Podcasts about judging

Steiny & Guru bat around the concept of winning versus performance when it comes to judging the 49ers offense with Brock Purdy as opposed to Mac Jones.

Former Romanian head coaches Daymon Jones and Patrick Kiens join us to unpack the turmoil inside Romanian gymnastics — from new accusations to decades-old coaching culture and leadership struggles. Plus: what we learned from the 2025 Jakarta World Championships and our wish list for future World Championships. And a happy message from Rings World Champion, Donnell Whittenburg. Find Resistance Resources here. CHAPTERS - pre auto-ad insert 00:00:00 – Intro Cold Open: Romania abuse reports surface 00:03:36 – Headlines: Romania context (Golgota, Voinea, leadership turmoil) 00:10:02 – Interview: The Romanian Situation with Daymon & Patrick 00:10:34 – Abuse allegations and what coaches witnessed firsthand 00:20:15 – Old-school culture, leadership failure, and bad press 00:31:13 – Federation power dynamics, elections, and fallout 00:41:28 – Updates & programming notes 00:45:17 – Jakarta Worlds Debrief: Overall medal table (WAG/MAG highlights) 00:49:16 – China's event-specialist strategy (7 routines, 3 medals) 00:51:54 – Judging parity: Melnikova's AA score & floor 14 club 00:55:51 – Selection & pipeline fixes (camp vs real meets) 01:06:44 – Who needs a reset? USA, Italy & Brazil post-Olympics 01:24:11 – FIG talk: host selection, logistics & equipment issues 01:32:02 – Gymternet News: Canada CEO, Arthur Gander results, Liverpool 2030 bid 01:36:56 – Listener feedback & notes UP NEXT: Behind The Scenes: Live Q&A podcast Friday this week only at noon Pacific/8 GMT RELATED: World Championships HeadquartersVideos, Interviews, Podcasts, Fantasy, Guides from Jakarta World Championships Trouble in Romania The History of Romanian Gymnastics (Commissioned) 80's Fight! The great Soviet Romanian Rivalry (Commissioned) The Fluff Cast: Deva isn't a castle?! Behind The Scenes: Back from Jakarta Eythora Thorsdottir and Coach Patrick Kiens  Behind the Scenes - all episodes SUPPORT THE SHOW: Join Club Gym Nerd: https://gymcastic.com/club/ Headstand Game: https://gymcastic.com/headstand-plugin/ Forum: https://gymcastic.com/community/ Merch: https://gymcastic.com/shop/ NEWSLETTERS Sign up for all three GymCastic newsletters  RESOURCES Spencer's essential website The Balance Beam Situation  GIFs of the Week and Meet schedule with links. Gymnastics History and Code of Points Archive from Uncle Tim The Balance: My Years Coaching Simone Biles by Aimee Boorman with Fact Checker. Aimee coached Simone from day one in gymnastics to three back to back World All Around titles, 14 world medals and an unprecedented 5 medals at the Rio Olympics. Get your copy now. And if you loved it, please leave a review. Cover Art & Photos: Steve Cooper ©Gymcastic

Your heroes return to Weyland-Yutani headquarters to read Aliens vs. Avengers. First Impressions is a spoiler-free shorter episode where we introduce which book we are reading and chat about our first impressions, including: The Bare Bones, Who this Comic for, and Judging a Book by Its Cover."In a future Earth ravaged by terror, the unstoppable Xenomorphs descend upon our planet, pitting the perfect organism against a world of superhumans. As the Avengers rise in defense, they face unimaginable loss as the gods of creation known as the Engineers set out to destroy what they made.What catastrophic events led to the fall of humanity and forced the Avengers to abandon their home planet? Which heroes will be first to fall, and which will be forever changed by the encounter with the Xenomorphs? Discover the answers as Hickman and Ribić weave a pulse-pounding saga where every choice could make the difference between survival or extinction."Aliens vs. Avengers is written by Jonathan Hickman, art by Esad Ribić, colors by Ive Svorcina, letters by VC's Cory Petit, and published by Marvel Comics. Follow ComiClub on Instagram @ComiClubPodcast.ComiClub is hosted by Blaine McGaffigan and Adam Cook. 

Tom Isted is back on The Ride Companion! Fresh from Red Bull Rampage 2025, Tom stops by the studio to break down every detail of his time in the Utah desert — from building his line and flipping flat drops, to navigating event politics and dealing with the fallout from Adolf Silva's crash. Tom shares how he manages risk, his honest take on judging, and what it really takes to earn respect at freeride's biggest event. Plus, behind-the-scenes stories about his dig crew, surviving the chaos, and balancing family life while being one of the world's most versatile mountain bike riders. We hope you enjoy the episode. Adolf Silva's Road2Recovery page: https://www.road2recovery.com/athlete-causes/adolf-silva/  The Ride Companion Christmas Ride at BikePark Wales! Episode Sponsors:-  - Hiplok → Head on over to http://hiplok.com/trc to claim your exclusive offer and keep YOUR bikes YOURS. - Want an easy way to tick your daily nutritional needs? Support the show and get 15% OFF HUEL products with code 'RIDE' at https://huel.com/. Unlock a healthier, easier way to eat with Huel — nutritionally complete meals in minutes, so you can focus on what really matters… biking. Get early access & ad-free episodes → https://www.patreon.com/theridecompanion You can also support our long term partners: - Marin Bikes: marinbikes.com/gb - Focus Bikes: focus-bikes.com - HUEL: Get 15% OFF with code 'RIDE' at huel.com/ - Hiplok: https://hiplok.com/the-ride-companion  - Get 10% off Troy Lee Designs with code 'theridecompanion' at saddleback.avln.me/c/OzduCWvjtcOr - Athletic Greens: Get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 FREE travel packs at athleticgreens.com/RIDECOMPANION - Compex: Get 20% off with code 'THERIDECOMPANION' at compex.com/uk/ - Worx: Get 15% off with code 'THERIDECOMPANION' at worx.com - LAKA: Get 30 days of FREE insurance with code 'RIDECOMPANION30' at laka.co - HKT Products: Use code 'PODCAST' for 10% off the entire site. Follow Olly Wilkins Instagram @odub_23 YouTube @owilkins23 The Ride Companion Instagram @theridecompanion YouTube @TheRideCompanion YouTube clips and BTS channel @moreridecompanion Get official Ride Companion merch, find old episodes and more theridecompanion.co.uk

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

Welcome back to The Groupchat besties!!!In The Groupchat, we share some of your TMI & embarrassing stories that always leaves us on the end of our seat and crying of laughter! We share our advice around YOUR dilemmas and help you navigate different situations in life from dating, friendship, family, life & everything in between! As always your secret is safe with us and whatever happens in The Groupchat stays in The Groupchat!If you'd like to join The Groupchat and share any TMI stories, have your say in our dilemma debates or need any advice please DM or email us from the below: Instagram: @thegroupchatTik Tok: @the.groupchatpod Email: hello.thegroupchatpodcast@gmail.com follow Liv on socials: Instagram: @oliviamesciaTiktok: @oliviamesciafollow Ash on socials:Instagram: @ashleymesciaTik Tok: @ashleymesciaSee you next Thursday xx*We'd like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of this land in which we are able to record this podcast. We would like to pay respect to elders past, present and emerging and any aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.* Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Mishlei 25:6-7 - Self-Destructive Self-Promotion (Part 1)(ו) אַל תִּתְהַדַּר לִפְנֵי מֶלֶךְ וּבִמְקוֹם גְּדֹלִים אַל תַּעֲמֹד.(ז) כִּי טוֹב אֲמׇר לְךָ עֲלֵה הֵנָּה מֵהַשְׁפִּילְךָ לִפְנֵי נָדִיב אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ:Length: 47 minutesSynopsis: This morning (11/12/25), in our Morning Mishlei shiur, we began learning a new genre of Mishlei pesukim which is quite common in Chapters 25-29. I call "straight-up advice." No mashalim, no cryptic wording, no riddles - just proverbs telling you what to do and why. My question going into this was whether there would be any correlation between the style of presentation and the quality or depth of the ideas. Judging by this morning's analysis, the answer seems to be in the negative. We had just as many questions here as we usually do, and the ideas we developed felt completely Mishleic. Tomorrow we'll see what the meforshim have to say (בג"ה).---מקורות:משלי כה:ו-זתרגום רס"גתרגום כתובים-----This week's Torah content is sponsored by Joey and Estee Lichter in commemoration of the yahrzeits of Joey's mother, Faiga bas Yehuda, and Estee's father, Yisroel ben R' Moshe.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.-----Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/YU Torah: yutorah.org/teachers/Rabbi-Matt-SchneeweissPatreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweissYouTube Channel: youtube.com/rabbischneeweissInstagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.comOld Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/WhatsApp Content Hub (where I post all my content and announce my public classes): https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0HAmazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel

High demanding job is to assume and judge a person, place, or thing. Assuming creates judging. Judging is a deadly sin.

Meat nerds, assemble. Evan and Tyler sit down with Dr. Phil Bass—associate professor of Meat Science at the University of Idaho, meat cutter since childhood, and all-around legend—to geek out on what actually makes beef great. Fresh off judging the American Wagyu Association's “Best Steak in America” competition together, we dive into BMS scoring (yes, those 14s and 15s), why the USDA grade tops out too early for Wagyu, and what “quality” really means across tenderness, flavor, and juiciness.We get into grass-finished vs. grain-finished (and why consistency matters), the truth about antibiotics and labels, how to shop smarter at the butcher counter, and why the future likely belongs to Wagyu crossbreeding. Plus: the magic of dry-aging, the umami bomb that is koji, myth-busting on Wagyu fat (hello oleic acid), and quick detours into Piedmontese, flat iron “meat jelly,” and why ribeye off the 5th rib slaps.In this episode:Judging ultra-marbled Wagyu & reading the Japanese BMS 1–12USDA vs. AUS vs. JPN grading—should there be one global standard?Grass vs. grain: flavor, texture, and reliabilityDry-aging, koji rubs, and regional mold “terroir”Labels, antibiotics, and how to actually talk to your butcherThe next decade of Wagyu (hello, F1 crosses)Dr. Bass's pod: meatspad.com • Book: It's Not a Cow (available on Amazon)Hit play, get smarter, then go eat something worthy.

Wir haben eine Erfahrung gemacht, von der wir dachten, das gibt es nicht – und diese hat uns eine wirklich sehr beschäftigt und zum Nachdenken angeregt.

On this episode of the Chuck ToddCast, Chuck breaks down the latest in Washington as the government shutdown nears its end—and the political fallout begins. Democrats have shown more backbone than expected, while Donald Trump’s strategy has Republicans quietly questioning his grip on power. From his push to cut SNAP benefits for his own voters to his increasingly distorted view of the economy, Trump’s disconnect from reality is starting to cost him. Chuck also looks at the Democrats’ strong showing in the recent elections, what it says about voter sentiment heading into 2026, and whether we’re witnessing the beginning of Trump’s lame duck era. Plus, the ripple effects of Trump’s policies—from affordability to the upcoming World Cup—and what Mike Johnson’s loyalty to Trump means for the GOP’s future. Then, Chuck sits down with journalist and historian Garrett Graff, host of The Long Shadow, to unpack how America’s political scandals—from Watergate to Trump—have shaped the presidency and public trust. Graff reflects on the slow process of uncovering the truth about Nixon’s 1968 interference and how those lessons apply to Trump’s open defiance of the Presidential Records Act. The two dive into why history takes decades to judge leaders, how government secrecy really works, and why even the most shocking revelations—like Iran-Contra or January 6th—take years to fully understand. Graff also discusses the ripple effects of past scandals, from Monica Lewinsky’s mistreatment to the rise of political figures forged during the Clinton impeachment, and how the legacy of Trump may take a generation to contextualize. The conversation ends on the future of media itself—how O.J. Simpson changed television forever, how algorithms broke the internet, and what it means for truth in an age where everyone’s chasing clicks. Finally, Chuck hops into the ToddCast Time Machine to revisit the surrender of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1 and the lasting implications for peace in the middle east, answers listeners’ questions in the “Ask Chuck” segment and breaks down the weekend in college football. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Chuck Todd’s introduction 00:30 End of the government shutdown seems imminent 02:15 Democrats have had a stiffer spine than expected 03:00 Surprising that Trump fought to cut SNAP, many were his voters 04:30 Trump ran on protecting benefits, has done the opposite during shutdown 05:15 Trump keeps claiming the economy is better than it is 06:00 Is Trump in an information bubble that’s not giving him reality? 07:00 Trump being out of touch is making Republicans start to distance from them 08:45 Mamdani’s election was not “the most important” result 09:45 New Jersey governor result was more revealing than Mamdani’s 10:30 Democrats win in Nov 4th election showed it was a referendum on Trump 12:00 Democrats should take the win and cut a deal to end shutdown 13:00 Are we entering the lame duck period of Donald Trump’s presidency? 14:45 Trump’s handling of the shutdown has been terrible politics for Republicans 16:15 The affordability message penetrated, culture war didn’t at all 17:30 Trump’s policies are creating a mess ahead of the 2026 World Cup 19:00 Trump is more focused on his image rather than affordability 19:45 Some Republicans are realizing they’ll have to break with Trump 22:15 Mike Johnson has basically become Donald Trump’s puppet 23:30 Trump is either losing his grip on reality, or trying to remake it 25:00 Trump falling asleep in meetings is a big deal 35:15 Garrett Graff joins the Chuck ToddCast 37:15 Getting started with The Long Shadow podcast 38:15 The importance of going back and covering recent history 41:00 Looking at pivotal, fork in the road moments in history 44:30 It took 50 years to answer two central questions about Watergate 47:15 Extent of Nixon's treachery in '68 wasn't exposed until recently 48:30 Watergate led to destruction of White House taping system 50:15 Trump is actively skirting the Presidential Records Act 52:45 Mike Johnson excuses Trump's corruption because it's in the open 54:15 Thoughts on looking back into Iran Contra? 56:45 CIA afraid that copping to Oswald could unravel other bad actions? 58:30 History says that meddling in Venezuela will go extremely poorly 59:45 Government conspiracies presuppose limited competence 1:00:30 Government can keep big secrets briefly or small secrets a long time 1:03:15 Is there more to be covered on Monica Lewinsky & impeachment? 1:04:45 No greater victim in a scandal than Lewinsky, Clinton's never apologized 1:07:15 Much of the Supreme Court got their start with Clinton impeachment 1:08:15 The view of presidents changes greatly over the decades 1:10:15 Judging past presidents relative to poor recent leaders 1:12:15 The politics of the author color presidential biographies 1:14:45 The historical telling of January 6th won't be ripe until Trump dies 1:15:45 There are so many January 6th villains whose stories must be told 1:16:45 Chuck's "Love/Hate" relationship with Roger Stone 1:17:45 The best way to interview a serial liar 1:19:15 The only good sources around Trump always remain anonymous 1:21:15 How worried are you about the future of American democracy? 1:22:00 We're underestimating how bad things are 9 months into Trump 1:23:45 We'll never be the country we were before Trump, but still reason for hope 1:24:45 Trump has a strong grip on a weak hand 1:26:30 Don't know whether we're in the beginning, middle or end of Trump story 1:27:45 Trump is too lazy to build a lasting movement 1:29:30 Democrats won't admit that Trump voters aren't wrong about some things 1:30:45 Democrats put asterisks next to elections they lost to Trump 1:33:45 Any interest in covering anything outside of politics? 1:34:45 OJ Simpson fundamentally changed the TV news business 1:37:30 Chasing ratings made the audience the editor for TV news 1:38:15 What Garrett is working on - Why algorithms broke the internet 1:46:15 Chuck's thoughts on interview with Garrett Graff 1:47:15 November 11th, 1918 World War 1 ends 1:48:00 Surrender of Ottoman Empire is largely forgotten, hugely consequential 1:49:00 Terms of surrender were incredibly harsh 1:49:45 European powers began carving up the middle east 1:50:30 Europe stopped fighting, the middle east didn't 1:52:00 In the US, World War 1 is only taught as a prequel to WW2 1:53:00 WW1 is the reason the middle east is still a mess today 1:55:00 We need to improve how we teach the history of World War 1 1:56:00 Ask Chuck 1:56:15 Can you explain why the senate has 60 vs. 50 vote thresholds? 2:01:30 Should the Virgin islands join with other islands to become a state? 2:02:30 Love for the election night livestream 2:03:45 Why haven't the 2026 federal appropriations been approved? 2:06:15 Chuck's experience at Vets for Tech event 2:15:30 College football reactionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chuck Todd sits down with journalist and historian Garrett Graff, host of The Long Shadow, to unpack how America’s political scandals—from Watergate to Trump—have shaped the presidency and public trust. Graff reflects on the slow process of uncovering the truth about Nixon’s 1968 interference and how those lessons apply to Trump’s open defiance of the Presidential Records Act. The two dive into why history takes decades to judge leaders, how government secrecy really works, and why even the most shocking revelations—like Iran-Contra or January 6th—take years to fully understand. Graff also discusses the ripple effects of past scandals, from Monica Lewinsky’s mistreatment to the rise of political figures forged during the Clinton impeachment, and how the legacy of Trump may take a generation to contextualize. The conversation ends on the future of media itself—how O.J. Simpson changed television forever, how algorithms broke the internet, and what it means for truth in an age where everyone’s chasing clicks. Thank you Wildgrain for sponsoring. Visit http://wildgrain.com/TODDCAST and use the code "TODDCAST" at checkout to receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life! Protect your family with life insurance from Ethos. Get up to $3 million in coverage in as little as 10 minutes at https://ethos.com/chuck. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Got injured in an accident? You could be one click away from a claim worth millions. Just visit https://www.forthepeople.com/TODDCAST to start your claim now with Morgan & Morgan without leaving your couch. Remember, it's free unless you win! Timeline: (Timestamps may vary based on advertisements) 00:00 Garrett Graff joins the Chuck ToddCast 02:00 Getting started with The Long Shadow podcast 03:00 The importance of going back and covering recent history 05:45 Looking at pivotal, fork in the road moments in history 09:15 It took 50 years to answer two central questions about Watergate 12:00 Extent of Nixon’s treachery in ‘68 wasn’t exposed until recently 13:15 Watergate led to destruction of White House taping system 15:00 Trump is actively skirting the Presidential Records Act 17:30 Mike Johnson excuses Trump’s corruption because it’s in the open 19:00 Thoughts on looking back into Iran Contra? 21:30 CIA afraid that copping to Oswald could unravel other bad actions? 23:15 History says that meddling in Venezuela will go extremely poorly 24:30 Government conspiracies presuppose limited competence 25:15 Government can keep big secrets briefly or small secrets a long time 28:00 Is there more to be covered on Monica Lewinsky & impeachment? 29:30 No greater victim in a scandal than Lewinsky, Clinton’s never apologized 32:00 Much of the Supreme Court got their start with Clinton impeachment 33:00 The view of presidents changes greatly over the decades 35:00 Judging past presidents relative to poor recent leaders 37:00 The politics of the author color presidential biographies 39:30 The historical telling of January 6th won’t be ripe until Trump dies 40:30 There are so many January 6th villains whose stories must be told 41:30 Chuck’s “Love/Hate” relationship with Roger Stone 42:30 The best way to interview a serial liar 44:00 The only good sources around Trump always remain anonymous 46:00 How worried are you about the future of American democracy? 46:45 We’re underestimating how bad things are 9 months into Trump 48:30 We’ll never be the country we were before Trump, but still reason for hope 49:30 Trump has a strong grip on a weak hand 51:15 Don’t know whether we’re in the beginning, middle or end of Trump story 52:30 Trump is too lazy to build a lasting movement 54:15 Democrats won’t admit that Trump voters aren’t wrong about some things 55:30 Democrats put asterisks next to elections they lost to Trump 58:30 Any interest in covering anything outside of politics? 59:30 OJ Simpson fundamentally changed the TV news business 1:02:15 Chasing ratings made the audience the editor for TV news 1:03:00 What Garrett is working on - Why algorithms broke the internetSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's Headlines: More election results are in, and Democrats are mostly keeping their momentum from Tuesday. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was re-elected, fending off a challenge from democratic socialist Ahmed Fatah. In Maine, voters approved a new red flag gun law and Colorado passed a statewide measure to fund free school lunches for all kids—because Colorado stays ahead of the curve. Meanwhile, California Republicans have already filed a federal lawsuit to block the new congressional map voters approved under Prop 50, claiming it violates the 14th and 15th Amendments. And in Maine, Democratic Rep. Jared Golden—one of the few Dems who could win a red district—announced he won't seek reelection, citing threats made against his family. The government shutdown officially hit day 37, breaking Trump's own previous record. The Transportation Department says it'll start cutting air traffic by 10% if the standoff doesn't end by Friday. Trump's still calling for Senate Republicans to scrap the filibuster to end it, but a bipartisan group is reportedly working on a short-term fix that would reopen the government and roll in some of the annual funding bills. Translation: they could've solved this if they wanted to. At the Supreme Court, justices heard three hours of arguments over whether Trump can unilaterally impose tariffs. Judging by their questions, they're not exactly buying it. And finally, investigators say the UPS cargo plane crash in Louisville that killed nine people began when the left wing caught fire and an engine fell off just after takeoff—sending debris and explosions half a mile downrange. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: California Republicans sue over new US House map approved by voters Bangor Daily News: Jared Golden: I won't seek reelection. Here's why. WSJ: Lawmakers See Hope for Ending Record-Setting Shutdown WSJ: Supreme Court Appears Skeptical of Trump's Tariffs AP News: 12 dead after engine fell off UPS plane that crashed and exploded in Kentucky Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Topics Covered: • From Cairo to Rutgers: Ali's soccer journey and how he discovered fitness • How CrossFit shaped Egypt's early fitness scene • The birth of AlphaX: a new hybrid race format for the Middle East • Hosting an international event beside the Pyramids • Why the Grand Egyptian Museum launch matters • Event design, pricing, judging, and accessibility • Comparing AlphaX to HYROX Open Summary: Matt talks with Ali and Adam, the founders of AlphaX Egypt, as they prepare for their debut race at the Grand Egyptian Museum. Ali shares his path from pro soccer in Egypt to a D1 scholarship at Rutgers and then back home to build in fitness. Adam explains how an ACL rehab at the U.S. Olympic Training Center pulled him into CrossFit and eventually into running Egypt's largest functional fitness events. AlphaX blends endurance, strength, and power across the year, culminating in "X," a ten-station race with 800-meter runs between stations. Movements include sled push and pull, farmer carry, bear hug carry, burpee broad jumps, box jump overs, lunges, wall balls, row, and ski. Loads and flow are designed to be inclusive and comparable to HYROX Open, with singles, pairs, and relay divisions. Judging focuses on clear standards at high-variance stations like burpees and lunges, with one-to-one judging where needed. Pricing is intentionally accessible for the local market (about $20 USD early bird). Beyond the race, they talk about opening global eyes to Egypt's fitness scene and using iconic locations like the Grand Egyptian Museum to showcase the region. Event Date: December 6, 2025 Location: Grand Egyptian Museum, Cairo Listen on Apple or Spotify Support us through The Cup Of Coffee Follow Hybrid Fitness Media on IG

This episode originally aired in March of 2025 Mike O'Neill from the Landmark Legal Foundation comments on one of the early rulings against President Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and illegal aliens already in the country with a mass deportation campaign.

Send us a textThis week at The Spar-Inn, the crew dives into another wild stretch of boxing madness, from Boots Ennis fans losing their minds to the Parker vs Wardley “UK cooking” stoppage, Tank Davis' out of ring drama, and women fighters demanding 3-minute rounds. Add in a little Jake Paul matchmaking talk, a few strong opinions, and the usual bar-banter energy, and you've got another round of unfiltered boxing talk straight from the tap. With 2 fans of the show from different continents popping in as well!THE SPAR-INN ON YOUTUBE

On this weeks Episode UKHXR takeover of the UKOCR podcast, Ian speaks to Chris of Revelate Fitness. Revelate Fitness recently created waves when TRYKA race used their technology to replace judges at the Thrusters Station. So Ian wanted to find out more about the technology and how it could be used. We explore the history of the brand including their in-class Erg workouts, their work with gyms and their work with other races. We also consider how this technology can evolve in the future. Follow our guest on Instagram - @revelate.fitness Check them out online - Revelate | Fitness that works. If you have any questions about the show or would like to explore advertising opportunities, feel free to reach out to us at admin@ukocr.com.

Judging others is easy. Seeing ourselves clearly? That's hard. In this week's Radical message, Josh Fortney walks through Matthew 7:1–6, where Jesus teaches us how to judge with humility, mercy, and wisdom. Jesus doesn't tell us to stop using discernment. He calls us to check our motives, confront our own sin, and restore others gently. True judgment doesn't condemn — it helps people see clearly. Whether you tend to be overly critical or overly cautious, this message shows how followers of Jesus can balance truth and grace in relationships that reflect His heart. Sermon notes and discussion questions available at: https://www.citybridgechurch.org/messages Subscribe for weekly Sunday Messages on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Questions or feedback? DM us @citybridgecc or email info@citybridgechurch.org. Enjoyed the message? Leave a review on Apple Podcasts.

Judging others is for the weak-minded. The people who judge others put their own insecurities on display. See others for who they are, not just what you see on the outside. Jesus was the best at this. 

It's a Stine Crime! On this episode of YCSM, Bob uses examples for credit, Brandon becomes a witch and curses himself with extra warts, and Mario's Grandma won't let him jack it!(00:00) Introduction(05:23) Mario's History Lesson(22:21) "Judging a Book by Its Cover" ft. Brandon(52:42) Bob's Chapter Summary(1:16:02) Brandon's Chapter Summary(1:37:11) Mario's Chapter Summary(1:58:37) TV Episode Discussion(2:16:52) Overall Review(2:27:24) Goodreads Reads⁠Support us on Patreon!⁠⁠Here's a video version of this podcast!

Sleep - something so mundane we do it around eight hours out of every twenty-four - makes a great vehicle for horror. Judging by folkloric record and cross cultural points of similarity, it's been part of horror for millennia. From old hag syndrome to nightmares to the simple but essential necessity of being unaware and vulnerable for blocks of time, sleep is it's own carnival of terror. This week Jules and Madeleine delve into why, tracking through folklore into modern horror and looking at how you can use sleep effectively in your own writing. (Aside from aiming for eight hours a night, that is!) Title music: Ecstasy by Smiling Cynic

Imagine a mild-mannered white guy who takes on a non-white identity to fight crime. Wouldn't 1939 radio producers do an amazing job with that? Listen to find out!Passage to the Orient, episode 140 of This Gun in My Hand, was smuggled into your ears by Rob Northrup. This episode and all others are available on Youtube with automatically-generated closed captions of dialog. Visit http://ThisGuninMyHand.blogspot.com for credits, show notes, archives, and to buy my books, such as Sisyphus, Eat Your Heart Out, available in paperback and ebook from Amazon. What martial art is even more deadly than ninyutsu? This Gun in My Hand!Show Notes:1. “Castello” means castle in Italian, “Lupo” means wolf, and “roccia” means “rock.” In German it would be something like “Wolfenstein.”2. Raymond Tokutaro Muramoto, the voice actor who originated Kato on the Green Hornet radio show, was a Japanese immigrant. In real life, he was sent to an internment camp during World War II. Here's a short bio I wrote about him:https://archive.org/details/the-first-katohttp://dayjobspodcast.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-first-kato.html 3. Read more about the young political firebrand Nguyễn Ái Quốc after whom Harlan plans to name his radio hero:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh4. As always, listeners should be skeptical of any claims made by characters in the show, especially if they're trying to define a term like “code-switching” that hadn't been coined and wasn't in use in 1939. The opinions of these clowns do not necessarily reflect my own so I'm off the hook for any lies or mistakes they make.5. This episode was inspired by Straight Arrow, a radio show broadcast from 1948-1951. An Apache orphan raised by a white couple maintains the identity of “Steve Adams” until it's time to fight crime as Apache warrior “Straight Arrow.” Elements were ripped off from The Lone Ranger, like the cavern full of gold that funds his crime-fighting. Only his trusted friend “Packy” the crusty miner who sounds like Gabby Hayes knows the truth. Lots of talk about his innate Apache abilities, his keen Indian eyesight, and Straight Arrow drops his voice and speaks haltingly, although not quite in broken English like Tonto. https://www.radioechoes.com/?page=series&genre=OTR-Western&series=Straight%20ArrowCredits:The opening music clip was from The Sun Sets at Dawn (1950), and the closing music was from Killer Bait (1949), both films in the public domain. Most of the music and sound effects used in the episode are modified or incomplete versions of the originals.Sound Effect Title: Matkustajakone / Passenger plane DC-3 (Dakota) - Sisällä / Inside by YleArkistoLicense: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0https://freesound.org/s/406952/ Sound Effect Title: FOLEY_Footsteps_Metal_002.wav by conleec License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/149454/ Sound Effect Title: Wind shaking a tree, loud and muffled gust of wind recorded in Nebraska by felix.blumeLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/657003/ Sound Effect Title: Cracking wood by JappeHallunken License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/501302/ Sound Effect Title: dry branches cracking.aiff by SoundCollectah License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/109357/ Sound Effect Title: Foley_Natural_Wood_Barks_Crush_Mono.wav by Nox_Sound License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/558380/ Sound Effect Title: Rustling leaves by giddster License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/437356/ Sound Effect Title: Walking Through Tall Grass by naturenotesuk License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0https://freesound.org/s/698895/ Sound Effect Title: dawn_birds.wav by paul.hLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/557332/ Sound Effect Title: Usignolo - Nightingale by danygdanygLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/234169/ Sound Effect Title: Tuscan Birdsong.wav by gazsound License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/156002/ Sound Effect Title: G57-05-Creature Getting Stabbed.wav by craigsmith License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/438891/ Sound Effect Title: G24-01-Warner Brothers Body Fall.wav by craigsmith License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/438300/ Sound Effect Title: School door with metal latch inside.aif by timonunderwater License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/532788/Sound Effect Title: Footsteps Dress Shoes Wood Floor.wavLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/people/allrealsound/sounds/161756/Sound Effect Title: Dropping Body on Hard Ground.wav by jjhouse4License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0https://freesound.org/s/203039/ Sound Effect Title: footsteps cellar.wavLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/people/gecop/sounds/545030/Sound Effect Title: S16-06 Light wooden door open & close.wavLicense: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/people/craigsmith/sounds/675878/Sound Effect Title: Kicking rock wall and almost falling. by Edelhanie License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0https://freesound.org/s/594623/ Sound Effect Title: Air raid siren in Kyiv by Romaner66 License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0https://freesound.org/s/676589/ Sound Effect Title: 22lr Caliber Rifle Shots and Reloading License: Public Domainhttps://freesound.org/s/717133/ The image accompanying this episode is a modified detail of the back cover of Terry and the Pirates (Big Little Book #1156) released in 1935, art and text attributed to Milton Caniff, public domain.Image Alt text: Colorful line art drawing from the perspective of a pier. In the foreground is a white boat with red cabin. The sail on a single mast is lowered and furled. A man lounges in a wooden chair, tipped back behind the ship's wheel, his feet propped on the rail of the boat with a fan in his hand. Judging by the small smokestack over the cabin, it has an engine, or maybe it's a vent for a stove. Close to the front of the boat, we can see the aft and steering oar of a Chinese junk. Both vessels appear to be moored to the pier. A bay with distant strips of land stretches toward the horizon with two junks a short distance away, their sails yellow and green and red. Massive white clouds take up almost half of the view.    

10-30-25 - Now You Get In Trouble For Not Reacting Right When Other People Say Bigoted Things - Brady's Fall Festival Was Last Night And He Stayed Away Not Judging Reminding Us The Greek Festival Is Coming UpSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

10-30-25 - Now You Get In Trouble For Not Reacting Right When Other People Say Bigoted Things - Brady's Fall Festival Was Last Night And He Stayed Away Not Judging Reminding Us The Greek Festival Is Coming UpSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Summary In this episode, Shelby and Courtney explore various themes including the challenges including Shelby's days of solo parenting, the way their rankings of The Life of a Showgirl changed after two weeks of listening, their favorite products of the moment, the astronomical cost of Walt Disney World Annual Passes for those out of state, and insights from Dancing with the Stars. They share personal anecdotes, discuss their favorite songs and products, and reflect on the impact of reality TV narratives on viewer engagement. In this episode, the hosts delve into the dynamics of dance competitions, discussing the expectations placed on performers and the relationships between the stars and their pros/choreographers. They analyze contestant performances, share insights on pro dancers, and explore audience engagement and voting dynamics. The conversation shifts to the challenges of AI in content creation and a discussion on merchandise strategy. The hosts also touch on meal prep and healthy living, concluding with reflections on friendship and community connections. Takeaways Shelby shares her experience with solo parenting and the challenges it brings. The hosts discuss their evolving opinions on Taylor Swift music tracks and how personal experiences influence their preferences. Shelby introduces a new product that enhances the scent of her home, highlighting its effectiveness. The conversation shifts to Disney, discussing the cost of annual passes and the value of spontaneous trips. They share humorous anecdotes about a recent WDW Halloween parade mishap involving the Ursula "float" and its performers. The hosts express their appreciation for their podcast community on Facebook around Dancing with the Stars and the excitement of watching it live. They analyze the impact of producers on the narratives presented in reality shows like Dancing with the Stars. Shelby reflects on the emotional connection to certain songs and how they resonate differently over time. The hosts discuss the importance of relatable content in reality TV and how it affects viewer engagement. They conclude with a light-hearted discussion about their favorite contestants on Dancing with the Stars. Dance competitions often overlook personal challenges of performers. Judging should be based on performance, not personal circumstances. Choreographers play a crucial role in dancer success. Audience engagement can significantly influence voting outcomes. AI is reshaping content creation, often leading to lower quality. Merchandise strategy can impact sales and customer engagement. Meal prepping can lead to healthier eating habits. Community connections can foster lasting friendships. Dancer relationships with pros can affect performance quality. Understanding audience preferences is key for success.

When you make judgments about others, you are automatically making judgments about yourself. Romans 2:1Download the FREE Romans commentary: ⁠⁠https://nogreaterjoy.org/shop/romans-...⁠⁠Am I saved? ⁠⁠https://nogreaterjoy.org/shop/am-i-sa...⁠

In this bonus episode of Bean to Barstool, I reflect back on my recent trip to Mexico to judge at Copa Cerveza Mx and the great beer and chocolate I had while I was there, and discuss what I love about beer judging and what you should and shouldn't take away from beer award results. The Copa Cerveza Mx awards list can be found here.I also briefly talked about the upcoming Midwest Craft Chocolate Festival. You can listen to my full preview of the festival here.  Check out David's book Pairing Beer & Chocolate: A Guide to Bringing the Flavors of Craft Beer and Craft Chocolate Together.Follow Bean to Barstool on social media!InstagramFacebookPinterestSign up for host David Nilsen's beer newsletter for regular beer musings, and the Bean to Barstool newsletter for pairings, collaborations, and maker profiles.

Jumping in to the Living Steps we are exploring of the principles of the last three of 12 steps and how they are expressed in fundamental ideas of Pnimius HaTorah and Chassidus.Continuing our exploration of step 10, Menachem discusses the individualized and personal nature of a spiritual life - and how ongoing inventory is a process of measuring how true to our own mission, we are day by dayWebsite: TheLightRevealed.orgEmail: TheLightRevealed@TLRFamily.orgFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thelightrevealed/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thelightrevealed/

A series on the Sermon On The Mount, by Simon Manchester of Hope 103.2's Christian Growth podcast and pastor at All Saints in Woollahra, Sydney. Listen to more from our Hope Podcasts collection at hopepodcasts.com.au. And send the team a message via Hope 103.2’s app, Facebook or Instagram.Support the show, a product of Hope Media: https://hope1032.com.au/donate/2211A-pod/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Sermon for the Nineteenth Sunday after Trinity St. Matthew 9:1-8 by William Klock In our Gospel St. Matthew writes that “Jesus got into the boat and crossed back over to his own town.”  Back to Capernaum.  From the far side of the Sea of Galilee.  From that place where he'd been confronted by a man filled with demons and cast those demons into a herd of pigs.  You know the story.  The demon-possessed pigs promptly stampeded into the sea and drowned themselves.  And that left the pig farmer and the local townspeople none too pleased with Jesus.  They pleaded with him to leave.  So he and the disciples got back into their boat and sailed across the Sea of Galilee.  And now he's back home in Capernaum.  Matthew's version of this story is the shortest on details.  Mark's version implies that Jesus was tired.  He went home to get a break from the crowds and it took a few days before anyone realised that he was home.  But when they figured it out, the crowds were back.  Before he knew it, they'd let themselves into his house and he was preaching.  It was mostly just ordinary people, but there were some scribes and Pharisees there in that packed and crowded room.  They had to keep an eye—or an ear—on Jesus. And that crowd posed a problem to four friends.  They had a fifth friend who was paralysed.  When they heard Jesus was back in town, these four men went and got their friend and carried him, cot and all, to Jesus' house.  Jesus was healing everybody else.  Surely he would heal their friend.  If they could get to him.  And they couldn't.  I can imagine them trying.  Asking politely if people might get out of the way.  Looking to see if maybe they could squeeze through a back door or a window, then going back and trying to push some people aside to get to the front door—all to no avail.  There was no way they'd ever get their friend into that house.  And that's when they had an idea.  The roof!  In those days, in that place, roofs were flat—they served as extra living space when it was hot and you needed to get out into a cooling breeze—but more importantly, roofs were made of rush and palms plastered between beams.  So these men take their friend to the roof and they start jabbing at the roof with sticks and kicking at it with their heels and pulling it apart with their hands, until they'd made a hole big enough to lower their friend down to Jesus. Now imagine Jesus, in the house, preaching to the crowd while that was going on upstairs.  Loud scratching and thumping.  And pretty soon bits of plaster and rush start falling.  Before too long there's a hole in the roof and everyone sees these guys looking down—probably a little sheepishly.  I wonder what went through Jesus' mind.  He was tired.  His rest had been cut short.  The crowd was one thing, but he really didn't need some yahoos tearing up his roof.  “Great!  There goes the damage deposit,” he's thinking to himself.  But pretty quickly, as they lowered their friend to him, he saw what was going on.  And I think Jesus smiled. Why?  Because Matthew writes that Jesus saw their faith and if Jesus was anything like me and most of the other pastors I know, the exhaustion, the frustration of not having a break, the annoyance at having these guys destroy his roof, I think it all would have melted away, because seeing the faith of these men made it all worth it.  And looking down at the paralyzed man, Jesus says to him, “Have courage!”  Take heart!  In other words, “Don't be afraid.”  Because I imagine some people might be afraid if their friends just tore a hole in the Messiah's roof to get them inside.  Because even if Jesus was smiling, the people around him were looking shocked and outraged and angry.  “How dare you dig a hole in the Messiah's roof!”  And so Jesus looks at him and says, “Your sins are forgiven!” Now, that's not what we might expect Jesus to say to this man.  Judging by Jesus' other encounters, we'd expect him to say something like, “Get up and walk; your faith has made you well.”  But instead, he tells the paralysed man that his sins are forgiven.  That's nice, but he's still lying there paralysed on his cot.  So why would Jesus say, “Your sins are forgiven”?  Brothers and Sisters, Jesus found a teaching moment in everything.  He'd healed people more times than anyone could count at that point, and that was a sign that the Messiah had come and that God's kingdom was breaking into the world.  But what did that really mean?  Well, remember that everyone had their own ideas about the Messiah and about the kingdom—and, most important, how they could have a share in it.  The people needed more than just to see miracles.  They needed to know more than that the Messiah had come; they desperately needed to know what the Messiah had come to do.  Jesus saw that group of scribes there in his house that day and saw a perfect opportunity.  Maybe they were legitimately curious to hear what Jesus had to say or maybe they were there just to criticise or report back to the priests or the Pharisees, but, right on cue, they hear Jesus' words—“Your sins are forgiven”—and he can see their outrage.  He could see how they scowled as they grumbled to each other about how blasphemous this was.  “Who can forgive sins except God?” they howled in Mark's telling of the story. Just as Jesus could see the faith of the paralysed man's friends as they lowered him through the hole in his roof, he could see the opposite in the grumbling scribes.  And so he asks them, “Why are your hearts so intent on evil?”  Of course, that just made them angrier.  “We're not the evil ones!” they say back.  “You are…you…you…you blasphemer!”  But Jesus goes on with the teaching moment and says to them, “Which is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Get up and walk?”  But so that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—and now he turns back to the paralysed man—“Get up, take up your cot, and go home.” And the paralysed man got up, took up his cot, and went home.  I think there was probably a little more to it than that.  He probably stretched a bit and moved his arms and legs around and maybe jumped up and down a few times.  I think he probably laughed and yelled and gave a hug and many thanks to Jesus, but Matthew doesn't get bogged down in those sorts of details, because his point is—as usual—that when Jesus healed the man, he was healed.  There was no struggle or delay.  This was the same word God spoke in the beginning when he said, “Let there be light!” and there was light.  When Jesus told the man to get up, to take his cot, and to go home, that's exactly what the man did.  In Jesus, God's new creation had come.  And if that's all that had happened, the scribes would have had nothing to complain about. What really stuck in their craw was Jesus declaring the man's sins forgiven.  That made them mad.  Even for the Messiah, as far as they were concerned, that was too big a claim.  To heal the paralysed man?  That was good.  But if he had sins to forgive, his friends should have taken him to the temple in Jerusalem for that.  The priests there were the only ones with the authority to offer sacrifices for sin and to declare someone reconciled to God.  But the crowd understood and Matthew makes a point of saying that the crowd was afraid—afraid in the sense that they were awestruck by what had happened and knew that somehow and in some way the God of Israel was at work in and through Jesus—as if they'd just witnesses one of those great and awe-inspiring events from the Old Testament that no one in Israel had seen in a thousand years.  Matthew says they saw what had happened and that they praised God for giving such authority to men. The story is sort of the whole gospel story in a nutshell.  Jesus teaches and he heals—he does the things the Messiah was supposed to be doing.  He even foreshadows the resurrection when he tells the man to “get up”—or better to “Rise up!”  That's resurrection language.  This is what Jesus promises for everyone who trusts in him: He forgives our sins, he raises us to new life, and he invites us home—to live as his new creation in the presence of God.  But as far as the scribes and Pharisees were concerned, Jesus did all this the wrong way and that made it blasphemy. But Jesus wasn't worried about that.  You know when you're accused of something bad by someone and you just want to say, “Man, look in the mirror!”  Or that old thing your parents used to tell you when someone insulted you, “Consider the source.”  Or that line from a certain cartoon character, “Your boos mean nothing to me; I've seen what makes you cheer.”  Jesus flips around the accusation.  He exposes the wickedness in the hearts of those scribes and he does it for everyone to see.  He discredits them and their accusations.  He leaves them fuming.  You can imagine their red faces and how their mouths are moving, but they can't say anything.  And Jesus is left standing there full of authority and life and power. I wonder if this teachable moment popped into Jesus' head as the plaster rained down on him and the man was lowered through the hole.  The paralytic probably had an apologetic look on his face—like, “I'm really sorry, Jesus, for the hole in your roof.  Please forgive me and my friends.”  And Jesus realised that this was the perfect moment to say something about forgiveness—because this man and his friends and, in fact, all of Israel, that's what they really needed: forgiveness, not for making a hole in his roof, but for far more serious sins—for idolatry and for greed and for faithlessness and for all the ways they'd failed to live out their covenant with the Lord.  Israel needed a lot of things—just like the paralysed man did—but most of all she needed forgiveness.  In that, the paralysed man represents Israel and all her wrong expectations of the Messiah.  The Jews wanted the Messiah to solve all their problems.  For some that was healing sickness, for others it was casting out demons, for some it was getting everybody to keep the law better, and for others it was bashing Roman heads and destroying the pagan gentiles.  But not very many people understood that none of these things was the real problem.  The real problem was sin.  Sin is why the world is in the mess it's in.  Sin was why Israel was estranged from God.  The people had been unfaithful to the Lord.  He'd called them to be light in the darkness, but they'd hid their light under a basket.  More than anything else, they needed forgiveness, because forgiveness is the start; it's what paves the way for everything else to be set to rights.  Forgiveness is the way to new creation. I think that's the part of the story that gets most of our attention.  But notice that what Matthew puts at the heart of this story isn't the healing or the announcement of forgiveness.  The heart of the story is Jesus statement that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins and then the response of the people.  We miss this because we're not thinking like First Century Jews.  When Jesus calls himself the “son of man”, he's drawing on an image from Daniel 7.  The book of Daniel is about faithfulness in the midst of exile.  Israel had been defeated and the people taken off to Babylon. Worse, some like Daniel, were pressured to compromise, to bow to a pagan king and to pagan gods—to give up on the God of Israel and to give up on his promises.  And some did just that.  But Daniel stood firm and the Lord gave him a vision of those pagan kings cast down, of the God of Israel taking his throne, and the son of man “coming with the clouds of heaven…to be given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Daniel 7:13-14).  And yet, when Daniel asks what the vision means, he is told that this kingship and dominion “shall be given”—not to a single person, but “to the people, the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey them” (Daniel 7:27). The son of man in Daniel's vision was a symbol for the faithful remnant of God's people—for those who stood firm in their faith in the God of Israel, who remembered his covenant, and who refused to bow to pagan gods and kings.  So when Jesus referred to himself as the son of man, this is what the scribes (and everyone else) would have been thinking of.  And this is why Matthew says at the end that the people praised God that this authority has been given not to a man—Jesus—but to men, plural.  Because up to this point, Daniel's vision had yet to be fulfilled.  The Maccabees, for example, had claimed to be that faithful remnant, but their kingdom didn't last.  The people who were that faithful remnant—people like Zechariah and Elizabeth and Mary and Joseph and Simeon and Anna, although they were probably too humble to actually claim being the faithful remnant—people like them knew all too well that the Lord had yet to grant them anything like authority and dominion.  That's what Mary's song, the one we call the Magnificat, is all about.  But here Jesus identifies himself with that vision.  In him the son of man is finally being granted that authority and dominion—that kingship that everyone thought of in connection with God's kingdom and the world finally being set to rights—and Jesus isn't just saying it or claiming it.  He proves it when he tells the paralysed man to get up, take his bed, and go home.  For the people there that day, this was bigger than just the Messiah.  Jesus could claim to be the “son of man”, but the son of man wasn't just one person, the son of man represented the whole faithful remnant in Israel.  We need to grasp the enormous hope embodied in those words of Jesus about the son of man.  It's not just Jesus who will take his throne.  He will.  But that he will take his throne also means that all the faithful will be vindicated as their enemies are cast down, and that they will finally share in that God-given authority and dominion.  So the people in crowded in Jesus' house that day recognised that in Jesus the Messiah, God's kingdom had finally come and that they would be part of it—not just as subject, but as kings and queens themselves.  Or to borrow from C. S. Lewis, the day was coming when these sons of Adam and daughters of Eve would once again take their rightful place in creation set to rights. This makes sense of another passage that often confuses people.  Twice Jesus said to his disciples “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”.  The first is in Matthew 16, after Jesus praises Peter for his confession, “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God”.  Jesus says to him and the others, “I will give you the keys of heaven”.  And in Matthew 18, in that passage about what we call “church discipline” and dealing with an unrepentant person, he repeats this statement about binding and loosing.  This is all “son of man” stuff.  Jesus isn't giving special authority to Peter alone because he's going to be the first pope.  In fact, he's not giving any special authority just to the apostles.  No, this is a gospel authority given to all of the faithful remnant, to everyone who by faith identifies with the Messiah.  This is a people who are not only given dominion or kingship—to rule alongside the Messiah—but who also share in his role as prophet and priest.  That's what this binding and loosing language is about.  As prophets, Jesus' people were to speak out against the sins of Israel and to rebuke her faithlessness, and as priests they were called to mediate the saving, the forgiving message of the gospel to the nation—and eventually to the whole world. This was good news and it explains why the crowds wouldn't give Jesus a break.  Israel's scriptures were full of promises, but so many of them had yet to be fulfilled.  Promises like Daniel's vision of the son of man.  Promises of forgiveness and of restoration and of dominion and authority.  Time and again, things would happen and people would think, “Oh!  This is it!”  But it never quite happened.  The remnant returned from their Babylonian exile, but things were never as they had been.  The Maccabees defeated the Greeks and established Judah's independence.  And for a little while it looked like the Lord's promises were on track to be fulfilled.  And then it all fell apart.  But the people knew that the Lord is faithful.  Time and again he had shown his faithfulness in Israel's past and they knew he would be faithful in their future.  Every year they ate the Passover and remembered the Lord's promises and looked forward in hopeful anticipation.  And now, here was Jesus, and he was actually doing the things the Lord had promised and he was doing them like no one had before.  They had faith.  They would be forgiven, their enemies would be cast down, and the faithful remnant—who were now gathering around Jesus the Messiah—in them the people of God would be restored and made new and would be the people the Lord had promised—a people full of his life and a people for the life of the world—prophets, priests, and kings.  The sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would be forgiven their sins and would take their thrones and all would once again be right with the world.  This was good news! And Brothers and Sisters, this is still good news for us—maybe even more than it was for the people crammed in Jesus house that day.  In Jesus we see the faithfulness of God.  They were still looking forward in anticipation, but we can look back and see the whole picture and how Jesus fulfilled the Lord's promises and that ought to strengthen our faith and ought to give us reason to look forward to our future in hope, knowing that what God has begun in Jesus he will surely finish.  The world is often dark, we can feel small and alone, sometimes it feels like we're fighting a losing battle, but we can look back and see what the Lord has done and trust that he is faithful.  He always has been and he always will be. And this is good news because it tells us who we are.  I think that too often we look at passages like this, where Jesus talks about himself as the son of man and we forget that it's not just telling us something about Jesus.  The son of man represents a whole people.  Because Jesus has fulfilled the role of the son of man, that means that we his people, through our union with him, we have been caught up in that son of man identity, too.  Jesus has been given power and authority and dominion forever, and you and I share that with him.  It's authority to live and to proclaim the good news that he has died, that he has risen, and that he has come again and that he brings forgiveness and life.  And it's also the authority to speak as prophets to the world, to call out sin, to remind the world that the Lord will come in judgement to cleanse his creation, and to call men and women to repentance.  And hand in hand with that role, we have the authority of priests.  We're not only prophets, but priests, mediating the good news of Jesus and the life of God's spirit—mediating the redemption Jesus has made at the cross—to a sick world, desperately in need of forgiveness and life. Brothers and Sisters, think about that as you come to the Lord's Table this morning.  The bread and the wine reminds us of the forgiveness and the life and the hope we find at the cross, but they should also remind us who we are in Jesus.  We are Daniel's son-of-man people.  We are prophets, priests, and kings and we have been made so for the life of the world.  Seeing the faithfulness of God revealed in Jesus ought to move us—like the people that day in Jesus' house—to give God glory and there is no better way to glorify him than to be the people he has made us in Jesus and the Spirit, a people who live and proclaim his good news so that the world might see and know his faithfulness and give him glory. Let's pray: O God, because without you we are not able to please you, mercifully grant that your Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts, that in his power we might be the gospel people who have made, that we might be faithful in making known your faithfulness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.  Amen.

SPOILER WARNING ⚠️ This episode will include me talking about a show that I never thought I would ever watch, but I enjoyed it a ton and watched it in a very short amount of time

#354: Are we done with "6 7" yet; The boys debate the legitimacy of "the hung smile" which may or may not correlate to penis size; Skeery went to the SNL afterparty and had a conversation with Sabrina Carpenter; Judging your doctor's success by the car they drive: Cashiers are lost and can't count change anymore when you pay in cash; If they eat a lot at dinner, you're not getting laid; Brody expects a free side of pasta with his chicken parm entreeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the latest episode of We Are The Redmen, Paul Machin, Chris Pajak and Ste Hoare judge YOUR craziest Liverpool opinions. Topics include Michael Owen, Mo Salah, Sadio Mane, Luis Suarez and more! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of The Tech Trek, Amir sits down with Michi Kono, CTO of Garner Health, to unpack what it really takes to scale engineering leadership inside a fast growing startup. Michi shares how he balances structure and speed, why formalizing processes too early can slow innovation, and how “the Garner way” blends lessons from big tech with first principles thinking. This is a conversation about leadership maturity, cultural design, and building systems that evolve with your company's growth.Key Takeaways• Leadership scale comes from knowing when to formalize processes, not just how.• “Six months is never”: waiting on fixes usually means they will never happen.• Feedback is a gift, and it is on leaders to create the safety for it to flow upward.• Borrowing from big tech only works when you adapt the principles, not the playbook.• Engineering leaders should measure success by business outcomes, not just delivery speed.Timestamped Highlights01:46 The first signals Michi looked for when stepping into the CTO role03:49 Turning ad hoc collaboration into structured dependency management06:36 Why delaying operational fixes is a silent killer for scaling teams08:38 Building standards only when they solve real, visible problems12:13 The art of forecasting leadership hiring and team design14:54 Lessons borrowed from Meta, Stripe, and Capital One, and when not to use them17:31 Defining “the Garner way” through first principles20:59 Judging engineering performance through business impact25:00 Creating true psychological safety for feedback across all levelsA Line That Stuck“If we can't execute on the roadmap that lets us actually build a successful business, then I failed as a leader. There are no excuses.”Pro TipsWhen you inherit a growing engineering organization, start by mapping dependencies, not hierarchies. Clarity around how teams interact is more valuable than adding headcount too early.Call to ActionEnjoyed this episode? Follow The Tech Trek on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and connect with Amir on LinkedIn for more conversations on scaling teams, leadership, and engineering culture.

Do you know WHY you believe what you believe?   Have you just accepted what you have been taught without studying it for yourself?Why dig into Romans and learn the truth of the Christian faith for yourself?Because, you will connect with it and it will deepen your relationship with God. What sets this study apart?I am not a theologian.  I am just a Christian woman, wife, mother, business owner just like you.  I break down each chapter in easy to understand language.  We will study it together.   In Chapter 14 we talked about disputable matters and Christian liberty.  We learn we are not to judge others based on our opinions of how they are living their lives.  Join me for this hot topic.If you want to connect with other like-minded faith-filled women, join my fb community below.  In the community you will find a video on how to study your Bible, and a free downloadable workbook on Romans. FB Communityhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/renewedbytruthandcandycreechFollow me on FBhttps://www.facebook.com/candy.creech.9/Follow me on IGhttps://www.instagram.com/renewed.by.truth/https://www.instagram.com/candycreech12.2/Websitehttps://renewedbytruth.com/

Professional sports bettor Rob Pizzola discusses the biggest indicators of whether or not a content creator is a winning or losing bettor.

When businesses judge their achievements at the end of each year, they generally look at financial figures. But what about organizations that exist primarily to serve a crucial societal purpose? There, the metrics are usually different. They assess their impact. Not so for news agencies. Instead, big media look at audience figures and awards -- which say nothing about providing the truth. Today, Josh digs into this problem. He explains how new annual awards could hold the media to account, and how we can make them happen. Also, questions have been pouring in from supporters of the show following the last two episodes. Josh answers several, explains what's true, and teaches you what to look for in a news story to be on guard against lies. Plus, what the media is leaving out of its coverage of a Trump fiasco at the CDC.

On this episode we talk about the hot topic of the week in the field trialing world...judging. Tune into find out what the heck we are even talking about!

In today's episode, Kaleb and I may have a few hot takes. We spend a little time catching up on everything from quitting caffeine, mom life chaos, and our screen time confessions (yikes).But we also talk about something more and more of lately—Christian cancel culture.

In this week's episode of Words of Grace, Benjamin Winslett shares a message titled “Judging the Tree by its Fruit.” Drawing from Jesus' words in Matthew 7, “by their fruits ye shall know them,” Ben reminds us that while we aren't called to be judgmental people, we are called to exercise discernment. Just as good … Continue reading "Judging the Tree by its Fruit"

Welcome everyone to part one of my interview with Army Veteran, former Wichita Police Officer, Stuntman, Actor, DJ, Standup Comic, and Author Duane Michaels. Judging by how many things Duane has done and is doing, one episode wouldn’t have done him justice. Duane is focusing his energy these days on making it as an actor in Hollywood, along with writing his most recent book, Cop Ink: Donuts, Decapitation & Dumpster Sex. Real Calls That Will Make You Laugh, Cry & Gasp! This interview is focused on his career in law enforcement and his early days in the military and other pursuits. We get into his most excellent book and his acting career next Sunday! In today’s episode, we discuss: ·      Where Duane grew up. ·      Duane’s interesting first encounter with law enforcement. ·      Being an M.P. in the army in Bosnia and Korea. ·      Being a DJ and stand-up comic. ·      How being a stand-up comic and DJ prepared him for a career in law enforcement. ·      Joining the Wichita Police Department. ·      Breaking his back in five places while going down a flight of stairs on the job. ·      Duane’s favorite/least favorite part of the job. ·      Duane remembers the first time he drove out of the parking lot of the police station solo. ·      What was it like to retire? How difficult was it? ·      I loved his book, Cop Ink: Donuts, Decapitation & Dumpster Sex. Real Calls That Will Make You Laugh, Cry & Gasp! Is there going to be a second book? ·      Cops contacting him, saying that they have had similar stories.   All of this and more on today’s episode of the Cops and Writers podcast.   Check out Duane's book Cop Ink: Donuts, Decapitation & Dumpster Sex. Real Calls That Will Make You Laugh, Cry & Gasp! Check out the new Cops and Writers YouTube channel! Check out my newest book, The Good Collar (Michael Quinn Vigilante Justice Series Book 1)!!!!! Enjoy the Cops and Writers book series. Please visit the Cops and Writers website.    

17 For in [the gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.1.     Can you think of modern examples of a culture's distorted worship distorting their humanity?2.     Where/when does your humanity get distorted? Is there any idol worship behind that?3.     Is it surprising, or convicting, that Paul says the people who judge and condemn are also without excuse?4.     Have you considered that when you judge you are taking the place of God, distorting worship? How does judging keep you from experiencing the gospel?5.     How does all of this apply to issues of sexuality in our culture?6.     The gospel saves us from both self-righteous judgment and self-centered indulgence. Where are you seeing that in your life, and where do you need to see it more?

Chef, restaurateur, and Top Chef Masters champ Rick Bayless joins Jaymee to talk about the mission that's guided his kitchens for decades: celebrating regional Mexican cuisine through technique, nuance, and joy. He shares the “why” behind signature sauces and masa, and how insisting on real control over sourcing and recipes helped turn Tortas Frontera into an airport game-changer. Then Rick previews his turn in the judge's chair on Bobby's Triple Threat and what he looks for first. He talks about how risk pays off only when rooted in skill, and the advice he'd give any chef walking into that kitchen. Rick also reflects on his day-one Iron Chef America duel with Bobby Flay, what he learned from that battle, and wraps with rapid-fire favorites from go-to chiles to perfect street bites. Follow Food Network on Instagram: HERE Follow Jaymee Sire on Instagram: HERE Follow Rick Bayless on Instagram: HERE Learn More about Bobby's Triple Threat : HERE Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Captain Commando commands its way to TADPOG shores, courtesy of Ian’s suggestion. Commando wasn’t working out too well so we pivoted to another thematic SNES game this week. Judging by the baby in the mech suit, you can imagine what we collectively thought about this game. BUT first, Tyler has gifts from his recent business … Continue reading → The post Ep. 839 – Captain Commando (SNES) appeared first on TADPOG: Tyler and Dave Play Old Games.

➡️ WIN A METEORITE:https://briankeating.com/list — Once again, I had the pleasure of speaking to one of the most famous and perhaps the most controversial astrophysicists in the world – Avi Loeb! For those of you who don't know him, Avi is a professor of science at Harvard University, theoretical physicist, astrophysicist, and cosmologist. He is also a bestselling author and a dear friend of mine. By the time you see this, Avi will have published his new book, Interstellar: The Search for Extraterrestrial Life and Our Future in the Stars. In it, he explains why we need to become an interstellar species to ensure our survival and lays out a plan for how we can settle among the stars. As usual, we take some time to judge a book by its cover and discuss what went into the making of this book. We also dig into the recent Galileo Project expedition to the Pacific Ocean to retrieve spherules of the first recognized interstellar meteor, IM1, which was led by Avi, and discuss whether they found evidence of alien life. Judging a book by its cover: Interstellar (00:44) On extraordinary evidence (08:13) Does Avi have proof of alien life?! (13:55) On David Grusch and government obligations (28:01) Internet hate, constructive criticism, and the scientific method (42:01) More on Interstellar and what it means to become an interstellar species (1:10:56) Elon Musk's plan to make humankind interplanetary (1:15:12) On space archaeology (1:21:08) Rapid fire audience questions (1:39:20) Outro (1:50:57) — Additional resources: