Podcasts about John Harrison

Author Dick Ryan, joins us for part 2 of a 3-part series on advanced recovery. In this episode Dick, a musician by trade, shares from his experience mentoring performing artists. He addresses an issue all too common among artists: the problem of defining your identity by your performance. This concept is not just for artists. Transforming how we define our identity is at the core of recovery. Get the full show notes here: https://recoveredman.com/360   PLUS: Whenever you're ready... here are 4 ways I can help you in your recovery:   Porn Free This Year (Free video course) http://recoveredman.com/thisyear   Buy the book, Porn Free by Matt Dobschuetz http://pornfreebook.com Join a REV Group http://recoveredman.com/rev   1-on-1 Coaching with Matt Dobschuetz https://recoveredman.com/coaching   This podcast contains a Vivaldi recording used with attribution. Autumn Mvt 1 Allegro by John Harrison with the Wichita State University Chamber Players is licensed under a Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

It's spooky season and this is my third annual Halloween episode! It's the story of Aqua Tofana, a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and utterly deadly poison invented by a network of female poisoners in 17th century Italy. The music is from The Four Seasons by Antonio Vivaldi, recorded by The Wichita State University Chamber Players with John Harrison on Violin and Robert Turizziani and as Conductor. The recording is licensed under the Creative Commons and available under the classicals.de website. Visit the ⁠website⁠ (herhalfofhistory.com) for sources, transcripts, and pictures. Support the show on my ⁠Patreon page⁠ for bonus episodes, polls, and a general feeling of self-satisfaction. Or make a one-time donation on ⁠Buy⁠ ⁠Me a Coffee⁠. Join ⁠Into History⁠ for a community of ad-free history podcasts plus bonus content. Visit ⁠Evergreen Podcasts⁠ to listen to more great shows. Follow me on ⁠Threads⁠ as Her Half of History. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Recently X101’s John Harrison had the opportunity to speak with Syracuse Crunch owner Howard Dolgon about the upcoming 2025-26 season. Dolgon previewed the roster, some upcoming specialty nights, and even[Read More...] The post Owner of Syracuse Crunch, Howard Dolgon, Joins X101 appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

X101’s John Harrison was joined in the studio by Ake Gallery’s Paul Kozlowski who shared details on their upcoming gallery “Reimagined”. This gallery is open to submission by the public,[Read More...] The post Paul Kozlowski of the Ake Gallery Shares Details on “Reimagined” appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

On this month’s edition of Your Care with Guthrie X101’s John Harrison is joined in the studio by Sheila Ossit, Director of the Cortland Memorial Foundation. Sheila joins in the[Read More...] The post Guthrie’s Harvest of Gold Event is Coming Up appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

Recently X101’s John Harrison had the chance to speak with Greg T. Walker, founding member and songwriter of “Blackfoot” known for hits like “Highway Song”. Walker recently released a new[Read More...] The post Greg T. Walker of “Blackfoot” Talks with X101’s John Harrison appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

From Stonehenge to Greenwich, Celtic seasons to Roman calendars, candle clocks to knocker-uppers  -  and John Harrison's chronometer. This podcast tells the story of how language, and technology shaped the way we keep time.

https://serpentstail.com/work/the-course-of-the-heart/

In this episode, Richard Primus of the University of Michigan Law School and John Harrison of the University of Virginia School of Law join to discuss Primus's new book The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power, which challenges the prevailing understanding of congressional power and argues that Congress is not limited to its textually enumerated powers. Their conversation traces how this fundamental disagreement has shaped key moments in American constitutional history, from the Founding Era to the New Deal, and why the debate remains unsettled today.    Resources Richard Primus, The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power (2025)  Richard Primus, “'The Essential Characteristic': Enumerated Powers and the Bank of the United States,” Michigan Law Review (2018)  John Harrison, “Enumerated Federal Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause (reviewingThe Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause by Gary Lawson, Geoffrey P. Miller, Robert G. Natelson, Guy I. Seidman),” The University of Chicago Law Review (2011)  McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

THE GROUP MELODIOUS GAENG JOINS US THURSDAY. SONGS INCLUDE BEEDOODOO, SHADOW WORLD, CHANGE OF PLANS, DORIAN GRAY AND LICKING MY WOUNDS

Estoy viviendo en el recuerdo de una ventana. Donde quiera que esconda la ventana, estarán esperando. 🎧 Cielos diferentes, de China Miéville. Un relato perturbador y fascinante que publicamos hace tres años y que hoy vuelve a ver la luz. Lo rescatamos del archivo, lo vestimos de nuevo y lo compartimos contigo como si fuera la primera vez. Porque hay cielos que nunca dejan de inquietarnos. Cielos diferentes. Un relato escrito por China Miéville, narrado por Olga Paraíso. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA MIÉVILLE (Inglaterra, 1972) es escritor, político y profesor. Nació en Norwich, aunque creció en Willesden, un barrio de clase trabajadora al noroeste de Londres, donde reside desde su infancia. Está considerado uno de los fundadores de la corriente de la literatura fantástica conocida como new weird, caracterizada por no seguir las estrictas reglas de la ciencia ficción y mezclar cultura pop, magia, steampunk y monstruos mitológicos. Ha recibido los galardones más prestigiosos dentro del género fantástico como el Hugo o el Locus. Ha ganado tres veces el premio Arthur C. Clarke y dos veces el British Fantasy y, desde 2015, es miembro de la Real Sociedad de Literatura británica. Puedes comprar sus libros en Amazon: https://www.amazon.es/China-Mi%25C3%25A9ville/e/B001IQUN20?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1627039269&sr=1-1 📘Influencias literarias: Su trabajo puede describirse como fantástico por sus mundos y escenarios sobrenaturales. Se ha discutido su trabajo en relación a las categorías de ciencia ficción, fantasía y "surrealismo urbano"12​. El estilo de Miéville se reconoce influenciado por la ciencia ficción pulp de los años 20, tanto de series de televisión como de películas, así como por diversos escritores de terror y fantasía. Destaca la influencia de M. John Harrison, Michael Moorcock, Thomas M. Disch, y J.G. Ballard, a los que considera prácticamente como sus ídolos; pero también son importantes otros autores como H.P. Lovecraft, Mervyn Peake, y Gene Wolfe. También ha admitido que sus libros contienen referencias a escritores rusos, incluyendo a Andrei Platonov, Arkady y Boris Strugatsky, Evgeny Voiskunsky y Isai Lukodyanov. 📌Síguenos en nuestro canal informativo de Telegram: https://t.me/historiasparaserleidas 🛑BIO Olga Paraíso: https://instabio.cc/Hleidas Música en este audio: Epidemic Sound licencia autorizada 🎙 Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Estoy viviendo en el recuerdo de una ventana. Donde quiera que esconda la ventana, estarán esperando. 🎧 Cielos diferentes, de China Miéville. Un relato perturbador y fascinante que publicamos hace tres años y que hoy vuelve a ver la luz. Lo rescatamos del archivo, lo vestimos de nuevo y lo compartimos contigo como si fuera la primera vez. Porque hay cielos que nunca dejan de inquietarnos. Cielos diferentes. Un relato escrito por China Miéville, narrado por Olga Paraíso. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA MIÉVILLE (Inglaterra, 1972) es escritor, político y profesor. Nació en Norwich, aunque creció en Willesden, un barrio de clase trabajadora al noroeste de Londres, donde reside desde su infancia. Está considerado uno de los fundadores de la corriente de la literatura fantástica conocida como new weird, caracterizada por no seguir las estrictas reglas de la ciencia ficción y mezclar cultura pop, magia, steampunk y monstruos mitológicos. Ha recibido los galardones más prestigiosos dentro del género fantástico como el Hugo o el Locus. Ha ganado tres veces el premio Arthur C. Clarke y dos veces el British Fantasy y, desde 2015, es miembro de la Real Sociedad de Literatura británica. Puedes comprar sus libros en Amazon: https://www.amazon.es/China-Mi%25C3%25A9ville/e/B001IQUN20?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1&qid=1627039269&sr=1-1 📘Influencias literarias: Su trabajo puede describirse como fantástico por sus mundos y escenarios sobrenaturales. Se ha discutido su trabajo en relación a las categorías de ciencia ficción, fantasía y "surrealismo urbano"12​. El estilo de Miéville se reconoce influenciado por la ciencia ficción pulp de los años 20, tanto de series de televisión como de películas, así como por diversos escritores de terror y fantasía. Destaca la influencia de M. John Harrison, Michael Moorcock, Thomas M. Disch, y J.G. Ballard, a los que considera prácticamente como sus ídolos; pero también son importantes otros autores como H.P. Lovecraft, Mervyn Peake, y Gene Wolfe. También ha admitido que sus libros contienen referencias a escritores rusos, incluyendo a Andrei Platonov, Arkady y Boris Strugatsky, Evgeny Voiskunsky y Isai Lukodyanov. 📌Síguenos en nuestro canal informativo de Telegram: https://t.me/historiasparaserleidas 🛑BIO Olga Paraíso: https://instabio.cc/Hleidas Música en este audio: Epidemic Sound licencia autorizada 🎙

X101's John Harrison is joined by Jen Chapman, AVP, Caregiver Recruitment Operations from the Guthrie Medical Center as they dive into how Guthrie is one of the top 150 places[Read More...] The post Guthrie Ranked top 150 Places to Work in Healthcare appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

My guest this week is the writer M. John Harrison, who joins me to talk about the rerelease of his 1992 novel The Course of the Heart – a deeply strange and riddling story of grief, friendship, memory and occult magic. We talk about why this book is so personal to him, what he learned from Charles Williams and Arthur Machen, turning his back on science fiction/fantasy and returning to it – as well as how probably the most acclaimed of all his novels, Light, came about after Iain Banks told him he wasn't having enough fun.

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

My guest this week is the writer M. John Harrison, who joins me to talk about the rerelease of his 1992 novel The Course of the Heart – a deeply strange and riddling story of grief, friendship, memory and occult magic. We talk about why this book is so personal to him, what he learned from Charles Williams and Arthur Machen, turning his back on science fiction/fantasy and returning to it – as well as how probably the most acclaimed of all his novels, Light, came about after Iain Banks told him he wasn't having enough fun.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts. Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk

Historian of pop culture, film, and music, John Harrison, joins Staci on Rock & Roll Nightmares to discuss his latest project: a comprehensive, 676-page book on KISS titled Creatures of the Screen. Unlike any other book on the band, John's work is an immersive exploration of KISS's presence onscreen, covering their films, TV appearances, and notable music videos. The book also delves into other shows and media inspired by—and exploiting—the band's visual imagery, popularity, and cultural impact. John Harrison shares insights from his deep dive into the world of KISS and their enduring influence on pop culture.

Send us a textIn this episode of Making Tracks with Alasdair Stewart, we hear cherished memories of growing up at a remote station house in rural north Wales from Lynette Tucker... daughter of  John Harrison—fondly known as 'Lord North'. His great uncle, John Wills and his acquaintance with Bassett Lowke, who employed him to convert the #Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway from a derelict 3ft gauge railway to “15 “inch Gauge.We also visit  a uniquely gauged tramway in Devon,  call in at the Telford Steam Railway where a truly whimsical narrow gauge steam tram has just returned to service alongside their conventional trains, and the famous resort of Blackpool as  Sharon Gregory and her Railway Rideouts visit the seaside town. And we catch some of the 70th celebrations of the Ffestiniog Railway's revival.Links to the content mentioned in this episode.Link to watch John Harrison on Steam is Everything 1975 You Tubeif you would like to contact Lynette Tucker regarding her father's memoirs she can be contacted on ltucker@ffwhr.comRavenglass & Eskdale RailwayFairbourne RailwayBlackpool Tramway Blackpool Tramtown MuseumSeaton TramsTelford Steam Railway#FFWHR #Ravenglass #Telford  #BassettLowke #Blackpooltrams #cavalcade This podcast is produced by Laura Raymond and presented by Alasdair Stewart Our 'Making Tracks' music is with kind permission of composer and musician Richard Durrant. It is a unique piece inspired by the rhythm of the historic rolling stock on the Ffestiniog Railway on the scenic journey from Harbour Station to Tan y Blwch. You can listen and download the full 'Tan y Bwlch' Ukulele Quartet here: Thank you to voice artist David King - for the Railway Ride outs voice over. Ukulele Quartet No. 1 "Tan y Bwlch" Ukulele Quartet No. 1 "Tan y Bwlch" Richard Durrant · Single · 2019 · 3 songs.

Apostolic Fellowship Church of Christ Jesus Saturday Pre-convocation Service - 6/20/2025 1153 Blue Hills Ave, Bloomfield, CT 06002 We can be reached by contacting us at AFCMedia@AFC-ct.com or calling us at (860) 242-3518

On this week’s Meet Cortland County X101’s John Harrison was joined by Alex Mikowski of Access to Independence of Cortland, and Cody a Peer Advocate. Alex and Cody joined in[Read More...] The post Join ATI And CARE for a Day of Food, Fun, and Fishing at Yaman Park, June 29th appeared first on X101 Always Classic - WXHC.com.

In this episode, we sit down with the legendary John Harrison — a creative force in horror and sci-fi — to trace his incredible journey from a love of film and music to becoming one of the most influential names in genre storytelling.We talk about his early days collaborating with the great George A. Romero, composing unforgettable scores for Creepshow and Day of the Dead, and how that partnership helped launch his career. John takes us deep into his work as both a writer and director on Tales from the Darkside, from the TV series to the now cult-favorite Tales from the Darkside: The Movie.We also revisit the underrated early gem Scary Tales, his contributions to Wes Craven's Nightmare Cafe, and his time working on Tales from the Crypt — all showcasing his lasting impact on anthology horror.The conversation takes a turn into sci-fi as John discusses his major role in bringing Frank Herbert's Dune to the screen — both in the acclaimed early 2000s adaptation and as executive producer on the current hit franchise.We also dive into his work on the modern Creepshow series for Shudder, the potential for more stories to come, and his exciting shift into novel writing with his recent books Destiny Gardens, Passing Through Veils, and Residue — the latter of which was adapted into a Netflix series.John reflects on the past, shares his thoughts on the future of the genre, and offers up some truly unforgettable behind-the-scenes stories.If you're a horror fan, this is one conversation you don't want to miss.Follow John Harrison: John Harrison WebsiteJohn Harrison InstagramIf you enjoyed this - Check out my other content here - https://linktr.ee/FirstClassHorrorBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/class-horror-cast--4295531/support.

Its hard work but it's been worth while for John Harrison and his family at Sweetwater Valley Farm in Philadelphia, Tennessee.

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of George A. Romero's "Day of the Dead," we present an exclusive interview with actor/makeup effects artist Greg Nicotero, First AD/Composer John Harrison, and producer Ed Lammi!!!Follow Dads From the Crypt! Threads: @dadsfromthecryptTwitter: @cryptdads Instagram: @dadsfromthecrypt Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DadsFromTheCrypt

A deep dive into KISS on film, TV, and video with author John Harrison. The early appearances, the bizarre, the funny, the forgotten, the famous, the infamous. We cover it all!Purchase a copy of Creatures of the Screen - The Uncensored (and Unofficial) History of Kissploitation on Film, Television & Home VideoFollow John Harrison on FacebookVisit John Harrison's blog site ---------- BookedOnRock.com The Booked On Rock Store The Booked On Rock YouTube Channel Follow The Booked On Rock with Eric Senich:BLUESKYFACEBOOKINSTAGRAMTIKTOKX Find Your Nearest Independent Bookstore Contact The Booked On Rock Podcast: thebookedonrockpodcast@gmail.com The Booked On Rock Music: “Whoosh” by Crowander / “Last Train North” & “No Mercy” by TrackTribe

Pocas cosas hay más resbaladizas que medir el transcurso del tiempo, pero, a pesar de ello, desde la antigüedad los seres humanos lo han intentado. Uno de los primeros instrumentos dedicados a esta tarea fue el reloj de sol, sencillo y económico, que fue perfeccionándose para adaptarse a diferentes latitudes y longitudes. Pero su dependencia del sol lo hacía inútil en días nublados o de noche. Para superar estas limitaciones surgieron otros dispositivos como la clepsidra de agua, los bastoncillos combustibles y el reloj de arena. La clepsidra, basada en la caída constante del agua por gravedad, fue un invento muy ingenioso que evolucionó desde simples vasijas perforadas hasta sistemas que activaban mecanismos para señalar las horas. Estos instrumentos, aunque útiles para medir fracciones de tiempo, requerían mantenimiento constante y tenían serias limitaciones para la medición continua. Durante siglos, los relojes de sol, agua y arena fueron suficientes, pero las dificultades prácticas impulsaron la invención del reloj mecánico en Europa en el siglo XIII. Este avance no se debió únicamente al clima, como se suele argumentar, ya que Europa tiene regiones soleadas y el problema del hielo existía en otras partes del mundo. La clave estuvo en la mentalidad innovadora de la Europa medieval, que veía en las máquinas soluciones a los desafíos ambientales. Tenemos ejemplos como los molinos de agua y viento, o los mecanismos para tocar campanas en iglesias. El reloj mecánico nació con un invento concreto: el mecanismo de escape de varilla con balancín, probablemente en un monasterio. Los primeros relojes, aparecidos hacia 1275, eran grandes estructuras de pesos y engranajes sin esfera que tocaban campanas para marcar las horas. Su difusión coincidió con la expansión urbana, las universidades y las catedrales góticas de los siglos XIII y XIV. Todas las principales ciudades de Europa occidental instalaron relojes públicos, que no solo organizaban la vida urbana, sino que también conferían prestigio. Pero su alto precio y las exigencias de mantenimiento los reservaban para ciudades ricas. Estos primeros relojes eran imprecisos, tenían desviaciones de hasta media hora diaria, y frecuentemente se averiaban. A pesar de esto, los relojeros innovaron añadiendo complicaciones astronómicas y autómatas, como el célebre reloj de Estrasburgo que mostraba movimientos planetarios y figuras animadas. En el siglo XV, la invención del muelle permitió crear relojes portátiles que fueron miniaturizándose aún más hasta convertirse en dispositivos de bolsillo. En los siglos XVI y XVII, la relojería se profesionalizó, con centros de producción en Augsburgo, Nuremberg, Ginebra y Londres. La demanda creciente, impulsada por una clase urbana acomodada, fomentó la innovación y la producción en masa, reduciendo los costes de fabricación y el precio final. En el siglo XVII el péndulo de Huygens y el escape de ancla mejoraron notablemente la precisión. El cronómetro marino de John Harrison resolvió el problema de la longitud en la navegación. El siglo XIX industrializó la relojería, con marcas como Tissot e Ingersoll que empezaron a producir relojes en serie a precios asequibles. En el siglo XX, los relojes de pulsera, los automáticos y los de cuarzo inventados por Seiko se apoderaron del mercado. Hoy, los relojes inteligentes, como el Apple Watch, integran múltiples funciones, pero todos parten de la misma idea: medir el tiempo para hacernos la vida más cómoda. En El ContraSello 0:00 Introducción 03:52 La medida del tiempo 1:13:02 El "drang nach osten" 1:19:52 El periodo Sengoku en Japón Bibliografía: - "Las manos del tiempo" de Rebecca Struthers - https://amzn.to/437E7Em - "La historia y mecánica del tiempo" de Marcelino Rodríguez Martín - https://amzn.to/3YD5a9o - "El estilo del tiempo" de Mara Cappelletti - https://amzn.to/3RWzdVN - "History of Watches" de Paul Kaplan - https://amzn.to/43lXbjC · Canal de Telegram: https://t.me/lacontracronica · “Contra la Revolución Francesa”… https://amzn.to/4aF0LpZ · “Hispanos. Breve historia de los pueblos de habla hispana”… https://amzn.to/428js1G · “La ContraHistoria de España. Auge, caída y vuelta a empezar de un país en 28 episodios”… https://amzn.to/3kXcZ6i · “Lutero, Calvino y Trento, la Reforma que no fue”… https://amzn.to/3shKOlK · “La ContraHistoria del comunismo”… https://amzn.to/39QP2KE Apoya La Contra en: · Patreon... https://www.patreon.com/diazvillanueva · iVoox... https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-contracronica_sq_f1267769_1.html · Paypal... https://www.paypal.me/diazvillanueva Sígueme en: · Web... https://diazvillanueva.com · Twitter... https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva · Facebook... https://www.facebook.com/fernandodiazvillanueva1/ · Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/diazvillanueva · Linkedin… https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernando-d%C3%ADaz-villanueva-7303865/ · Flickr... https://www.flickr.com/photos/147276463@N05/?/ · Pinterest... https://www.pinterest.com/fernandodiazvillanueva Encuentra mis libros en: · Amazon... https://www.amazon.es/Fernando-Diaz-Villanueva/e/B00J2ASBXM #FernandoDiazVillanueva #tiempo #reloj Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Podcasts, reviews, interviews, essays, and more at the Ancillary Review of Books.Please consider supporting ARB's Patreon!Credits:Guest: Sean McTiernanTitle: Dreams of Amputation by Gary J. ShipleyHost: Jake Casella BrookinsMusic by Giselle Gabrielle GarciaArtwork by Rob PattersonOpening poem by Bhartṛhari, translated by John BroughTranscribers: Kate DollarhydeReferences:The SFUltra podcastAlasdair Gray's Lanark & Poor ThingsJames Joyce's UlyssesFredric JamesonAbsolute DC comicsMichael Comeau's HellbertaAlan Grant & John Wagner's DoomlordRay Nayler's Where the Axe is BuriedNeil Sharpson's When The Sparrow FallsMichael Mann's BlackhatLater Die HardsTony Scott's Enemy of the StateJean BaudrillardShipley's Stratagem of the Corpse, Crypt(o)spasm, and Serial Killing: A Philosophical AnthologyDennis CooperBlake Butler's “Sci-Fi Doesn't Have to Be Dominated by Horny Bro Wizards” for ViceDarko SuvinManuela Draeger's Kree (and Antoine Volodine's other work)Mark DanielewskiB.R. YeagerApocalypse PartyWilliam S. Burrough's Naked LunchNeal StephensonDaniel DennettMemeticsPhilip K. Dick's A Scanner DarklyJ.G. Ballard, M. John Harrison, John UpdikeBlake Butler's Uxa.gov & the SFUltra episodeChristopher Priest's “Hull 0, Scunthorpe 3”Brian Evenson, Pierre GuyotatHarrison's Nova SwingTad Williams' OtherlandDerek Raymond (Rober Cook)'s He Died With His Eyes OpenThomas Metzinger The Ego TunnelBernard Wolfe's LimboEvenson's Last Days / Brotherhood of MutilationWilliam Gibson, Bruce SterlingWarhammer 40kBallard's CrashCurt Siodmak's Donovan's BrainMatt from BookpilledNick LandCCRU & Dark EnlightenmentBaudrillard's The Transparency of Evil, Cool Memories, The Perfect CrimeMark Fisher, Kodwu Eshun, Kode9Fisher's “Exiting the Vampire Castle”Andrea DworkinBrion GysinTravis Baldree's Legends and LattesWalter Hill's The DriverBrian CatlingIan SinclairSFUltra episodes on Lanark, Poor Things, and Catling

Get the grease HOT! We're walking through waist-deep river water in waders today, boys and girls, but the air is heavy with pollen, the weather's beautiful, spawning slabs are transitioning to shallow water--and the bite is underway! Near a fabled Mississippi lake that consistently produces some the largest slab crappie in America, I join John "Little Riddle" Blake, Jimmy "The Mayor" Dean, and John Harrison for stories and insights collectively representing well more than a century fishing these legendary waters. Ain't kidding about hot grease, either--we eating good tonight!     Visit MOJO's Duck Season Somewhere Podcast Sponsors:   MOJO Outdoors  Alberta Professional Outfitters Society Benelli Shotguns BOSS Shotshells Bow and Arrow Outdoors Ducks Unlimited  Flash Back Decoys GetDucks.com HuntProof Premium Waterfowl App Inukshuk Professional Dog Food  (code GetDucks25) onX Maps Sitka Gear Tom Beckbe USHuntList.com Voormi       Please subscribe, rate and review Mojo's Duck Season Somewhere podcast, let us know your thoughts in comments. Share your favorite episodes with friends! Business inquiries  contact Ramsey Russell ramsey@getducks.com

This week we chat with filmmaker, producer, composer, writer, author...this guy's done it all...John Harrison. From working with George Romero on everything from Creepshow and Dawn of the Dead to Tales from the Darkside to the Dune miniseries to his Netflix series Residue...he's done it all. He even directed Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, which was Andrew LaSane's Scarred for Life pick, which is one of Terry's favorite movies. We chat about his long history in cinema; about how he started working with Romero to some insights into Tales from the Darkside. And we discuss his latest work, the novel Residue: Paramentals Rising, which is a sequel to the Netflix show. After learning about his horror history--including a memorable viewing of Night of the Living Dead--we find out why The Haunting terrified him as a twelve year old. John references an article written by Anthony McKay in Little Shoppe of Horrors, which can be ordered here. You can find Residue: Paramentals Rising wherever you buy your books or at WordFire Press.You can follow John on his website or Instagram and Facebook.Follow Mary Beth, Terry and the Podcast on Bluesky. We're also on Twitter (sorta) with the same usernames. We also have a Letterboxd HQ account, so follow us there, too! Support us on Patreon!If you want to support our podcast, please please take a moment to go rate us on Spotify and give us a rating and review on iTunes. It really helps us out with the algorithms. We also have a YouTube channel! Ask us for our Discord server!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hoy rescatamos de nuestra audioteca este cuento en el que nos adentraremos en el fascinante universo de Agatha Christie. Publicado por primera vez en 1928, "Nido de Avispas" nos presenta al célebre detective belga Hércules Poirot, quien, en esta historia, demuestra una vez más su agudeza y perspicacia. Poirot recibe una invitación de su amigo John Harrison para visitar su casa de campo. Durante su estancia, Poirot se entera de que Harrison sospecha que su prometida, Molly Deane, y su amigo Claude Langton están involucrados sentimentalmente. Además, Harrison teme por su vida, ya que ha encontrado indicios de que alguien podría estar intentando envenenarlo con estricnina. Poirot, con su característica astucia, investigará el caso y desentrañará la verdad oculta tras las sospechas de su amigo. Este relato es un claro ejemplo del ingenio de Christie para construir tramas llenas de intriga y suspense, manteniendo al lector en vilo hasta el desenlace final. Acompáñanos en este viaje al corazón del misterio y descubre cómo Poirot desvela los secretos ocultos en el "Nido de Avispas". Los Cuentos de la Casa de la Bruja es un podcast semanal de audio-relatos de misterio, ciencia ficción y terror. Cada viernes, a las 10 de la noche, traemos un nuevo programa. Alternamos entre episodios gratuitos para todos nuestros oyentes y episodios exclusivos para nuestros fans. ¡Si te gusta nuestro contenido suscríbete! Y si te encanta considera hacerte fan desde el botón azul APOYAR y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo. Tu aporte es de mucha ayuda para el mantenimiento de este podcast. ¡Gracias por ello! Mi nombre es Juan Carlos. Dirijo este podcast y también soy locutor y narrador de audiolibros, con estudio propio. Si crees que mi voz encajaría con tu proyecto o negocio contacta conmigo y hablamos. :) Contacto profesional: info@locucioneshablandoclaro.com www.locucioneshablandoclaro.com También estoy en Twitter: @VengadorT Y en Instagram: juancarlos_locutor Música, Epedimic Sound, con licencia Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Film historians Lee Gambin and John Harrison

Podcasts, reviews, interviews, essays, and more at the Ancillary Review of Books.Please consider supporting ARB's Patreon!Credits:Guest: Eden KupermintzTitle: The Silmarillion by J.R.R. TolkienHost: Jake Casella BrookinsMusic by Giselle Gabrielle GarciaArtwork by Rob PattersonOpening poem by Bhartṛhari, translated by John BroughReferences:anarchySF, heavy blog is heavy, Eden's work at ARB, the Death // Sentence podcastAlex Pheby's WaterblackAdrian Tchaikovsky's House of Open WoundsDarkly Lem's Transmentation TransienceDeath // Sentence episode on Unknown LanguageThe Dragonlance series by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman (and others)Amal El-Mohtar & Max Gladstone's This Is How You Lose The Time WarJeff Noon & Steve Beard's Gogmagog & LudludaThe Going Rogue podcastTolkien's The Hobbit & The Lord of the RingsRobert Louis Stevenson's Treasure IslandBen Berman Ghan's The Years Shall Run Like Rabbits & Eden's reviewThe Kalevala, The Mabinogion, the Matter of BritainThe Folio SocietyGene Wolfe's The Book of the New SunOctavia Butler's KindredUrsula K. Le Guin's The Left Hand of DarknessSiegfried & the DragonKate Wagner on Wagner's (no relation) The RingJared Pechaček's The West PassageThe By-The-Bywater podcastE.R. Eddison's Mistress of Mistresses, and our episode on that with Jared PechačekThe Tea With Tolkien podcastJohn Milton's Paradise LostEden's Death // Sentence episode on one page of the AkallabêthFallout 3 and Fallout: New VegasM. John Harrison, worldbuilding as the “clomping foot of nerdism”Anthony Burgess's (and probably Stanley Kubrick's tbf) A Clockwork OrangeBlind Guardian's Nightfall in Middle-Earth and “The Bard's Song”The Hobbit (1977) Dopesmoker EditionFor a concise overview of some of the conservative/fascist love affair with Tolkien, see Robert T. Tally Jr.'s “Tolkien's Deplorable Cultus”.Jason Guriel's Forgotten WorkEden's Bluesky

Apostolic Fellowship Church of Christ Jesus Sunday Morning Service - 2/23/2025 1153 Blue Hills Ave, Bloomfield, CT 06002 We can be reached by contacting us at AFCMedia@AFC-ct.com or calling us at (860) 242-3518

“Four ghoulish fables in one modern nightmare.”   “Tales from the Darkside: The Movie is a 1990 American comedy horror anthology film directed by John Harrison, serving as a spin-off of the anthology television series Tales from the Darkside.”   Show Links Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFNl7YEAof0   Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_the_Darkside:_The_Movie   Just Watch: https://www.justwatch.com/au/movie/tales-from-the-darkside   Socials Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/moviewavepod.bsky.social   Buy Me A Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moviewavepod   Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/moviewavepod/   Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@moviewavepod   Intro/Outro Sample Credits “Aiwa CX-930 VHS VCR Video Cassette Recorder.wav” by Pixabay “Underwater Ambience” by Pixabay “waves crashing into shore parkdale beach” by Pixabay   Movie Wave is a part of Pie Hat Productions.

For our first episode of 2025, we touch upon novels we've been reading for the new year, including Charles Stross's 13th Laundry novel/collection A Conventional Boy and Ray Nayler's Where the Axe is Buried, as well as the frustrations of reading books on deadlines—as opposed to wallowing in them at leisure, and some non-SF writers we like. Gary then mentions how hard it is to gain perspective on novels of the past year, and suggests looking instead at important books of the entire past quarter-century from the perspective of 2025.  We only got partway through his list, which included novels by Alastair Reynolds, Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, M. John Harrison, Margaret Atwood, Susanna Clarke, Gene Wolfe, Cixin Liu, and Robert Charles Wilson; collections by Kelly Link, Margo Lanagan, and Jeff Ford; anthologies by Sheree R. Thomas and Gardner Dozois—the last of which leads to a discussion of the durability of space opera as a defining SF theme. Plenty of stuff to argue with this week!

For our first episode of 2025, we touch upon novels we've been reading for the new year, including Charles Stross's 13th Laundry novel/collection A Conventional Boy and Ray Nayler's Where the Axe is Buried, as well as the frustrations of reading books on deadlines—as opposed to wallowing in them at leisure, and some non-SF writers we like. Gary then mentions how hard it is to gain perspective on novels of the past year, and suggests looking instead at important books of the entire past quarter-century from the perspective of 2025.  We only got partway through his list, which included novels by Alastair Reynolds, Kim Stanley Robinson, Octavia Butler, M. John Harrison, Margaret Atwood, Susanna Clarke, Gene Wolfe, Cixin Liu, and Robert Charles Wilson; collections by Kelly Link, Margo Lanagan, and Jeff Ford; anthologies by Sheree R. Thomas and Gardner Dozois—the last of which leads to a discussion of the durability of space opera as a defining SF theme. Plenty of stuff to argue with this week!

The dads dive into the fourth episode of Creepshow Season 2! The first segment, Pipe Screams, is directed by Joe Lynch and stars Barbara Crampton, while the second segment, Within The Walls of Madness, is helmed by John Harrison and stars Denise Crosby.. Follow Dads From the Crypt! Threads: @dadsfromthecrypt Twitter: @cryptdads Instagram: @dadsfromthecrypt Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/DadsFromTheCrypt

What people are saying: "A Natural History of Empty Lots" is the best and most interesting book I've ever read about the spaces we often overlook. Christopher Brown comes to these places with a deep curiosity and understanding of both human and nonhuman history. An instant classic.” Jeff VanderMeer, New York Times bestselling author."Instantly hypnotic, A Natural History of Empty Lots invites you to see the ‘waste' spaces of the Anthropocene for what they are: a resource that contains more than itself. Christopher Brown is a complete and literate denizen of these zones. His calm, clever writing shows a real care for the natural world, and a real feel for the deep worth of the brownfield liminal.” M. John Harrison, Goldsmiths Prize-winning author of Wish I Was Here and Climbers. https://christopherbrown.com/http://www.yourlotandparcel.org

In this Three Breakthroughs episode of the Alumni Ventures Tech Optimist Podcast, Mike Collins and Naren Ramaswamy spotlight three pioneering advances that are shaping the future. They begin with AlphaFold 3 from Google DeepMind, which has revolutionized biology by predicting complex protein interactions, vastly accelerating research in drug discovery and genomics. Next, they discuss Tesla's Optimus, a humanoid robot set to bring automation into daily life with capabilities from household chores to industrial tasks, showcasing the rapid progress in robotics. Finally, they explore SpaceX's latest Starship feat: launching and successfully catching a skyscraper-sized rocket mid-air, a breakthrough that reduces costs and enhances reusability, laying the groundwork for an expanding space economy. Tune in to discover how these advances are transforming tech's role in healthcare, robotics, and space.To Learn More:Alumni Ventures (AV)AV LinkedInAV Deep Tech FundTech OptimistSpeakers:Mike Collins Naren Ramaswamy  Chapters:(00:00) - Intro (03:21) - AlphaFold (21:37) - Tesla's Optimus (31:19) - SpaceX's Starship (39:15) - Closing Legal Disclosure:https://av-funds.com/tech-optimist-disclosures

Since launching the CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST Patreon in April of 2021, we've offered our patrons exclusive perks based on the tier they signed up for. One of those perks is participating in all request programs. If you want to join in future all-request shows, please head over to our Patreon page, and join the community in any tier that is $5 USD/month or above. Once you do, you can participate in all upcoming all-request programs. Before we get into today's episode, we must first discuss its origins. On October 30, 2023, I worked late into the evening to complete the first ALL REQUEST HALLOWEEN SPECIAL. The audio was recorded, tracks were chosen, and the editing was finished. I tried to export the show, and to my horror Adobe Audition crashed. I restarted the application and tried again. Same result, but this time I received an error message indicating that my voice-over file was corrupt. It took nearly an hour to record the voiceover and several hours to edit the episode. I was also in the midst of one of my busiest years ever, so I didn't have the time or energy to do it all over again, so I informed my Patrons that the show would be postponed and rescheduled for this year! Thank goodness I have a wonderful community of patrons over there, they understand and waited patiently for the show to be done.  Fast forward almost 365 days, and here we are; everything has been re-recorded, re-edited, and... I am pleased to announce that the show has been successfully exported for you to enjoy today! For this first ever Patreon All Request Halloween Special show, you get to hear some spooky favourites from the biggest supporters of the Cinematic Sound Radio Podcast including Alan Rogers, Al Brown, Glenn McDorman, Don Mase, Will Welch, Angela Rabatin, Deniz Çağlar, Jérôme Flick, Stacy Livitsanis, Lee Wileman, Joe Wiles, Jeffrey Graebner, Victor Field, Eldaly Morningstar, Steve Karpicz, Dave Williams and Carl Wonders. They requested tracks from such composers as Ronald Stein, John Harrison, Christophe Beck, Herdís Stefánsdóttir, Christopher Young, Jerry Goldsmith, James Horner, Wojciech Kilar, Bruno Coulais, Bruce Broughton, Dean Kopri, Joesph LoDuca, Alejandro Amenabar, and John Williams. Thank you to everyone who participated. Again, if you didn't get a chance to submit a request but want to be a part of the next all-request program, we'd love to have you join the CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST Patreon community. However, you should not feel obligated to participate. I am not forcing anyone to join. Remember, this podcast is always free to listen to, but if you want to support the program and join the Patreon community, we'd be delighted to have you. Enjoy the show! —— Special thanks to our Patreon supporters: Matt DeWater, David Ballantyne, Joe Wiles, Maxime, William Welch, Tim Burden, Alan Rogers, Dave Williams, Max Hamulyák, Jeffrey Graebner, Don Mase, Victor Field, Jochen Stolz, Emily Mason, Eric Skroch, Alexander Schiebel, Alphonse Brown, John Link, Andreas Wennmyr, Matt Berretta, Eldaly Morningstar, Jim Wilson, Glenn McDorman, Chris Malone, Steve Karpicz, Deniz Çağlar, Brent Osterberg, Jérôme Flick, Sarah Brouns, Aaron Collins, Randall Derchan, Angela Rabatin, Michael Poteet, Larry Reese, Thomas Tinneny, William Burke, Rudy Amaya, Stacy Livitsanis, Rick Laird, Carl Wonders, Nathan Blumenfeld, Lee Wileman, Daniel Herrin, Scott Bordelon, James Alexander, Brett French, Ian Clark, Ron, Andy Gray —— Cinematic Sound Radio is fully licensed to play music by SOCAN. Support us on Patreon https://www.patreon.com/cinematicsoundradio Check out our NEW Cinematic Sound Radio TeePublic Store! https://www.teepublic.com/stores/cinematic-sound-radio Cinematic Sound Radio Web: http://www.cinematicsound.net Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/cinsoundradio Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cinematicsound Cinematic Sound Radio Fanfare and Theme by David Coscina https://soundcloud.com/user-970634922 Bumper voice artist: Tim Burden http://www.timburden.com

John Harrison of Loudon County is the owner of Sweetwater Valley Farms, an impressive, large operation in Philadelphia, Tennessee where they are diversified but primarily focus on dairy.  

This week on Mapping the Zone, Luke leads us through a discussion of M. John Harrison's Kefahuchi Tract trilogy. The trilogy is comprised of the novels Light, Nova Swing, and Empty Space: A Haunting.If you like what we're doing and want to support the show, please consider making a donation on Ko-Fi. Funds we receive will be used to upgrade equipment, pay hosting fees, and help make the show better.https://ko-fi.com/mappingthezoneAs always, thanks so much for listening!Email: ⁠mappingthezonepod@gmail.com⁠Twitter: https://twitter.com/pynchonpodInstagram:https://www.instagram.com/mappingthezonepodcast/

ADISA executive director John Harrison speaks with speaks with Real Assets Adviser editor Mike Consol from the floor of the 2024 ADISA fall conference at the Cosmopolitan in Las Vegas. Harrison discusses the organization's record membership, its new partnership with The National Due Diligence Alliance, and the conference itself. (10/2024)

On this week's episode, Vince discusses new development sales, reviewing the peaks and declines of the market over the last two quarters. Featuring guests, Brown Harris Stevens' Louise Phillips Forbes, alongside John Harrison of CORE, and Kale Goodman of Marketproof. Filmed at Brown Harris Stevens' Studio 1873, Part of the Mastery of Real Estate (MORE) Network.   Subscribe: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/talking-new-york-real-estate-with-vince-rocco/id1645541166   Watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7_x00Dbn3OSlGbpYVDMcT_DI0gFW06hq   Connect with Vince Rocco: https://www.bhsusa.com/real-estate-agent/vince-rocco   Brown Harris Stevens is one of the largest privately owned real estate brokerages in the country, with more than 40 offices across four states: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Florida.   https://bhsusa.com/   #RealEstate #VinceRocco #NewYorkCity #TNYRE #NYC  

John Harrison, UK Managing Director and Global VP of Marketing at Schaffner, a global company specialising in providing solutions for EMC and power quality, joins the latest episode of the Marketing B2B Technology podcast. In the episode, John discusses the challenges and benefits of balancing two job roles and emphasises the importance of aligning sales and marketing to strengthen the brand and drive sales. He believes in leading with a forward thinking approach, understanding customer needs, and staying ahead of industry trends, particularly in the niche area of EMC.   About Schaffner Schaffner plays a vital role in building a sustainable future in the new era of electrification. Headquartered in Switzerland and with subsidiaries around the world, Schaffner is a global leader in electromagnetic solutions that ensure the efficient and reliable operation of electronic systems. The Schaffner Group are experts in EMC filter solutions, harmonic filters, electromagnetic components and electromagnetic solutions. Our passionate and knowledgeable employees empower our customers to develop reliable electronic devices and systems that meet compliance standards and deliver increased energy efficiency. This is how we deliver… MORE POWER TO YOU.   About John Harrison John Harrison joined Schaffner in April 2022.  He is the UK MD and Global VP Marketing.  He has spent 25 years in the electronics industry primarily within the connector space for Molex.  John has extensive international experience having lived and worked across Europe and the US, covering a range of markets from Industrial to transportation.  His most recent experience prior to Schaffner was within the IOT space for Ramtech heading up their Global Marketing and Sales activities. John is passionate about EV and increasing speed of adoption across the globe.    Time Stamps [00:43:0] – John provides some background to his career. [03:30.8] – John discusses how he manages the demands of both the UK Managing Director role and Global VP of Marketing role. [05:04:7] – John shares his views on whether he thinks marketing and sales should be closer together or not. [06:05:2] – John talks about what he's looking for from marketing to make the role of MD more successful. [13:38:9] – John shares his approach of trying to get salespeople, marketing people and engineers working more closely. [19:31:0] – John talks about how he sees his role changing with technology over the next five years. [20:49:1] – John shares some advice to those looking to get into marketing.   Quotes “Marketing and sales need to be closer together. The ultimate aim for both is to drive more customers and value for the brand. We need to focus on the customer's needs, whether it's through direct interaction or brand messaging.” John Harrison, UK Managing Director and Global VP of Marketing at Schaffner. “From a sales perspective, it's not just about leads. It's about ensuring the brand is seen as a partner and thought leader, especially in specialised areas like EMC.” John Harrison, UK Managing Director and Global VP of Marketing at Schaffner. “It's crucial to put yourself in the customer's shoes. If a piece of marketing material doesn't resonate with the customer, it's not effective. Marketing should be about creating content that truly addresses the customer's needs.” John Harrison, UK Managing Director and Global VP of Marketing at Schaffner   Follow John: John Harrison on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-harrison-3552ba14/ Schaffner website: https://www.schaffner.com/ Schaffner on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/schaffner-gruppe/   Follow Mike: Mike Maynard on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikemaynard/ Napier website: https://www.napierb2b.com/ Napier LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/napier-partnership-limited/   If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe to our podcast for more discussions about the latest in Marketing B2B Tech and connect with us on social media to stay updated on upcoming episodes. We'd also appreciate it if you could leave us a review on your favourite podcast platform. Want more? Check out Napier's other podcast - The Marketing Automation Moment: https://podcasts.apple.com/ua/podcast/the-marketing-automation-moment-podcast/id1659211547          

Chapter 1:Summary of Longitude"Longitude" by Dava Sobel is a non-fiction book that tells the story of the search for a reliable method to determine longitude at sea. The book follows the struggles of John Harrison, an English clockmaker, who dedicated his life to inventing a marine chronometer that could accurately measure time at sea. Harrison's invention ultimately solved the problem of determining longitude and revolutionized navigation, leading to greater safety and efficiency in maritime travel. Sobel's book provides a fascinating account of Harrison's achievements and the historical implications of his work.Chapter 2:The Theme of LongitudeKey plot points:1. The main focus of the book is the search for a reliable method of determining longitude at sea, a problem that plagued sailors and explorers for centuries.2. The book follows the story of John Harrison, a self-educated clockmaker who dedicated his life to creating accurate marine timepieces known as chronometers.3. Harrison faces numerous challenges and setbacks in his quest to build a reliable chronometer, but eventually succeeds in creating the H4, which revolutionizes navigation at sea.Character development:1. John Harrison is portrayed as a determined and innovative individual who overcomes adversity to achieve his goal. He is shown to be passionate about his work and committed to creating a device that will solve the longitude problem.2. Other characters in the book, such as Astronomer Royal Nevil Maskelyne and King George III, are depicted as skeptical of Harrison's methods but ultimately come to recognize the value of his invention.Thematic ideas:1. The importance of perseverance and dedication in the face of obstacles is a central theme in the book. Harrison's unwavering commitment to his goal serves as an inspiring example of what can be achieved through hard work and determination.2. The book also explores the intersection of science, technology, and society, highlighting how advancements in one field can have far-reaching implications for others. Harrison's chronometers not only revolutionized navigation but also played a significant role in shaping the course of history.Overall, Longitude delves into the fascinating history of maritime navigation and the individuals who played a crucial role in solving one of the most challenging scientific problems of their time. Through the story of John Harrison, readers are able to gain a deeper understanding of the importance of accurate timekeeping in navigating the seas and the impact of technological advancements on human progress.Chapter 3:Meet the Writer of LongitudeDava Sobel's writing style in "Longitude" is clear, concise, and engaging. She employs a straightforward narrative structure that helps to convey complex scientific concepts in a compelling and easy-to-understand manner. Sobel's use of language is precise and evocative, as she describes the challenges faced by John Harrison and other historical figures in their quest to solve the problem of determining longitude at sea.Sobel skillfully uses a combination of historical anecdotes, scientific explanations, and personal insights to bring the story of longitude to life. She effectively conveys the frustration, perseverance, and ultimate triumph of the individuals involved in this important endeavor. Through her writing, Sobel captures the emotions of discovery and the sense of accomplishment that Harrison and others experienced as they worked towards finding a solution to the longitude problem.Overall, Dava Sobel's writing skills and language style play a crucial role in conveying the emotions and meanings of "Longitude." Her approachable prose and engaging storytelling techniques make the subject matter accessible to a wide audience, while still providing a thorough and...

Artemisia Gentileschi was one of the most famed and respected painters in 17th century Europe, but after she died her story - and many of her works - were lost. Now award-winning artist Lindsay Huss helps us uncover her incredible life.   Music for this episode provided by Marc Nelson, Advent Chamber Orchestra, Catrin Finch, John Harrison, and the Wichita State University Chamber Players Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week the gang talked about Stellar Blade, Ys VIII, Ripper, Kim's Video, M. John Harrison, and more!Follow us on Instagram Watch  Bob and Connor on TwitchLeave us a voicemail at (804) 286-0626 and consider supporting us through our Patreon Check out the Discord! News Links: Crazy Taxi updatedNintendo won't use AIGameCube might come to NSO