Podcasts about inspectors

What does it mean to guide someone through one of the most vulnerable moments of their life? What does it take to plan how bus riders get around? What’s it like to walk into restaurants looking for what others might miss?   We’re back with the latest stories from “At Work With,” our series where we interview people from different lines of work about what it’s like to do what they do. In this episode, we meet a doula supporting families through birth, a transit planner at TriMet, and a county health inspector making sure food is safe to eat.    We’re always open to new ideas for jobs that we can learn about next! If you’ve got a suggestion, email us at theevergreen@opb.org.  - For more episodes of The Evergreen, and to share your voice with us, visit our show page. Follow OPB on Instagram, and follow host Jenn Chávez too. You can sign up for OPB’s newsletters to get what you need in your inbox regularly.   Don’t forget to check out our many podcasts, which can be found on any of your favorite podcast apps:HushTimber Wars Season 2: Salmon WarsPolitics NowThink Out Loud And many more! Check out our full show list here.

Headlines:The Trump Administration sanctioned the International Criminal Court's president and top lawyer over their egregious, corrupt, politicized conduct.The United Arab Emirates suspended all trade and financial transactions with Iran after Tehran fired two ballistic missiles at the gulf country on Tuesday.Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency began excavating a suspected secret nuclear site run by the former Assad regime in Syria. --FDD Executive Director Jon Schanzer provides timely situational updates and analysis, followed by a conversation with Anna Borshchevskaya of the Washington Institute.Learn more at: https://www.fdd.org/fddmorningbrief

In this episode, Reuben Saltzman and Tessa Murry are joined by Andrew Harshman of AJF Inspections in Arizona to discuss builder workmanship inspections and the growing demand for detailed inspections of new construction homes. They explore Arizona's workmanship standards for licensed contractors, how these inspections differ from traditional home inspections, and why homeowners are requesting a closer look at cosmetic and construction defects. Andrew explains how his company structures these inspections, the importance of documenting defects within warranty periods, specialized inspection tools, pricing considerations, builder restrictions, and how inspection companies can create a specialized service around new construction standards.Here's the link to Inspector Empire Builder:https://www.iebcoaching.com/eventsTakeawaysBuilder workmanship inspections are more detailed than traditional home inspections and focus heavily on cosmetic defects and construction standards.Arizona has workmanship standards for licensed contractors covering areas such as HVAC, electrical, cabinets, concrete, landscaping, and more.Some defects must be documented within specific periods, including a 10-day window for certain issues, a one-year window for others, and broader two-year warranty coverage.A separate workmanship report helps distinguish standards-based findings from recommendations typically included in a regular home inspection report.These inspections can take two to three times longer than traditional inspections because inspectors document many additional details and cosmetic issues.Common findings include damaged surfaces, stucco issues, landscaping concerns, improperly positioned light switches, tile problems, shower surround gaps, and electrical equipment that is not level, plumb, or true.Inspectors may use specialized tools such as gap gauges, tile-tapping tools, and levels to identify workmanship issues that might otherwise be overlooked.Homeowners should understand that builder workmanship inspections are an additional level of service and are not necessarily included in a standard new construction inspection.Training a dedicated team and using a separate report template can help inspection companies maintain consistency and efficiency.Builder restrictions may limit what inspectors can inspect before the homeowner takes ownership, so these limitations should be clearly communicated and documented.The key takeaway: Builder workmanship inspections can provide significant value for new construction homeowners, but inspectors need clear standards, proper training, specialized tools, and a well-defined scope of service.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Welcome to the Show01:42 Introducing Andrew Harshman of AJF Inspections02:04 Andrew's Background and How He Became a Home Inspector03:47 What Is Launchpad?05:28 Finding Andrew Harshman Online05:51 Why Arizona Is Driving the Builder Workmanship Discussion06:51 Arizona's Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors08:19 Warranty Periods and Why Documentation Matters09:23 Blue Tape Inspections vs. Regular Home Inspections10:31 Creating a Separate Builder Workmanship Inspection Report11:38 Comparing Arizona's Standards to Minnesota12:08 The Role of the Registrar of Contractors13:27 Types of New Construction and Warranty Inspections14:53 Pricing Builder Workmanship Inspections15:24 What Is a Builder Workmanship Inspection?16:22 Educating Clients About the Additional Service17:44 Combining New Construction and Warranty Inspections18:37 Why Homeowners Are Requesting Workmanship Inspections19:17 Detailed Standards and Nitpicky Inspection Findings20:43 Do Inspectors Enjoy Doing Builder Workmanship Inspections?21:04 The Challenges and Benefits of Detailed Inspections23:07 Building a Specialized Workmanship Inspection Team24:37 Separate Report Templates for Workmanship Standards25:36 Why Keeping the Workmanship Report Separate Matters26:14 Should a Home Inspector Perform the Workmanship Inspection?27:14 Applying Broad Workmanship Standards to Additional Defects28:40 Using Specialized Tools to Measure Construction Defects29:19 How Builders Respond to Detailed Workmanship Inspections30:10 Electrical Equipment, Levelness, and Acceptable Tolerances31:20 Why New Construction Homes Aren't Always Perfect32:07 Managing Two Inspection Templates During an Inspection32:37 Training Inspectors to Know the Workmanship Standards33:26 Documenting Issues That Fall Outside Specific Standards34:14 How Many Clients Choose the Workmanship Inspection?35:13 The Value of Clearly Defining Inspection Services36:20 The Growing Market for Cosmetic Inspection Services37:06 Creating Workmanship Standards for Different Builders37:37 Builder Restrictions and Communicating Inspection Limitations38:56 Specialized Tools and Techniques for Detailed Inspections40:01 Closing Thoughts and Where to Find Andrew Harshman41:02 Final Thoughts and Listener Feedback

Angela DiFulvio explains a theoretical method for detecting nuclear weapons in low Earth orbit to prevent catastrophes like the 1962 Starfish Prime experiment, which destroyed a third of existing satellites. She describes an "inspector" satellite designed to induce a unique radioactive signature from fissile material using high-energy protons. DiFulvio details technical challenges, such as "pulse shape discrimination," to distinguish weapon-related neutrons from background cosmic radiation in the harsh space environment. She suggests that an international agency like the IAEAmight oversee these inspectors to ensure space remains weapon-free. DiFulvio emphasizes that while tests can occur in classified environments, more research is needed on the survivability of sensing electronics. She warns that a modern orbital nuclear detonation would be catastrophic for global infrastructure, specifically mentioning the vulnerability of massive constellations like Starlink. (8)

Today's sponsor - hims.com/ThatUFOInspector Roy Teague is a serving UK police officer, researcher and author of Close Encounters of the Police Kind, a collection of UFO and unexplained encounters reported by British police officers.Roy joins me to discuss what he learned from speaking with hundreds of serving and former officers, why so many witnesses stayed silent for years, how police training can affect the way unusual incidents are observed and reported, and the continuing stigma surrounding the UFO subject in the UK.We also get into some of the cases that stood out during his research, including an extraordinary RAF radar incident from 1993, sightings involving police helicopters, how an unusual report would actually be handled by police today, and why Britain remains so reluctant to engage publicly with the UAP issue.A grounded conversation about witness testimony, evidence, stigma and what may be going unreported in UK skies.Close Encounters of the Police Kind is available now.

Les Misérables by Victor Hugo单词提示1.Monsieur 先生2.Inspector 探长原文Chapter 2: FantineNow we meet Fantine.She is young and beautiful and in love with a man in Paris, but she has no family and no money.For Fantine, this is the love of her life.For the man in Paris, it is just a summer of love.Men are not kind to women, they have their fun and then they walk away.The man in Paris goes home to his rich family and leaves poor Fantine, and with a child, a little girl called Cosette.Fantine must find work, but how?Fantine has a child but no husband, and a woman without a husband is nothing, worse than nothing.People are not kind to a woman with a child but no husband.They turn their faces away, they close their doors, they say there's no work here for a woman like you.Fantine loves her daughter dearly, but what can she do?So in 1818, in a village near Paris, she leaves her little daughter with Monsieur and Madame Thenardier.They ask for 7 francs a month.Fantine pays the money, holds her daughter in her arms for the last time, and leaves.She takes the road for her home town of Montroy,and tears are running down her face.There is misery in her heart. Poor Fantine, poor Cosette.In Montroy, Fantinefinds work in a factory.This is the factory of Monsieur Madeleine, an important man in the town and very rich.Everybody likes him, because he is a good man.He is kind to his workers, he helps people,and his factory gives many jobs to the townspeople.But who is he, this Monsieur Madeleine?Where did he come from?He arrived in Montroy at the end of 1815,but nobody knows his family or anything about him.Fantine sent money every month to the Thenardiers.They were not good people, and they used the money for their own daughters.Poor little Cosette was a hungry, dirty,unloved child.She worked all day, she cleaned the house,she carried water, she washed the clothes.But Fantine knew nothing of this, and she worked long hours to make money for Cosette.The next year, the Thenardiers asked for 12 francs a month.The year after that, they wanted 15 francs.Then Fantine lost her job at the factory because the women did not like her. “She has achild in a village somewhere near Paris.”“Yes, and where's her husband.”“She doesn't have one.”“We don't want that kind of woman here. She must go.”Fantine found work making shirts.It was hard work for little money.She was often ill with a small dry cough.The Thenardiers wrote again, “Your daughter needs a warm dress for winter, send 10 francs at once.”Fantine did not have 10 francs.She thought long and hard, and went to the barber in the town.She took off her hat, and her golden hair fell down her back.“That's beautiful hair,” said the barber.“What can you give me for it?”“10 francs.”“Then cut it off.”She sent the money to the Thenardiers.“My daughter's not cold now,” she thought, “She'swearing my hair.”Soon, another letter came from the Thenardiers,“Send 100 francs, or Cosette must leave our house.”100 francs? How can a poor woman get that kind of money? There was only one way.One cold winter evening, outside a restaurant in the center of Montroy, a woman walked up and down.There was snow on the ground, but the woman wore an evening dress with flowers in her hair.Some young men came out of the restaurant,saw her, and began to call her bad names.They laughed and shouted, but the woman did not look at them.Then one young then took some snow and put it down the back of the woman's dress.The woman was Fantine.She gave a cry, turned, and hit the young man's face with her hands.People came to watch, laughing.A tall policeman arrived, took the woman by the arm and pulled her away.“Come with me,” he said.This policeman was Inspector Javert.He was new to Montroy, and he was a hard man.To him, the law was the only important thing in life.He hated criminals.The law in France at that time was not kind to women like Fantine.Javert took Fantine to the office of police.“You hit a man in the street and that's a crime,” He told her, “You're getting six months.”“Six months in prison?” Fantine cried, “no,I'm not a bad woman, monsieur, please, I must work. I need the money for my little daughter. Please, please don't send me to prison.”She fell to the floor crying.“Take her away,” Javert said to a policeman.“One moment, please,” said a new voice.Everybody turned to look at the door, and there stood the good, the great Monsieur Madeleine.He was an important man in Montroy.“Inspector,” he said, “I was outside the restaurant, too. And I can tell you the true story.”“The young man began the fight, and this poor woman,” he looked at Fantine on the floor, “must go free. She did nothing wrong.”“The woman is a criminal,” said Javert angrily.“She must go free,” said Monsieur Madeleine,“Ask the other people at the restaurant. We all saw the same thing.”Fontain stood up slowly, she began to cough,a hard dry noise.Monsieur Madeleine took her arm gently.“My dear child, you are not well,” he said.Javert's cold eyes stared at Monsieur Madeleine.“Do I know you from somewhere?” he said, “Were you ever at Toulon?”Monsieur Madeleine looked at him.His face did not change, but his eyes were suddenly very watchful.“No, I don't know Toulon.” he said.Monsieur Madeleine took Fantine to the little hospital in Montroy.She lay in bed and coughed and coughed.Monsieur Madeleine listened to her sad story, and the next day he sent money to the Thenardiers.“Now you must get better,” he told Fantine, “Cosette needs you.”But Fantine did not get better.She was now very ill, and five days later the doctor spoke to Monsieur Madeleine.“Does she have a child, this poor woman?”He said, “Yes, a small daughter.”“You must bring the child here soon.”Monsieur Madeleine went to sit by Fountain's bed.“Monsieur madeleine, you are so kind to me. I want to see my daughter one last time.Please, can you? Bring Cosette to me, please, monsieur.”Monsieur Madeleine took her hand.“Of course, I can,” he said gently.And then, the door of the room suddenly opened behind him, and Fantine cried out “No, monsieur.”Madeleine looked round quickly.InspectorJavert came into the room with four policemen.“Jean Valjean, prisoner at Toulon, I am arresting you,” Javert said, “After you left the prison, you stole money from a child in Toulon. You are still a thief, and now you must go to prison for life.”Fantine sat up in bed.“No,” she cried, “Cosette!”Monsieur Madeleine stood up slowly.“Inspector, give me three days.” He said.He was a big man, much bigger than Javert.“Three days to bring this poor woman's child to her before she dies, then you can take me.”Javert laughed loudly, “Three days, you're going to run away?”Behind the two men, Fantine cried out, “Monsieur Madeleine, please take care of Cosette. Please.”Javert turn to her, “Be quiet, woman,there's no Monsieur Madeleine here. This man is a criminal called Jean Valjean,and he's going to prison.”Fantine stared at Javert and tried to speak,but she could not.She fell back in the bed and lay still. She was dead.The people of Montroy talked about that day for a long time, the death of the woman Fantine,the arrest of Monsieur Madeleine.Javert put Monsieur Madeleine in a locked room in the police office, but in the night, he broke down the door and escaped.Where did he go? Did he go to his house in the town?His old servant said “no”, she saw nobody and heard nothing.She said she loved Monsieur Madeleine very much.So where did Monsieur Madeleine go?Nobody in Montroy saw him again.One thing was certain.In Monsieur Madeleine's house, there were two beautiful old silver candlesticks.The next day they were gone.翻译第二章：芳汀现在，我们来认识芳汀。她年轻貌美，在巴黎与一个男人坠入爱河，但她没有家人，也没有钱。对芳汀来说，这是她一生的挚爱；但对那个巴黎男人而言，这不过是一场夏日恋情罢了。男人们对待女人并不仁慈，他们寻欢作乐之后，便一走了之。那个巴黎男人回到了他富有的家族，留下了可怜的芳汀，以及他们的孩子——一个名叫珂赛特的小女孩。芳汀必须找到工作，可她能怎么办呢？芳汀有个孩子却没有丈夫，而在那个时代，没有丈夫的女人什么都不是，甚至比什么都不是还要不堪。人们对带着孩子却没有丈夫的女人毫不留情。他们对她冷眼相待，对她紧闭大门，还会说：“像你这样的女人，我们这儿没有工作。”芳汀深爱着她的女儿，可她又能做些什么呢？于是，在1818年，在巴黎附近的一个村庄里，她把小女儿托付给了德纳第夫妇。他们要求每个月付7法郎。芳汀付了钱，最后一次将女儿紧紧抱在怀里，然后转身离开。她踏上了返回故乡蒙特勒伊的路，泪水顺着脸颊不断滑落。她的心中充满了无尽的苦难。可怜的芳汀，可怜的珂赛特。在蒙特勒伊，芳汀在一家工厂找到了工作。这家工厂的老板是马德兰先生，他是镇上的大人物，非常富有。大家都很喜欢他，因为他是个大好人。他对工人们很仁慈，乐于助人，而且他的工厂为镇上的许多人提供了工作。可是，这位马德兰先生究竟是谁？他又从何而来？他是在1815年底来到蒙特勒伊的，但没有人知道他的身世，对他一无所知。芳汀每个月都会按时寄钱给德纳第夫妇。可他们并非善类，竟把芳汀寄来的钱全用在了自己亲生女儿的身上。可怜的小珂赛特成了一个挨饿、肮脏、无人疼爱的孩子。她整天干活，打扫屋子，提水，洗衣服。但芳汀对此一无所知，她只能拼命工作，为珂赛特多挣些钱。第二年，德纳第夫妇要求每月寄12法郎。再往后一年，他们又要15法郎。后来，芳汀失去了工厂的工作，因为厂里的女工们不喜欢她。“她有个孩子，寄养在巴黎附近的某个村子里。”“是啊，可她丈夫在哪儿呢？”“她没有丈夫。”“我们这儿不想要那种女人。她必须走人。”芳汀只好靠做衬衫来谋生。活儿很累，挣的钱却很少。她经常生病，总是干咳不止。德纳第夫妇又写信来：“你女儿冬天需要一件暖和的裙子，马上寄10法郎来。”芳汀拿不出10法郎。她思前想后，最终走进了镇上的理发店。她摘下帽子，一头金发垂落在背上。“多漂亮的头发啊，”理发师说。“这头发你能给我多少钱？”“10法郎。”“那就剪了吧。”她把换来的钱寄给了德纳第夫妇。“我的女儿现在不会挨冻了，”她想，“她穿着我的头发呢。”没过多久，德纳第夫妇又来信了：“寄100法郎来，不然珂赛特就得滚出我们家。”100法郎？一个穷苦女人上哪儿去弄这么一大笔钱？只剩下最后一条路了。在一个寒冷的冬夜，蒙特勒伊市中心的一家餐馆外，一个女人正来回踱步。地上满是积雪，可她却穿着晚礼服，头上还戴着花。几个年轻男人从餐馆里走出来，看见她，便开始用下流的话辱骂她。他们又笑又叫，但那个女人连看都没看他们一眼。接着，其中一个年轻男人抓起一把雪，顺着那个女人的衣领塞进了她的后背。那个女人正是芳汀。她惊叫一声，转过身，一巴掌狠狠打在那个年轻男人的脸上。人们围过来看热闹，哈哈大笑。这时，一个高大的警察走了过来，一把抓住女人的胳膊，将她拉开。“跟我走。”他说。这个警察是沙威警长。他刚到蒙特勒伊不久，是个冷酷无情的人。在他看来，法律是生命中唯一重要的东西。他痛恨罪犯。而当时法国的法律，对芳汀这样的女人是毫不留情的。沙威把芳汀带到了警察局。“你在大街上打了一个男人，这是犯罪，”他告诉她，“你要被判六个月的监禁。”“六个月？”芳汀哭喊道，“不，我不是坏女人，先生，求求您，我必须工作。我需要钱养活我的小女儿。求求您，千万别把我送进监狱。”她倒在地上痛哭起来。“把她带走。”沙威对另一名警察说。“请等一下。”一个陌生的声音响起。所有人都转头看向门口，只见那位善良、伟大的马德兰先生正站在那里。他是蒙特勒伊的显要人物。“警长，”他说，“我当时也在餐馆外面。我可以告诉你事情的真相。”“是那个年轻人先挑起事端的，而这个可怜的女人，”他看了一眼倒在地上的芳汀，“必须被释放。她没有任何过错。”“这个女人是个罪犯！”沙威愤怒地说。“她必须被释放，”马德兰先生说，“去问问餐馆里的其他人吧。我们大家看到的都是一样的。”芳汀慢慢站起身，开始剧烈地咳嗽，发出沉闷干涩的声音。马德兰先生温柔地扶住她的胳膊。“我可怜的孩子，你身体不好。”他说。沙威冰冷的双眼死死盯着马德兰先生。“我是不是在哪儿见过你？”他说，“你以前去过土伦吗？”马德兰先生看着他。他的面庞毫无波澜，但眼神突然变得极度警觉。“不，我不知道什么土伦。”他说。马德兰先生把芳汀送到了蒙特勒伊的小医院。她躺在床上，不停地咳嗽。马德兰先生听完了她悲惨的身世，第二天便派人把钱寄给了德纳第夫妇。“现在你必须好起来，”他告诉芳汀，“珂赛特需要你。”但芳汀并没有好转。她的病情已经非常严重了，五天后，医生对马德兰先生说：“这个可怜的女人有孩子吗？”“有，一个小女儿。”“你必须尽快把孩子接来。”马德兰先生走到芳汀的床边坐下。“马德兰先生，您对我太好了。我想再看一眼我的女儿。求求您，您能办到吗？把珂赛特带到我身边来吧，先生。”马德兰先生握住她的手。“我当然能办到。”他温和地说。就在这时，身后的房门突然被猛地推开，芳汀惊叫一声：“不，先生！”马德兰先生迅速回过头。沙威警长带着四名警察走进了房间。“冉阿让，土伦的囚犯，我现在逮捕你，”沙威说，“你出狱后，在土伦偷了一个孩子的钱。你依然是个贼，现在你必须被判终身监禁。”芳汀在床上猛地坐直身子。“不！”她哭喊道，“珂赛特！”马德兰先生缓缓站起身。“警长，给我三天时间。”他说。他是个大块头，比沙威高大得多。“给我三天时间，让我把这个可怜女人的孩子带到她面前，等她见上最后一面，你再抓我。”沙威放声大笑：“三天？你是打算趁机逃跑吗？”在两个男人身后，芳汀哭喊道：“马德兰先生，求您照顾珂赛特。求求您了。”沙威转过头对她吼道：“闭嘴，女人！这里没有什么马德兰先生。这个人是个叫冉阿让的罪犯，他马上就要进监狱了。”芳汀死死盯着沙威，试图开口说话，却发不出一点声音。她重重地倒回床上，再也没有动弹。她死了。蒙特勒伊的人们谈论那一天谈了很久很久，谈论着芳汀的死，以及马德兰先生被捕的事。沙威把马德兰先生关在警察局的一间密室里，但在夜里，他撞破房门逃跑了。他去了哪里？他回镇上的家了吗？他的老女仆说“没有”，她什么也没看见，什么也没听见。她说她非常敬爱马德兰先生。那么，马德兰先生到底去了哪里？蒙特勒伊再也没有人见过他。但有一件事是肯定的。在马德兰先生的家里，原本放着两只漂亮的老银烛台。第二天，它们就不见了。

What happens when the people trained to observe, investigate and report the facts encounter something they simply cannot explain? In this episode of Pursuit of the Paranormal, we speak with Inspector Roy Teague about his new book, Close Encounters of the Police Kind, which explores extraordinary accounts of UFOs, UAP, strange lights and unexplained phenomena witnessed by serving and former British police officers. These aren't stories from anonymous internet posts. They come from people whose careers depended on observation, accuracy and giving reliable accounts of what they witnessed. We talk to Roy about some of the incredible cases featured in the book, why police officers have historically been reluctant to speak publicly about paranormal or UFO encounters, how these incidents were treated within the force, and whether attitudes towards UAP are finally beginning to change. We also ask the bigger question: when trained police witnesses report seeing something impossible, how seriously should we take their testimony?

Inspector's Diary: Don't Be This Type of Car Seller. In this episode, inspectors is looking into a dispute involving Salvatore Performance following concerns raised about Klavs inspection.Klavs report is viewable here: https://carexamer.com/inspection/1676... Independent inspector has been accused of leaving the vehicle faulty. Rather than trading accusations, we believe in evidence. We have reviewed the inspection findings, available records, communications and timeline to establish what actually happened. We have looked into concerns surrounding alleged activity from hidden or unidentified profiles and reviews reportedly left about our businesses by Salvatore Performance.

Inspector French of Scotland Yard embarks on a gripping investigation into a daring murder-heist case at Hatton Garden, tracing clues that lead him across Britain and into Europe. This thrilling narrative showcases the detective's relentless pursuit of justice, highlighting themes of perseverance and the intricacies of criminal investigation. The story's enduring appeal lies in its masterful blend of suspense and deduction, inviting listeners to engage with the timeless struggle between law enforcement and cunning criminals.

NOTUS reporter Jenny Gathright joined WAMU to discuss what the D.C. Inspector General called a "systemic breakdown" in MPD's crime data systems.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell chapter 35 "Expiation" narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on KO-FI and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:Mr. Thornton stays longer and longer with Mr. Hale, and wonders why Margaret has not returned, but stays interested in his conversation with her father. It is interesting how Mr. Hale is able to open up to Thornton; he can completely unburden his mind with his friend, and when Mr. Hale struggled to finish a sentence, Thornton is able to complete it for him. This conversation knits them together forever, even though they never speak of it again. In the study, Margaret is finally giving up carrying the weight she has carried all these months. She slowly wakes up with a little quivering lip, and then more slowly the rest of her body follows. She hardly remembers the conversation with the inspector, but know that she lied, and lied to protect her brother. If the Inspector comes before they hear from the Inspector, then she will lie again, but is uncertain of how this would come out. Dixon enters the room after letting out Mr. Thornton, who outside is stopped by the police inspector. The man was helped into the force by Mr. Thornton and seeing him leave the Hale residence, sparked his interest. It is revealed that Mr. Thornton was the magistrate who took down the last words of Leonards. The inspector tells him that a man told him that Miss Hale was seen with the man who pushed Leonards to his death, but Miss Hale denies her presence. This conversation troubles Thornton, and when he hears that there is likely to be an inquest, which would force Margaret to take the stand, he asks the inspector to hold off on interrogating Margaret again just yet, and to meet with him at his factor in an hour. Thornton then goes off to his home and locks himself in his office and tries to think about every detail of the night he saw Margaret and this strange man at the train station. After his self-interrogation, he determines, that he will protect Margaret, and writes a note to the Investigator saying that no inquest will be held, as the doctors said that Leonards had a preexisting medical condition that was exacerbated by his fall, and it was this that caused his death, and the drinking, and not the fall. At the Hale residence, inspector comes again after receiving a note from Thornton to tell Margaret that there will be no inquest. While waiting for the inspector to come, Margaret is forced by her father and Dixon to go to bed, as she is too tired and sick looking, but as she tells her father that he should not delay himself either, she hears a knock on the door, and flies down to open it for the inspector. In the office, the inspector tells Margaret that they is not going to be an inquest and that Mr. Thornton was the magistrate. This makes Margaret panic, and she is very confused as to why Thornton would protect her but is even more concerned about Mr. Thornton knowing her to be a liar. Once the Investigator leaves, Margaret goes to her room. She is thankful that all of this business relating to Frederick is over but tries to go over everything that the Inspector told her. Mr. Thornton had seen her on the platform, and he had been told that she denied her presence there. She has been degraded in his eyes. In the morning, she awakes late, and Dixon comes in to give her a letter from Fredrick which was sent 2 days ago saying he is safely out of England and that Mr Henry Lennox would try and protect him.SEO stuff I don't want to do. Elizabeth Gaskell's classic, "North and South" sees Margaret Hale's live uprooted as her family moves to the north of England. Initially disgusted by the ugliness of the industrial town of Milton, Margaret develops a strong sense of social justice after seeing the poverty and suffering of local mill workers.

Local restaurants have the opportunity to earn those coveted stars.

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell chapter 34 "False and True" narrated by Isaac BirchallSubscribe on YT or Join the Book Club on KO-FI and support me as an independent creator :D⁠https://ko-fi.com/theessentialreads⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfOFfvo05ElM96CmfsGsu3g/join⁠Summary:Margaret is having a very hard time dealing with her mother's passing. It weighs constantly on her mind and Frederick too, weighs heavy on her. Her father paces up and down the house constantly while waiting for word from Frederick saying he has safely left England. Mr Thornton comes to visit them a few days after the funeral. He rings Mr. Hales hand tenderly, and when he looks to Margaret, he sees a deep suffering on her face and sees that she isn't actually holding up well. Margaret leaves the two men to talk while she goes on with her needlework. Mr. Thornton is able to keep Mr. hale engaged in conversation, and Margaret is very thankful for this. Dixon then comes into the room looking worried and asking for Margaret. In Margaret's room, once the door is closed, Dixon tells her that a police inspector has come to see her and has been let into the her father's study. The inspector hasn't said anything and only wishes to talk to Margaret. In the study, the inspector greets Margaret, but is shocked by her haughtiness. The inspector tells her that the man Leonards passed away following a fall that he had at the Outward Station a few days before. The man was involved in a scuffle, following which Leonards fell. He tells her that someone claimed to have seen her at the station with that man that pushed Leonards. Margaret refutes this with a few curt words, not giving the inspector any emotion. Apparently a grocers assistant claimed that the woman with the man was miss Hale, but is not fully certain. After Leonards got up from his fall, he murmured something about making a telephone call and then wandered off. He fell down in the road and was then taken to the hospital unconscious; he never regained consciousness enough to be able to give a deposition to a magistrate. The inspector then asks Margaret again if she denies these claims, which she does, and though it sounds mechanical response which Margaret gave, but not knowing her enough, he does not question it further. Margaret, though not moving a muscle, is deeply hurt by her own lie. Gathering up his things, the Inspector says that if anything more comes from his questioning the other witnesses, then she may have to come to court, but again Margaret is unflinching. She leads the man to the door, and takes him out of the house, after shutting the door behind her, and going back into the study, locking this door too, she collapses on the floor. SEO stuff I don't want to do. Elizabeth Gaskell's classic, "North and South" sees Margaret Hale's live uprooted as her family moves to the north of England. Initially disgusted by the ugliness of the industrial town of Milton, Margaret develops a strong sense of social justice after seeing the poverty and suffering of local mill workers.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To watch a video version of this podcast, click here: https://youtu.be/FFgBErKxCHs In this episode, Reuben Saltzman and Tessa Murry tackle a question that's becoming increasingly common in the home inspection industry: Should home inspectors report cosmetic defects in new construction homes? From nail pops and scuff marks to drywall imperfections, they explore the growing expectations of homebuyers, the role of inspection standards, and whether inspectors should adapt their services to meet changing consumer demands. They also discuss builder performance guidelines, the balance between cosmetic concerns and material defects, and why this conversation could shape the future of new construction inspections TakeawaysHomebuyers are placing greater emphasis on cosmetic imperfections in new construction homes.Home inspectors must balance identifying material defects while managing client expectations.Cosmetic issues such as nail pops, scuffs, and minor drywall imperfections are becoming a frequent source of concern.Some inspection companies heavily document cosmetic defects, while others focus primarily on safety, performance, and structural issues.Inspectors should clearly communicate the scope and limitations of a home inspection before beginning.Industry standards of practice generally prioritize material defects over cosmetic concerns.The National Association of Home Builders' Residential Construction Performance Guidelines provide useful benchmarks for evaluating workmanship.Performance guidelines distinguish between acceptable cosmetic imperfections and warrantable defects.Many cosmetic defects are only considered excessive when visible under normal lighting from approximately six feet away.Builders may have their own warranty standards, making expectations vary from one company to another.Cosmetic walkthroughs could become an additional service offering, though they require significantly more inspection time.Thorough inspections should continue to prioritize issues affecting safety, functionality, durability, and performance.Client expectations continue to evolve, and inspection companies may need to adapt their services accordingly.Listening to feedback and analyzing recurring client concerns can help improve inspection processes.Ongoing conversations with builders and inspectors are essential for developing practical industry standards around cosmetic reporting.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Personal Updates04:19 Why Cosmetic Defects Are Becoming a Bigger Issue06:22 Comparing Home Inspection Reports on New Construction10:10 What Do Homebuyers Really Expect?12:09 Existing Standards and Builder Performance Guidelines17:10 Minnesota Statutes and Builder Responsibilities20:33 Understanding Cosmetic Performance Standards25:00 Builder Guidelines vs. Home Inspection Standards27:18 Should Inspectors Document Cosmetic Defects?31:27 Where Should Inspectors Draw the Line?35:30 Meeting Client Expectations Without Expanding Scope37:34 Looking Ahead: Continuing the Conversation

Clement Manyathela speaks to Orrin Singh, an Investigative Journalist with AmaBhungane about their revelation that shows how police minister Senzo Mchunu drew suspended Inspector General of Intelligence, Imtiaz Fazel into Crime Intelligence wars. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's poddy, we love to see it! Follow The Big Show on Instagram Subscribe to the podcast now on iHeartRadio, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts!Featuring Jason Hoyte, Mike Minogue, and Keyzie, "The Big Show" drive you home weekdays from 4pm on Radio Hauraki.Providing a hilarious escape from reality for those ‘backbone’ New Zealanders with plenty of laughs and out-the-gate yarns.Download the full podcast here:iHeartRadio Apple Spotify Follow The Big Show on InstagramSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

 The Guardians of the Highway: Inside the MTO Inspector Skills Competition What does it take to ensure safety on Ontario's roads? In this episode of the Lead Pedal Podcast, we go behind the scenes to explore the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Inspector Skills Competition. We discuss what these competitions entail, from rigorous vehicle inspection standards to legislative compliance, and why these events are critical for maintaining the high level of professionalism required to keep our highways safe. Join us for a deep dive into the technical challenges, the dedication of the officers involved, and the essential role they play in the trucking ecosystem. The Ministry of Transportation in Ontario is currently recruiting inspection officers.  At Bison – They Put Safety First! Bison's "Right to Decide" Policy gives every Driver their ultimate protection. Drivers make the final decision if it is safe to drive and Bison actively encourages Driver's use of this policy.    You can learn more about Bison and the opportunities available at www.bisondriving.com   or call 1-800-527-5781 @BisonTransport #bisontransport     Start Your Career on Solid Ground With Ontario Truck Driving School This episode is also sponsored by Ontario Truck Driving School which has a number of courses to help you be successful when starting a career in transportation from heavy equipment to over the road trucking. You can learn more about starting your career at www.otds.com   Improve the Compliance of Your Fleet With Compliance Mentorz Compliance Mentorz, a leading commercial safety consulting company, is proud to serve clients nationwide across Canada. But our commitment to safety and compliance doesn't stop at borders – we're excited to extend our support to clients throughout North America. Call 905-486-1666x215 or Learn more at www.compliancementorz.com                         About the Podcast The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers helps truck drivers improve their truck driving careers, trucking businesses as owner operators, CDL skills, find trucking jobs, and offer trucking career tips. Learn about the trucking benefits and salaries as a professional truck driver through interviews and tips related to the North American Trucking Industry. The Lead Pedal Podcast is a Canadian based trucking podcast focused on trucking in Ontario, Canada. LISTEN TO THE PODCAST- The show is available at www.theleadpedalpodcast.com , Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartradio, and other popular podcast platforms. Thanks for listening! The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers talks all things trucking for people in the transportation industry helping them improve their business and careers. Interviews with industry professionals and truck drivers, trucking equipment information, event coverage, and other features on the industry are meant to be helpful for truck drivers and those in transportation. The Lead Pedal Podcast for Truck Drivers has main episodes released every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with bonus material on other days. You can learn more about the host and show on our website and make sure to SUBSCRIBE to the show on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com  What does The Lead Pedal Podcast mean? The Lead (pronounced - Led) stands for acceleration or fast-track of your career or business. It is a play on words and we certainly are not here promoting speeding in the industry. We are hoping this information will help you become a professional driver faster than if you didn't know about many of these topics. Are you enjoying the show? If so we would appreciate you leaving us a rating and review on your favourite podcast platform. www.theleadpedalpodcast.com  Join The Lead Pedal Fan Club where are loyal fans get first chance at specials, discounts on merchandise and much more.The club is free to join and you can learn more at www.theleadpedalfanclub.com  LISTEN TO LEAD PEDAL RADIO with music and entertainment with a trucking theme at www.LeadPedalRadio.com       

Sherlock Holmes and the Sport of Kings by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle单词提示1.lame 跛脚的原文Chapter 4: Looking for a horseHolmes and I walked slowly across the moor.In the evening sunlight, the autumn colors on the hills were beautiful reds and browns and yellows, but Holmes saw nothing of that."So,Watson," he said, "Let's forget John Straker for a minute, and think about the horse. Horses are friendly animals. Let's say that Silver Blaze runs away after the killing. Here he is out on the cold, wet moor. What does he do next?""He looks for a nice warm stable," I said, "With food and water.""Right,Watson. He didn't go back to King's Pyland, we know that, but there is another stable not far away at Capleton, perhaps he went there. And the way to cable to Capleton. Watson, is down, this hill, let's go."We walked quickly down the hill.And at the bottom, we found a small river and some very wet ground."Wonderful,"said Holmes, "I wanted mud and here it is. You follow the left side of the river, Watson. We're looking for the tracks of horseshoes."We found them after only 50 meters.Holmes took the horseshoe out of his pocket and put it next to the tracks."Yes, that silver blaze, no question about it."We followed the tracks easily, then lost them for a time, but found them again about 200 meters from the Capleton stables."Here they are," I cried, "And look, there's another track here of a man's shoe."Holmes got down to look."You're right, Watson, and the man is walking next to the horse."We followed the two tracks to Capleton stables, and were still 20 meters away when a man came out and called to us.He had a red, angry face go away, "We don't want visitors here. Go away.""Mr.Silas Brown?" Holmes said to him."What do you want?" said the man, "I don't talk to newspaper people, so just go away.""We are not from a newspaper," said Holmes, smiling, "But you have a horse called Silver Blaze in your stable.""That'snot true." Mr. Brown said angrily."Shall we go in and talk about it?" said Holmes.He did not wait for an answer, but took the man's arm and moved quickly to the gate.He looked back at me and said quietly, "Wait for me here, Watson."Twenty minutes later, they came out again.Holmes looked pleased, and Mr. Silas Brown was a different man.He looked smaller and older, and his face was afraid."Remember," said Holmes, "You must be there on the day, on time, and everything must be ready.""Yes,yes," Silas Brown said quickly, "You can be sure of it. Oh, yes, you can be sure of it." "Good,"said Holmes, "Well, goodbye for now."Holmes and I then began to walk back to King's Pyland along the road."Does he have the horse then?" I asked.Holmes laughed."Yes,"he said, "No at first, of course, but he's afraid of the police. He doesn't want them to know about this, and I can help him with that.""But why didn't the police find the horse?" I asked, "Inspector Gregory said they went to Capleton.""Oh, it's easy to change the color of a horse's coat."Holmes laughed again, "Gregory is a good policeman, but I don't think he knows much about horses.""And why did Brown tell you?" I said."When I walked through the stables with him," said Holmes, "The ground was muddy and I saw the tracks of his shoes in the mud. You remember those tracks on the moor? Well, these were the same shoes. After that, it was easy, and he told me everything. He found Silver Blaze on the moor early in the morning, and brought him into the stables. The horse is very well, just a different color at the moment. Brown put a very big bet on Desborough to win the Wessex Cup, you see, and with Silver Blaze out of the race.""But why did you leave the horse there? Is it safe with him?"I did not understand Holmes's plan."My dear Watson," Holmes said, "The horse is very safe. Silas Brown is afraid of me, afraid of the police, afraid of losing everything. Silver Blaze must be ready to race next week, or Brown's life as a racehorse trainer is finished, and Brown knows that.""Mr.Ross isn't going to like it," I said."Mr.Ross," said Holmes, "Doesn't understand detective work, he wants answers today, now, at once. So, he must learn a lesson, he must learn to wait.Say nothing about Silver Blaze for the moment, Watson."Back at King's Pyland, we found Mr. Ross and Inspector Gregory in the trainer's house."An interesting visit," said Holmes, "But my friend and I must go back to London by the midnight train."The Inspector and Mr. Ross stared at him, and I saw that Holmes was right about Mr. Ross."So our famous London detective can't find poor Straker's killer," Mr. Ross said. "Or my horse.""It's a difficult case, that's true," said Holmes quietly, "But your horse is going to run in the Wessex Cup next Tuesday. You have my promise on that.""A promise is a wonderful thing," said Mr. Ross, "but I would like the horse better than a promise."Holmes smiled, then turned to Inspector Gregory."Inspector,can you give me a photograph of Straker?""Yes,of course." said the Inspector.He took one from an envelope in his pocket and gave it to Holmes.It was now time to go back to Tavistock, and we went outside.One of the stable boys was there, and Holmes suddenly spoke to him."I see you have some sheep here, next to the stables," he said, "Are they all well?""They're all right, sir," said the boy, "But two or three of them are a little lame. They went lame last week."Holmes was very pleased about this.He got into the carriage and said to the Inspector, "Remember the lame sheep,Gregory, remember the lame sheep!"Mr.Ross was not interested in the sheep, but the Inspector stared at Holmes."You think the sheep are important?""Oh,yes," said Holmes, "Very important."The inspector still stared at him, very interested now."And what other things are important, Mr. Holmes?""The strange incident of the dog in the night-time.""The dog did nothing in the night time.""That was the strange incident."翻译第四章：寻找赛马福尔摩斯和我慢慢穿过高沼地。夕阳下，山上的秋色非常美--红色、棕色、黄色交相辉映。但福尔摩斯对此视而不见。"那么，华生，"他说，"让我们暂时忘记斯特雷克，想想那匹马吧。马是温顺的动物。我们假设'银光'在斯特雷克被杀之后跑了。它跑到这又湿又冷的高沼地上，然后会怎么办呢?""它会寻找一处温暖的马厩，"我说，"一个有食有水的地方。""对，华生。它没回到金斯皮兰，我们知道这一点，但离这儿不远的地方还有一个马厩，在卡普莱顿。没准它去那儿了。华生，去卡普莱顿的路就是从这儿下山。我们走!"我们很快下了山，在山脚下，我们发现一条小河，还有一片很湿的地面。"太好了，"福尔摩斯说，"我正想有块泥地，它就出现了。华生，你沿着河的左岸走。我们找找马蹄铁的痕迹。"就在50米远的地方，我们发现了马蹄铁的印子。福尔摩斯从口袋里拿出那块马蹄铁，放在那个蹄印的旁边。"没错，这就是'银光'，毫无疑问。"我们轻松地追踪着蹄印，有一会儿又失去了它的踪迹，但在离卡普莱顿马厩大约200米的地方，又发现了蹄印。"在这儿，"我叫道，"看，这儿还有个印记，是一个人的鞋印。"福尔摩斯蹲下查看。"你说得对，华生。而且这个人是走在马旁边的。"我们随着二者的脚印一直到了卡普莱顿的马厩。当我们离马厩还有20米远时，一个人出来朝我们大吼。他满脸通红，怒火万丈。"走开!我们这儿不欢迎游客!走开!""赛拉斯·布朗先生?"福尔摩斯对他说道。"你们想干什么?"那个人问，"我不接受记者采访，赶快走开。""我们不是报社的记者，"福尔摩斯微笑着说，"但你的马厩里有一匹名叫'银光'的马。""那不可能!"布朗先生愤怒地说。"我们能进去谈谈吗?"福尔摩斯说。他没有等着那人回答，而是抓住他的胳膊，快步走向大门。他回头看看我，从容地说："华生，在这儿等我。"20分钟后，他们又出来了。福尔摩斯看上去很满意，赛拉斯·布朗先生完全变了个人。他看上去矮了些，也老了些，脸上满是惊恐。"记住，"福尔摩斯说道，"到那天你一定得准时到，准备好一切。""好的，好的，"赛拉斯·布朗连忙说，"你放心吧。好的，你放心。""那好，"福尔摩斯说，"那先再见吧。"福尔摩斯与我开始沿着大路走回金斯皮兰。"那他藏着那匹马吗?"我问道。福尔摩斯大笑起来。"没错。他一开始当然说没有。但他害怕警察。他不想让他们知道这件事，而我能帮他应付。""但警方为什么没发现那匹马呢?"我问道，"格雷戈里巡官说他们去过卡普莱顿。""哦，要改变一匹马的毛色很容易，"福尔摩斯再次大笑起来。"格雷戈里是个好警察，但我认为他对马了解不深。""那布朗为什么要告诉你呢?"我说。"当我跟他一起穿过马厩的时候，"福尔摩斯说，"地上有很多泥，我看见了他留在泥地上的鞋印。你还记得高沼地里的脚印吗?两种鞋印是一样的。然后就简单了，他把一切都告诉了我。那天清早，他在高沼地里发现了'银光'，就把它带回了自己的马厩。那匹马很好，只不过现在是另一个颜色。你知道，布朗下了重注，赌德斯伯勒能赢得韦塞克斯杯。如果'银光'不参加比赛的话......""但你为什么要把马留在那儿呢?它在他那儿安全吗?"我不明白福尔摩斯的想法。"亲爱的华生，"福尔摩斯说，"那匹马很安全。赛拉斯·布朗害怕我，害怕警察，害怕失去一切。'银光'一定要参加下周的比赛，否则布朗作为赛马训练师的生涯就完蛋了--布朗明白这一点。""罗斯先生不会喜欢这样的。"我说。"罗斯先生，"福尔摩斯说，"不了解侦探工作。他想今天、现在、立刻就得到答案。因此，他必须得到点儿教训。他得学会等。暂时不要透露关于'银光'的事情，华生。"我们回到金斯皮兰，发现罗斯先生和格雷戈里巡官都在驯马师家里。"这是一次很有意思的拜访，"福尔摩斯说，"但我的朋友和我必须乘午夜的火车返回伦敦。"巡官和罗斯先生瞪着他，我发现福尔摩斯对罗斯先生的判断是对的。罗斯先生说道："这么说我们著名的伦敦大侦探找不到杀死可怜的斯特雷克的凶手，也找不到我的马。""不错，这个案子很复杂。"福尔摩斯平静地说，"但你的马会参加下星期二的韦塞克斯杯。这一点我敢保证。""哼!保证真是妙不可言，"罗斯先生说，"但我更想要回我的马，不想要什么保证。"福尔摩斯笑了，然后转向格雷戈里巡官。"巡官，能不能给我一张斯特雷克的照片?""当然可以。"巡官说。他从口袋里的一个信封内掏出一张照片，递给福尔摩斯。该回塔维斯托克了，我们走到屋外。有一个小马倌在外面，福尔摩斯突然跟他说起话来。"我看见你们在这儿养了几只羊，在马厩旁边，"他说，"它们还好吗?""它们很好，先生，"小马倌说，"但其中两三只有点儿跛。它们上星期开始跛的。"福尔摩斯对此非常高兴。他上了马车，对巡官说道："记住那些跛脚的羊，格雷戈里，记住那些跛脚的羊!"罗斯先生对羊一点儿兴趣都没有，但巡官盯着福尔摩斯。"你觉得那些羊很重要?""对。"福尔摩斯说，"非常重要。"巡官还瞪着他，马上就来了兴致。"那你觉得还有什么东西很重要，福尔摩斯先生?""狗在那天晚上的奇怪举动。""那天晚上狗什么举动都没有。""这就是奇怪的地方。"

Our Beach Boys saga continues today with what some consider the spiritual successor to Pet Sounds... whereas others... really didn't dig it. With one foot in their classic lighthearted era and one foot firmly in what would become the new wave (with Brian Wilson's extensive use of synth as a way to simplify production), a lot of people didn't know what to make of "The Beach Boys Love You". It was oddly gruffer than their previous output and Brian was back to taking big swings, with the harmonies still popping as they always did. Regardless of how you feel, it is an interesting listen that grows on you and we're going to talk about it. WITH none other than Beach Boys historian and Inspector 34 frontman, Jimm Warren!!!Episode Links:Memphis Kansas Breeze (honk beep) on Comedy Bang Bang: https://youtu.be/L8MBUZjJX7Y?si=CFnZRWx179iw-OCpInspector 34 bandcamp: https://inspector34.bandcamp.com/musicSad Milk Collective Beach Boys cover album: https://sadmilkcollective.bandcamp.com/album/its-three-oclock-go-to-your-sink-pour-some-milk-and-start-to-think-about-this-terrific-new-beach-boys-tribute-from-the-sad-milk-collectiveSad Milk Collective Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/sadmilkcollective/homeCONCEPT ALBUM RANKINGS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.supatier.com/tierlist/019a64d9-9691-7ed1-87e9-1fc99161d9c0/tachp-ranked-tierlist⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR DISCORD: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://discord.gg/2stA2P7pTC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR MERCH: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://flyoverstatepark.creator-spring.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠OUR YOUTUBE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

(1) Regulatory Certitude in Londinium: The Power of the Building Inspector and Beachfront Evictions Guests in Londinium, 92 AD: Gaius and Germanicus. The show is temporarily halted due to occupancy issues at the wine bar. Gaius admits to a "completely unforgivable error": failing to give the building inspector an annual birthday raise. He notes that even far from Rome, the local inspector's "red ticket" carries enough weight to shut down their beachfront wine bar despite the Emperor Domitian's distance. The inspector cited concerns about running water, windows, and roof tiles, though Gaius suspects it was a move for more "generous gifts." He laments that his focus on a "robot" sent from Chinafor the orchestra caused him to neglect the inspector's welfare. The hosts plan a "great big party" with the help of centurions to scrub the facility and restore order for the following week's broadcast. (1)londinium 1682 ad

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. The United Nations says that its international inspectors have lost oversight of Iran's nuclear material. Trump says ceasefire ‘over,' but willing to allow negotiators to continue. Trump fires last Democratic members of Election Assistance Commission, casting body into limbo. Witnesses to fatal ICE shooting in Houston remain detained, dispute agency's account. Graham Platner officially files to end his campaign for Maine senate. Oakland names new permanent police chief. The post The UN says that its international inspectors have lost oversight of Iran's nuclear material – July 10, 2026 appeared first on KPFA.

According to today's figures the country's prisons remain seriously overcrowded. The inspector Mark Kelly joined Rachael in studio.

Do you know there's a side hustle where you can get paid to drive around, take a few photos of houses being built, and turn it into a steady side income? That is the little-known real estate side hustle Lou Shaver from drawinspectortraining.com picked up in retirement. Lou is a construction loan draw inspector. It has almost no startup costs, no special license, and not much selling. He started it as a retirement gig, made about $2,000 a month last year, and is now averaging about $4,100 a month. Lou spent a career as an inspector, first in the Army and then for the Navy, and now he is getting ready to teach others how to do this work through his own training program. Tune in to Episode 748 of the Side Hustle Show to learn: what a construction loan draw inspector actually does how to find your first jobs through inspection marketplaces the simple tools and low costs that make this work Full Show Notes: $2k+/mo Taking Pictures of Houses: The Life of a Loan Draw Inspector New to the Show? Get your personalized money-making playlist ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! Sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quo (formerly OpenPhone)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 20% off of your first 6 months! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Shopify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Sign up for a $1 per month trial! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Gusto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Get 3 months free of the leading payroll, benefits, and HR provider for modern small businesses! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wealthfront — Start earning up to 4.30% variable APY today! Terms and conditions apply. Monarch — Get an extended 30-day free trial! About The Side Hustle Show This is the entrepreneurship podcast you can actually apply! The award-winning small business show covers the best side hustles and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠side hustle ideas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. We share how to start a business and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠make money online⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and offline, including online business, side gigs, freelancing, marketing, sales funnels, investing, and much more. Join 100,000+ listeners and get legit business ideas and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠passive income⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ strategies straight to your earbuds. No BS, just actionable tips on how to start and grow your side hustle. Hosted by Nick Loper of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Side Hustle Nation⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Wealthfront Disclaimer This experience may not be representative of other Wealthfront clients, and there is no guarantee of future performance or success. Experiences will vary. Nicholas Loper and Side Hustle Show podcast (collectively "Media Partner") are not clients of Wealthfront. The Media Partner receives cash compensation from Wealthfront Brokerage for this paid endorsement placed in their podcast, creating a conflict of interest. More details available via the referral link. The Direct Deposit Plus Investing Program from Wealthfront Advisers LLC and Wealthfront Brokerage LLC provides eligible clients a 0.25% APY increase above the base APY on eligible Cash Account balances (up to an overall boosted rate of 4.30% for a limited time when including the three month 0.75% APY boost for new clients) when you direct deposit $1,000 a month, plus open, fund, and maintain an investing account. Wealthfront may change or end the program at any time and determine eligibility at its discretion. Terms apply. Full details at wealthfront.com/promo-terms. The Cash Account, which is not a deposit account, is offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC, member FINRA/SIPC.  Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. The base APY is 3.30% on cash deposits as of January 30, 2026, is representative, subject to change, and requires no minimum. Funds in the Cash Account are swept to program banks, where it earns the variable APY. Same-day withdrawal or instant payment transfers may be limited by destination institutions, daily transaction caps, and by participating entities such as Wells Fargo, the RTP® Network, and FedNow® Service. New Cash Account deposits are subject to a 2-4 day holding period before becoming available for transfer. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. Securities investments are not bank deposits, bank-guaranteed or FDIC-insured, and may lose value. Investment advisory services are provided by Wealthfront Advisers LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser.

The Justice Department's inspector general has launched a formal review into how the agency handled the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, following widespread bipartisan criticism over the process. The review will focus on whether the department actually complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of all related records within a set deadline—a deadline the DOJ missed. Investigators will examine how officials identified, collected, and ultimately decided what to release, as well as how they handled redactions and withheld materials.The move comes amid mounting controversy over how the files were rolled out, including concerns that sensitive information was mishandled and that key material may still be missing or overly redacted. The inspector general will also look into how the DOJ responded to issues that emerged after the release, including public backlash and privacy concerns tied to victims. The findings will eventually be made public, but the review itself signals that even internally, there are serious questions about whether the Epstein files release was handled properly or transparently.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Justice Department watchdog launches probe into compliance with Epstein files law - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

What if the parable of the sower isn't really about where the seeds land after all? In this episode, Jesus turns our attention away from measuring our faith, improving our hearts, or worrying about how much fruit we're producing, and instead points us to the God who alone gives ears to hear and makes good soil out of sinners. It's a freeing conversation for anyone who's ever wondered why the same Gospel lands so differently from one person to the next—or worried whether they're producing enough to prove they're really a Christian.GOSPEL Matthew 13:1-23 1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea. 2 Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach. 3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: "Listen! A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up. 5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil. 6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them. 8 Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 Let anyone with ears listen!" (10 Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" 11 He answered, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that 'seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: 'You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. 15  For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn -- and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. 17 Truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.) 18 "Hear then the parable of the sower. 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing. 23 But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." CARE OF SOULS: DEATHIn Care of Souls, a special mini-series podcast from Luther House of Study, Lutheran pastors and theologians come together to explore the deeply personal and pastoral task of preaching to and caring for those facing death, grief, and loss.Rooted in the theology of the cross and the Lutheran tradition of radical grace, this series offers both theological depth and practical guidance for pastors, church workers, and lay leaders.Across five episodes, the hosts tackle tough but essential questions on death:How does Lutheran theology speak uniquely to death and grief?What does faithful pastoral care look like when walking alongside those who mourn?How can pastors offer both honesty and hope in the face of tragedy and loss?What does ministry look like when death impacts the pastor as well as the congregation?Why do funerals matter, and what is God giving through them?With conversations, real-life stories, and reflections from the front lines of ministry, Care of Souls equips listeners to enter the sorrow of death not with easy answers, but with the crucified and risen Christ.Because in the end, it's not about avoiding death—it's about hearing the Gospel from the One who has passed through death and opened the way to life.Listen to Care of Souls wherever you listen to podcasts or on the Luther House website: Care of SoulsSupport the showInterested in sponsoring an episode of Scripture First?Email Sarah at sarah@lhos.org or visit our donation page: lutherhouseofstudy.org/donate

This episode we talk about the 2026 National Electrical Code and the major changes in Article 300 from the 2023 NEC to the 2026 edition of the National Electrical Code. Listen as Paul breaks down some of the changes, renumbering, and subtle changes that all electricians need to be aware of as they venture into the last published edition of the National Electrical Code.Listen as Paul Abernathy, CEO, and Founder of Electrical Code Academy, Inc., the leading electrical educator in the country, discusses electrical code, electrical trade, and electrical business-related topics to help electricians maximize their knowledge and industry investment.If you are looking to learn more about the National Electrical Code, for electrical exam preparation, or to better your knowledge of the NEC then visits https://fasttraxsystem.com for all the electrical code training you will ever need by the leading electrical educator in the country with the best NEC learning program on the planet.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/ask-paul-national-electrical-code--4971115/support.

Eddy Tsai from Jim's Building Inspections Box Hills shares his best business advice for home buyers and what people need to look out for when purchasing a home. To learn more about Jim's visit www.jims.net

Do frogs actually have long tongues? And do they really ribbit? We're unveiling the truth behind some froggy myths and discovering God's designs in these amazing jumpers!Here's our trail map:How Do Frogs Hop?How Long Is a Frog's Tongue?How Do Frogs Ribbit?How Does Singing Worship Bless God and Us?Download this lesson's free coloring sheet: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/how-long-is-a-frogs-tongue/Related Lessons to listen to next:How Do Tadpoles Turn Into Toads? Lesson 78: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/e80566db-d48a-48f1-a0ab-2be21ac6d9d2/Why Are Dart Frogs Poisonous? Episode 37: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/3ba7565f-379e-4a12-9c58-ad94a62b4ec0/Why Do Axolotls Never Grow Up? Lesson 106: https://player.captivate.fm/episode/72d70dc4-7555-4eab-962f-e1adf4659c10/Eryn's Books:Where Wonder Leads: An Adventure in God's Wild and Wonderful World: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/wonderMade to Marvel: 52 Family Devotions Exploring the Wild Wonders of God's Creation: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/marvelThe Nature of Rest: What the Bible and Creation Teach Us About Sabbath Living: https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Rest-Creation-Sabbath-Living/dp/0825448891Rooted in Wonder: Nurturing Your Family's Faith Through God's Creation: https://www.amazon.com/Rooted-Wonder-Nurturing-Familys-Creation/dp/0825447615936 Pennies: Discovering the Joy of Intentional Parenting: https://www.amazon.com/936-Pennies-Discovering-Intentional-Parenting/dp/0764219782Episode Links:Explore all of Apologia's award-winning curriculum and courses: https://www.apologia.com/Nat Theo Club Bonus Video: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/memberGet full lesson guides in the Nat Theo Club: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/clubFree Frog Coloring Sheet: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/how-long-is-a-frogs-tongue/Ask your nature question: https://thenaturaltheologyproject.com/askScriptures Referenced in This Episode:“How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.” Psalm 104:24 (NIV)“Shout to the Lord, all the earth. Serve the Lord with joy; come before him with singing.” Psalm 100:1-2 (NCV)“Let the teaching of Christ live in you richly. Use all wisdom to teach and instruct each other by singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” Colossians 3:16 (NCV)“Praise the Lord from the earth, you large sea animals and all the oceans,lightning and hail, snow and mist, and stormy winds that obey him,mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars,wild animals and all cattle, crawling animals and birds,kings of the earth and all nations, princes and all rulers of the earth,young men and women, old people and children.Praise the Lord, because he alone is great. He is more wonderful than heaven and earth.” Psalm 148:7-13 (NCV) Terms Learned in This Episode:Saltation: Moving by jumps or hops instead of walking.Catapult: A machine that stores energy and then releases it all at once to fling something through the air.Tendon: Strong, stretchy cords made from collagen that connect muscles to bones.Viscosity: Describes how thick or runny a liquid is.Buccal Cavity: The space inside a frog's mouth and throat where air can move in and out.Vocal Sacs: Stretchy pouches of skin that some frogs use to make their calls louder.Frog recording credits: Pacific treefrog “ribbit” recordings: https://californiaherps.com/Spring peepers recording: JohnDziak, CC0, via Wikimedia CommonsWood frogs: Ryan Hodnett, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia CommonsBanded bullfrog: Inspector, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsGrey treefrog: llap, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsThis podcast episode contains paid advertisements.

It's a special “Management Matters with James-Christian Blockwood” episode featuring highlights from the Academy's Celebration of the American Public Servant 250 Gala at the Library of Congress during America's 250th anniversary, including a Future of Public Service panel with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Inspector General Michael Horowitz, retired Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Joanne Bass, and remarks from Senator Tammy DuckworthSen. Duckworth shares a combat story about a young door gunner, Kurt, using it as a metaphor for public servants who “stand the perimeter” by showing up daily despite limited glamour or pay. Mayor Bowser discusses serving D.C.'s residents and improving the city through neighborhood-level engagement and school recovery outcomes. Chief Bass calls for earlier character and citizenship education, a national effort to improve the narrative of service, and broader support for military recruitment. IG Horowitz describes motivation rooted in immigrant family history, rule of law, prosecuting police corruption, and nonpartisan oversight.01:12 Sen. Duckworth and the "Standing the Perimeter" Message05:41 Panel Begins and Introductions06:02 Mayor Bowser on Why She Serves07:45 Chief Bass on Why She Served09:46 IG Horowitz Why Accountability Matters13:48 Mayor Bowser on Trust and Community Change17:10 Making Service Appeal to Youth20:26 Next 250 Years Takeaways

On this week's edition of Le Show, Harry brings us regular features like ICE, ICE Baby, News of Inspector's General, News of the Warm, News of the Godly, News of the Olympic Movement, News of A.I., Nixon in Heaven, and The Apologies of the Week. And this week's music? Let's just say, “It's hot.”

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

US Vice President JD Vance said Tehran agreed to admit nuclear monitors into the country after negotiations in Switzerland. Iran denied making any new commitments. Meanwhile, President Trump said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon outweighs the potential economic consequences of prolonged military action. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Andy Burnham was sworn in as an MP. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

June 23, 2026 - 5am:  Iran is reportedly prepared to allow UN nuclear inspectors back into the country Trump reflecting pool vandalism 'conspiracy' NY Primary preview Pentagon looks to request an $80B supplemental request for Iran war costs The House could meet today to vote on a bipartisan bill aimed at lowering housing costs   To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Starmer Resigns, Replaced By Fellow Pedo Protector! Trump Rating Sinks To All-Time Low 30%! Vance Scores Victory, Iran Agrees To Outside Nuclear Inspectors, NASA Warns Of City-Killing Asteroids

Vice President Vance says peace talks with Iran set "a good foundation;" The Senate prepares to pass a bipartisan affordable housing bill; and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer resigns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

In his interview with the DOJ Office of the Inspector General, Alex Acosta repeatedly framed the 2007–2008 Epstein non-prosecution agreement as a constrained, pragmatic decision made under pressure rather than a deliberate act of favoritism. He told inspectors that Epstein's defense team, stacked with politically connected and aggressive lawyers, created what he described as a credible threat of a federal indictment collapse if prosecutors pushed too hard. Acosta emphasized that his office believed securing some conviction at the state level was better than risking none at all, and he claimed he was focused on avoiding a scenario where Epstein walked entirely. Throughout the interview, Acosta leaned heavily on the idea that the deal was the product of risk assessment, limited evidence, and internal prosecutorial judgment rather than corruption or improper influence, repeatedly asserting that he acted in good faith.At the same time, the OIG interview exposed glaring gaps and evasions in Acosta's account, particularly regarding victims' rights and transparency. He acknowledged that victims were not informed about the existence or finalization of the NPA, but attempted to downplay this as a procedural failure rather than a substantive violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Acosta also distanced himself from the unusual secrecy of the agreement, suggesting that others in his office handled victim communications and specific drafting decisions. Most damaging, however, was his inability to offer a coherent justification for why Epstein received terms so extraordinary that they effectively shut down federal accountability altogether. The interview left the unmistakable impression of a former U.S. Attorney attempting to launder an indefensible outcome through bureaucratic language, while avoiding responsibility for a deal that insulated Epstein and his network from meaningful scrutiny for more than a decade.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EFTA00009229.pdf

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, as he covers today's top stories shaping America and the world. In this Friday Headline Brief of The Wright Report, Bryan tracks a week's worth of threats coming to a head, from confirmed screwworm cases in Texas drawing fire at the federal response, to John Bolton pleading guilty to mishandling CIA crown jewels that Iran then stole off his personal devices. Texas officials are publicly calling out Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins for a slow and incomplete response to the screwworm outbreak, even as cattle futures swing wildly and ranchers look to ivermectin as their best near-term option. Meanwhile, Bryan lays out the Bolton plea deal, the messages Bolton sent to his wife proving he knew exactly what he was doing, and why the compromise of Top Secret CIA covert action programs puts real lives at risk. Plus, Bryan covers two corrupt Mexican governors now in the crosshairs of the Trump DOJ, Graham Platner's Nazi tattoo story getting worse by the day, Trump's $700M coal investment and a pointed rebuttal of the "clean energy" narrative, the restoration of DC's National Mall reflecting pool, and two medical stories worth your attention: a spinal stimulation breakthrough for stroke recovery and new research confirming the weather-migraine connection. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32   Keywords: Bryan Dean Wright, The Wright Report, screwworm Texas, Brooke Rollins, SWASS screwworm suppression, ivermectin cattle, cattle futures beef supply, John Bolton guilty plea, classified documents, CIA covert action, Iran hackers Bolton, Bolton classified leak, Graham Platner Maine, Nazi tattoo Marine, Democrat Senate candidate Maine, Mexican governors cartel corruption, Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump DOJ Mexico, Iran nuclear ceasefire, IRGC uranium stockpile, Persian Gulf oil tankers, Trump coal investment, clean coal Alaska West Virginia, DC reflecting pool National Mall beautification, stroke recovery spinal stimulation, Pennsylvania stroke study, weather migraines Bermuda High, Ajovy migraine drug, Wacker Coffee Company, Tim Wacker Marine