolo Blahnik. The best shoes. Period. Some of mine are over 15 years old. A good investment, I'd say! Massimo Dutti, owned by Zara, is a slightly more elegant and refined brand that offers great evening clothes and classic suits. Momoni. Italian brand using beautiful silk. Excellent tailoring and actually long enough trousers for me! Oscar de la Renta. I love their day-to-evening dresses and jackets. And their trousers are long enough! Veronica Beard. Wait for their sales! The shoes are perfect for every day, and I am becoming a fan of their silk dresses. Zara. If you like it, get it! The good pieces sell out immediately! Thank you for subscribing. Leave a comment or share this episode.

Hi there! Welcome to episode #36 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast!In this episode, you'll be learning 15 popular slang words, phrasal verbs, and idioms all about Christmas celebrations and traditions! In American culture, we celebrate Christmas all month long and we have many fun activities that generally happen along the way.  This is why it's so important that you learn vocabulary for Christmas celebrations and traditions. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak about Christmas in the USA with CONFIDENCE and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Get your FREE Study Guide >> HERE Real American Idioms. Click for more information

Hi there! Welcome to episode #35 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast!In this episode, you'll be learning 25 popular slang words, phrasal verbs, and idioms for talking about family and family relationships. In American culture, we talk about family relationships a lot with most people that we meet. Family is a common small talk topic and general topic of conversation in our daily lives.For this reason, it's very important that you learn vocabulary for family and family members. This episode focuses on teaching you words that you can use when talking about family relationships and even casual names for your relatives. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak about family with CONFIDENCE and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Get your FREE Study Guide >> HERE Real American Idioms. Click for more information

Hi there! Welcome to episode #34 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast!In this episode, you'll be learning you 16 unique yet popular slang words, phrasal verbs, and idioms all about gift giving. In American culture, gift giving is very common for special events and if you are currently living in the USA or have American friends or interact with Americans, you'll probably be giving or receiving gifts from them at some point in the future. For this reason, it's very important that you learn how to talk about gift giving in English. This episode focuses on holiday gift giving but can be used in any scenario where gifts are exchanged. After listening to this episode and using this Study Guide, you'll be able to speak about gift giving with CONFIDENCE and be one step closer to speaking English like a native speaker.Get your FREE Study Guide >> HERE

In American revivalism, there is a long history of charismatic experientialism being justified under the subheading of spiritual gifts. Speaking in tongues, healing and prophesying are often pulled from their scriptural context, redefined and then reapplied to substantiate euphoric behavior in the church.Have the spiritual gifts been co-opted? Do certain spiritual gifts cease? If so, which ones and why?Today on the Postscript, Provost of Living Faith Bible Institute invites Dr. Chris Best, missiology instructor at LFBI, to discuss spiritual gifts, the cessation of gifts and the purpose of spiritual gifts in the New Testament church. We conclude with how believers can find their fit in their own local church ministry in a way that honors God's Word, so that they may become more fruitful in a walk with Jesus Christ.Visit https://www.lfbi.org/learnmore

Join Justin as he chats with actor Kari Wahlgren about The Monster Squad, Zombies, horror movies, Samurai Champloo, Final Fantasy Tactics, and more!Kari Wahlgren bio:“Kari Wahlgren (born July 13, 1977) is a Swedish-American voice actress who has provided English-language roles for animated movies, TV series, and video games. She got her start in anime voice-overs as Haruko Haruhara in FLCL, and would later land major roles in a number of shows and films: Robin Sena in Witch Hunter Robin, Lavie Head in Last Exile, Fuu in Samurai Champloo, Rip van Winkle in Hellsing, Scarlett in Steamboy, Pacifica Casull in the Scrapped Princess, Saya Otonashi in Blood+, Michiru Satomi and Luca in Immortal Grand Prix, Kagami Hiiragi in Lucky Star, Saber in Fate/Zero, Fate/stay night: Unlimited Blade Works and Fate/stay night: Heaven's Feel, and Celty Sturluson in the Durarara!! series.In American animation, she has provided voices for a number of series including Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!, Gravity Falls, Fish Hooks, voicing Little Suzy in Phineas and Ferb, Dorothy and Queen Ozma in Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, Ben 10, Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness, Kaijudo: Rise of the Duel Masters, Bunnicula, The Fairly OddParents, Bunsen Is a Beast, and the Nickelodeon versions of Winx Club and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Jessica and Diane in Rick and Morty, and Baby Scrat in the Disney+ miniseries Ice Age: Scrat Tales, produced by Blue Sky Studios.In video games, she voiced lead characters Ashe in Final Fantasy XII, Shelke in Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, and Raine Sage in Tales of Symphonia.”Monsters, Madness and Magic Official Website. Monsters, Madness and Magic on Linktree.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Instagram.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Facebook.Monsters, Madness and Magic on Twitter.Monsters, Madness and Magic on YouTube.

fWotD Episode 2738: Daniel Boone Welcome to Featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia’s finest articles.The featured article for Saturday, 2 November 2024 is Daniel Boone.Daniel Boone (November 2 [O. S. October 22], 1734 – September 26, 1820) was an American pioneer and frontiersman whose exploits made him one of the first folk heroes of the United States. He became famous for his exploration and settlement of Kentucky, which was then beyond the western borders of the Thirteen Colonies. In 1775, Boone founded the Wilderness Road through the Cumberland Gap and into Kentucky, despite resistance from Native Americans. He founded Boonesborough, one of the first English-speaking settlements west of the Appalachian Mountains. By the end of the 18th century, more than 200,000 people had entered Kentucky by following the route marked by Boone.He served as a militia officer during the Revolutionary War (1775–1783), which in Kentucky was fought primarily between American settlers and British-allied Indians. Boone was taken in by Shawnees in 1778 and adopted into the tribe, but he resigned and continued to help protect the Kentucky settlements. He also left due to the Shawnee Indians torturing and killing one of his sons. He was elected to the first of his three terms in the Virginia General Assembly during the war and fought in the Battle of Blue Licks in 1782, one of the last battles of the American Revolution. He worked as a surveyor and merchant after the war, but went deep into debt as a Kentucky land speculator. He resettled in Missouri in 1799, where he spent most of the last two decades of his life, frustrated with legal problems resulting from his land claims.Boone remains an iconic, if imperfectly remembered, figure in American history. He was a legend in his own lifetime, especially after an account of his adventures was published in 1784, making him famous in America and Europe. After his death, he became the subject of many heroic tall tales and works of fiction. His adventures—real and legendary—helped create the archetypal frontier hero of American folklore. In American popular culture, Boone is remembered as one of the foremost early frontiersmen, even though mythology often overshadows the historical details of his life.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 09:32 UTC on Friday, 8 November 2024.For the full current version of the article, see Daniel Boone on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Amy.

There's something I can't get out of my mind since yesterday at the Post Elections Forum held at Temple University' Africology and African American Studies department. How can  an African American professor, sit here in his Ivory Tower and say they didn't vote because African Americans have been voting for 50 years without any progress? When sitting here as a professor came from the efforts of people like Octavius V Catto who was killed on October 10, 1871, trying to get Africans involved in the electoral process. In American political democracy, nothing happens without the electoral process. But that's one step, and the fight is multifaceted. Some use politics and others use academics, while others use entrepreneurial initiatives economics, etc. It is as if all the work to get us involved was in vain. When our ability to get things done requires real actions still happening, and voting is part of that process. It's hypocrisy. Watch the Discussions on The Neoliberal Round Podcast and YouTube Channel by Renaldo C Mckenzie.  https://www.youtube.com/live/60Zo9-WIX4w?si=mEluS9fPHQVO974n The full show will air tonight at 6pm on any stream. This blog will be available in audio shortly. Https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theneoliberal/support

Home Alone is an undeniably iconic holiday movie, but watching it as an adult, it's hard not to find aspects of it downright annoying. For starters, the premise itself is exasperating—Kevin's parents somehow don't notice an entire child missing until they're halfway across the Atlantic! Then there's the constant chaos of Kevin's elaborate traps. Sure, it's impressive that an eight-year-old could outsmart two burglars, but how did he rig the whole house without any adult catching on? It's an endless sequence of pranks and slapstick violence that almost feels repetitive. Beyond that, there's the family's over-the-top behavior: they're either yelling at Kevin or, in the case of Uncle Frank, acting like the world's worst relative. And yet, everyone just sweeps the poor treatment under the rug by the end! Even the burglars, Marv and Harry, are hilariously inept—they keep coming back for more, which is both funny and frustrating as they fall for the same traps over and over. American and Nigerian weddings differ significantly in style, cultural traditions, and the role of community. In American weddings, ceremonies are typically more individualized and reflect the couple's unique tastes, with a focus on formal settings like churches, gardens, or event halls. The guest list is often more intimate, with an emphasis on family and close friends. The ceremony is usually followed by a reception featuring toasts, a first dance, cake cutting, and sometimes a throw of the bouquet. The bride typically wears a white gown, and the groom a suit or tuxedo, in line with Western traditions. In contrast, Nigerian weddings are vibrant, community-centered celebrations that blend traditional and, in many cases, Western customs. The events can last several days and include two main ceremonies: the traditional wedding and the "white" wedding, which resembles Western-style weddings but often incorporates Nigerian elements. Traditional attire is elaborate, with the couple wearing colorful, intricately designed outfits that represent their ethnic background. Nigerian weddings are known for their size, often including hundreds of guests, as weddings are seen as a communal celebration. There are also lively displays of music, dance, and “spraying” of money—a tradition where guests shower the couple with money to bless their marriage. Both types of weddings are meaningful, but they reflect their cultures' different approaches to celebration and the roles of family and community. The WNBA Finals between the Minnesota Lynx and New York Liberty would be a thrilling matchup, pitting two powerhouse teams from the East and West. The Lynx, known for their disciplined defense and relentless team cohesion, bring a storied legacy with their multiple championships and experienced players, including top scorers who can drive the game on both ends of the court. Meanwhile, the Liberty's high-octane offense, spearheaded by dynamic, sharp-shooting guards and forwards, would make them formidable opponents. Fans could expect a series rich with intensity, as both teams boast strong fan bases and hometown pride. Each game would likely feature dramatic shifts in momentum and tactical adjustments as both coaches aim to outmaneuver one another. Key matchups would include the Lynx's defense trying to contain the Liberty's powerful offense, while Liberty players would have to contend with Minnesota's strategic plays and rebounding prowess. If such a series were to happen, it would not only showcase some of the WNBA's best talents and top-tier basketball, but it would also be a test of endurance, skill, and strategy—a true battle to the final buzzer.

Freestyling sobre la Agenda 47, fascismo a lo Trump 2024 Video recomendado: Opus Dei, Leonard Leo, and Project 2025 | a strategy of division https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RjT8LGwn1U Nuevo cambio del Papa Francisco en las Prelaturas personales afecta al Opus Dei https://www.aciprensa.com/noticias/100563/nuevo-cambio-del-papa-francisco-en-las-prelaturas-personales-afecta-al-opus-dei Bombshell allegations: 'Apprentice' faked Trump's success, Trump wanted Black vs. white contestants https://youtu.be/pxxrNhEI3Jg?si=hABL4JRznsTqeX_V ¿Qué es el Agenda 47? Primarias republicanas Relación con el Proyecto 2025 Proyecto 2025 “Para Principiantes” Contenido: Expandir proderes presidenciales (el ejecutivo unitario) In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". https://academia-lab.com/enciclopedia/teoria-ejecutiva-unitaria/ Reinstalar el President Impoudment Power Impoundment is an act by a President of the United States of not spending money that has been appropriated by the U.S. Congress. Thomas Jefferson was the first president to exercise the power of impoundment in 1801. Salvaguardando: Gasto Militar Seguro Social Medicare Protecciones arancelarias con enmiendas contitucionales Imigración: Deportaciones masivas Prohibir cualquier beneficio a nivel estatal o local para “migrantes ilegales” Quitar el reconocimiento de la ciudadanía a los hijos de padres “ilegales” nacidos en EEUU Lucha contra las drogas Declarar el narcotráfico como terrorismo internacional Pena de muerte para narcotraficantes Uso de militares contra el crimen en las ciudades “liberales” con alto nivel de criminalidad (Guardia Nacional o Activos en estados donde los gobernadores no cooperen) Independencia energetica: Empujar el uso de combustibles fóciles y nuclear Cancelar regulaciones Modernizando la red de transmición distribución Proveer energía a bajo costo a la manufactura Fámila y género: Énfasis en valores tradiciones del género asignado al nacer Repudio a las políticas de reafirmación género Bonos por nacimiento Construcción de “Ciudades Libres” (freedom city) https://free-cities.org/free-private-cities/ciudades-privadas-libres/ Invertir en el desarrollos de autos aéreos

Returning to the twists and turns of the endless, meandering 2024 campaign for POTUS, and looming uncertainty of threatened challenges to the vote promising to bollix up the results, the question arises as to what this may have to do with Zen. The dedicated Zen guy who produces the UnMind podcast suggested that we take up the premise of the “Bodhisattva ideal” in Buddhism, comparing and contrasting behaviors and apparent attitudes of the candidates — and politicians in general — to this lofty ideal and aspiration. Somewhere in the copious Zen literature I came across the proposition that governmental leaders find themselves in positions of power owing to karmic merit accumulated in past lives, apparently whether they know it or not. We can suppose that this quaint notion arose in the context of predominantly Buddhist societies, such as that of Ashoka the Great in India, or in the later empires or principalities in China. It requires quite a stretch of the imagination to interpret our current political situation from that standpoint, though an online meme that one of the candidates is the “chosen of God” is even more ludicrous to contemplate. Looking at the meaning of “Bodhisattva” thorough the eyes of Google, the first hit that comes up is from the University of Washington, Seattle-based home of the Huskies, the first thing that comes up on their homepage. We will defer any consideration of college football as the key branding element of UW, and higher education in general, for a later segment. Their more-or-less traditional definition of the Bodhisattva assumedly comes from their comparative religion department: Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment. There are many different Bodhisattvas, but the most famous in China is Avalokitesvara, known in Chinese as Guanyin. Bodhisattvas are usually depicted as less austere or inward than the Buddha. — https://depts.washington.edu Parsing this definition, I have a few quibbles. We prefer the use of “enlightening” beings as it indicates a process in which all of us comprise a work in progress, whereas “enlightened” indicates a state of completion. No true bodhisattva would ever claim to be enlightened in that sense. In the sense of enlightened self interest and the best interests of others, yes. Then there is the idea of “entering paradise.” The Buddhist term “Nirvana” is not pointing at another dimension or plane of existence, but the true nature of this world in which we find ourselves — so-called “Samsara.” As Master Dogen reminds us, “actually, the Other Shore (of Nirvana) comes to us”; we do not go to it. As Shohaku Okumura-roshi once mentioned, “Everybody says they want to go to Nirvana. But when you go there, there is nobody there. Only bodhisattvas can go to Nirvana, and they choose to stay here. So our charge is to change Samsara into Nirvana.” This is what Dogen means by saying the other shore comes to us. The reference to “many different Bodhisattvas” and the most famous being Avalokitesvara, Guanyin in China, or Kanzeon in Japan, reinforces the notion that bodhisattvas are a special class of beings, outside the kin or ordinary mortals — much like the icons of other religions, such as canonized prophets, saints and saviors, or demigods. My understanding of the Zen ideal is that we are all bodhisattvas, whether we know it or not. And finally, the reference to their relatively diminished austerity seems somewhat overwrought. My reading of the original teachings attributed to Shakyamuni reveal a profound humility and accessibility, and a remarkable empathy for his audience, that any bodhisattva would aspire to emulate. Awakening of the Bodhi mind is concomitant with the Bodhisattva vow — to help all others before reaching the other shore — according to Dogen, who should know. So how do our current carriers of partisan banners stack up against this image? I would suggest that their motivations have little or nothing to do with entering paradise, for one. So in that, they are like bodhisattvas — but focusing their efforts on the present and immediate future of prosperity in the secular sphere — not the spiritual realm. In American politics, and perhaps that of Western countries in general, there is an underlying implication that behavior in the societal sphere is indicative of one's “values,” which tend to land in the ethical, moral, and spiritual column. This may be a vestigial remnant of the puritan ethic that pervaded the early migrants to these shores, the after- effects of which we witness today, including in the performative permutations of partisan politics. But, quoting myself in an earlier UnMind segment, there are brute behaviors of our fellow-travelers in this particular time and space that cannot be excused as politic: When it comes to indiscriminate bombing of civilians and children, we are no longer in the realm of “politics.” If we are silent, we become complicit. Buddha, I believe, would have spoken out against this betrayal of compassion and wisdom. As did Matsuoka Roshi, concerning the corrupt regime in Vietnam, and other atrocities of his time. We can look to the teachings and meditation practice of Zen Buddhism to find a degree of solace and sanctuary from these insults to humanity, but we cannot run, and we cannot hide from them, ultimately. But we do not have to join the partisan divide, either. In the same episode, we provided some historical context by referring to the foundational documents of the Founding Fathers, including the Declaration of Independence, with particular attention to the second section: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This begins to sound a lot like the Bodhisattva ideal applied to the salvation of others, at least in the secular realm. If we are all equal, we all have equal potential to wake up in the most comprehensive sense, as did Shakyamuni Buddha. We also innately deserve to be treated with the highest degree of respect from our peers. And each and all have equal claim to life — within the realistic constraints of aging, sickness and death; to liberty — in the sense of true liberation from our own ignorance, and the imposition of that of others upon our lives; and the pursuit of true happiness, which does not derive from materialistic sources. Perhaps our political leaders are doing their level best to secure the rights, at least in their secular manifestation. But compare to the Bodhisattva vows, which address serving, or saving all beings, on another scale altogether; two translations give us a better insight into their broader and deeper meaning: Beings are numberless I vow to free themDelusions are inexhaustible I vow to end themDharma gates are boundless I vow to enter themThe Buddha way is unsurpassable I vow to realize it However innumerable all beings are I vow to free them allHowever inexhaustible my delusions are I vow to extinguish them allHowever immeasurable the dharma teachings are I vow to master them allHowever endless the great way I vow to follow it completely I leave it to you to decide whether or not, and to what degree, your candidate for the highest office in the land, the most powerful secular position on Earth, are in harmony with these compassionate aspirations. But remember that the teachings of Buddhism were never meant to be held up to criticize others, but to reflect back upon yourself and your own behavior. The mirror of Zen reflects all — the good, the bad, and the ugly — without discrimination. You and your behavior are also reflected in that Precious Mirror.

President of the Mises Institute and author of “How Capitalism Saved America”, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo joins us to uncover the current state of capitalism and if it still exists in America. Earlier in the episode, Keith discusses the inaccuracy of economic predictions, citing examples like the 2023 recession that never happened, the negative impact of misinformed predictions on investment decisions and business growth.  Persistent housing price crash predictions have been consistently wrong despite global pandemics and higher mortgage rates. Dr. DiLorenzo advocates for #EndTheFed to reduce inflation and restore free market principles. Learn how voluntary exchange between buyer and seller through market prices communicates information and influences production. Resources: Learn more about Austrian economics and Ludwig von Mises through visiting mises.org  Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/521 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai     Keith Weinhold  00:00 Keith, welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, reviewing some terrible economic predictions and why it matters to you. Then the President of the Mises Institute joins us. Does capitalism still exist in the US and what would happen if we ended the Fed, today on get rich education.   00:24 Since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being a flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors, who delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show. Guess who? Top Selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki, get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast, or visit getricheducation.com   Corey Coates  01:09 You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  01:25 welcome to GRE from Syracuse, Sicily to Syracuse, New York, and across 188 nations worldwide, you're listening to one of the longest running and most listened to shows on real estate investing. This is Get Rich Education. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, now a lot of media companies and pundits and influencers like to make predictions. Listeners like learning about predictions and by engaging just a little of that each of the past few years on one of the last episodes of the year. Here, I forecast the national home price appreciation rate for the following year, many media outlets, pundits and influencers have made terrible, just absolutely terrible, predictions about interest rates and other financial forecasts. Last year, a majority of Pro prognosticators firmly forecast six or eight Fed rate cuts this year, for example, well, we're going to have far fewer, and that's because high inflation kept hanging around. Then there's the 2023 recession that never happened, yet both Bloomberg and the economist actually published some rather ignominious headlines, as it turned out, they published these in the fall of 2022 Bloomberg, big headline was forecast for us, recession within year hits 100% in blow to Biden, well, That was false. That didn't come true. I mean, 100% that doesn't leave you any room for an out. And then also published in the fall of 2022 The Economist ran this headline why a global recession is inevitable in 2023 All right, well, they both believed in a recession, and they believed in it so deeply that it got fossilized. Well, an economic archeologist like me dug it up.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  03:31 We are going to die   Keith Weinhold  03:35 well, but I didn't risk my life like Indiana Jones did there. This archeology, it only involves some Google searches. Well, here's the thing. What's remarkable about America staving off a mammoth recession and leaving all the other g7 nations in the economic dust is the fact that merely predicting a recession often makes it come true. Just predicting one often turns a recession into a self fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, recession forecast headlines alone, they can spook employers from making new hires and slow down manufacturing, and it can also disillusion real estate investors from expanding their portfolios. Well, the US economy grew anyway, besides the farcical prognostications about myriad interest rate cuts in a quote, unquote definite 2023 recession that never happened. You know, there's also a third forecast that so many got wrong. And you probably know what I'm gonna say. I've brought it up before, because this hits our world, those erstwhile and well still ever present housing price crash predictions. I mean this facet of the gloom boom really ramped up from 2020 One until today, even a global pandemic, new wars and a triplicate mortgage rates couldn't stop the housing price surge and the rent surge. A lot of doomsdayers just couldn't see, or they didn't even want to see that a housing shortage would keep prices afloat. They didn't want to see it because they get more clicks when they talk about the gloom government stimulus programs also buoyed prices, and deep homeowner equity cushions will still keep prices afloat. Ever since 2021 here on the show, I've used that rationale and more to explain that home prices would keep appreciating, but that the rate of appreciation would slow down, and it has slowed down since 2021 see YouTubers tick tockers. They notoriously use woe begone housing crash headlines, because that gets more clicks and then some of the rationale behind this. The reasoning is just dreadful, like, what goes up must come down, all right? Well, this is like, why does it matter? Who cares about wrong predictions anyway? What's the point? Well, people become misinformed. People waste their time on these things and see no one loses money on dismal economic predictions. But the damage is done, because when investors don't act well, then they didn't get the gain that they should have had. Businesses didn't get the gain that they should have had when they could have made new investment and hired new employees sooner. And of course, a recession is going to happen sometime. They occur, on average, every five to six years. It is just a normal part of the business cycle will collectively these three faulty economic predictions, rate cuts, a recession and a housing price crash. I think if you bundle them all up combined, it could be as bad as one doomsday prediction about worldwide starvation or the Mayan apocalypse. Remember that the wide to K bug, the acid rain, even that the internet is just a fad that ran a buck 30 years ago. World War Three is eminent, robots overtaking humans, or how about running out of crude oil. I mean, we're definitely all supposed to have jet packs in flying cars by now, right? But yet, did anyone have the clairvoyance to predict the stock market crash of 1929 or September 11 terrorist attacks, or Trump's surprise, 2016 presidency or Bitcoin hitting 70k A while back, or the coronavirus. So really, overall, the bottom line here with predictions is that no one knows the future. Control what you can maintain equanimity, add good properties, gradually raise rent, reduce expenses, create leverage and expect inflation truly the best way to predict the future is to create it in just that way. Well is the USA capitalistic nation today. That's what we'll discuss later with this week's guest. When Chuck Todd hosted the show Meet the Press, he interviewed AOC about this. Yes, I'm talking about us. House Rep from New York, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, what she say? You   08:34 have said you are democratic socialist. Can you be a Democratic socialist and a capitalist? Well, I think it depends on your interpretation. So there are some Democratic socialists that would say, Absolutely not. There are other people that are democratic socialists that would say, I think it's possible. What are you? I think it's possible. I think you say to yourself, I'm a capitalist, but I don't say that. You know, if anything, I would say, I'm I believe in a democratic economy, but.   Keith Weinhold  09:03 okay, well, I'm not sure if that clears it up at all. And I've listened to more of that clip, and it just makes things more confusing. But I think that most people have trouble drawing a line between capitalism and neighboring economic systems. Where exactly do you draw that line? I don't know exactly where to draw it. When I think of capitalism, I think of things though, like removal of interventionist central planning and allowing the free market to run with few guardrails. And then there's an issue like labor unionization. I don't really know about something like that. This is a real estate show. I'm still forming an opinion on a topic like that. In you know, some of this gets political, and that's beyond the scope of get rich education. The Fed was created in 1913 that central planning, its central banking from 1987 to. 2006 Alan Greenspan reigned as Fed chair. Those were his years, and he became even more interventionist. And then his successor, Ben Bernanke, maybe even more so with quantitative easing and such. Let's talk about, should they end the Fed and capitalism with this week's expert guest. You very well may have heard of the late, famed Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises today, the Mises Institute carries on his legacy, and this week's guest is none other than the President of the Mises Institute. He's also the number one best selling author of how capitalism saved America and his newer book with a title that I love, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics. Hey, it's great to have you here. It is. Dr Thomas DiLorenzo.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  11:00 pleased to be with you. Thanks for having me.Th   Keith Weinhold  11:02 Well, Dr DiLorenzo, for those that don't know, just tell us a bit in an overview about Austrian economics and what Ludwig von Mises stood for.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  11:02 Well, Ludwig von Mises was the preeminent critic of socialism and fascism in Europe, and in his day, he fled the Nazis literally hours before the Gestapo broke into his apartment in Geneva, because he was the preeminent critic of fascism and socialism, and he was also Jewish, and so he had to get out of town. And he miraculously ended up after wandering through Europe with his wife in New York City, and he taught at New York University for many years, until he died in 1973 and but the Austrian School of Economics is a school of thought. It has nothing to do with, necessarily, with the Government of Austria, the country of Austria, just this the founder of a man named Carl Menger happened to be from Austria, but probably the most famous or well known among Americans would be Friedrich Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in 1970s he was a student of Ludwig von Mises and critics of interventionism, critics of socialism. We teach about free markets, of how markets actually work and how governments don't work. And that's in a nutshell, that's what it's about. And you could check out our website, mises.org, M, I, S, E, S.org, you can get a great economic education. We have a lot of free books to download. Some of them are downloaded 30 or 40,000 times a month. Still, it's even Mises old books like human action, first published in the 1960s and so you can get a great education just by reading our website.   Keith Weinhold  12:42 Well, congratulations, that's proof that you're doing an excellent job of carrying on the Mises legacy into the present day, a lot of which is championing capitalism. Do we have capitalism in the United States today?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  12:59 I was an economics professor from 40 years before I got this job as President of the Mises Institute. And I used to say we had islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism at the beginning of my career. But now I'd say it's the opposite, that we have islands of capitalism in a sea of socialism. And socialism, this data is not defined anymore as government ownership. That was, you know, about 100 years ago, the socialism. It's basically government control of industry and in addition to government ownership. So the instruments of the welfare state, the income tax and the regulatory state, is our version of socialism, or central planning, if you will. And it's the Federal Reserve the Fed, which is a government agency that orchestrates the whole thing, really, it's a big, massive central planning industry that controls, regulates basically every aspect of any kind of financial transaction imaginable. They list in their publications over 100 different functions of the Federal Reserve. It's not just monetary policy. It's a big regulatory behemoth, and so that's that's what the Fed is. That's what I think we have today. A friend of mine, Robert Higgs, a well known economic historian, says our system is what he calls participatory fascism. And fascism was a system where private enterprise was permitted, but it was so heavily regulated and regimented by the government that industry had to do what government wanted to do, not what its customers wanted it to do, so much, and a large part of our economic system is just like that, and we get to vote still, so that's where the participatory and comes in, and the pin of Robert Hinz.   Keith Weinhold  14:41 yeah, maybe at best, I can think of today's system as capitalism with guardrails on but the guardrails keep getting taller. And I think of guardrails as being, for example, regulatory agencies like the Fed in FINRA. In the FDA.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  15:01 It is the beginning of my career. You know, I studied economics and a PhD in economics, and there was a big literature on what's called regulatory capture. And it was sort of a big secret among US economic academics. There was all this research going on and how the big regulatory agencies created by the federal government in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, were captured by the industries that they were supposed to be regulating. Right? The theory was they would regulate these industries in the public's best interests. But what has happened from the very beginning is they were captured by the industries, and they benefit the industry at the expense of the public. But today, that's caught on thanks to people like Robert Kennedy Jr, frankly, has been a very popular author. He sold a gazillion copies of his book on Anthony Fauci, and in it, he explains in tremendous detail how the Food and Drug Administration was long ago captured by the pharmaceutical companies. And he's not the only one. I think that that is being more and more recognized by people outside of academic economics, like me, and that's a good thing, and that's sort of the worst example of crony capitalism. It's not real capitalism, but crony capitalism making money through government connections, rather than producing better products, cheaper products and so forth.   Keith Weinhold  16:21 I watched RFK Jr speak in person recently, and I was actually disappointed when he effectively dropped out of the upcoming presidential race. And I do want to talk more with you about the Fed shortly, but with all these regulatory agencies and how I liken them to guard rails. You know, I sort of think of it as a watchdog system that's failing. You mentioned the FDA. I know RFK Jr brought them up an awful lot, the Food and Drug Administration that are supposed to help regulate what we put inside our own bodies in our diet. But these systems are failing. We have regulatory agencies in industry, industry in regulatory agencies. I mean, look at the obesity rate. Look at all the ultra processed food that's allowed. Look at all the seed oils that are allowed in food that people actually think are healthy for them. So this system of capitalism with guardrails is failing almost everywhere you look.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  16:22 I wouldn't call it capitalism. I wouldn't use the word capitalism at all, other than crony capitalism, people can relate to that. You know, a lot of these regulatory agencies were lobbied for in the first place by industry. That while the very first one was the Interstate Commerce Commission, it was in the 1880s it was meant to regulate the railroad companies. The first president was the president of a Railroad Corporation, the head of the Interstate Commerce Commission. So talk about the fox guarding the hen house. That was from the very beginning. And so in a sense, this word capture theory of regulation, which Kennedy has used, they weren't really captured. They always were created by the government. The same is true of all the so called Public Utilities. It was the corporations, the electric power companies, the water supply companies, that lobbied for governments to give them a monopoly, a legal monopoly, in electricity, water supply and all these things that were called natural monopolies, but there was nothing natural about them. There was vigorous competition in the early 20th century in telephone, electricity, water supply, and that was all set aside by government regulation, creating monopolies. For example, in electric power, there's an economist named Walter primo who wrote a book some years ago showing that always have been several dozen cities in America that never went this way, that always allowed direct competition between electric power companies. And what do you know, better service and lower prices. As a result, they did dozens of statistical studies to demonstrate this in his book.   Keith Weinhold  18:58 Okay, well, that's a great case study. Why don't we talk about what things would look like if we took down one of these agencies? We're a real estate investing in finance show. Sometimes it's a popular meme or hashtag to say, end the Fed. What would it look like if we ended the Fed?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  19:18 Well, the Fed was created in 1913 in the same era, with all these other regulatory captured agencies were created, right? And it was created basically to cartelize and create a cartel for the banking industry to make it almost impossible to go bankrupt. They've been bailing out foolish bankers for 111 years. And of course, the biggest example was that as the crash of 08 after they they handed Goldman Sachs and other big investment banks billions of dollars. That was a direct assault on capitalism itself, because capitalism, as you know, is a profit and loss system. It's not a I keep the profits. You pay for my losses system. You're the taxpayer. But that's what happened with that. So the Fed would. Fall into that the Fed is actually the fourth central bank in America. We had three other ones. First one was called Bank of North America. Its currency was so unreliable, nobody trusted it went out of business in a year and a half. And then we created something called the Bank of the United States in 1791 same thing. It created boom and bust cycles, high unemployment, price inflation, corrupted politics. It was defunded after 20 years, and then it was brought back to fund the debt from the war of 1812 and so we had a Second Bank of the United States. It did the same thing, boom and bust cycles, price inflation, corrupted politics. Benefited special interest, but not the general interest, and President Andrew Jackson defunded it, and so we went without a central bank from roughly 1840 until 1913 so we've had experience of that. And what we had been was competing currencies, and that would be sort of a stepping stone. If we got rid of the fed, we wouldn't have to abolish the Fed altogether. We could amend the charter to the Fed to say you're no longer permitted to buy bonds. Can't buy government bonds anymore. That's how they inflate the money supply, right? By buying bonds. That's totally unnecessary. And we could just just that would be a great step forward, and we would sort of whittle away our $80 trillion debt, if you count again upon count the unfunded liabilities of the federal government,   Keith Weinhold  21:26 if we did end the Fed, what would the price of money? Which are interest rates really look like? Would a new market rate be sent by individuals and companies on the free market like Bank of America, with a customer or borrower settling on an interest rate that they both agree to.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  21:44 You know, the Fed uses sort of Soviet style economics, price control. The economists and are all getting all over Kamala Harris for recommendations for price controls on rent and other things. Well, the Fed price control. They control the price of money. That's what they do. And so there's a big, kind of a comical thing that here you have all these economists, if they were to teach economics in the week one, they would teach about the bad effects of price controls, and then they get a job at the Fed, and they spend their whole career enforcing price controls on money, and the interest rate would be determined by supply and demand for credit and inflationary expectations. That's what the market does. And you wouldn't have these bureaucrats at the Fed tinkering around with interest rates, creating tremendous arbitrage opportunities for Wall Street investors. With all the movements and interest rates, you'd have much more stable interest rates, and and you wouldn't have this ridiculous system where the Fed says we need to always have forever at least 2% inflation. And of course, they never meet that, and they lie about it. I don't believe for one minute that the price inflation right now is 3% or under 3% that's ridiculous, right? And so things should be getting cheaper. Everything should be getting cheaper because of all the technology we have. My first PC I bought in the early 80s for $4,000 and it was a piece of prehistoric junk compared to my cell phone today, that almost for free. Almost everything should be like that agriculture, but the reason it isn't is the Fed keeps pumping so much money in circulation, that it pumps up the demand for goods and services, and that's what creates price inflation. And by its own admission, that's what it does, even though it's charter, it's original charter said they're supposed to fight inflation. All of a sudden, about 10 years ago or so, they announced, south of blue, we always have to have at least 2% inflation. Congress had nothing to do with that. President had nothing to do with that, and the people of America had nothing to do with that. It was dictators like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke that just make these announcements. And where does that come from when we live under the dictatorship of the Fed? And of course, the people who are hurt the most by the Fed are elderly people are living on relatively fixed incomes and are forced to become Wall Street speculators they want to make any more money other than their fixed income, where, you know, during the days of Greenspan, when they're pursuing zero interest rates, maybe the mortgage industry like that, but the people on retirement income were starving as a result of that. So it's been sort of an economic war on the retired population.   Keith Weinhold  24:24 Things should get faster and cheaper to produce, like you said. However, there's definitely one thing that's not getting faster to produce, that's housing build times. Housing build times have actually gone up, which is sort of another discussion unto itself. But we talk about the Fed and then setting prices. People wouldn't stand for setting the price or having price controls on oil or lumber or bananas, but yet we set the price of money itself. People have just become accustomed to that. Yet it's that money itself that we use to buy oil and lumber and bananas the fed with that dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment. If we did abolish the Fed, what would happen to the rate of inflation?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  25:12 Well, we would have less inflation. It's supposed to what we replace it with. There's some system would be a replacement, but we wouldn't have the boom and bust cycles that we have now. There's been research in the past 100 years or so of the Fed, and what the academic researchers have concluded is that the Fed has made the economy in general more unstable than it was before we had the Fed and price inflation. That's a joke. The dollar is worth maybe three cents of what it was in the year 1913 right when the Fed was created. So it has failed on all accounts. And so if we got rid of it, we would reverse that. The idea would be to start out with a competing money system. And I'll tell you a quick story is, you know the word Dixie from the south, you know land of Dixie that was named after a currency by a New Orleans bank called the Dix D, I x 10 in French, and it was 100% gold reserve. It was backed by something real and valuable, and it was so popular as even used in Minnesota. But that's why the whole south, the states in the South, were using this currency, because it was so reliable. But during the Civil War, the national currency acts imposed taxes on the competing currencies and taxed them out of business and established the greenback dollar, as it was called, as the Monopoly money of the country. We didn't get a central bank during the Civil War, but we got that. And so that's the kind of system that we would have. Friedrich Hayek wrote a whole book about this, about competing currencies, called the denationalization of money. He poses that as a good stepping stone to a freer market in money. And like you said, Money is the most important thing. Is most more important than bananas or shoes or any of these other things that we might have price controls on.   Keith Weinhold  27:01 All right, so we're talking about the case for ending the Fed. What is the counter argument? I mean, other than the government wanting control, is there a valid, or any academic counter argument for keeping the Fed in place?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  27:16 The Fed has an army. I call it the Fed's Praetorian Guard of academics. There was a research article published by an economist named Larry White at George Mason University several years ago, and he found that 75% of all the articles in the academic journals regarding money, monetary policy and so forth, are by people who are basically paid by the Fed, one way or the other. Either they're fed economists, or they've been invited to a conference by the Fed, or they're an intern some relationship with the Fed. The late Milton Friedman once said, If you want a career as a monetary economist, it's not a good idea to criticize the biggest employer in your field. So there's a lot of nonsense about that. And so yes, you'll have all sorts of rationales, but it basically comes down to this, that we think we can do central planning better than the Russians did under communism, because the Fed is basically an economic central planning agency, and there's no reason to believe Americans are better at it than the Russians or anybody else. And it basically comes down to that, you know, studying the past 111 years that's showing Well, yeah, they've been trying that for 111 years. They've made the economy more unstable, and they have failed miserably to control inflation. And why should we give them another chance? Why should we continue along this road? We shouldn't So, yeah, there'll be all kind of excuses the late Murray Rothbard, who was one of the founders of the Mises, who once answered this question by saying, It's as though people said, Well, say the government always made shoes. 100 years ago they took over the shoe industry. People would be saying, who will make shoes if the government doesn't make shoes? The government has always made shoes, right? But the government has not always monopolized the money supply. It's only like I said, we abolished three Feds in our history. In American history, they weren't called the Fed, but they were central banks. And the Fed is called a central bank, and we've done that three times. We've abolished more central banks than we have kept in American history.   Keith Weinhold  29:17  We're talking with Dr Thomas D Lorenzo. He is the president of the Mises Institute. About, is there really any capitalism left more when we come back, this is Get Rich Education. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold,  hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine, at Ridge lending group and MLS 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation, because they specialize in income properties, they help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start now while it's on your mind at RidgeLendingGroup.com, that's Ridgelendinggroup.com. Your bank is getting rich off of you. The national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings. If your money isn't making 4% you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk, your cash generates up to an 8% return with compound interest year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% sitting in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25k you keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back. Their decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And I would know, because I'm an investor too. Earn 8% hundreds of others are text family to 66866, learn more about freedom. Family investments, liquidity fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text, family to 66866.   Kristen Tate  31:11 This is author Kristen Tate. Listen to Get Rich Education with Keith Weinhold, and Don't quit Your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  31:27 welcome back to get rich education. We're talking with Dr Thomas DiLorenzo. He is the president of the Mises Institute. You can learn more about them @mises.org and Dr DiLorenzo. Frederick Hayek, an economist that you mentioned very well known and a student of Ludwig von Mises, he believed that prices are a communication mechanism between a buyer and a seller. Say, for example, there's a new style of single family rental home that everyone wants to rent. So therefore the rent price goes up when other builders see that the rent price goes up, that brings in more builder competition, and with more competition, that brings rent prices down, and then the world is filled with abundant housing, rather than a scarcity of housing. So that's how I think of a free market system within capitalism as working, as defined through Hayek.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  32:22 You know, the consumer is king. Von Mises once wrote about the same point where he said that people mistakenly believe that it's the bankers and the CEOs and the businesses that control what gets produced and so forth, but it's really the consumer. You build a housing development then people don't want those houses. You'll find out real fast who's in charge. It's not the mortgage brokers. It's not the bankers. It's not you, it's the consumer. That's the free market system, and if you do without it, and not using the free market system, whether it's for money or anything else, is kind of like trying to find your way around a strange city with no street signs, and the prices are the street signs that tell us what to do, exactly like you said, if there's strong demand for a certain type of housing, that'll drive the price up, and that'll tell the home builders, we can make money building more of these. And they will do that. Nobody tells them. The Chairman of the Fed doesn't have to tell them that the President doesn't have to tell them that Congress doesn't have to issue a declaration telling them to do that. That was the Soviet Union where they tried that. And that's the great thing about the market, is that the consumer can tell the richest man in the world like Elon Musk, go play in the traffic. Elon Musk, if they don't like his cars or whatever he's producing, even though he's the richest man in the world. And he understands that he's a pretty successful businessman, I would say, and so so he understands that the consumer is his boss.   Keith Weinhold  33:53 Well, what else do we need to know? You have published a lot of celebrated books, from how capitalism saved America to the politically incorrect guide to economics. What else might a real estate investor or an economic enthusiast need to know today? Oh,   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  34:10 well, I think everybody needs to be their own economist. You can listen to the talking heads on TV and on podcasts and all that, but educate yourself and become your own economist. Because a lot of the people on TV, as you might see on the news, they have an ax to grind, or they have a sort of a hidden financial interest beyond what they're saying, Be your own economist. And that's why I'm selling my website, which is everything on it, it's for free, mises.org, and there are quite a few others too. You don't have to go to school, you don't have to get a degree. You can get a good economic education, for example, on money. We're in the middle of giving away 100,000 copies of a book called What has government done to our money. I'm Murray rothbar. You go to our website, scroll down to the bottom, and you can fill out a form online, and we'll send you free books and. You can educate yourself that way. And so just in general, I think that's what people need to do. I taught MBA students for many years who are people in their 30s or maybe even early 40s, who didn't have economics degrees, but they were really into it, and for the first time in their careers, they decided maybe I should understand how the economic world that I live in and work in every day operates rather than going through your life and your career without you. Might know all about real estate sales, but it's also useful to know about the economy in general and how things work.   Keith Weinhold  35:35 And when one becomes their own economic student and they take that on, I think it's important for them, like you touched on to not just consume the economic news that's on CNBC or other major media, because that doesn't really tell you how to create wealth. It might inform you, but it doesn't necessarily tell you how to take action. For example, on this show an educational channel, you might learn about a story about rising inflation like we had starting three or four years ago. And here we talk about how, okay, if inflation is going to be a long term economic force, you may or may not like what the Fed is doing, but rather than save money, borrow money, outsource that debt service to the tenant on a cash flowing asset like a single family home or an apartment building. And that inflation that you're learning about on CNBC will actually benefit you and debase your debt with prudent leverage on a property, for example, so not just consuming the news, but learning and educating yourself and acting.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  36:34 Oh, sure, well It just so happens that last night, I was talking to a friend of mine who's a real estate professional. They're all talking about, Oh, are we going to have a slight drop in interest rates? And I reminded them that there will be a part of the market if they see it, if we do have a slight drop in interest rates, we'll look at that and say, well, maybe this is a new trend. And so I'll sit back and I'll wait. I'm not going to buy now, because I think the interest rates are going to go down even further in the next six months there were, there would be some segment of the market that thinks that way. And so that's just one little thing. Another thing I would mention is that one of the basic tenets of free market economics is that voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. People buy and sell from each other, because both sides benefit. And that's very important for any business person to keep in mind as you structure business deals, because you know about business deal that is successful is basically, I will give you what you want, and you give me what I want, and we're both happy. And that's that's one of the main tenets of how the market works. Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial. So think about how to make it mutually beneficial, and you'll succeed in making a deal.   Keith Weinhold  37:45 Well, it's been an excellent discussion on Is there any capitalism left, and how would it look like if we turned the course and created more capitalism here in the United States? It's been great having you on the show.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  37:58 Thank you.   Keith Weinhold  38:05 Yeah , again, Learn more @mises.org or look up books by Dr Thomas DiLorenzo. His viewpoint is that there are now merely islands of capitalism in a sea of socialism where those conditions were inverted last century. We've got to end the complex between the government and corporations that these watchdogs are basically powerless when the fox is guarding the henhouse. Dr dilorezzo says we could change the Fed charter so that they couldn't buy bonds, which should reduce inflation. So he does offer a way forward there, a solution.  In capitalism, he consumer is king. This is a good thing. You yourself are empowered because you get to vote with your dollars. So therefore what you buy more of society will see and make more of but a prosperous, progressive economy that should be able to produce goods and services that are constantly cheaper because they get more and more efficient to make with innovation, but centrally planned inflation makes them more expensive, at least in dollar denominated terms. So progress should make things cheaper? Well, then everything should take fewer dollars to buy, homes, oil, bananas, grapes, but it doesn't, and it won't anytime soon, like I mentioned in the interview, there single family build times are taking even longer. That's not more efficient, and they're sure not getting cheaper. In fact, the National Association of Home Builders tells us that from permit to completion in 2015 it took 7.2 months to build a single family home. By 2019 it was up to 8.1 months and then. Last year, the time required to build a single family home from permit to completion was 10.1 months. That's not the side of an efficient economy. So basically, therefore, in the last eight, nine years, the time to build a home has gone from 7.2 months up to 10.1 months. That is a drastic increase in a short period of time. Just amazing. And we now have data after covid as well, broken down by region. The longest build time, by the way, is in New England, where it is 13.9 months to build a home from permit to completion. Gosh, such inefficiency. But despite all that stuff that you might find discouraging like that, I want to go out on a good news note here some encouraging sentiment for you, if you champion free markets, then invest in us rental property down the road, there is no centrally controlled ceiling on what you can sell your property for. Most places don't have rent control. In fact, there's been no federal rent control on private property since World War Two. And somewhat ironically, you benefit. You actually benefit from government backed loans at these low fixed rates, and now they're moderate fixed rates. You often get these through Fannie Freddie or the FHA. See you benefit from that particular government backing as a savvy borrower for rental property. And on top of this, you use the GRE inflation triple crown to flip over that not so capitalistic inflationary force. You flip it upside down and use it to your benefit, profiting fantastically from inflation. So you know how to take the situation you're given and use it to your advantage rather than your detriment. Big thanks to Dr Thomas DiLorenzo today, longtime econ professor and current Mises Institute president, more ways to build Real Estate Wealth coming up here for you on the show in future weeks, as always, with the dash of economics and wealth mindset. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, Don't Quit Your Daydream.   42:28 Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC, exclusively,   Keith Weinhold  42:56 The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com.  

Anti-Semitism is alive and active in today's day and age. In American society, we battle a gun addiction and a growing anti-Semitic movement daily. When the two combine, tragedy knows no bounds. Join Eye for an Eye as we delve into one of the most awful incidents of mass shooting in the 21st century, and dig deep into the “reason” behind it and why these manifestations of evil continuously reoccur. One thing we know for certain is- hate has no home here. Special thanks to the producers of todays show, your support means the world! : Michael and Carolyn Y. Matt M Kimbrough's Coaching Elizabeth F.  Kate R.  *Please note all opinions in the show are our own and solely in regards to the specific case we are discussing in this episode* We made a one stop shop for all the Eye for an Eye links our listeners might want to check out whether its where to listen, our merch shop, all of our socials, our email, or ways to support the show,  we'd love for you to visit the link below!  https://msha.ke/eyeforeyepod/ Tired of Ads? Want to support our show? Please consider supporting Eye for an Eye with as little as $1 a month via patreon.com/eyeforeyepod Enjoy today's show? Don't forget to rate (those 5 stars are waiting to be clicked), review, subscribe and tell your friends!  Want in on the discussion?Join us on our Facebook page or group, Instagram @eyeforeyepod, twitter @eyeforeyepod or shoot us an email at eyeforeyepod@gmail.com and let us know your thoughts- does the punishment fit the crime? __ Cover Art Created by: Rachel Gregorino, dollbambino@gmail.com Music: GarageBand Mix made by Lisa  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This summer, scrutiny of the figure of the “trad wife” hit a fever pitch. These influencers' accounts feature kempt, feminine women embracing hyper-traditional roles in marriage and home-making—and, in doing so, garnering millions of followers. On this episode of Critics at Large, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss standout practitioners of the “trad” life style, including the twenty-two-year-old Nara Smith, who makes cereal and toothpaste from scratch, and Hannah Neeleman, who, posting under the handle @ballerinafarm, presents a life caring for eight children in rural Utah as a bucolic fantasy. The hosts also discuss “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” a new reality-television show on Hulu about a group of Mormon influencers engulfed in scandal, whose notions of female empowerment read as a quaint reversal of the trad-wife trend. A common defense of a life style that some would call regressive is that it's a personal choice, devoid of political meaning. But this gloss is complicated by societal changes such as the erosion of women's rights in America and skyrocketing child-care costs. “In American society, the way choice works has everything to do with child-care options, financial options,” Schwartz says. “When you talk about the idea of choice, are we just talking about false choices?” Read, watch, and listen with the critics:@ballerinafarm@gwenthemilkmaid@naraazizasmith“How Lucky Blue and Nara Aziza Smith Made Viral Internet Fame From Scratch,” by Carrie Battan (GQ)“The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives” (2024)@esteecwilliams“Mad Men” (2007-15)The Little House on the Prairie series, by Laura Ingalls Wilder“Wilder Women,” by Judith Thurman (The New Yorker)“Meet the Queen of the “Trad Wives” (and Her Eight Children),” by Megan Agnew (The Times of London) New episodes drop every Thursday. Follow Critics at Large wherever you get your podcasts. 

In American culture, there is an overwhelming sense that fulfillment in life is tied to sexual pleasure. Shaped in this environment, the sexual ethics of Jesus don't sound liberating; they sound limiting. But the Christian story insists that marriage is the safest and best place for sexuality to flourish as bonding, mutual submission, and witness.

The Bible has a lot to say about food, and from the beginning, we can see how food was related to sin, to sacrifices, and to the worship of God. There were also the food laws of Israel, which are frequently misunderstood. But through all of this, the Bible never teaches that a person's health is tied to the food they eat. And this matters a great deal, because this is a common false teaching, even among the orthodox. But the Bible does talk about health. It has to, because life and death are moral, spiritual issues. We understand this because anything to do with whether someone lives or dies will always be a moral topic because we understand that death exists because of sin and so we know that health issues must tie back to sin being in the world. In this episode, we want to talk about what God's word says about food and how we can please him with what we eat. In American culture, there is a lot of talk about eating healthy and frequently it is a power issue. Wives pressure their husbands to eat in certain ways. The US government has a food pyramid that is trying to tell people how they should eat. Doctors tell people how they should eat, but they find they have such little power, they frequently don't even bother even when there is actual scientific evidence behind their conclusions. The more health care is nationalized, the more government asserts its right to dictate what you eat. With all the manipulation about food, how should we relate food and health and what does God's word teach us about all these things.Production of Reformation Baptist Church of Youngsville, NCHosts - Dan Horn, Jonathan Sides, Charles Churchill and Joshua HornTechnical Director - Timothy KaiserTheme Music - Gabriel Hudelson

The Bible has a lot to say about food, and from the beginning, we can see how food was related to sin, to sacrifices, and to the worship of God. There were also the food laws of Israel, which are frequently misunderstood. But through all of this, the Bible never teaches that a person's health is tied to the food they eat. And this matters a great deal, because this is a common false teaching, even among the orthodox. But the Bible does talk about health. It has to, because life and death are moral, spiritual issues. We understand this because anything to do with whether someone lives or dies will always be a moral topic because we understand that death exists because of sin and so we know that health issues must tie back to sin being in the world. -In this episode, we want to talk about what God's word says about food and how we can please him with what we eat. In American culture, there is a lot of talk about eating healthy and frequently it is a power issue. Wives pressure their husbands to eat in certain ways. The US government has a food pyramid that is trying to tell people how they should eat. Doctors tell people how they should eat, but they find they have such little power, they frequently don't even bother even when there is actual scientific evidence behind their conclusions. The more health care is nationalized, the more government asserts its right to dictate what you eat. With all the manipulation about food, how should we relate food and health and what does God's word teach us about all these things.Production of Reformation Baptist Church of Youngsville, NCHosts - Dan Horn, Jonathan Sides, Charles Churchill and Joshua Horn-br

The Bible has a lot to say about food, and from the beginning, we can see how food was related to sin, to sacrifices, and to the worship of God. There were also the food laws of Israel, which are frequently misunderstood. But through all of this, the Bible never teaches that a person's health is tied to the food they eat. And this matters a great deal, because this is a common false teaching, even among the orthodox. But the Bible does talk about health. It has to, because life and death are moral, spiritual issues. We understand this because anything to do with whether someone lives or dies will always be a moral topic because we understand that death exists because of sin and so we know that health issues must tie back to sin being in the world. In this episode, we want to talk about what God's word says about food and how we can please him with what we eat. In American culture, there is a lot of talk about eating healthy and frequently it is a power issue. Wives pressure their husbands to eat in certain ways. The US government has a food pyramid that is trying to tell people how they should eat. Doctors tell people how they should eat, but they find they have such little power, they frequently don't even bother even when there is actual scientific evidence behind their conclusions. The more health care is nationalized, the more government asserts its right to dictate what you eat. With all the manipulation about food, how should we relate food and health and what does God's word teach us about all these things.Production of Reformation Baptist Church of Youngsville, NCHosts - Dan Horn, Jonathan Sides, Charles Churchill and Joshua Horn

The Bible has a lot to say about food, and from the beginning, we can see how food was related to sin, to sacrifices, and to the worship of God. There were also the food laws of Israel, which are frequently misunderstood. But through all of this, the Bible never teaches that a person's health is tied to the food they eat. And this matters a great deal, because this is a common false teaching, even among the orthodox. But the Bible does talk about health. It has to, because life and death are moral, spiritual issues. We understand this because anything to do with whether someone lives or dies will always be a moral topic because we understand that death exists because of sin and so we know that health issues must tie back to sin being in the world. -In this episode, we want to talk about what God's word says about food and how we can please him with what we eat. In American culture, there is a lot of talk about eating healthy and frequently it is a power issue. Wives pressure their husbands to eat in certain ways. The US government has a food pyramid that is trying to tell people how they should eat. Doctors tell people how they should eat, but they find they have such little power, they frequently don't even bother even when there is actual scientific evidence behind their conclusions. The more health care is nationalized, the more government asserts its right to dictate what you eat. With all the manipulation about food, how should we relate food and health and what does God's word teach us about all these things.Production of Reformation Baptist Church of Youngsville, NCHosts - Dan Horn, Jonathan Sides, Charles Churchill and Joshua Horn-br

Thanks for joining us at the unSeminary podcast. We're excited to talk with Brian Owens, Executive Pastor of Operations at First Baptist Simpsonville / Upstate Church in South Carolina. In American culture it's very normal to want your own voice and identity. Yet this can be challenging when you're trying to align a church with […]

In this emotional episode of The A to Z English Podcast, Xochitl and Jack talk about funerals and the loss of a loved one. Transcript: 00:00:00JackHey, A is the English podcast listeners. It's Jack here and we just want to announce that we are now on WeChat. Our WeChat ID is A-Z English podcast that is A-Z English podcast, one word all lowercase.00:00:17JackAnd if you.00:00:18JackJoin the group. You will be able to talk with me. You'll be able to.00:00:22JackTalk with social.00:00:23JackAnd we can answer your questions. We can read your comments on the podcast. So we'd love for you to join us and be active in our we chat group. Our WeChat ID is A-Z English podcast. Thanks. See you on the app.00:00:48JackWelcome to the Ages English podcast. My name is Jack and I'm here with my co-host social. And I'm going to let social introduce today's topic. So social, what would you like to talk about today?00:01:02XochitlJack, I kind of want to talk about funeral traditions in different cultures. So I was going.00:01:08XochitlTo talk about, you know.00:01:10XochitlMexican traditions because I just went through that with my grandfather passing, I guess he passed.00:01:17XochitlLet's like a week ago now, maybe or a little less than a week ago, so.00:01:24XochitlYeah, I don't know. And I've been, uh, I guess I can just get into it.00:01:30XochitlSure.00:01:34XochitlI don't know how to kick this off actually.00:01:36JackOhh no, that's alright. Maybe start with the just just the process is in. In American culture there's a I guess there's kind of two, two aspects to it, right. There's the funeral and the.00:01:52JackWake.00:01:54XochitlHmm.00:01:55JackAnd the wake is more like a.00:01:59JackA gathering where people get together and there's maybe some. Sometimes there's food, I think is if I'm not mistaken, yeah.00:02:07XochitlYeah, that's true.00:02:09JackYeah. So and I think the interesting thing about that in American culture and maybe this is true in, in every culture.00:02:18JackIt seems odd to be eating at that time. You know what, I.00:02:22XochitlBut yeah.00:02:22JackMean like no one?00:02:23JackHas an appetite that people are grieving, they're upset. But I feel like maybe the food preparation is a distraction.00:02:36JackIt's it's, it's focusing on our executive function of our brain, the the part that is just very analytical and just doing things. And I think that is a distraction from the pain and the grief would.00:02:52JackYou agree with that?00:02:54XochitlI think so I I think.00:02:59XochitlThat also it's because a lot of people who aren't, like, super close family come and so they're like, you know, they're they're kind of there to help in certain in a certain way or just to, you know, for emotional support. But they're they're probably going to be hungry because I don't think they're mourning.00:03:21XochitlAnd really like the same way you know on, I mean they're they're sad, I'm sure, but it's like a little different. So I think it's like it's kind of a way for the family to say thank you in Mexican tradition that happened.00:03:22JackRight, right.00:03:34JackYeah.00:03:37XochitlThat happens too, but it's like a two day.00:03:40XochitlAffair where you have to be like awake all night.00:03:45XochitlYou're like, up for 48 hours straight basically because you can't leave the body alone.00:03:49JackOh, OK, OK. Because that's different than American culture, where the the body is.00:03:58JackIs is in the caskets.00:04:02JackBut you don't have to stay up all night with with the body.00:04:08JackHmm.00:04:09XochitlYeah, this the body was in the casket. But we do have to stay with the body because.00:04:15발표자It's.00:04:16XochitlIt's like I don't know. I guess it's to prevent bad spirits, like in old, in old mythology or whatever, to prevent bad spirits from like latching on to the soul of the body. So you have to stay there like 48 hours.00:04:33XochitlAnd it's really hard. My sister and I kind of were with my mom.00:04:36XochitlAnd shift. So I would like stay up.00:04:39XochitlThe whole time and then I would go to sleep.00:04:41XochitlThen she would stay up.00:04:42JackOK.00:04:43XochitlUhm, so we didn't have to do the whole 48 hours thing. I did have to stay up.00:04:50XochitlMore than my sister because she traveled.00:04:53XochitlPlus, she's in that school. So she was like sleeping for a lot large portion of it.00:04:58XochitlBut when she finally woke up, she was she stayed with the body and then I went to sleep and I woke up and so.00:05:08XochitlAnd with the his like sisters and nieces and nephews, they kind of did shifts as well. So like, one day, I think my aunt was my great aunt was there. And the other day my.00:05:23XochitlCousin, I guess was there and it's like their family just kind of did shifts, I guess.00:05:29JackBut it sounds like.00:05:30JackYou didn't get much sleep, though. You. You sound exhausted. Yeah.00:05:32XochitlNo. Yeah, it was very tiring and very hard because you're, like, dealing with a lot of grief. And on top of that, you're, like, serving people food and running around with serving people like.00:05:48XochitlDrinks, not alcoholic drinks, but just regular drinks. But you still you're you're running around serving people with soft drinks and food, and it's just only something like you have to make these two giant. You have to make.00:06:00XochitlLike.00:06:01XochitlWe had cinnamon tea and coffee and then.00:06:03XochitlSweet bread like.00:06:06XochitlUh, like pastries at night the first night, and then the next morning. We have, like, breakfast and we had.00:06:14XochitlLike we also had pastries, coffee and cinnamon tea, and then we had, like Morley, which is like a, it's a chocolate based like sauce, you know. And I've tried my.00:06:26JackYeah.00:06:28JackNo, but I I you've mentioned it before in the podcast, I think.00:06:32XochitlYes, I have. It's kind of different. One of the yeah, it's different because it's not. It's just like it's a completely different dish. I don't know why they share the same name, but more like the paste is like a different dish.00:06:44XochitlAnd there's a there's like seven different types of molis. This one is like a black mullet, which is kind of sweet, a little bit sweet and spicy, and is very thick.00:06:58XochitlIt has a bunch of ingredients like chocolate, chilies, charred tortilla, peanuts, I think, and different things like that. So and we ate that with rice and chicken, and then the next day after the funeral, we also or.00:07:13XochitlBefore the funeral, I think.00:07:15XochitlOr after I can't remember we served. No, it was after the funeral. We served eggs and salsa Verde and black beans. But it's like kind of crazy because you're, like, running on no sleep and making all these meals for people. So it's kind of like.00:07:34XochitlAnd it was kind of wild. And then, like the family, like my mom, I think was up like the whole 48 hours.00:07:41JackOhh wow.00:07:42XochitlI thought I sleep once and it was for like 15 minutes.00:07:45JackRight, right. Is she? And and you know, for her, this is both of her parents have passed in the within a very short period of time.00:07:56XochitlYeah. Within four months from each other because my grandmother passed at the end of February, my grandfather passed at the very.00:08:03XochitlEnd of June.00:08:05JackYeah.00:08:06JackYes.00:08:06XochitlSo yeah.00:08:10XochitlChoose up the whole night and serving people food and soft drinks and it just seemed like a really stressful night time for her and I feel really terrible for her because she's she's like in charge. She's also the executor of the world.00:08:26JackOK.00:08:27XochitlWhich means she has she has a lot of work to do.00:08:30JackRight. A lot of lot of documents that have to be signed and.00:08:35JackYeah. Yeah. A lot of responsibility in that in that respect, you know.00:08:40XochitlYeah. So that's very difficult. So, yeah, I think it's just interesting. I think, I think it's it's kind of cool and very interesting how people are up for like for there's always people at your house for the whole 48 hours and it's kind of interesting. But I I just felt so suffocated like I wished it was just us.00:09:01XochitlLike his closest family, so I could just pull an address out and sleep on the floor, close to the buddy. But I just. I just kind of like.00:09:06JackYeah, or or just cry, you know, like.00:09:11JackIf you feel a little bit, maybe and I'm I'm just making an assumption here, but do you feel like you, you're you let you, you can't be vulnerable when there are people who you don't know very closely around is it is.00:09:29XochitlYeah, it was definitely hard. But like when I first saw it, when like when I first got in there and saw like, yeah, I just wailed anyway because it was just so.00:09:36XochitlSo intense.00:09:38JackYeah.00:09:40XochitlIt was like it was different because with my grandmother, it's like I didn't really cry. I didn't. I I cried a little bit with my grandfather. I cried a little bit with my grandmother, but with this grandfather, I cried a lot more, I think.00:09:51XochitlIt's just like.00:09:53XochitlAll the compound of them all lying so close together and then.00:09:59XochitlIt was just.00:09:59XochitlSadder because I felt like we didn't really get to say goodbye, cause the Mexican hospital system is really a mess. Yeah, and uh, with my grand, with my paternal grand grandfather, he was UM.00:10:12XochitlHe had like dementia, so we kind of got to say slow goodbye.00:10:16XochitlTo him.00:10:16JackYeah.00:10:18XochitlSo it was different and then he passed. But it's like, you know, he was, he was really suffering. It was a it was a slow burn kind of goodbye. And so it kind of felt like he was ready to go.00:10:29XochitlYou know with my.00:10:31JackYeah, this one was more sudden. It was.00:10:34XochitlYeah. Well, like with my maternal grandmother who passed before my maternal grandfather.00:10:39XochitlI I was living.00:10:40XochitlWith her at the time. So I, like, saw her decline in real time.00:10:44JackYeah.00:10:45XochitlUM and I and we were there with her every step of the way. In the hospital we were. We also stayed at the ICU for like the whole week, basically. But we got to see her every single day and hear about, you know, what's going.00:10:59XochitlOn.00:11:00XochitlSo with this one it was just kind of a shock because.00:11:04XochitlLike, only one person could go in, I think per day and it would only be like 30 minutes for 30 minutes and.00:11:15XochitlIt was very restricted and they didn't really keep you updated on anything.00:11:20XochitlSo the last couple of days we thought he was stable and he was getting better, so.00:11:25XochitlI was like.00:11:27XochitlI was kind of slowly planning my way to get over there, if that makes sense.00:11:32JackYeah, makes perfect sense.00:11:33XochitlBut I was like he, he'll. He'll be fine. That's what we were understanding. So for me it was like ohh. Like I'm gonna. I'll. I'll plan my I'll just I have to get it together to plan with my aunt about when I'm going to Mexico City and when her and I are going to head to the US.00:11:52XochitlAnd and so we were. I was just looking at flights when I got the call. Uh, from my aunt that he had passed. And I was just like.00:12:00XochitlIt really shocked me, you know? And so I was like, I really wasn't expecting it. And my my mom and aunt didn't even get to say goodbye. He had already passed so.00:12:03JackYeah.00:12:11JackYeah.00:12:12XochitlIt's just, yeah, it's very hard. I think when there's less closure like that.00:12:19JackMHM.00:12:20XochitlAnd you think someones gonna get better and they don't. And it's just very like.00:12:25XochitlConfusing and.00:12:28XochitlVery hard on you. So yeah, with this one I I did cry. Even though there are people there, of course, I didn't feel like as comfortable.00:12:35XochitlUM, but I just broke down anyway. It's like I couldn't help it.00:12:40JackOh no. And people are are very sympathetic to to that. I'm I I think we.00:12:48JackIn in, in, in Mexican culture you you mentioned before in other podcasts that it's a kind of a masculine culture.00:13:00XochitlYes, be careful.00:13:01JackSo kind of suffocating, pushing down your feelings in in public, you know, trying to be stoic, you stoic means like, you know, trying to be strong. And. And I I feel like we that's also part of the United States culture when it comes to these things.00:13:21JackIs like, you know, don't breakdown and I wish we could be more vulnerable with each other. And in those situations and and just really let our true emotions come out. And it sounds like you. You did that and it probably was healthier to.00:13:36XochitlNow.00:13:39JackDad.00:13:40XochitlYeah, I pretty much was beyond giving a crap about whatever anyone around me thought. You know what I mean? So I I wrote down. So yeah, it was. It was very hard. And then, you know, we had the funeral procession kind of thing. And I carried the casket and.00:13:46JackYeah, yeah.00:13:57XochitlWe.00:13:58XochitlSit around watching him get lowered into the.00:14:01XochitlLike the brave and kind of different in Mexico, the Mexico City is huge. So there's like one small lot and it kind of looks like a house from outside, like a small house like A1 room house or.00:14:16XochitlOhh OK yeah, it has doors locked and like a window and like a roof and everything. And it's like kind of like a really tiny mausoleum. But like, a really tiny one. But not it doesn't look like a mausoleum. It just looks like a little tiny.00:14:25JackYeah.00:14:32XochitlHouse like A1 room house so.00:14:35XochitlWe opened it and then they like, pulled the concrete signs out and there's like 10.00:14:42XochitlIt's like a.00:14:44XochitlLike a 15 foot hole or a 12 foot hole like and it's like 10 slabs that you could bury different people and on both sides.00:14:52JackOK. Is this a family plot here then?00:14:55XochitlYeah, it's a family plot.00:14:56JackOK.00:14:58XochitlSo.00:14:58JackI I think that if I'm, you know, I'm I I don't mean to be.00:15:04JackTo diminish this or anything, but I I remember seeing a little house like that in the movie Coco.00:15:12XochitlOhh yeah.00:15:13JackAnd.00:15:14XochitlYes, that's kind of how it's like, yeah.00:15:16JackOK.00:15:17XochitlYeah. Yeah, it is like that. And UM, so we we, uh, lowered him down and then they put my grandmother's ashes with him actually in the same casket that was that was a, a, A. That was a moment of anger for all of us because his freaking sister, my grandfather's sister.00:15:29JackOh, that's sweet.00:15:37XochitlHe's been going on said. If we wanted to put the ashes in with him, we could put her.00:15:41XochitlAshes at his feet.00:15:43JackOh.00:15:44XochitlLike why would?00:15:45XochitlYou even say that you know what I mean? I wasn't there when you said that or I would have been so mad. But, you know, we just put them.00:15:47JackThen.00:15:53XochitlThey were like next to his arm, I guess.00:15:56JackYeah. You you want holding each other? Not. Yeah, yeah, you know.00:16:00XochitlYes.00:16:03XochitlNot one like beneath the other one. It's like, you know, but.00:16:07발표자Yeah.00:16:07발표자So then.00:16:08XochitlUnless you get lured in the slab and then they like bricked him in. Basically they have to brick people in because they don't want them like stealing the body or like stealing anything that can't. That the body was buried with.00:16:19JackLike grave, grave robbers kind of situation.00:16:21XochitlYeah, yeah. A great rubber situation. So they, like, break him in.00:16:26JackYeah.00:16:27XochitlTo his slab in the grave. So it was kind of a very interesting process. And and I I was getting very like light headed and nauseous and they everyone thought I was going to faint. And my great one of my other great aunts hold a lip lock bag and it had a white onion cut into quarters.00:16:47XochitlAnd she took the 1/4 of a white onion and sprayed it with rubbing alcohol that she had in a little spray bottle in her purse. And she handed it to me to, like, sniff. So that was supposed to help me not pass out. And it did help. Weirdly, I felt way better.00:17:04JackReally. OK. I was. I would have thought maybe the smell of onion would make it worse, but.00:17:10XochitlI definitely. It's like interesting because like, you don't really smell the onion that much because your face is like, right up against it and has rubbing alcohol in it.00:17:18XochitlSo the only thing that the onion does is like it gets the juices from the onion, make the rubbing alcohol more mild so they like, burn your nose when it comes up, they like react together somehow. So like you can still smell the strong smell like alcohol, but it doesn't like burn your nostrils.00:17:27JackOK.00:17:34JackYeah.00:17:35XochitlAnd so that was interesting. And my boyfriend and my sister said that the onion, like the smell of the onion, was kind of making them nauseous. But I didn't notice and they didn't tell me until after the.00:17:47XochitlNo, because I guess they were further away so that, like, smelled weird to them. Yeah. And then my aunt really made me laugh because she kind of right next to me and she, but she didn't see she look right.00:17:58XochitlKind.00:17:58XochitlOf in front of me. And so since she didn't see my onion she she was like, why does it smell guacamole?00:18:08XochitlAnd I'm like, huh?00:18:10JackThat's. That's funny. Yeah, that's.00:18:12XochitlYeah, that's a good moment of humor in all of it. So that really that.00:18:15JackRight, a little levity was probably what everyone needed in that.00:18:20발표자Thanks.00:18:21XochitlYeah. So you know, we had to laugh about that then it was. Yeah. There was some moments where definitely we had a couple laughs and then yeah, we went back home and and that was.00:18:31XochitlKind of it.00:18:32XochitlThere was some certain things you do with the body. Like I got to see his body and it was different because my grand, the way my grandmother passed her body.00:18:41XochitlLooked very different and then when my grandfather passed, when they put him in the casket, it just looked like he was sleeping.00:18:48XochitlAnd and they put like coins in his pocket for his passage and shoe. Special shoes. Like what? I took, just like on him, which are traditional shoes.00:18:58XochitlSo and different things and and my sister and I said we why didn't we didn't give any of this to.00:19:03XochitlMy grandmother and.00:19:06XochitlAnd so we just we gave him extra money to pay for our passage because we thought she might be waiting. Since no one gave her any money to pay for her passage.00:19:16JackYeah.00:19:18JackYou.00:19:19JackThat's interesting. It sounds like there's like a lot of little little things that you have to to do.00:19:19XochitlAnd.00:19:25XochitlYeah, like a lot of little.00:19:26XochitlThings you have to remember.00:19:27JackYeah.00:19:29JackYeah.00:19:30XochitlBig things, yeah.00:19:31XochitlHow how are?00:19:32XochitlKorean funerals. Jack, I'm curious about that. I've never been to one. I've seen them in, like, catering those and movies. But I've never like.00:19:39XochitlBeen to one.00:19:40JackYeah. So the.00:19:42JackKorean funerals are interesting. They're they're very different. It's.00:19:46JackThe my my wife's grandmother passed. Probably going on. Oh gosh, 10 or or.00:19:55Jack12 years ago, something like that.00:19:58JackAnd what happens is there's there's kind of an extra wing of of a hospitals that are kind of set up for funerals.00:20:10JackAnd what happens is.00:20:13JackThe the body is is cremated for the most part in Korea. That's the the tradition. I think it probably comes down to the size of the country land is.00:20:28XochitlPopulation.00:20:30JackYeah, exactly. It's it's it's, it's it's rare to to bury a body.00:20:38JackAnd so the body is, is prepared and and cremated at the at that facility that is attached to the hospital I believe. And then in the hospital you get like a A room.00:20:54JackAnd it's it's a large room with an eating area, and then there's a a nice a very nice photograph of the deceased person.00:21:06JackAnd kind of like almost like a shrine kind of set up.00:21:11JackYou know, flowers and things like that.00:21:14JackAnd outside, when you when you enter this this large room.00:21:22JackThe.00:21:24JackLike your your the company you work for will always send flowers and it's the flower. Arrangements are always these kind of tall.00:21:34JackFlower arrangements with a big ribbon expressing condolences. And so I think the the more.00:21:45JackThe more influential you were, or the more people you know, you knew, the more flowers are sent. You know, so it it can it. It's very important, I think, to to have a lot of those outside, outside the door. When people enter, when you when you.00:22:05JackEnter the room, people. You will give some money. And so there was one family member that's sitting there collecting an envelope of of money.00:22:18JackThat goes to the family to pay for the fuel costs and whatever other things that need to be paid for.00:22:32JackMm-hmm.00:22:32JackAnd and then there's there's some food where you can you sit, they invite you to, to sit down and have a meal. And there is no, there is no like, formal kind of ceremony thing in in that in, in that at that time you but what what happens is you have this this room.00:22:52JackThis large room for three days.00:22:56JackSo and that's what's so interesting to me is that the family stays there for three days, so there's like a I believe there's a bathroom and a shower and. And, you know, you can you sleep there and and, you know, people will get up at different hours and people will arrive at all.00:23:16JackKinds of different hours.00:23:19JackAnd I think it goes back to maybe the older times during the.00:23:27JackThe the Joseon dynasty, the the one before the the last dynasty in Korea.00:23:35JackAnd at those times, you know, if you were to hear about the passing of a relative, you would you would start your trek.00:23:44JackTo that location. And so I think they three days is enough time for most people to make it there. Now. Nowadays it seems a little bit unnecessary or we could say antiquated, which just means like it's an older tradition that that no longer.00:24:06JackIs it still followed but it's it's not necessarily necessary because people can get there very quickly within, you know, a day you can get to the to the hospital and go to that special wing of the hospital where the.00:24:25JackI I guess the the.00:24:28JackThe.00:24:29JackPaying respects to the.00:24:31JackNormally occurs and then there's an urn. An urn is is a a container, kind of a beautiful, ornate container that has the ashes inside of it. And that's also, I believe, up there with the photograph and.00:24:51JackPeople will, you know, come and and, you know, give their condolences to the fans.00:24:56JackMe, but that three day waiting period was kind of interesting to me and not waiting period. But the three day period of time where the family is stays together in that one place.00:25:13JackKind of reminds me of what you were talking about of like staying awake with the body for of 48 hours.00:25:22JackUM.00:25:24JackThere's there's something about that, and I I know there's another in the Jewish tradition, there's something called Sitting Shiva and Shiva is where?00:25:34JackThe body is.00:25:36JackUM, sometimes it's in in a person's house and they sit with the body for.00:25:44JackI I don't remember exactly how many days, but people will come and they will sit down and they.00:25:51JackWill mourn with the family and then they will leave and other people will come and and come and go and it it's kind of interesting how some of these traditions seem to overlap.00:26:06JackA little bit like there's something about, maybe there's something.00:26:12JackImportant about just sitting in your grief.00:26:17JackWith your loved one who's past and.00:26:21JackAnd kind of getting a collective hug from all the people that knew that person and loved that person and you know, coming and sitting it with the family. I feel like in in American culture it's, you know, the the most we get is like.00:26:38JackYou know someone will come up at the wake or or the funeral and say I'm sorry for your loss and then that's that's kind of it. You know, there isn't like a a longer it's kind of like this is uncomfortable. I want this to be over as quickly as possible and it seems like in Mexican culture and.00:26:46JackMHM.00:26:56XochitlRight.00:26:58JackKorean culture and and Judaism.00:27:02JackJewish culture. There's something about.00:27:05JackFighting through that discomfort and getting to a much more honest place where you can act, cry together, mourn together, laugh together sometimes there you know it. It's not always mournful. Sometimes they're happy.00:27:25JackMemories and and share they share stories and things like that. And so I thought it was. It was really beautiful. And there's one other aspect of Korean.00:27:37JackFunerals that are that are interesting and and that is the.00:27:41JackClose friends and family will do almost a a performative kind of weeping.00:27:49JackAnd now sometimes it's it's genuine. I'm, I'm sure. But I did see this happen and the woman was wailing and and and crying and and, you know, and I I don't understand Korean very well, but I, you know, it sounded like she's saying no, how can this be this is, you know.00:28:10JackUnfair and.00:28:11JackAnd then after she was done weeping all of a sudden, her face changed right back to normal.00:28:18JackAnd so I realized ohh this is a performative thing out out of, you know, paying respect to the person who's passed that, you know, showing how how much.00:28:19XochitlThat's crazy.00:28:33JackYou've stirred up my emotions internally, but it was interesting how she she kind of came out of it really quickly. And so I was, I was. I was really intrigued by by that aspect of it as well.00:28:47XochitlYeah, I don't feel like a catharsis. I think as well, where, like, it's like, you get to let out all your mourning and wail as loudly as you want and everything. And then after it's over, you kind of just, like, empty, you know?00:28:59JackYeah. Yeah, that's probably that's exactly what it is. I think that's what it is, because I I know that.00:29:07JackSome people were were a little bit uncomfortable with it or or I I noticed that maybe they because I'm a I'm a foreigner. They they were like ohh this. You know maybe I I don't know. If they were embarrassed a little bit or something of of this.00:29:27JackHappening, but I was just, you know, I didn't know. My wife's grandmother very closely. So for me.00:29:38JackKind of being there was kind of an out of body experience. You know, I I felt like very much an observer kind of in a in a in a very foreign situation. And so almost like an anthropologist, I was kind of documenting all of this. The things that were occurring and kind of viewing it that way.00:29:57JackYeah.00:29:58XochitlHmm.00:29:58JackAnd yeah.00:30:00XochitlLike, just like it's it's funny, like. And they they come to our culture and they see, like, my mom was really shocked and cause actually in Mexican culture. Uh, I think it's normal to, you know, to cry like that to a little bit at least. And and American culture is really not we're kind of more cool than rigid. And so I remember when my mom.00:30:20XochitlCame to.00:30:24XochitlThe US and had to attend a funeral. She thought it was so weird. How, like even the closest family wasn't like breaking down?00:30:32발표자Yeah.00:30:33XochitlShe saw it as like very strange. And it's funny because they have like a completely opposite experience when they come to our culture as well. And for me, it was fun. It was like such a moment of being by cultural because, like, when at the funeral going the casket, I.00:30:52XochitlAnd I thought I was going to think.00:30:55XochitlUMI was talking about it on the way back in the car.00:30:59XochitlOn the way back to from Mexico City to Oaxaca, I met. So was my dad and my aunt and my mom there. And, you know, so driving back and.00:31:09XochitlI was like, oh, yeah, I I thought I was going to think, but I've never seen anyone pull out the like a bag of onions before, but it it really helped. And my mom said, yeah, it's a really common thing to take when you're bearing your body, at least in Mexico City, because it's like it's thought to help protect against people fainting.00:31:29JackYeah.00:31:30XochitlAnd my dad said, why would? Why would you faint like he asked me that?00:31:35XochitlAnd my mom rolled her eye.00:31:41XochitlShe looks so annoyed. It was very funny because it's kind of like I get.00:31:45JackThe answer is.00:31:45XochitlWhere what? He called me.00:31:47XochitlYeah, they're, like, totally different.00:31:48JackSorry, the answer is so obvious, it's just such a a funny question. You know it's like.00:31:56JackBe because you know my close, you know, relative has just passed. And of course, you know, that's why.00:32:04JackThe in American culture, the the idea of Stoicism is, is so strong, it's like we almost respect it right when they don't cry, because they'll, they'll, you know, in the car ride home, they'll say, oh, look how brave she was. Look how brave he was. Those are things I've heard.00:32:24JackYou know, my parents say before, after a funeral, and it's like, why do we need to be brave at this time? Shouldn't we be totally raw and vulnerable and just, you know, exposed to nerve?00:32:27XochitlRight.00:32:38JackAnd and and just. You know what it? Why does it have to be so clean and and and and and, dare I say cold? Yeah. Polished. Yeah.00:32:47발표자Polished.00:32:50XochitlIt's like a.00:32:50XochitlIt's a performance as well. Just how it's funny, like just how you know, we might see other cultures performing grief and and like a vulnerable outward fashion. They probably see us performing. Stoicism is very like bizarre behavior.00:33:09발표자Right.00:33:10JackRight when you because it's the because the actions don't match the gravity of the situation.00:33:16JackIt's like.00:33:17XochitlRight.00:33:18JackThe yeah, they're they're almost. It's almost like, uhm, you're accessing all this willpower to just not feel something.00:33:28XochitlThank you.00:33:30JackAnd and and then and then when people get home and then they're alone, they completely break down.00:33:38JackBecause they've been suppressing all of these emotions for the last couple days so.00:33:45JackI I don't know. I'm I I I really like the Korean funeral. If I if I got to choose, I would be OK with a a Korean funeral.00:33:58JackThat'd be OK with me.00:34:00XochitlHey I think I want a mix of both.00:34:01XochitlCultures. For me, I like.00:34:03XochitlI don't want people to have to, like, sit in the hospital and watch me suffer to death, you know? But you know, it ultimately the funerals for.00:34:10XochitlThe people who loved you during your life and If however they need to grieve, I think that's OK.00:34:17XochitlWith me, you know.00:34:18JackYeah, yeah, I absolutely, absolutely. And in the Korean funeral, there's, you know, there's soju, which is an alcoholic drink is served pretty.00:34:31JackShould I say liberally? Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. And I think that maybe helps suppress some of the emotions, but.00:34:32발표자No problem.00:34:45JackYeah. Ultimately I I, I I found it to be a beautiful experience, even though it was a a tragic one, but.00:34:54JackYeah. I I yeah, maybe maybe there's something we can take away from each culture and, you know, put all the good parts together and and and have do it that way. You know, so.00:35:11JackYeah.00:35:12XochitlYou still have to let us know what few traditions are like in your home country. I'm really curious because I know there are some other cultures that also have extended like lakes and yeah, I'm just really curious to know how you guys celebrate the life of those who passed on or how you mourn. So make sure we just comment.00:35:30XochitlAnd below at A-Z englishpodcast.com shoot us an e-mail at at English podcast.00:35:34XochitlAt gmail.com.00:35:36XochitlAnd make sure to join the we chat on.00:35:40XochitlWhatsApp groups.00:35:41XochitlRemember the Jack and I are also having an English corner. Now that we do Monday to Friday and that is for one hour in the morning for me and in the evening Jack's time. So you'll have to message Jack directly to get the details.00:35:56XochitlBut yeah, it's only $10 USD a month and you get 20 classes, so that's pretty good. $0.50 a class. Yeah, and it's just really great. You get to converse and we we have topics like these that we talk about and it's just really nice environment friendly environment in there.00:36:04JackYeah.00:36:14JackYeah, very friendly, yeah.00:36:17XochitlAll right. See you. Thank you. Bye. Bye, bye.00:36:18발표자Bye.00:36:19JackOK.Podcast Website:Social Media:WeChat: atozenglishpodcastFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/671098974684413/Tik Tok: @atozenglish1Instagram: @atozenglish22Twitter: @atozenglish22A to Z Facebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/theatozenglishpodcastCheck out our You Tube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCds7JR-5dbarBfas4Ve4h8ABecome a member of Podchaser and leave a positive review!https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-a-to-z-english-podcast-4779670Join our Whatsapp group: https://forms.gle/zKCS8y1t9jwv2KTn7Intro/Outro Music: Debora by Jangwahttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Dilating_Times/single/debora/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-a-to-z-english-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Paul says it is a "gift" to be single...but does it really feel that way? Does God actually call people to singleness? What do you do if you are single but still have a strong desire to get married?In today's episode, Pastor Jackie and Pastor Derek talk through the concept of singleness. In American churches today, it can seem like many ministries are geared towards couples and families, but what is the role of a Christian who is single? Better yet, what is the role of a Christian who is CALLED to be single, at least for a season? We dig through Scripture to find examples of godly people who were called to singleness and what that can look like in our world today. We also look at how single people who still desire to get married should approach relationships and the kingdom of God.The 17:17 podcast is a ministry of Roseville Baptist Church (MN) that seeks to tackle cultural issues and societal questions from a biblical worldview so that listeners discover what the Bible has to say about the key issues they face on a daily basis. The 17:17 podcast seeks to teach the truth of God's Word in a way that is glorifying to God and easy to understand with the hope of furthering God's kingdom in Spirit and in Truth. Scriptures: 1 Cor. 7:7-9; Matt. 19:11-12; Jer. 16:1-2; 2 Kings 20:18; Neh. 1:11; 1 Cor. 7:32-35; 2 Cor. 11:23-28; Jer. 15:16-17; Luke 2:36-37; Matt. 3:1-4; Matt. 8:20; Phil. 4:11-13; Prov. 18:22; 2 Cor. 6:14; Prov. 21:9.If you'd like access to our show notes, please visit www.rosevillebaptist.com/1717podcast to see them in Google Drive!Please listen, subscribe, rate, and review the podcast so that we can reach to larger audiences and share the truth of God's Word with them!Write in your own questions to be answered on the show at 1717pod@gmail.com.  God bless!

TRIGGER WARNING - this past week, I made a post that sparked some controversy. With so much at stake and ultimately the direction of our country, we speak out on what we beleive. Make no mistake, we think most politicians (like 99.9%) are corrupt. In American politics, both parties rely on each other to stay in power. Neither party represents the best interest of the American people, only the party's self-preservation. Hence, the Uniparty. Republicans, Democrats, they're basically the same thing. As Mr. P points out, what's the difference in Mitch McConnel and Chuck Schumer? For decades it's been the same thing. So, what will it take to change? How do we move forward in a positive direction? We discuss our thoughts and why it's of utmost importance that We, The People, get involved to fix our problems. No longer can we be silent and submissive to a government that does not serve our interests. I expect this episode will cause controversy, and that's ok. In fact, that's the point. 

The title of this episode is actually an old German phrase. To take a walk to Canossa means to humble oneself to the point of even begging for forgiveness. In American parlance, we say “eating crow.” Where did this come from, this phrase about humbling oneself? Listen and find out. If there was a list of the top five most definitive moments of the entire Middle Ages, what happens on this episode would certainly make it. Members-Only Series on Patreon: For only a dollar per month, you can hear multiple varying stories and storylines so far through the 11th century. Every dime donated will be put directly back into the show, so I hope you consider becoming a Patreon member!  Just follow this link to our Patreon page to peruse the right “subscription” for you: https://www.patreon.com/FortunesWheelPodcast.  Social Media: YouTube Page: Fortune's Wheel Podcast Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/fortunes.wheel.3  Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/WheelPodcast  Music: Music for this episode is called “Cutting Edge” from the talented artist Hemlock!Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/hemlock/cutting-edge License code: Y0ZLEPLIZYV2RTMJ

At the Watson Institute, the beginning of summer means commencement festivities, moving trucks, and bittersweet goodbyes. In American politics, the beginning of summer means something very different: the approach of the Supreme Court's summer recess and, with it, the handing down of the Court's final decisions from this term. This year's cases will have profound effects on the 2024 election, gun rights, reproductive rights, and more. While it's nothing new for the Supreme Court to weigh in on contentious issues in society, as our guest on this episode sees it, something profound has shifted within the Court over the last few years. The decisions they hand down are not only increasingly transformative, they're also lining up more and more clearly with our partisan politics. And no matter your politics, that should be a problem. Kate Shaw is a constitutional law scholar and professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a 2001 graduate of Brown University. She is also the co-host of the podcast “Strict Scrutiny,” which explores the Supreme Court — the cases, the people and the culture surrounding it. On this episode, Dan Richards spoke with her about how the Supreme Court fits in our politics today, how that role has changed over time, and what Kate thinks its role in our society today should be.Subscribe to Trending Globally wherever you listen to podcasts. Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny wherever you listen to podcasts.Transcript coming soon to our website.

In American culture, hustle and hard work are intermixed and accepted as mutually exclusive which is costing us more than we realize. This episode differentiates the two and shares an effective way to permanently liberate yourself from hustle culture and succeed with fun and flow! Get ready to take notes! Grow with Fun & Flow Challenge: (enrollment closes May 5th, 2024) https://limitlessliving.cohere.live/contribution-view/6625de5375a72950293696dd/p_dcfa5360-9178-4b7b-b5dc-8998bbeb8bc2/about Inquire about Kari's 1:1 coaching program, Limitless Leaders: https://limitlesslivinglifeandfitness.com/life-coaching-application/ Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/karithefuncoach/

Have you read the headlines lately, scanned social media or watched the latest offerings on Netflix, Prime and Hulu? It is a veritable Predictive Programming field day. Over on the Tucker Carlson Show, Ron Paul warned of an upcoming ‘Black Swan' event that will be devastating. And I haven't even mentioned the thousands of illegal aliens the Biden administration allows in every week that are right now storming our southern border. Looks like there may be more than one ‘swan' that is about to be released, and what about Donald Trump? What about Israel? Black Swans everywhere you look. On this episode of the NTEB Prophecy News Podcast, the New World Order has spent the last 12 or so months reloading, and by all accounts, are getting ready to take another shot. The current geopolitical climate is super-charged and red hot no matter where you look. Israel, Russia, Ukraine, China, American troops in Taiwan, Emmanuel Macron clamouring for war in Europe, no respite anywhere you look. In American, the presumptive Republican nominee for president Donald Trump is on the edge of being put out of business, and possibly, being placed behind bars. We have never seen anything like what the global theater is playing, the air is crackling with end times electricity. Today we show you some mind-blowing things ‘hidden things' that are actually hiding in plain sight. Welcome to Day 1,467 of 15 Days To Flatten The Curve, this Podcast will not disappoint!

In American culture the word love can be overused, seem trite, and easily misused. Biblical love, on the other hand, is love as exemplified in the life of Christ and how he selflessly cared for the souls around Him.  In today's episode, Janet and Jocelyn discuss how biblical love cares for the souls of others by making it easy for them to pursue righteousness.  Episode Transcript⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Resources Books The Gospel Primer - Milton Vincent Podcasts The Hesed Love of God - Joyful Journey Podcast Demonstrating Hesed Love - Joyful Journey Podcast Website Restoration Men's Ministry  Visit the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Joyful Journey website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to sign up for our newsletter, view a transcript, and search previous episodes. Emails us with questions or comments at joyfuljourneyquestions@outlook.com ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate to Joyful Journey Podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Joyful Journey Podcast is a ministry of Faith Bible Seminary. All proceeds go to offset costs of this podcast and toward scholarships for women to receive their⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ MABC through Faith Bible Seminary⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

This episode is an overview of a recent contribution to a publication from the Hoover Institute written by Tom Vander Ark. This publication takes a look at the shift from print to digital in light of the 40th anniversary of A Nation At Risk. This era marked a shift from information scarcity to abundance, a shift from searching to sorting. It changed what, how, and where people learn, and not always for the better. In American schools, the shift to digital learning was gradual, uneven, often chaotic, expensive, and, while there was observed improvement in engagement, largely ineffective at boosting traditional outcomes.  The shift to digital learning was marked by four phases: computers in the back of the room, introduction of the World Wide Web, the rise of blended learning, and remote learning. The rise of generative AI in 2022 marks a new era of human-computer interaction.   Links: View Publication  A Nation at Risk +40 | A Review of Progress in US Public Education AI for Education Publication Amanda Bickerstaff on AI for Education Bodo Hoenen on Generative AI for Curriculum Charles Fadel on Education and Competencies for the Age of AI

In American presidential politics, the starting gun has been fired in Iowa and former president Donald Trump has won the caucus convincingly. The real battle was for second place and an alternative to Trump. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took a narrow lead over former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Frank Lavin joins Christiane from Iowa to discuss these results, and New Hampshire's primary next week.  Also on today's show: Ecuador President Daniel Noboa; columnist Zeynep Tufekci  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SynopsisToday's date marks the birthday of American composer and educator Gardner Read, who was born in Evanston, Illinois, in 1913.Read studied music at Northwestern University, then at the Eastman School, where his teachers included Howard Hanson and Bernard Rogers. He also studied with Aaron Copland and Italian modernist composer Ildebrando Pizzetti. Read became a noted teacher himself and held posts in St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland and Boston. His Symphony No. 1 was premiered by John Barbirolli and won first prize at the New York Philharmonic Society's American Composers' Contest. He wrote four symphonies in all, as well as other orchestral, choral and chamber works and a significant body of works for or with pipe organ.In 1978, musicologist Nicolas Slonimsky wrote: “In American music, the name of Gardner Read is synonymous with the best traditions of modern classicism and inspired romanticism. ... To the musical analyst, it presents a technical interest as well, for in his use of the multicolored palette of modern instrumentation, Gardner Read offers fascinating examples of organized sonorities. The substance of his compositions is infinitely varied; he is a true Renaissance man, working in many different genres without prejudice and achieving his objectives with impeccable taste.”Music Played in Today's ProgramGardner Read (1913-2005): Allegro scherzando, from Symphony No. 4 (Cleveland Orchestra; Lorin Maazel, cond.) New World 742

Thursday, December 14th, 2023   Juliet Hooker is the author of Black Grief/White Grievance: The Politics of Loss and the Royce Family Professor of Teaching Excellence in Political Science at Brown University. We talk about how racism has narrowed the political imagination of both black and white citizens.   In American politics and democracy, neither side is supposed to win all the time. Losing is a fundamental part of democracy, and does not make the losers victims. In a multiracial democracy, having a president or any other elected representative who is not white should not be a big deal. Democratic cultures need to be inclusive, and the nuts and bolts work of “repairing” democracy should be equally distributed among the body politic.   Follow Juliet on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/creoleprof   Follow Mila on Twitter:  https://twitter.com/milaatmos    Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Love Future Hindsight? Take our Listener Survey!  http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=6tI0Zi1e78vq&ver=standard    Take the Democracy Group's Listener Survey! https://www.democracygroup.org/survey   Want to support the show and get it early?  https://patreon.com/futurehindsight    Check out the Future Hindsight website!  www.futurehindsight.com   Read the transcript here:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/episodes/black-grief/white-grievance-juliet-hooker      Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Dr. Juliet Hooker Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

Click here for the full interview with Matt Taibbi: https://open.substack.com/pub/usefulidiots/p/matt-taibbi-reacts-to-dems-prison?r=je5va&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web For $5 a month, become a Useful Idiot! Get extended interviews, Thursday Throwdowns, and chat live with Katie and Aaron in the Absurd Arena at http://usefulidiots.substack.com Or find us on Locals at http://usefulidiots.locals.com Join the Absurd Arena live chat with Katie and Aaron every Tuesday at 12pm est at https://usefulidiots.substack.com/chat Watch this week's Thursday Throwdown: "Arm Taiwan to the teeth (for peace)" https://open.substack.com/pub/usefulidiots/p/arm-taiwan-to-the-teeth-for-peace?r=je5va&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web If you thought beef with Elon Musk and threats of imprisonment from Congress would stop Matt Taibbi from breaking more of “the biggest story” of his career, you underestimate the power of a Useful Idiot: Matt returned to the show this week to drop an explosive new Twitter Files. What he and journalists Matt Orfalea and Andrew Lowenthal uncovered was Project Osprey, Twitter's secretive method of categorizing threats to the establishment as Russian agents. Twitter had two different algorithmic lists of Russians: “A Priori Russians” and “Inferred Russians,” the latter including presidential candidate Jill Stein and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. “It's another example,” Matt explains, “of how there's lots of stuff in the Twitter Files that if the quote unquote “left” cared, there's stuff pertaining to them.” The reports consistently show collaboration between media companies, private corporations, and the US government to control a narrative of information and censor whatever doesn't fit into it. As Collusion author (and “Buzzsaw” victim) Luke Harding wrote in his Orwellian view of the future of journalism: “Rivalry between media titles is a thing of the past. The future is collaboration, the hunt for evidence a shared endeavor.” Matt translates: “What these people are really talking about when they're making decisions about content, it's not just a First Amendment violation, it's not just an antitrust violation, it's a complete demolition of the whole model of how democracy is supposed to work.” And this, not Hunter Biden's penis, is the underlying theme of all the Twitter Files: “It's this collaboration between a tightly-knit group of insiders who have decided that they're gonna do this thing together without the input of the public.” For all the unprecedented revelations of government censorship and control, Matt can't understand why no one in the mainstream media seems to care about the story: “In American history there's never been a story like this.” Watch the full interview with Matt Taibbi where he responds to the infamous Mehdi Hasan interview, spills some Elon gossip, and reports on a story you won't hear in corporate media: the indictment of four U.S. citizens accused of being Russian agents for speaking out against the US government. It makes us wonder who's next. Plus, watch this week's Thursday Throwdown: "Arm Taiwan to the teeth (for peace)" And join the Absurd Arena live discussion board with Katie and Aaron every Tuesday at 12pm est in the Substack app. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices