Podcasts about latinos

Un podcast de Cooltura.

Legendary DJ, Producer and Hip Hop Icon DJ Enuff joins Gracias, Come Again for one of our most powerful, emotional, and joy filled conversations yet. This is an episode where we laugh, cry, reminisce, give flowers, and openly thank the people who supported our careers and personal lives when it mattered most. DJ Enuff takes us back to his upbringing, early life, and school days, including the very first piece of DJ equipment he ever touched. He shares the unforgettable story of how he got his first set of turntables while working at Nathan’s Hot Dogs, literally wearing a hot dog suit, a true New York hustle story. From there, we dive into Latinos in Hip-Hop from day one and how community, culture, and music shaped his journey. We talk about how he became the legendary DJ for The Notorious B.I.G., including never before heard stories about how they met, what Enuff did for Biggie before officially becoming his DJ, and the moment he played a Biggie record on the radio that caused Sean Combs to call him ranting and raving. Despite it all, Enuff went on to tour with Biggie, forming a deep bond and lifelong friendship. The conversation also highlights the founding of the world renowned Heavy Hitters, and the importance of representation, including moments where Enuff shares feeling like he was not Latino enough while being fully immersed in hip hop culture, and how fellow DJs helped keep him connected to Latino music and identity. One of the most moving parts of the episode is our shared discussion about surviving strokes, recovery, and the vital role caregivers played in helping DJ Enuff relearn how to DJ, rebuild his confidence, and reclaim his place as one of New York’s most respected DJ legends. We also talk family. Enuff opens up about his son Riot USA, a successful producer who works with Ice Spice, and how he only realized his son was an artist after attending one of his performances. It’s a full circle moment about legacy, pride, and generational impact. To close it out, DJ Enuff shares what’s next for him in 2026, including launching his own podcast, producing more music, potentially collaborating with his Father & son, and writing his biography, which is already in motion. This episode is a masterclass in resilience, culture, friendship, and hip hop history. A must listen for anyone who loves New York, radio, and the roots of Hip Hop culture.

Minneapolis under attack by federal agents, stopping all Latinos and African immigrants. Never seen before hate and aggression to our communities. Renne Nicole Good was murdered in cold blood for a minor traffic violation. Whether you agree with her stance or not , her life could have been spared. 

Gissele: [00:00:00] was Martin Luther King, Jr. Wright, does love have the power to transform an enemy into a friend. We’re currently working on a documentary showcasing people doing extraordinary things such as loving. Those who are most hurtful in this documentary will showcase extraordinary stories of forgiveness, reconciliation, and transformation. You’d like to find out more about our documentary, www M-A-I-T-R-I-C-E-N-T-R-E com slash documentary. Hello and welcome to the Love and Compassion Podcast with Gissele. We believe that love and compassion have the power to heal our lives and our world. Don’t forget to like and subscribe for more amazing content. Today we’re talking with Larry Rosen about whether enemies can come together in dialogue. Larry is the founder of a mediation law practice. Through understanding he has helped thousands craft enduring solutions to [00:01:00] crippling conflicts, millions have watched this popular TEDx talk with secret understanding humans whose insights informs the enemy’s project. From 2024, Larry completed writing the novel, the Enemy Dance, posing the question, must the society riven by tribalism descend into war or can it heal itself? Larry is a graduate of UCLA School of Law, where he served as editor of the Law Review and received numerous academic awards. Growing up, Larry was both the bully and the bullied. The one who was cruel and the one who was kind, he was sometimes popular. And sometimes friendless. He had many fist fights with kids who became his friends. He had his very own chair at the principal’s office. He believes that his peacemaking today is born out of the callousness and empathy that he knew as childhood. [00:02:00] Please join me in welcoming Larry. Hi, Larry. Larry: Hi there. That, it’s funny because that la last piece that you read about my, you know, the, the principal’s office that’s on my website, I’ve never had someone read that back to me and it brought me a little bit to tears, like, oh, that poor kid. Yeah, I, I don’t hear that very often. So anyway, Gissele: yeah. Oh, I really loved it when I saw it, and I could relate to it because I’ve also been both. when we hurt other people, we wanna be forgiven, but when people hurt us, you don’t always wanna forgive, right? Mm-hmm. So it gives you the different perspective. I’m so thrilled to have you on the show. And how I actually came to know about your project is, so I’m a professor at a university and I teach research and ethics. And, what I had discovered about my students is that many of them don’t come with the ability to do the critical thinking, to be able to hold both sides. Many of them come thinking there’s gotta be a right answer, and there’s a right way of doing things. Just tell us what the answer is. [00:03:00] And so for my students, I get them to write a paper where they tell me the things they feel really strongly about. Then they’re researching the opposing perspective using credible sources. because trolls are easy to dismiss, right? So credible sources, the opposing perspective, and then they are supposed to, so tell me what are their main points? You know, like why do they believe what they do? And and are you really that different? Right? And then the last part of the paper is. Talk about the emotions you feel and throughout the year I prepare them in terms of being able to handle it. So I teach them mindfulness, I teach them self-compassion so that they can hold because it’s really difficult to hold posing perspective. What? It’s research and ethics. I do it for my, ’cause one of my research interests is compassion. And so, and I was a director of one of the departments I had was hr. And what I noticed was when people had conflict, it was the inability to regulate themselves, to sit in a [00:04:00] conversation that prevented them from going anywhere. And so what I do in my classes, like I’ll do like a minute, like maybe five minutes, three minutes, right before the start of class, I’ll teach mindfulness or like a self-compassion practice and we talk about it all year. And then at the end of the year they’ll do a, a paper where they do the opposing perspective. Then at the end they talk about the emotions they feel. So, and, and they can do that through music. They could do that through a photograph. They could do that through an art project or they just use text. They say, oh, I felt this. I felt that. And so it was in my students researching for their papers that they encountered your project. And they were blown away. They were so, so happy about it. And I like, I’ve watched the episodes. They were amazing . And so that’s why I wanted to have you on the show. And so I was wondering if you could start by telling the audience a little bit about the Enemies project and how you got inspired to do this work. Larry: So the Enemies Project is a [00:05:00] docuseries where I bring together people who are essentially enemies, people of really dramatically different viewpoints, who pretty much don’t like each other. And so an example is a trans woman and a, a woman who is maga who believes trans people belong to mental institutions a Palestinian and a Zionist Jew and, and lots of other combinations. And the goal is not to debate. There are lots of places where you can see debates and I allow them to argue it out for a few minutes to, to show what doesn’t work. And then I bring them through kind of a different process where they. Understand each other deeply, which basically means live in each other’s viewpoint, really ultimately be able to, like you’re trying to do in your class as well. Have them express each other’s viewpoint. And that is a transforming process for them. Usually when they do it in each other’s presence. And it, you know, it has hiccups which is part of the process, but it goes really [00:06:00] deep. And so ultimately these people who hate each other end up almost always saying, I really admire you. I like you. I would be your friend. And sometimes they say, I love you. And usually they hug and there’s deep affection for each other at the end. And they’re saying to the camera or to, you know, their viewers, like, please be kind to this person. This person’s now my friend. And that is for me important because. Like you probably, and probably most of your listeners, I’m tired of what’s happening in society. I am tired of being manipulated. I think we’re all being manipulated by what I call enemy makers. People who profit from division financially, politically they’re usually political leaders and media leaders. And we’re all being taken. And the big lie at the center of it is that people on the other side, ordinary people on the other side are bad or evil. That’s the, the dark heart lie at the [00:07:00] center of it. And if we believe that we’ll follow these leaders, we’ll follow them because we all want to defeat evil. We all must defeat evil. And so what I’m trying to do in this project is unravel that lie by showing that people on the other side are just us. Yeah. And they too have been manipulated and we’ve been manipulated. So and it’s gone well, it’s gone really well. You know, there have been, we’ve been, we’ve done eight or nine episodes and we have in various forms of media, been seen tens of millions of times in the last five months. And we have, I think, 175,000 followers on different media. And the comments are just really, from my perspective, surprisingly, kind of off the chart powerful. Like this has changed tens of thousands of comments of just this is, this is in. Sometimes I’ve, I cried throughout or it’s actually changed my life. I see people differently. So it’s, it is been really, it’s really great to have that feedback and, and then we have plans for the future, which I can tell you [00:08:00] about later. But yeah, but that’s, that’s the basic background. The reason I got into it I don’t know if you have kids, but for me, kids are the great motivator. You know, the next generation, probably people who don’t have kids also are motivated for the next generation as well. We, I care deeply about what I’m leaving my kids and other people’s kids, you know, they all touch my heart and I, I feel really terrible about the mess we’re believing them in, and I feel terrible about what humanity is inheriting. And so I want to have an influence on that. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. And one of the things I love about your docuseries is that the intent isn’t to change anyone’s mind. The intent is for people to feel heard and seen, and that is so, so powerful. It makes me think of Daryl Davis about how he went. Do you know the story of Daryl Davis? I don’t like jazz musician. So he’s a black jazz musician who when, since he was little, he wondered why people were racist. So what he did was actually go [00:09:00] to KKK rallies and speak to KKK leaders. Yeah, Larry: I have heard, yeah. Gissele: Yeah. He didn’t mean to change anyone. He just wanted to offer them respect, which you, as you say, is fundamental and just wanted to understand. And in that understanding, he created those conditions too that led people to change . And so I think that’s the same thing that your docuseries is offering. Larry: Absolutely. I mean, you can see it so easily that Yeah, as soon as one person hears the other person, the person who was heard is the one who changes. you don’t change the other person by telling them your story and by convincing them of anything. It’s when you hear them and hear what their true intention has been and what’s going on in their life, that’s when they change. It’s the fastest road to their change really. But if you go in with that objective, then they won’t change. So there’s kind of a, you know, an irony or a paradox embedded in this, but usually both people move [00:10:00] toward each other, is what happens. Yeah. Gissele: I want the audience to understand how brilliant this is because, I don’t know if you know Deeyah Khan, she’s a documentarian and she interviewed people from the KKK And one of the things we noticed in all those interviews was that many people hate others. They’re people that they’ve never met. They’ve never met people in that group, but they hate them. So, Larry: yeah, that’s, that’s really interesting just to hear that. Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. So how does the Enemies project help challenge misconceptions about groups that have never met each other, carry beliefs about the other? Larry: Well, so far really hasn’t because everybody who we’ve done a show with has met people from the other side. Gissele: Oh, Larry: okay. You know, it’s not like because thus far with the, with I think one or two exceptions, everyone’s been an American. So in, in the United States, everybody’s gonna meet somebody else. they’re not friends with them, they’re not deeply connected with them. But from my perspective it, it doesn’t [00:11:00] matter. You know, you can be from the most different tribes who’ve never met each other, we’re all gonna be the same. the process never differs. we don’t start with politics. My view is that starting with politics, which is how some, some people who try to bring others together to find common ground, start with politics, and that’s not going to work. What I start with is rapport. You know, as soon as you start with something that a person is defensive over, you’re gonna put up, they’re gonna be wearing armor, and they’re going to try to defeat the other person. So we exit that process and we really just help them understand what’s beautiful in each other’s lives, what’s challenging in each other’s lives, and they, there’s no question that as soon as you see what’s beautiful in someone else’s life or challenging, you’re gonna identify with it because you’re gonna have very similar points of beauty and challenge yourself. And then we fold. Politics into it about why politics really are important [00:12:00] to the other person. And we do it in a way where it’s a true exploration. And once that happens, people connect deeply. so it doesn’t matter from, in my experience, how different the people are, how extreme the people are. you’re going to be able to bring them together, you know? And so if they haven’t met each other, it’s really interesting what you said that people hate, people a haven’t met, which is like a, such a obvious statement. And it is really profound just to hear that, like, it’s so absurd. Yeah, and I would say that in my experience, the most profound or the deepest sessions are with people who are really dramatically surprised that the other person’s a human being. So if they, if they haven’t met each other, if they haven’t met someone like that, it’s gonna be an easy one. Yeah. ’cause because the shock is gonna be [00:13:00] so huge. Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. And Larry: so, and so full, it’s when the people have had experiences with the other side that it’s, that it is, it’s still powerful, but it can be a little bit more intellectual than, than in the heart because when you’re shocked by someone’s humanity, because you couldn’t imagine it at all, it, it really crushes your thoughts about them. Gissele: What I love about the process is that that’s the part you really focus on. You masterfully, are able to get people to really get to the root of their humanity and make that connection and then reengage in the dialogue , which is, is amazing. So who individuals selected and what’s support needs to happen before they can engage in the dialogue? And I ask that because each individual has to be able to hold the discussion. Because sometimes it’s, sometimes it can feel so hurtful, and I’m thinking in particular, even Nancy. So they’ve gotta be able to regulate enough to stay in the dialogue. Otherwise, what [00:14:00] I have seen is people will eject, they’ll fight, they’ll just kind of flee. So what preparation needs to happen and how do you select people? Larry: So on the selection front, it’s different now than when I started, you know, when I started filming about a year ago, I didn’t have any choices. You know, it wasn’t like anyone knew who I was or they had seen my shows, so I would go, I would live in the Bay Area and it’s really hard to find conservatives in the Bay Area, but all the conservatives in, in the San Francisco Bay Area congregate, they have like clubs. Mm-hmm. And so I would go on hikes with, in conservative clubs and I would speak to them and I just would try to find people who were interested. There were no criteria beyond that. Now, having said that, it’s not entirely true. I did interview some people who I just were like, they’re two intellectual, they just wanted to talk about economic issues or stuff, something like that. and then for liberals, it was actually harder, [00:15:00] believe it or not, to find people in the Bay Area who wanted to participate. I could find tons of liberals and progressives, but they had zero interest in speaking to a conservative person. And I wasn’t sure if that was a Bay Area phenomena, because liberals are so much in the majority, they don’t really care to speak to the other side, whereas the other side wants to be heard, or whether that’s a progressive kind of liberal thing. I have my views that have developed over time, but it was hard to find liberal people. And so really at the beginning it was just people who were willing to do it. There weren’t criteria beyond that. At this point, you know we’ve received some that people know what we’re doing and people want to be on the show and we receive applications and my daughter. Who runs this with me, my daughter Sadie, who’s 20 years old and in college. She is the person who finds people now, and you might have seen the episode a white cop and a black activist. I don’t know if you’ve seen that one, but, you know, she found those two people and they were [00:16:00] great. And the way she found them is she searched the map on the internet. It’s a little different now because by searching people on the internet, we find people who have a little bit of an audience. Mm. And that could be a bit of a problem. But it’s also like so much less time consuming for us. And so. You know, if we had a lot of money, we would spend more money on casting, but we don’t, and so mm-hmm. But we were able to find pretty good people. I’d say the main criteria for me, in addition to them having to have some passion about this, this particular show that they’re on, whether it’s about abortion or Israel, Gaza, the main criteria for me that’s developed is, do I want to hang out with this person? Because if I do, if the person, not whether they’re nice. Okay. Not whether they’re kind. That’s not it. I want them to have passion and I want to like them personally, because if I, it’s not that I don’t like the, some of the people, I like them all, but I don’t [00:17:00] want to hang out with them. If I do, it’s gonna be a great show because I know that they’re gonna be dynamic people and that their passion will flip. they’re gonna connect in some way and people who are really cordial and kind, they’re not, they’re not going to connect as deeply. The transformation’s not going to be as powerful for them or for the audience. Gissele: Hmm. Really interesting. I wanna touch base on something you said, you know, like that most people listen to debate. And I like Valerie Kaur’s perspective, which is to listen, to understand is to be willing to change your mind and heart. And I also like what you said, which is listening is to love someone. Can you explain what you mean by that? Larry: I think it more is the, it’s received as love than it, than necessarily it’s given as love. It doesn’t mean that you love the other person when you’re listening, but all of us, I would say if we think of the people [00:18:00] that we believe love us the most, they get us. Yeah. We receive it that way and, and they don’t judge us. And so when an enemy does that for you, the thought that they are a bad person melts away. Because if somebody loves us, and that’s the way it’s received, it’s not really an intellectual thing, we just receive it that way. They can’t be a bad person. Like somebody who loves me cannot be a bad person. And so it’s probably the most powerful thing that you can do to flip the feeling of the other side, is to listen to them, not to convince them of anything and to listen to them with curiosity, not just kind of blankly to listen to them without judgment. That’s a real critical piece. And if you do, you know, you can see on the show, it’s just like, you can see the switch flip. It’s really interesting. You can almost watch when it [00:19:00] happens and all of a sudden. The person likes the other person and now they’re listening to each other. It was really interesting. I was on a show one of the episodes is called I forget what it’s called. It’s the Guns episode. How To Stop The Bleed or something. It was these two women, and one of them has a podcast that she had me on and she said what was really interesting to her was that given how the show was laid out, like the first part of the show, they’re arguing, like usually doing a debate and they don’t really hear each other. But she said, given how the show was laid out, she was not preparing her responses in her mind like she always does. When speaking to somebody else, she was not thinking about what she was going to say. Her job in her mind was to understand the other person, to really get the other person. She said it was a total shift in the way she was acting internally. Like, like, and she said she noticed it. Like, I am not even thinking about what I’m going to say. And then she said afterwards she thought a lot about it, [00:20:00] and that was a dramatic shift from anything she’s been involved with. And that’s another way to put it. You know, I don’t, I didn’t think of that when, you know that the people wouldn’t be preparing for their response like we usually do. But that is definitely what happens when you concentrate on listening, and so yeah, it’s received really warmly and it’s transforming. Gissele: Yeah, and I think it, a lot of it has to do with how you manage the conversations, right? Like the tools that you use. I noticed they use the who am I right? To try to get people to go down to their core level to talk about themselves, the whole flipping side, identity confusion, which we’ll talk about in a minute. So are these based on particular frameworks that you use to mediate conversations since you have a history of mediation? Or is this something that you sort of came up on your own? Larry: It is something that I came up with on my own for the most part. I mean, I do a type of mediation in the law. I’m a lawyer where it’s unusual because [00:21:00] I’m doing like a personal mediation in a legal context. It’s kind of weird. for people. Yeah, but I only do the types of mediations where people know each other, like I don’t do between two companies, because there’s not really a human element to it. It’s, it really is about money for the most part. But, but when it’s two human beings, the money is a proxy for something else, always. Mm-hmm. Yeah. and so I’m used to being able to connect people. I do, you know, divorce founders of companies, neighbors family members who are caring for another family member. People who, where there wouldn’t be a legal issue if their relationship wasn’t broken. And so they already know each other. I don’t have to do that really deep rapport building. I do have to do some, but not really deep. but my theory was that when starting this project, which is mostly political, and people who don’t know each other, that there would be a piece missing. You know, like I wasn’t sure if what I’d do would do would work. What I do with clients would work in this. Political context, and I want them to [00:22:00] know, my thought was how do I build that rapport, even if it’s broken in the personal relationship, like they’re craving that they want that healing, but here, like they don’t know the other person. So it was really just me think thinking about how do powerful things that I want to know about other people. Speaker 3: Yeah. Larry: And so I really just tried it. I mean, like, you know, what is most, what would I most powerfully want from another person? and I develop a list of questions that really worked well, but I’m really practiced in keeping people focused on the questions at hand and not allowing them to deviate from what it is that I’ve designed. So that’s something that, you know, I’ve been doing for 20 years, and it takes some skill to even know whether the person’s deviating, whether they’re sneaking in their own judgment or they’re, you know, they’re asking a question, but it’s [00:23:00] really designed to convince the other person. So I’ve good at detecting that from, from a fair amount of experience, and I’ve developed skills in how I can reel them back in without triggering them. Gissele: Yeah. I’ve watched it, like you’re very good at navigating people back and it’s very soft and very humane. can I just bring you back here? So there’s no like judgment or minimizing of what they say. They’re just like, well, can I just get you back on this track? It’s, it’s very beautiful how you do that . Larry: Thank you. and you ask how I prepare people. It’s interesting because what I do is I interview them for an hour and a half to see if they’re a match for the show, an hour and a half to two hours. And I get to know them during that and, and me asking all these questions, gets them liking me. Right. The same process happens between us. Yeah, Gissele: yeah, yeah, yeah. Larry: Smart. [00:24:00] and then before the show, I spend another, hour with them again over, it’s over video. I’ve never met these people in person, just repairing them for what’s going to happen, what my objectives are helping them understand that we’re going to start with conflict. It’s not where we’re going to go. Just really helping them understand the trajectory and answering their questions. And so they come in with some level of rapport. For me, it’s not like we know each other really well, so a lot of times it’s just us starting together. But they do trust me to some extent. There’s no, like, and you said, how do I get them to regulate? I don’t. there’s no preparation for that. It’s just that I, from so much experience with this, you know, thousands of conversations with people over the years, it’s easy to get a person to calm down, which is, you know, you just take a break from the other person to say, hold on a second, I’m gonna listen to you.[00:25:00] And then they calm down. And, those skills, you know, the whole, the whole identity confusion and the layout of the questions, that’s kind of my stuff. But the skills that I use are not mine. I’ve developed them over the years, but a lot of them come from nonviolent communication. Mm-hmm. And Marshall Rosenberg. And I got my first training in nonviolent communication probably 25 years ago. But I remember well the person’s saying, you’re moderating a conversation between, between two people. You prov you apply emergency first aid ’cause one person can’t, can’t hear. And you as the intermediate intermediary can apply that. And it, so it becomes quite easy, you know, with that thought in mind that I can heal in the moment, whatever’s going on. Gissele: Mm, mm-hmm. Beautiful. I wanna talk a little bit about the flipping side. ’cause I think it’s so, so important. Why do you get people to, with opposing [00:26:00] perspectives, to flip sides and then just reiterate the viewpoints from their perspective. I know sometimes it can be confusing to the people themselves, but why do you get them to flip sides? Larry: Yeah. So, so it might be helpful to view it through, you know, a real example. Let’s take. Eve and Nancy, which is, you know, a really powerful episode for your, wow. Your listeners who haven’t watched or heard any, any of these, Eve is a transgender woman. Fully transitioned. Nancy is what, what she called a gender fundamentalist wearing a MAGA hat. She comes in and she’s saying stuff like people who are trans belong in mental institutions. She tells Eve to her face that you’re a genetically modified man. Eve is saying, you know, you people don’t have empathy for other people. They’re really far apart. Let’s just say it’s not gone well. [00:27:00] Eve is very empathetic, however, you know, like she is unusually empathetic. And able to hear Nancy, and that is transforming for Nancy. I mean, I can’t express the degree to which Eve’s own nature and intention transformed this. You know, I helped, but it is an unbelievable example of me listening to you will transform you. And where I take them ultimately is I’m preparing them as they’re understanding each other for switching roles. Because what happens when we switch roles? I mean, my thought is that human beings can easily, you might, it might be weird to this, this point, but we, we often say you can walk in the shoes of another person. How is that even possible? If you, if you think about it, we, we have totally different upbringings, you know, how can you experience what another person experiences if we have totally different upbringings, [00:28:00] different philosophies. Like, how is that possible? And yet almost everybody can do it. And it’s because we have the same internal machinery, we have the same internal drives. We just have different ways of achieving them. And so if you can slowly build your understanding of a person’s history and their beliefs, like a belief might be that there’s Christ who is love and will save me. That’s a belief. If you identify the person’s history and their beliefs and you occupy that belief, you can understand why it’s important to them. If you have that be, why would that be? Well, it’s important to me now if I really believe that, because I wanna live forever. I can be with the people I love forever, I can help save other people. Like can there be anything more powerful than saving somebody’s soul? Like once you enter their belief, and the reason we’re able to do [00:29:00] that is because we are the same internally, we have the same desires. So the whole show is a buildup toward getting them to understand each other’s beliefs and experience and then occupy them. And once we do and we start advocating on the other person’s behalf, we become confused who we are. And that’s really powerful. Like, I don’t even know who I am and I’m doing this legitimately, like I’m totally advocating for you. I’m saying stuff you didn’t even say. Yeah. And then you are listening to me do that, and you’re blown away like you’ve never been heard so deeply. And particularly not by someone you consider an enemy. And so that is transforming. What I will say is that I use this process a lot in mediation. For a different reason. My mediations are not meant to repair relationships. This is meant to repair relationships my mediations are meant to solve issues. Gissele: Hmm. Larry: In, in this show, I [00:30:00] specifically tell them, you are not here to solve the issues. Like, how are they gonna solve the Palestine Israel issue? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And it’s too big of a burden and no one’s gonna listen to them. Mm-hmm. The goal is to show the audience that people should not be enemies. That they’re the same people on the other side. That’s my goal. So I try to keep them away from solution seeking because they will be disappointed. People won’t listen to them and things could fall apart. And that’s, it’s not the point of the show. But what’s interesting is that in my mediations, I use this tool of having them switch identities to solve issues because once they do occupy the other person’s perspective fully, they are then. Solving the issue because they understand that an internal level, the other person and what drives them, and they have no resistance to that and they understand themselves. They already understand themselves. And so during that process, solutions emerge because [00:31:00] they’ve never been able to hold both perspectives at the same time. And I heard you say that when we were opening the show, I don’t remember what the context was about holding both perspectives at the same time. But you, you said that, that that’s something that you do. Yes. Gissele: So so when, when students are taught research or even like thinking about ethical considerations, right? When you’re doing research, you’ve gotta be able to hold differing perspectives, understand differing views, understand research that might invalidate your perspectives, right? And so if you come already into the conversation thinking that there’s a right way or there’s a right perspective, and I heard you say this in your TEDx talk, I think you were talking about like, we can only win if we defeat the other side. That perspective that there’s only one side, one perspective prevents us then from engaging in dialogue and holding opposing views. Larry: and the holding the opposing views for, in my mind is not an intellectual process. Like you might think that if I, if I list all the [00:32:00] desires and the goals on both and on a spreadsheet, then I’ll be able to solve it. No chance. Yeah. It’s not a conscious intellectual process. It’s when you get it both sides deeply without resistance that your subconscious produces solutions. So we don’t consciously produce solutions. And what I found is that that is the most powerful tool to bring people to solutions where they are themselves and the other person at the same time where both people are doing this and then one person just suggests something that never occurred to any of us. And it solves it. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Now, that doesn’t Larry: happen in, in the show because I’m specifically telling them not to seek solutions, but it does happen in mediation. Gissele: Hmm. Yeah. And What you’re doing is so fundamental too, sometimes it’s not even about finding a solution. Sometimes it’s even just about finding the humanity in each other. And that is such a great beginning. You know, people wanna solve war. Yeah, of course we all wanna [00:33:00] eliminate war, but sometimes there’s war within families with neighbors. So why are we worried about the larger war where we’re not even in able to engage and hold space for each other’s humanity within our homes? And so I think what you’re inviting people to do is, can we sit with each other in dialogue without the need to change each other, just with respect, which you’ve mentioned is fundamental, just with presence, just remembering each other’s humanity. And I think that’s all fundamental. Larry: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. I wanted to also mention, you know, one of the things that I noticed in, the conversations is how you focus people on disarming, and one of the ways that you get them to disarm is to take their uniforms off. Can you talk about a little bit about how uniforms show up in these conversations? Larry: Yeah. Some people come with like a MAGA hat or a pin or bracelets or something like that, that show which side they’re on, and I don’t discourage that. You know, [00:34:00] it’s part of the process for the audience from my perspective, because at a certain point, if they do come that way, I ask ’em not to wear a shirt that they can’t take off, but they might wear a hat. And if they, when they do take that off, eventually when we, when we stop the argument, when we stop the debate portion and we enter into another. Portion of the discussion, you can see the effect on the other person. And you can even see the effect on the person who took like the most dramatic is Nancy. Gissele: Yep. Nancy is wearing a, that’s the one I was Larry: thinking. MAGA hat. Yeah. And then she puts on Nancy is is from Kenya and she puts on a Kenyan headdress because her hair is, that’s so beautiful. A little messed up from the hat. And she’s like, I’ll put this on. and I asked her like, wow, you look really happy when you have that on. And she’s like, yeah, this is my crown. And she is almost like a different person and you know, uniforms basically divide, I mean they announced to the other side [00:35:00] essentially. I don’t care about you whether consciously or not. it’s interpreted as I will defeat you at any cost. You just don’t matter. I am on this side and I will crush you. And, and when she took that off, you could really actually see the difference in her and in Eve. Gissele: Yeah, absolutely. It was truly transformative. ‘Cause I noticed that when she had the hat you can even see it in the body language. There was a big protection. And she use it as a protection in terms of like, well, my group but when she used her headdress, it was so beautiful and it was just more her, it was just her. It wasn’t all of these other people. When I think about, you know, the Holocaust and how people got into these roles. ’cause you know, in my class we talk about the vanity of evil, right? Like how people, some people were hairdressers and butchers before the Holocaust. They came, they did these roles, and then they went back to doing that after the war. And it’s like, how does that make sense? And, and to put a uniform on, to [00:36:00] put a role on and then fully accept it, like you said, creates that division, creates that separation between human beings. Whereas what you’re doing is you’re asking them to disarm and to go back to the essence of their own humanity, which I think is really powerful. But it was really interesting the whole discussion on, on uniforms, right? Larry: Yeah, yeah. it is one of the many ways we separate ourselves, that we separate ourselves, that we perceive ourselves as different than them, and that they view us as a threat. Gissele: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I heard you say that enemies are not enemies, it’s just us on the other side. What do you mean by that? Larry: I mean the ordinary people of the enemy. I believe enemy makers, if you can think of who you might consider an enemy maker. They are political leaders and they are media leaders. And they wouldn’t exist. They wouldn’t have any [00:37:00] power. People wouldn’t vote for them. People wouldn’t watch them if they didn’t create an enemy. If they didn’t foster the idea that there is an enemy. And the enemy has got to be broad. It can’t just be one person. It’s got to be a people that I’m fighting against. It’s gotta be a big threat. And so they paint people who are ordinary people on the other side as a threat. All the time. Yeah. and so that’s the, big lie at the center of it, that they’re a threat. And what happens is, there’s the psychological process that the, brain goes through. The mind goes through that where once we’re under threat, that’s a cascade that is exists in every human being. And that results in us going to war with the other side once we’re under threat. But this is an us choosing a leader. But this is a very fundamental basic process and [00:38:00] fundamental, basic lie that that autocrats and demagogues and people who just want power have been using forever with human beings, I imagine. And it’s extremely powerful. And so what I intend to show is that that is a lie. Gissele: Hmm. Larry: That is just not the truth because at the core of this psychological process is the thought that you’re a threat to me. And then this whole cascade happens internally for me. If I no longer believe you are a threat, the cascade unwinds and the power of the enemy maker unwins, it can all flip on that one lie. And so I want people to understand that ordinary people on the other side are just them. Like, I can’t tell you how many times people on the show are, are just like, holy cow. Yeah, I see myself in you. Like I, that’s exactly what I’m experiencing. And it’s revelatory for [00:39:00] them. Like how could that be? Like how could we be opposed to each other? This is crazy. Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Gissele: And you know, it’s amazing how when we truly understand somebody’s reasons for believing what they do, their history, their beliefs, why they believe makes sense, right? Yeah. Like, I saw it a lot in children in care, in the child protection system. Their behaviors seem reallymisbehaved. they shut down. They, act out. in some cases, that’s how those kids survived, these abusive homes, right? And so to them they’re still always on survival mode. Yeah. Makes sense. That’s what helped them survive. And so you, when you understand the other person’s perspective makes sense. Yeah. And you know, as you were talking, I was thinking what is going on for those demagogues and those authoritarian people that believe that that’s the only way that they can get what they need. you mean the leaders themselves? The leaders themselves, like so powerful people, people that are in their power, feel, love, feel [00:40:00] fulfilled, don’t need to disempower others, they don’t. In fact, the more that you love yourself at least that has been my experience, the more I have compassion for myself, the more I love myself, the more I’m in that state, the less I wanna hurt other people. The more I care about other people actually. So what is going on for them? That they think that this is the only way to get their needs met? Larry: I’ve thought a lot about this, you know, because the goal of this show is to show that people aren’t enemies, but there are enemy makers. And to me they are the enemy. like of all of the rest of us, all of us who are just trying to exist in the world, who prefer a world where we’re working together, you know? Yeah. It’s these people on the extreme who are, who are basically consciously sucking the goodwill out of society that I couldn’t care less about that because they get power. So is there something different about them? Is there, I have a few conclusions. One is [00:41:00] that there are people who are different that, that they are born, you know, all of us are born with the same internal desires and almost all of us get pleasure from seeing other people happy. That’s just born into us. Like, you know, almost everyone who’s an activist who comes onto the show, everyone actually is doing it because they want to other people to be happy. They, they don’t want people to experience the same pain that they’ve been in their life, but there are people who are born without or have extremely dialed down the pleasure that they get, the happiness that they get from seeing other people happy and healed. It’s not that the rest of us always want to see other people happy, but it, it’s one of our greatest sources of pleasure. There are people who are born without that. We call them sociopaths, Some leaders are sociopaths. They, don’t, I believe, obtain pleasure from other people’s happiness and they’re able to manipulate us quite often very well. And it’s these people who in peace time, [00:42:00] we wouldn’t even sit next to, we wouldn’t invite them over for Thanksgiving. Those are the people we choose, that it’s, it Gissele: doesn’t make biological sense. Larry: Well, they’re the people we choose when we’re at war, they are the people we choose. So, so think about this, okay? There is a virus, and the virus will kill 95% of human beings. And you have a leader who says there’s someone in power who says, we understand that people who are infected are going to infect other people, that as a society, we need to euthanize them. We actually need to do that as a society to save other people. Mm-hmm. There might be a leader who is empathetic, who says, I can’t do that. That, that feels wrong to me. almost all of us turn to the someone else who is a tyrant. Gissele: Who’s willing to do [00:43:00] what needs to be done to save us, right, exactly. Larry: To defeat evil, to kill, you know, when there’s a big enough threat, we will turn to the tyrant. And so people who are sociopaths and who in normal society would be rejected as a person who’s extremely dangerous, are the very people we turn to in times of war, when evil needs to be defeated. And so if you’re a sociopath and you want power, there’s no other way to power, you’re not going to follow the route of cooperation. You’re not going to follow the route of, you know, building alliance with the other side. You’re, if it, you’ll go the route of creating an enemy. And so that’s what we’ve, we’ve found. In our society, there are people who rise to power, who are the very people we would want nothing to do with in peace time. And that [00:44:00] people turn to, because they believe the other side is an enemy. They believe they are the virus that will kill 95% of people. So you can think of any leader and you might say, how could people follow this person? How could they possibly, what kind of evil is in people that they would follow this person, given what this person is doing? And the answer is obvious. They’ve been convinced that the other side is evil. Gissele: Yeah. Larry: And they truly, truly believe it. Gissele: This makes me think Hitler would’ve been a lone nut if 10 million people hadn’t followed him. Right? Larry: Right. And they believed, right. Gissele: They believed, I Speaker 4: mean. Larry: That, that Jews were, were incredible danger. They also ignored it and, you know, wanted to get along in society and, and be with the people they cared about. But, they truly believed that Jews were evil. Yeah. And if you, if you can convince them of that, you can lead a people. Gissele: Yeah. So the, it goes to the [00:45:00] question of like the reflexivity, like, so what is people’s own responsibility to constantly examine their own biases, beliefs, and viewpoints? Right. I gotta applaud the people that are on your show because they have to be willing to engage in a dialogue. So there’s an element of them that is willing to be wrong, right? or willing to kind of engage in that perspective. And we struggle so much. Yeah, with being wrong, like the mind always wants to be, right. We want to be on the side of good. And that’s one of the things that I was so reflecting on, I think I was listening to the conversation with, proud Boy, and the, in the progressive. The, yeah, progressive And that’s one of the episodes, by the way, for people. Yeah. That’s one of the episodes. And, and I, I love the follow up by the way. That was also amazing. It’s so funny because I was like, oh, is there a follow up? And I were like, went to search for it. Just to see how both sides feel that they’re right. And on the side of good, on the side of like positive for humanity, I think was really puzzling to me we have different ways [00:46:00] of getting there. You know, the people that for Trump really truly believe that some of the stuff he’s doing is very beneficial. The people that are against, they truly believe that what he’s doing is horrible. And to see those perspectives that at the core of it is a love or a care about humanity was really kind of mind blowing. Larry: Yeah, that is mind blowing. Gissele: Yeah, Larry: it is mind blowing. And what is infuriating to me is that we are manipulated to not pair with these other people because then these leaders would lose their power, you know, it’s a huge manipulation. Gissele: So this is why it’s up to each of us to do that work, to do the coming together, the engaging in the conversation, even though sometimes it feels difficult. And, having a willingness to listen And that’s the thing, that’s the thing about your beautiful show, which is like, you don’t have to agree at the end. You just have to see each other’s humanity, right? to let go of enemies, let go, to let Larry: go of that we have to agree that’s a real problem for me as well. Like when I get into a conversation with someone, [00:47:00] it’s like, how do we conclude the conversation if we don’t agree? It’s almost like it’s, it’s a forced imperative that is a mistake. Like that’s the point of the conversation. Yeah. for the most part, let go of that because I see now that that was just a mistake. Like we never had to agree. Gissele: Yeah. I so let’s talk about then, since we’re talking about disagreement, let’s talk about censorship, So because of the class that I teach, because I want them to understand different perspectives. One of the things I say in these papers is like, look, you can be pro-choice or pro-life. You can be pro Trump or against, I’m not judging you. That doesn’t matter. The exercise is to view the other side. That’s it, right? But it’s amazing how some of these dialogues in institutions have been diminished because there’s the belief that if we have these conversations, we’re supporting it, right? But the truth of the matter is that dialogue goes underground. It doesn’t disappear. It [00:48:00] doesn’t mean like, oh, everybody now believes this. It just goes covert, right? And these dialogues about these opposing perspectives are happening. And so I think I’d rather have these conversations up. And so that we can engage in dialogue and see what people are believing. I mean, there’s this undercurrent of racism, it seems, from my perspective, it it that that has existed for such a long time. It used to exist very, like visually in terms of slavery, but now there is still underground racism, right? Like it’s covert people may be able to vocalize the importance of diversity, but some people don’t believe it. So let’s talk about it rather than kind of like try to get those people to disappear and pretend it’s not there. What are your thoughts? Larry: Yeah. You know, there’s been a criticism that comes from the left a lot on the show, from people, from in comments is that we platformed bad guys. Like, you should not, you should not be giving a [00:49:00] stage to a proud boy. Well, if you listen to the Proud Boy’s perspective, this guy is like completely reasonable. He, he, you know, from people on the left, they’re even confused that he’s a proud boy. I think he might be confused about why he is a proud boy, I’m not sure. but he’s completely reasonable. So to, to just reflexively reject this person. He’s not there to represent the proud boys. He’s there to represent himself and to reflexively reject this person is to miss out on really a, a beautiful person and an interesting perspective. I’ve given a lot of thought to the criticism, however, because there’s a guy I’m considering having on the show who is a self-described fascist, a white supremacist, and I’ve had conversations with him and it is amazing how. The reason he is a white supremacist is he truly believes that white people are in danger and that he will be rejected. There will be no opportunities for them, and that he [00:50:00] is possibly in physical danger. He truly believes this. And if I believe that, you know I might do the same thing. And, I had a three hour interview with him where I really liked him, but I’m probably not gonna put him on the show. And, I’ve really thought a lot about whether to platform people and, I’ve kind of developed my own philosophy on whether it’s worth whether I should be airing viewpoints or not. And my thought is that a bridge goes both ways. So I can build a bridge where I walk him back. I am confident that I can have someone hear him out and him develop a relationship with them where he then becomes less extreme in his viewpoints. Gissele: I was gonna say, I think you should have him on the show. here’s is my perspective. Okay? Again, this is so similar to what Darrell David said, right? his intent wasn’t to change. It was to [00:51:00] understand, I think if we understood why people were afraid of us or hated, I’m Latino, by the way, right? We understood then we, can have the dialogue. The thing is like. People are giving like a one-sided propaganda. And it’s true, like if you actually hear the rhetoric of many separate groups is the fear of the other. Even though when you look at the population stats, right, even in the US black people make up 4%. Indigenous people make up 2% of the population. Like I think white people make up 57% of the population of the US and it’s higher in Canada. But it’s the fears, even though they might not be based on reality. That’s the rhetoric that these groups use. They use the rhetoric of we’re in danger, that these people are out to get us to destroy us. Thatsomehow it’s better for us to be isolated and separated. And they use the rhetoric of belonging. They use the rhetoric of love. They [00:52:00] use a co-opt it I don’t even think it’s rhetoric Larry: for them. It’s truth for them. Okay, Gissele: thank you. Yeah, so if you have people who are engaging in those different dialogues, like Darrell did, people don’t understand why they believe that the way that they do. Right? Because, because it’s real. Right? Now that rhetoric is happening, whether people wanna face it or not, that’s the problem. So Larry: I you completely, and when I first started this, I said to myself, there’s no question that I’m gonna have a Nazi on the show. There’s no question. But as I’ve thought about the critique that’s been offered, I’ve kind of drawn a line for myself at least present. And, and that’s fair. but I’ll tell you why I haven’t, I haven’t said why yet, which is A bridge goes both ways and, while I believe it’s really important to hear people, them out, because you walk people on both sides back from the extreme, toward the majority when you hear them out because they don’t see people as a threat anymore. As much. [00:53:00] What happens is by building the bridge, you provide an opportunity for many people to walk out toward them. When you give them an opportunity to hear, hear them out publicly, and my thought is that I will hear anybody out who has a large following because they already are being heard. Mm-hmm. They already have people walking out to them, and my goal is to bring them toward the rest of us so that we can function as a society. Mm-hmm. But I’m not gonna hear somebody who’s 0.1%, who’s because. Mm-hmm. Gissele: Okay. Larry: I understand me walk because they’re, I can walk them back, but maybe I walk 20 people out to them. Gissele: And it creates Larry: a bigger problem. And so, in my own view it’s about how big their following is already. Mm. Even though, yes, it’s, we can walk them back by hearing them. Gissele: Mm. Yeah. So, yeah. It’s, [00:54:00] it’s so interesting. I was just thinking about Deeyah Khan And Darryl David’s the same. And one of the things I noticed about their work is that, and I noticed it in yours too, is sometimes what happens in these sort of circumstances is that the people that they are exposed to might become the exception to the rule. Have you heard of the, the exception to the rule? So let’s say I meet someone who’s anti-Latino, but they’re like, but then they like me. And so they’ll do, like, you are all right. Speaker 4: Yeah. Gissele: I still don’t like other Latinos. Right. And so in the beginning that used to irk me so much. Right? Then I realized after watching all of this, information and I observed it in your show and I thought about it, is that’s the beginning of re humanization. Larry: I agree with that. It’s like it’s a dial, it’s not a switch. Yeah. Gissele: Yes. And so it begins with, oh, this is the exception to the rule, and then this next person’s the exception to the rule, and then this next person, and then, then the brain can’t handle it. Like how many exceptions to the rule can there [00:55:00] be? They couldn’t hold the exception to the rule anymore. Right. It had to be that their belief was wrong Right. Which is, it’s really interesting. And, and Larry: it’s another, another interesting thing I often say, which I get negative feedback about this statement that we don’t choose our beliefs. we don’t have any power over them. They just exist. Mm-hmm. And we can’t choose. Not if I think that. A certain race is dangerous to me. I can’t just choose not to. You can call me racist, whatever. I just can’t choose my thought about it. I have an experience. People have told me things. That’s my belief. That belief gets eroded. It doesn’t get changed. Gissele: Mm-hmm. It, Larry: it happens not consciously. Life experiences change our beliefs, we don’t just suddenly love white people. if we’ve experienced, brutality from white people or from white cops, you don’t just change your belief about it. You have to get, you have to slowly be [00:56:00] exposed. You have to, or be deeply exposed. so these types of things erode our other beliefs. Gissele: Mm-hmm. Larry: And, and my goal is not, you know, like Nancy came in, I would say as a nine or a 10 with her. Dislike for trans people when she left. Just to be clear, ’cause people I think are mistaken about this, who watch this show, she does not think still that trans people should be around kids. She still thinks it’s dangerous, but she thinks trans people themselves are okay. That they can be beautiful, that they do not belong in mental institutions. And as she said, I would drink outta the same glass from you Eve and I would protect you. So she went from a 10 to a seven, let’s say? Yeah. Gissele: Yeah. Larry: And she’s still out there. She still there. She used the word Gissele: she. Larry: Mm-hmm. Yeah. She used the word SHE and she’s still out there advocating for keeping trans people away from kids. and [00:57:00] people are like, so she’s a hypocrite. She’s, no, she has moved so far and. Eve moved toward, I shouldn’t paint Nancy as the wrong one. Eve moved toward Nancy understanding that Nancy really is worried about kids, and Nancy brought up some things that really concerned Eve when she heard it, about the exposure that kids have to various concepts. I guess my point is that people who get dialed down from a 10 to a six or a seven can deal with each other. They can run a society together. Mm-hmm. They don’t, they don’t invest all of their energy in defeating the other side, which is where all of our energy is now. I call it issues zero. You care about climate change, or you care about poverty, you care about mass migration, you care about nuclear per proliferation, you care about ai. Forget it. None of these are getting solved. Zero. Yeah. Unless we learn to cooperate with each other, and if [00:58:00] we’re dedicating all of our energy to defeating the other side, every single one of these issues goes unaddressed. And so my goal is to dial the vitriol down so that we can actually solve some human problems so that the next generation doesn’t inherit this mess that we’ve created. Gissele: Mm-hmm. You once said, I, I may be misquoting you, so please correct me. Revenge is a need for understanding. Can you explain that further? Larry: Yeah. I said that in in my TEDx, mm-hmm. if someone has been hurt by another person, they often seek revenge. And that desire for revenge will go away actually when they’re understood. If you’re under and you deny that you want to be understood by your enemy. You’d say like, that is baloney. they deserve to be punished and they need to be punished to provide disincentive for other people in society so that they don’t do this terrible thing. People [00:59:00] would deny that they want understanding from their enemy, but when they receive it, the desire for revenge goes away. I mean, I’ve seen that innumerable times. So how does the need for understanding help us live beyond the need to punish one another? Well, I think that if someone’s seeking revenge against you, if someone’s trying to injure you, you can unravel that by understanding them, whether we, people agree that that human beings seek revenge as a need or not, you can unravel it pretty, not easily, but you can pretty reliably. Very often people who seek revenge against each other, like in my mediations, once they’re understood by the other person, once they have some connection, They go through some kind of healing process with the other person. They don’t even understand why they were seeking revenge themselves, like they are [01:00:00] completely transformed. they were like, that would be a total travesty of justice if you were hurt Now. Gissele: Yeah. I love the fact that these conversations get at the core of human needs, which is they need to be seen, they need to be understood, they need to be loved, they need to be accepted, they need to be long. And so I think these conversations that you’re facilitating get to those needs, you kind of like go through all of the, the fluff to get to the, okay, what are the needs that need to be met? and how can we connect to one another through those needs? And then, and then from that, you go back to the conversation on the topic. And really it’s about fears at the core of it, right? Like the fear that my children are gonna be confused or forced into something or, the fear that somebody’s gonna have a say over my body and tell me that I have to do something. All of those fears are at the core and conversations get at those needs, not at the surface. Yeah. It’s not to say Larry: I should say that. It’s not to say that the fears are irrational. Yeah. They might be rational. But you know, it’s also a [01:01:00] self-fulfilling prophecy that if we fear somebody, they’re going to think of us as a threat. We’re gonna do stuff that creates the world that we fear. And it’s obvious with certain issues like between two peoples. You know, like if you fear that the other people are going to attack you, you might preemptively attack them or you might treat them in a, in a way that is really bad. And, and so you start this war and that happens between human beings on an individual basis and between peoples, yeah. It’s less obvious, with an issue, let’s say abortion. my fear is not creating the issue on the other side. but many of our interactions with other human beings, it is our fear that triggers them. We create the world we fear. Gissele: Yeah. And I think that goes back to the self-responsibility, right? to what extent are we responsible for looking at ourselves, looking at our biases, looking at our prejudice, looking at our fear and how our [01:02:00] fear is causing us to hurt other people. What responsibility do we have to engage in dialogue or be willing to see somebody’s humanity, right? It’s Larry: just this better strategy. Even if you think of it as, yeah, you know, people sometimes say these two sides. I get this criticism a lot, and this, by the way, these criticisms come from the left mostly that these two sides are not, are not Equivalent. Oh, okay. how could you equate Nancy and Eve, Eve just wants to live. Nancy’s trying to control her, the left views, the right is trying to control them and oppress them and so they’re not moral equivalent. And my point is always, I’m not making a point that they’re morally equivalent. That’s for you to decide, okay? If you want to. I’m saying morally judging them is not effective. It’s just not gonna produce the world that you want. So, you know, it’s just really effective [01:03:00] to hear them out, to take their concerns seriously, even if you think that it’s not fair. But you’ll then create the world you want. And if you don’t do that, if you poo poo them, even if they’re wrong, you believe they’re completely wrong, and you think that mm-hmm you know, there is good and evil and they are completely the evil one, you are going to exacerbate their evil by morally rebuking them. And I want to say that like as clearly as possible, I haven’t made this point e enough on the show. I’m really kind of building a base before I go into more sophisticated, what I would consider a more nuanced. Philosophy, but if you judge somebody, it is the greatest threat to a human being. Just understand that we evolved in groups and moral judgment was the way we got kicked out of groups. If you were a bad person, you were gone, you were dead. [01:04:00] And so all of us respond very, very negatively to being judged as selfish. I’ve had clients threaten to kill each other. Not as powerful

World renowned choreographer turned actor Darrin Henson joins us for a powerful, culture rich conversation about legacy, purpose, and the Latino influence that helped shape his life and career. Raised in the Bronx, Darrin opens up about growing up alongside Latinos in his neighborhood and how Latino culture, friendships, and community played a lasting and positive role in his upbringing. From early life lessons to lifelong connections, he reflects on the moments that stayed with him and continue to guide him today. Darrin shares behind the scenes stories from working with some of the biggest icons in music history, including Jennifer Lopez, Enrique Iglesias, Christina Aguilera, and the ultimate GOATs Michael Jackson and Prince. He also opens up about being first cousins with Taraji P. Henson and how talent, faith, and perseverance run deep in his family. One of the most jaw dropping moments of the interview is when Darrin reveals why he walked away from choreography at the height of his career, right after winning a VMA for *NSYNC’s iconic “Bye Bye Bye” routine, a dance he owns as his intellectual property. The very choreography later appeared in the film Deadpool, and for which the production had to properly compensate him for its use. Darrin also breaks down his transition into acting, starring in beloved series like Soul Food and The Family Business, along with his evolution into an author and motivational speaker focused on purpose, ownership, and spiritual alignment. This is a must listen conversation about culture, creativity, faith, and knowing when to pivot.

Los hispanos o latinos en Estados Unidos expresan preocupación por el alto costo de vida en 2026, incluyendo arquiler, precio de alimentos, gasolina y el seguro médico, revela el reporte del Culture Collective Pulse.

Los hispanos o latinos en Estados Unidos expresan preocupación por el alto costo de vida en 2026, incluyendo arquiler, precio de alimentos, gasolina y el seguro médico, revela el reporte del Culture Collective Pulse.

Make Morality Mainstream Again The adultification of teen fiction has intentionally Frankensteined books for teens into cesspools of ideological normalization. A while ago, I met a mother and her daughter, the latter of whom I hadn't seen in several years. On the cusp of turning twelve, she'd obviously grown in the time since, and, her mother proudly informed me, had become quite the reader. Indeed, the girl held quite a thick book in her hand. Which was it? The girl showed me the cover. I turned to the mother. “Do you know what your daughter is reading?” She'd figured telling her eleven-year-old she could read whatever was marked 14+ was a safe enough guardrail for appropriate content. As reading is an experience between book and reader, the mother wouldn't have seen what her daughter was taking in. She couldn't either know that her daughter's book was familiar not because it was something I'd read but because it was something I wouldn't. Worse, she thought she could trust the institution. THE READING DILEMMA Parents want kids to read, but as most can't keep up with their reading habits, they don't fully realize what's being allowed, even promoted, in books for young readers. As with other once vaunted institutions, the publishing world has morphed in ways many aren't fully aware of. Over a decade ago, I signed my first contract for Young Adult (YA) fiction. Before and since, I've watched the genre boom through the stages of audience demographic to viable business. Throughout, YA has expanded from books for teens to a genre unto itself, attracting talented writers, lucrative contracts, and the golden goose of Hollywood adaptations. YA is officially for readers 14-18 years (and up). However, as it's after Middle Grade (8-12 years), tweens are frequent readers, plus many eleven-year-olds reading up. There is “lower” and “upper” YA, but they're unofficial categories for libraries or writers specific about their target audience. Most retailers and publishers categorize all teen books under the general YA umbrella. NA, New Adult, mainly written for college-aged readers into their early twenties, is often sheltered under the YA umbrella too. Alongside the wider publishing industry, YA has changed significantly over the years, reflecting broader shifts in society. What follows isn't an analysis on talent or quality but content, as something about words in a book makes what's written more real, valid, romantic, admirable, aspirational. Thus, the intent is to shed light on some of the many topic and imagery that are included in books for young readers. At risk that this won't earn me any friends in publishing (at best), here's some of what I've seen: DEVOLUTION OF YA FICTION Growth of the YA audience/genre is an objective benefit, logical as it is to increase methods for targeting potential customers. As YA has increased in business and position, its morphing into genre unto itself has attracted many adults readers. As a YA author, I read mainly within my market and see the appeal for adult readers considering how well the genre's developed. The migration of older readers to YA is certainly one of the many reasons it's been so adultified. Other factors include the poisonous stranglehold ideological tentacles have on many aspects of culture, entertainment, and education. The shifts adults have finally caught onto in adult fiction and film have infected literature for younger audiences, picture books through YA. A quick example, originally, romantic comedies centered on a man and woman who clashed at the outset, then eventually found their way to each other at the end. The story would build to some romantic declaration, then a kiss. Anyone who's been watching knows that there's now a whole lot of touching that happens before any romantic declaration occurs. Longer, more frequent kisses are only second to scenes of the pair sleeping together before deciding how they really feel about each other. All this is becoming commonplace in YA. What was once cutesy stories about a high school girl chasing a crush has now become stories featuring a whole lot of other firsts, even seconds, and then some. The devolution of YA is a result of purposeful normalization and reshaping of societal norms through manipulatively emotional appeals by writers, agents, and editors. On average, books from larger publishing houses take roughly eighteen months to two years to evolve from contract to product on the shelf. To say, story trends are set in motion well before their rise in popularity. Whatever the view on agents as gatekeepers to the larger houses, publishers only publish so many books in a year, an amount significantly less than all the people who want to be published. Hence, agents act as preliminary filters for editors, whittling down potential authors to relatively more manageable numbers. An agent must really believe in a writer and project to nab one of those few spots. Like most creative fields, writing is highly subjective, so in addition to general quality, each agent and editor has preferences for stories they want to work with. They're also usually pretty clear about what they're looking for, so part of the progression of change can be traced back to what's being requested. CHARACTER INCLUSION CHECKLISTS When I first entered the “querying trenches,” wish lists from agents mainly specified genres and their various offshoots. Although ideologies make a home in all genres, most were subtler, more akin to a light sprinkling than the deluge of today. Within a few short years, wish lists changed. Unofficial “checklists” appeared in the now familiar cancerous categories of equity, representation, marginalization, and other socialist pseudonyms. Nonfiction for teens is dominated by activism, coming out, and adaptations of left-wing figures' biographies. Rather than prioritize quality, potential, uniqueness, the new gatekeeping is often focused on the inclusion of certain ideologies. For the first while, emphasis was on strong female characters, an odd request considering the YA market is dominated by female writers and readers. Previous character portrayal thus had little to do with some imagined patriarchal oppression. Now, female characters are “fierce”, projections of feminist fantasies celebrating girl bosses who are objectively pushy, uncooperative, obnoxious, self-righteous, and/or highly unrealistic. Somehow, they capture the most desirable love interest, a magical combination of masculinity and emotional vulnerability, who is inexplicably un-neutered by support of her domineering principles. Frequently, the girl makes the first move. Worse than overbearing feminism is unrealistic portrayals of a girl's physical abilities accompanied by most unsavory rage and wrath and anger. Supposedly, these traits aren't anathema to the gorgeous guys (when it is a guy) these girls miraculously attract. Unless there's a moth to flame metaphor here, it's a lie to pretend wrath is a healthy attraction. This well reflects the move away from what's become so-last-century stories featuring underdogs who searched deep for courage and heart to overcome challenges, raising up others alongside themselves. A time when character development focused on, well, character. More wholesome stories have been replaced with a self-proclaimed oppressed burning with self-righteous rage and violence. Such characters have seeped into fantasy for adults as well, most notably in armies featuring female combat soldiers and warriors without special powers, who somehow go toe-to-toe if not best male counterparts. Often this sort of matchup is shown as some cunning of smallness, agility, and destruction of arrogant male condescension. Never mind that such fighting is highly unrealistic, and any male is rightly confident if paired against a woman in physical combat. No amount of small body darting or ingenuity will save a girl from the full force of one landed male punch. The unquestioned portrayal of women able to best men in physical combat is worrying considering the real possibility of a reader confusing fact with fiction. Besides, a country which sends its women to war will no longer exist, as it's a country with males but not men. The current not-so-secret of major houses is that a book doesn't have a high chance of getting published if it doesn't check certain markers, especially for midlist and debut authors, though A-listers are not immune. A Caucasian is hardly allowed to write a story featuring a so-called BIPOC, but a straight author must somehow include the ever-expanding gay-bcs, and it must be in a positive light. Some authors were always writing these characters, which at least reflects acting of their own volition. For the rest, many didn't start until required. Because of the careful wording around these ideologies, many don't speak out against these practices so as not to appear hateful and bigoted. The mandated appearance of so-called marginalized and under-represented in stories lest the author risk erasing…someone, somehow also operates along these lines. Although, apparently, only very specific groups are at risk of disappearing. These standards are ridiculous in their least damaging iterations. How many so-anointed BIPOC were consulted over their standard portrayals? How can every individual of every minority be consulted for approval, and who chooses which faction decides? How many Latinos, speakers of gendered language, agreed to Latinx and Latine? Christian characters in mainstream publishing are rarely portrayed as steadfast believers or even rebels rediscovering faith. Jewish stories usually feature a character who's “lived experience” is assimilation, so the character is of a religion but doesn't represent it. A real portrayal of the true beliefs these characters come from would not align with the world mainstream publishing wants to shape. Even more ludicrous is that “disabled” and “neurodivergent” are considered identities, as if a physical or medical condition is cause for new labeling. The approach used to be that you are still you, worthy of respect and consideration, despite these conditions. In the glorified world of the self-hyphenate, the world of we-are-our-self-declared-identity, it's the foremost feature mentioned, with accompanying expectation of praise and exaltation, regardless of an individual's character or behavior. Don't confuse the argument against the labeling with the individuals, because they are separable. Worse than the tokenism is the reduction of individuals to secondary characteristics. Is this really the first thing you have to say about yourself, the most essential thing to know? When did it become norm to turn skin color or medical condition or physical ability into a character trait, the very notion of which says that anyone in this group must be viewed primarily through this lens, as if each is exactly the same? How myopic. How belittling. Following the cue set by movies, books for teens also morphed from cutesy rom-coms to ideological showcases. Unsurprisingly, there's been the introduction of the stereotypical gay best friend. Then storylines focusing on coming out or discovering someone close was gay, with accompanying template for writing them. The one coming out is always the strong one, the resilient one, though much language must be banned lest they be offended or erased, so their strength is dependent upon a carefully constructed bubble. Not only is inclusion necessary but happiness is the only possible, deliberately portrayed reaction. Never mind if some or all of it runs counter to a writer's religious beliefs. Moreover, “I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I'll still treat you with respect” was never an acceptable response. And it is an acceptable response in all manner of situations, unless you exorcise it in efforts to forcibly shape a particular worldview. Additionally, the attitude is that since you can't tell me who to love, and loving this person makes me happy, you must not only ally but champion me. Why is it offensive to present different acceptable, respectful reactions to teens? Who exactly is erased if this character isn't presented at all? As before, don't confuse the argument against mandate with the individuals. The contention isn't about love, but about religion protecting the sanctity of romantic relationships and marriage, a religious practice since the dawn of time, as seen across centuries and civilizations. Marriage is described as sanctified and holy, because it's Divine in nature, and thereby under the domain of the religious. If it's just a contract, then of course any government can regulate it. It’s disingenuous to deny that such enforcement clashes with the very nature of what writing is about. It shuts down discussion, then subverts it entirely by pretending there's nothing to debate. That shouldn't be a source of pride for publishing, but deepest shame. In their efforts to supposedly widen the window of story matter, they've narrowed the frames and tinted the panes to exclude suddenly unacceptable voices entirely. PORNOGRAPHY AND CONSENT Compounded upon all this, most books are no longer relatively clean romances building to a single kiss, as every stage of the relationship has become more explicit. Some scenes are akin to manuals, containing the sort of imagery once the sole province of steamy romances. When efforts are rightly made to remove these books from shelves, screeches of censorship! erasure! representation! resound. We wouldn't, and shouldn't, tolerate any adult approaching a kid on the street and telling stories with such description, nor should we allow it from close friends or family. Authors do not hold special status in this, no matter what the screechers screech. Taking such books off shelves isn't an indication of bigotry, intolerance, hatred, or erasure, but moral obligation. The counterargument from writers, agents, and editors is that explicit detail is necessary because of something to do with “lived experiences” and consent. First, if kids are doing it anyway, then adults definitely needn't assist. Second, consent is not quite the magical word society would have us believe. Third, “everyone has different experiences” is not a reason for writing graphic content, and the replacement of “intimacy” with “experience” is largely responsible for why relationships are in the gutter and leaving people unfulfilled. Intimacy is something private between two individuals; experience is a vague euphemism to pass off what should matter as transitory, despite irrevocable effects. It's difficult to imagine in an age when phones, cameras, and microphones track a person everywhere, but there was once an ideal called privacy, and the intimate was part of it. Pushback also leads to defenses of “sexuality,” another way of saying adults want to teach kids all kinds of ways to pursue these “experiences”. Changing the wording doesn't alter the nature but does allow immoral actors to force celebration of their fantasies and fetishes. The wrongness is incontestable, though not surprising from those who promote polyamory for teens and romantic relationships between humans and demons or other ungodly creatures. The feeble argument for writing scenes of teens sleeping together is they must see what consent looks like. Again, authors do not hold special status or exemption. There is no strong enough argument for writing scenes for teens in which one character undresses another and verbally asks permission every step of the way. Especially because the new trend seems to be the girl not only “consenting”, but also a burning I want this. If she wants, this wording implies, then she must have, abandoning all reason and morality. Consent has become an excuse for all sorts of undesirable, immoral, even illegal behavior, but mutual agreement is supposed to make it okay. This isn't the behavior we should be promoting for teens; we should be giving them better things, bigger ideas to think about. Worst of all, why is any adult writing about two sixteen-year-olds sleeping together? A teenager, no matter how mature, is still developing and while smart and clever not really old enough to fully understand what she's “consenting” to, and is probably being taken advantage of. We treat eighteen with the same magical power as consent, as if any age should be sleeping around, even if legalese only extends so far. Teen pregnancy, abortion overall, would hardly be an issue if everyone stopped sleeping with people they shouldn't. Any adherent to morality knows this, though morality is just another thing scuttled from teen fiction. G-dless ideology is the new morality; immoral, manmade gods have replaced G-d; lust is the new love; sexuality excuse for pornography; perceived racism and misogyny validation for violence and rage. Many are we who did not consent to this. These scenes are in teen films as well, though how many parents know this in an age of individual devices? Adults pretending to be teens take each other's clothes off before a camera for real tweens, teens, and/or adults to watch. Please explain in clear and simple language why this is not a form of pornography. What absolutely vital role does this scene have in advancing the story? Consent is not enough. Wanting is not enough. We're encouraging teens to turn their bodies into used cars, dented, scraped, scarred, and baggage laden, for what? Why is this hollowing out of self and morality good? This serves no benefit for teens and the overall state of relationships. Consent has become an excuse for all sorts of undesirable, immoral, even illegal behavior, but we're supposed to think that everyone agreeing makes whatever they agree to okay. It's incredibly obvious that feminism and the sexual revolution didn't free women, but chain them in a prison of animalistic, unsatisfying desire, dooming them to jadedness, frustration, and loneliness. But they're so responsible! So mature! By such logic, a responsible sixteen-year-old should be able to buy guns, alcohol, and drugs. But identity! No, identity doesn't mandate a book with graphic imagery, nor is it “sexuality” or “feeling seen” or any other term you hide behind. Witness the tattered remains of social morality that writers do not balk at writing this for teens. They should balk at writing this for anyone. Once we recognized that betterment came through battling temptations. It is not difficult to see how the enforced normalization of all this was also an effective ridding of undesirable shame. Not only have we banished feeling bad, we've enforced celebration of what shame once kept in line. But they'll never be prepared! How did any of us get here if none of this existed for millennia? But look at the sales! Many people also bought rock pets. Deviants and defenders will attempt to claim that (a) this sort of stuff always existed, which isn't really a reason for its continuance, and (b) previous generations were undoubtedly stifled in their inability to express their true selves. Perhaps. And yet, previous generations built civilization, with significantly less medical prescriptions too. Previous generations were better at family and community, meaning and purpose. We have “experiences.” But this is what married people do! Some writers introduce a faux or rushed marriage into the plot, perhaps because their weakening moral compass prevents writing an explicit scene between unmarried characters. Marrying the characters and making them eighteen doesn't magically okay writing this for teens. Everyone does it—indeed there are many common bodily functions which shouldn't be demonstrated in public—isn't either reason enough. Pressures to include these scenes is evidenced by authors long regarded as “clean” storytellers, authors who won't swear or indulge in graphic or gratuitous content, authors who clearly express Christian beliefs in their acknowledgements, writing them too. Would they give this book to their priest? To a young church member? Would they read the scene aloud for family or friends or the very teens they write for? If even the professed religious authors do not have the fortitude to oppose this, if even they can be convinced of the supposed validity, then gone is the bulwark protecting children from the psychological and moral damage resulting from these scenes. But inclusivity! We must reflect the world around them! Considering what's in these books, all should pray teens aren't seeing this around them. Either way, that doesn't excuse writing about it. Moreover, cries for inclusivity from those shutting down differing opinions are inherently without substance. True inclusivity is achieved when stories focus on universal truths and laudatory values shared by all. The fundamental argument is that “could” is not “should”, and the only reliable arbiter between the two is Divinely-based morality. Current permissiveness is only possible in a society which worked for decades to expunge religion from its vital foundational position and influence. The demonization piled atop its degradation was simple insurance that the moral truths of religion wouldn't interfere with the newly established secular order. We can still be good people, they claimed. Witness the tattered remains. Allowing, championing, this sort of writing has not made us better, and instead of listening to concerns, activists and proponents double down. Need you any proof of the separation between ethics and morality and elitism and academia, scroll through an article or two in defense of these scenes. The more “educated” the individual, the twisted the pretzel of rationalization. Rational lies, all of them. These lies are prominently center of the new crusade against so-called “book banning,” although the books are still available at retailers and publishers. Fueled by self-righteous hysteria, activists take great pride in influencing state legislatures to enact decrees against book bans in protection of “lived experiences,” representation, and the like. If a teen doesn't see two boys or girls or more sleeping together, so the thinking goes, then they face imminent, unspecified harm, never mind that their sacred voice has been quashed. They claim BIPOC and queer authors are specifically targeted, failing to mention it's the content not the author rejected. Somehow the bigots are the ones who don't want kids reduced to “sexuality”, while the tolerant are the ones who do. Need anyone ask if these protections extend to writers who don't align or even disagree with their worldview? I'd say these books are better suited for adults, but adults are despairing of the unreadability of books in their categories too. And that aside from the targeted “decolonization” of books and authors that adults, especially men, enjoyed reading. From the myriad of books extant, no plot was ever turned, no story ever dependent upon an explicit scene, in the bedroom or elsewhere. Neither does such render the work art or literature, but rather indecent and abhorrent. Parents struggle to encourage their kids to read when such are the books available. ELIMINATING THE WEST For some time, agents have specifically requested non-western narratives, histories, and legends. Atop the deteriorating state of the current education system, teens aren't being presented with a fictionalized character in history, which may thereby spark interest and curiosity in real history. No wonder they know so little of the past when they're not offered history at all. What does make it in represents very select time periods. Other permitted historical fiction is alternative histories where the past is magicked or reimagined, almost always in some gender swapped way. While alternative histories can be creative, the lack of regular historical fiction seems to indicate the only permitted history is a remade one. Otherwise, most of western history isn't on shelves because no one wants to represent it. Which means no one's fighting for it to be published. Which means young readers aren't given glimpses into the past that made this present and will highly influence the future. And this from those who claim large swaths of the population don't properly teach history. The same who pushed the fabricated and widely debunked lie that slavery was unique to the west, the only culture who actively sought to end it. The same who have yet to consider the absolute necessity of mandating schools to teach the true horrors of communism done right. The same who have a monochrome view of colonization and chameleon approach to the faux oppressed-oppressor narrative. A rather high volume of Asian-based stories, histories, and mythologies fill the market instead. The proliferation of Asian and other eastern fiction isn't objectively concerning, but it's deliberate increase alongside western stories' deliberate decrease is. It's less an expansion of viewpoints and more a supplanting of anything west. I grew up reading historical fiction, but there's a dearth on shelves for teen readers, who must see where we come from through the eyes of characters resembling our ancestors. Instead of walking through time in their shoes and understanding their struggles in the context of when they lived, we project modern ideologies upon the one protagonist somehow vastly ahead of her time. It's deliberately false and disconnects readers from the world that created the one we live in. Whatever your opinion of our world, it was formed in those histories, and we cannot appreciate the present without understanding the world that made it. MENTAL HEALTH Another major trend in teen fiction is the focus on the broad category of mental health, its emergence unsurprising considering the uptick in modern society. Whatever the viewpoint on diagnoses, the truth is that the ones calling for greater awareness have much to do with having caused the issues. Teens living in the most prosperous, free society that ever was should not have such measures of mental health struggles, yet they do. Skim the messaging of the last several decades and it's no wonder why. Teens are raised on a bombardment of lies and damaging viewpoints resulting in a precarious Jenga structure at their foundation. For decades they've been told they can sleep around without lasting consequence, negating the need to build deep, lasting, exclusive relationships. Families, a fundamental source of meaning and grounding, have been shoved aside for the faux glory of sleeping with whomever, whenever, and the new solution of “found family”. Just because a pill supposedly prevents biological consequences doesn't mean a different sort of toll hasn't been exacted. And that follows the perpetual degradation of dress, reducing the entirety of an individual to a form as valued or devalued as any other physical object. Added to the disrespect of the body is the incessant, unfounded claim that “climate change” is going to destroy the planet by…well, soon. Never mind that we're doing better than before, and all predictions have been proven wrong. Imagine what continual doom and gloom does to the mental state of a teenager already grappling with ping-ponging hormones, who should be presented with optimism for the future they're about old enough to create. Well, we have a pill for that too. Teens have been told the American dream is gone by those who set out to destroy it, that American greatness isn't worth dreaming about by those who recolored it a nightmare. Hobbies and collected skills, the work of their own hands, have been shunted for social media trends and unfettered internet access. Phones are given to younger and younger kids, so they don't grow up in the tangible, real world but an algorithmic, digital one. Inevitably, the worst of that world affects them. They're told that they're hated, feared for the way they were born. They're told they're not even who they've been since birth, basic facts purposely turned into issues and doubts to shake the foundation of self. Those most adamant about the contrived need for teens to discover identity are the most diligent at axing their very roots. The response to the mental health crisis, the jadedness, the internal turmoil they've helped facilitate by destroying the enduring, reliable fabric of society is to encourage more of the same empty, hollowing behaviors. Atop all this is never-ending rage, rage, rage. At the base is the deliberate removal of religion. No matter an individual's choice of observance, religion undeniably provides what liberal society and decadence cannot; meaning. Eternal, enduring meaning. The knowing that you're more than a clump of cells passing through this timespan, because you are an integral link in a chain reaching back millennia. Your ancestors didn't endure hardships or fight to build civilization so you could be the end of the line, but so you could gratefully take your place in it. You and your actions matter. Not because you're a political vote or celebrated community, but because you were made in the image of G-d Who woke you today as there's something only you can do in His world. What effect would the proliferation of this messaging in literature have on the mental state of the youth? And for those pontificating about diversity and inclusion, who in truth only want different skin colors espousing the same beliefs, there is no greater unifier than religion. Belief in a higher power unites individuals of different backgrounds, colors, and, most valuably, opinions, in ways no mandate or ideology ever can. While lengthy, the above in no way encompasses all the changes, reasons, and effects pertaining to the devolution of teen fiction. And, as the focus is not on talent but content, it can be shifted as easily as it was before. You may disagree with everything I've written. You may accuse me of jealousy, hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, erasure, et al. I only encourage you to look for yourself. Peruse bookstore aisles; click through new releases; check who's getting awards. What do your eyes see?

Plan Dulce Host Bryan Lima (he/him) is joined by Álvaro D. Márquez (they/them/theirs), an artist, researcher, and philanthropy professional in Los Angeles County. They discuss Álvaro's personal life experiences in education, art making, research and inquiry into history and cartography and how it all informs their practice creating visual art through printmaking, fiber-art, installation and sculpture.Bio and Links:Álvaro D. Márquez (they/them/theirs) is an artist, researcher, and philanthropy professional. They grew up in the working-class immigrant community of East Salinas, CA and reside in Los Angeles County. Descendant of three generations of migrant field workers, they hold a BA in U.S. history from Brown University, an MA in American Studies and Ethnicity from the University of Southern California, and an MFA in Printmaking from CSU Long Beach. They are also currently pursuing a PhD in Cultural Studies from Claremont Graduate University. Their work explores displacement as a key modality in the development of Western, settler-colonial expansion, encompassing issues around Indigenous dispossession, homelessness, segregation, and gentrification. At the root of their interdisciplinary practice is an examination of the privatization of land as a commodity, and the long-lasting effects of settler colonialism on the built and natural environment. Their work is situated in the intersection of printmaking, installation, and sculpture. They have exhibited their work across the US, Mexico, and Germany, and their work has been collected by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art, the Hood Museum of Art at Dartmouth College, and the U.S. Library of congress. They currently work as Senior Officer for Communications and Arts at the California Community Foundation, and have previously taught as Adjunct Faculty at the University of Southern California Roski School of Art and Design, CSU Long Beach School of Art, and CSU Los Angeles Department of Chicana/o and Latina/o Studies.Learn more about:https://www.alvarodmarquez.com/ https://www.instagram.com/alvarodmarquez/  https://www.aminextla.org/  --------------------------------------Plan Dulce is a podcast by members of the ⁠⁠Latinos and Planning Division⁠ of the American Planning Association⁠. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only. Want to recommend our next great guests and stay updated on the latest episodes? We want to hear from you! Follow, rate, and subscribe! Your support and feedback helps us continue to amplify insightful and inspiring stories from our wonderfully culturally and professionally diverse community.This episode was conceived, written, edited and produced by Vidal F. Márquez (he/him) and co-produced and hosted by Bryan Lima (he/him).Connect:Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/plandulcepodcast/ Facebook:⁠https://www.facebook.com/LatinosandPlanning/⁠Youtube:Subscribe to Plan Dulce on Youtube LinkedIn:⁠https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4294535/⁠X/ Twitter:⁠https://twitter.com/latinosplanapa?lang=en⁠—----

Estados Unidos mantiene un veto de entrada a más de 30 países, entre ellos cuatro que disputarán el Mundial.

Not yet a Politicology+ member? Don't miss all the extra episodes on the private, ad-free version of this podcast. Upgrade now at politicology.com/plus. Ron Steslow and Mike Madrid discuss the redistricting wars, the Supreme Court case that could upend a central part of the Voting Rights Act, how Latinos becoming the largest minority group will make us rethink what being a “minority” even means, and how partisanship is becoming our primary identity. Related Reading:  Axios - Virginia judge lets Democrats' redistricting plan move forward - Axios Richmond Politico - The Republicans thwarting the White House's redistricting hopes - POLITICO Sac Bee - Prop. 50 in California is trivial compared to this U.S. Supreme Court case | Opinion Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Por cuestiones de politica el ambiente navideño no fue el mismo que en años anteriores la todos los latinos que radicamos en el país del norte!!!!

hangtechnikaMitől latin a latin?bachata műfajaközösségia média fontosságakizomba táncok és zenékbalettos múltmazsorettség kimaxolásaMariann színpadi műsora YouTubeona test is kimerültanítás fontosságaFour steps tánciskolaátjárás a tánc és a civil élet közt = egyensúlyTwitterünk - Kotyogós podcast officialAntenna twitterenGergő twitterenÍrhatsz nekünk e-mailt: kotyogospodcast@gmail.comHa meghívnál minket egy kávéra és ezzel hozzá szeretnél férni a specialty tartalmunkhoz megjelenés pillanatában:Patreon támogatásHa beszélgetni akartok velünk és hallgatótársaitokkal akkor Telegramon is megtehetitek ha a "t pont me per kotyogos"-ra mentek.

Host Ruben Navarrette has a great conversation with Pedro Rios, who -- like him -- has been intimately acquainted with the immigration issue for more than 30 years. The San Diego native, and graduate of the University of San Diego, is the director of the U.S.-Mexico Border Program for the American Friends Service Committee. He is also an op-ed contributor to the online publication, Cal Matters. The two of them talk about how the root causes of the flow of immigrants into the United States, whether ICE should be defunded, and whether the left went too far in accommodating the undocumented -- and thus enabled the right. They also talk about why racism controls the Republican Party, how profoundly the Democratic Party failed Latinos, and what a real immigration solution would look like.

We is back chopping it up about what we are going through these days and also turning 40 years old. The new things we are doing and interested in. Also we talk Ice in Minneapolis targeting Latinos and Somali people. 

For decades, the political left and much of the mainstream media have pushed a simplistic—and false—narrative: that being Latino automatically means being liberal. They’ve dismissed opposition to their agenda on open borders, defunding the police, and socialist-style economics as “racist,” rather than engaging with the real convictions of millions of Hispanic Americans. That narrative is collapsing. In this episode, Dr. Wendy Patrick and attorney Larry Dershem sit down with TV news anchor Chris Salcedo to discuss his new book, The Rise of the Liberty-Loving Latino: A New American Revolution. Together, they explore why a growing number of Latinos are rejecting media stereotypes and standing up for faith, family, freedom, and the U.S. Constitution. You’ll also learn why legacy media largely ignores this movement—and how its political, cultural, and spiritual momentum played a decisive role in the re-election of President Donald J. Trump in 2024. This isn’t a trend. It’s a realignment. Latinos are done being told what to think. They’re thinking independently—and voting accordingly.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latino-studies

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

News media and pundits too frequently perpetuate the notion that Latinos, both US-born and immigrants, are an invading force bent on destroying the American way of life. Leo R. Chavez challenges the basic tenets of this assumption and other myths of the "Latino threat," providing a critical investigation into the fears and prejudices that are used to malign an entire population. In this updated and expanded third edition of his groundbreaking book, Chavez incorporates Donald Trump's emergence in American political life, with particular focus on the US-Mexico border as a site of political theater and the further sharpening of anti-Latino and anti-immigration rhetoric in public discourse. He also includes new discussions of "anchor babies," Dreamers and DACA, Latina reproduction and white replacement theory, and the emotional and psychological effects of negative political rhetoric on those whom it targets. Through trenchant analysis, this book reexamines urgent questions about what it means to be American. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

As patients, we often wonder what our role should be when it comes to getting better. Should we research options, get second opinions, and ask lots of questions? Or should we sit back, and let the health care professionals take charge? When does it make sense to push, and when is it best to do less?On this episode, we examine our role as patients, the choices we make, and charting our path toward better health. A reporter gets a wake-up call while looking into diabetes rates among Latinos in Oklahoma, we hear about one woman's choice to forgo cancer treatment — and how her family and doctors responded, and we explore a controversial proposed diagnosis for severe, long-term anorexia. SHOW NOTES: First Juliet Wayne's brother died from cancer — then her long-term partner broke up with her. That was followed by a deep depression; and then, the nightmares started. We talk with Wayne about how these nightmares affected her life, why doctors said she couldn't take a drug designed to stop them, and how a chance encounter finally led her to relief. Historian Joy Lisi Rankin talks about her mother's choice not to pursue treatment for breast cancer — and how Rankin's own experience years later with breast cancer treatment changed how she felt about her mother's choices. You can read Rankin's essay about her mother at Stat News. Anorexia has one of, if not the, highest mortality rates of any mental illness, with a relatively low recovery rate. Patients and their families suffer deeply from this illness, which can last for decades. In 2022, a paper proposed a new and controversial diagnosis: terminal anorexia. Reporter Elizabeth Zwerling tells the story of how this diagnosis came to be proposed, and the difficult conversations it kicked off in the world of eating disorder treatment.

Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, the church, and what are we seeing in reality right now? So Jenny and I dive in a little bit about therapy. The holidays, I would don't say the words collective liberation, but it feels like that's what we're really touching on and what does that mean in this day and age? What are we finding with one another? How are we seeking help? What does it look like and what about healing? What does that mean to us? This isn't like a tell all or the answer to all the problems. We don't have any secret knowledge. Jenny and I are just talking out some of the thoughts and feeling and talking through what does it mean for us as we engage one another, engage healing spaces, what do we want for ourselves? And I think we're still figuring that out. You're just going to hear us going back and forth talking and thank you for joining. Danielle (00:10):Welcome to the Arise podcast, conversations on faith, race, justice, gender, the church, and what are we seeing in reality right now? So Jenny and I dive in a little bit about therapy. The holidays, I would don't say the words collective liberation, but it feels like that's what we're really touching on and what does that mean in this day and age? What are we finding with one another? How are we seeking help? What does it look like and what about healing? What does that mean to us? This isn't like a tell all or the answer to all the problems. We don't have any secret knowledge. Jenny and I are just talking out some of the thoughts and feeling and talking through what does it mean for us as we engage one another, engage healing spaces, what do we want for ourselves? And I think we're still figuring that out. You're just going to hear us going back and forth talking and thank you for joining. Download, subscribe. So Jenny, we were just talking about therapy because we're therapists and all. And what were you saying about it?Jenny (01:17):I was saying that I'm actually pretty disillusioned with therapy and the therapy model as it stands currently and everything. I don't want to put it in the all bad bucket and say it's only bad because obviously I do it and I, I've done it myself. I am a therapist and I think there is a lot of benefit that can come from it, and I think it eventually meets this rub where it is so individualistic and it is one person usually talking to one person. And I don't think we are going to dismantle the collective systems that we need to dismantle if we are only doing individual therapy. I think we really need to reimagine what healing looks like in a collective space.Danielle (02:15):Yeah, I agree. And it's odd to talk about it both as therapists. You and I have done a lot of groups together. Has that been different? I know for me as I've reflected on groups. Yeah. I'll just say this before you answer that. As I've reflected on groups, when I first started and joined groups, it was really based on a model of there's an expert teacher, which I accepted willingly because I was used to a church or patriarchal format. There's expert teacher or teachers like plural. And then after that there's a group, and in your group there's an expert. And I viewed that person as a guru, a professional, of course, they were professional, they are professionals, but someone that might have insider knowledge about me or people in my group that would bring that to light and that knowledge alone would change me or being witnessed, which I think is important in a group setting would change me. But I think part of the linchpin was having that expert guide and now I don't know what I think about that.(03:36):I think I really appreciate the somatic experiencing model that would say my client's body is the wisest person in the room.(03:46):And so I have shifted over the years from a more directive model where I'm the wisest person in the room and I'm going to name these things and I'm going to call these things out in your story to how do I just hold a space for your body to do what your body knows how to do? And I really ascribe to the idea that trauma is not about an event. It's about not having a safe place to go in the midst of or after an event. And so I think we need safe enough places to let our bodies do what our bodies have really evolved to do. And I really trust that more and more that less is more, and actually the more that I get out of the way and my clients can metabolize what they need to, that actually I think centers their agency more. Because if I'm always needing to defer my story to someone else to see things, I'm never going to be able to come into my own and say, no, I actually maybe disagree with you, or I see that differently, or I'm okay not figuring that out or whatever it might be. I get to stay centered in my own agency. And I think a professional model disavow someone of their own agency and their own ability to live their story from the inside outDanielle (05:19):To live their story from the inside out. I think maybe I associate a lot of grief with that because as you talk about it, you talk about maybe seeking healing in this frame, going to school for this frame, and I'm not dismissing all of the good parts of that or the things that I discovered through those insights, but sometimes I think even years later I'm like, why didn't they stick? If I know that? Why didn't they stick? Or why do I still think about that and go through my own mental gymnastics to think what is actually healing? What does it have to look like if that thing didn't stick and I'm still thinking about it or feeling it, what does that say about me? What does that say about the therapy? I think for me, the lack of ongoing collective places to engage those kinds of feelings have allowed things to just bumble on or not really get lodged in me as an alternative truth. Does that make sense?Jenny (06:34):Yeah. But one of the things I wonder is healing a lie? I have yet to meet someone I know that I get to know really well and I go, yeah, this person is healed regardless of the amount of money they've spent in therapy, the types of body work they've done. What if we were all just more honest about the fact that we're all messy and imperfect and beautiful and everything in between and we stopped trying to chase this imagined reality of healing that I don't actually think exists?(07:30):Well, I think I've said it before on here. I used to think it was somewhere I was going to get to where I wouldn't feel X, y, Z. So maybe it meant I got to a space where on the holidays I often feel sad. I have my whole life and I feel sad this year. So does that mean somehow the work that I've put in to understand that sadness, that I'm not healed because I still feel sadness? And I think at the beginning I felt like if I'm still feeling sadness, if there are triggers that come around the holidays, then that means that I'm not healed or I haven't done enough work or there's something wrong with me for needing more support. So now I'm wondering if healing more, and I think we talked about this a little bit before too, is more the growing awareness. How does it increase connection versus create isolation for me when I feel sad? That's one example I think of. What about you?Jenny (08:31):I think about the last time I went to Uganda and there's so much complexity with my role in Uganda as a white woman that was stepping into a context to bring healing. And my final time in Uganda, I was co-facilitating a workshop for Ugandan psychotherapists and I had these big pieces of parchment paper around the room with different questions because I thought that they would be able to be more honest if it was anonymous. And so one of the pieces of paper said, what would you want westerners to know who were coming to Uganda to do healing work? And it was basically 100% learn what healing means to us.(09:26):Bring your own ideas of healing, stop, try, stop basically. And for whatever reason, that time was actually able to really hear that and go, I'd actually have no place trying to bring my form of healing and implement that. You all have your own form of healing. And one of the things that they also said on that trip was for you, healing is about the individual. For us, healing is about reintegrating that person into the community. And that might mean that they still have trauma and they still have these issues, but if they are accepted and welcomed in, then the community gets to support them through that. It's not about bringing this person out and fixing them over here and then plucking them back. It's how does the community care for bodies that have been injured? And I think about how I broke my foot in dance class when I was 14 and I had to have reconstructive surgery and my foot and my ankle and my knee and my hip and my whole body have never been the same. I will never go back to a pre broken foot body. So why would we emotionally, psychologically, spiritually be any different? And I think some of it comes from this Christian cosmology of Eden that we're just keep trying to find ourselves back in Eden. And this is something I feel like I've learned from our dear friend, Rebecca Wheeler Walston, which is like, no, we're not going back to Eden. How do we then live in this post perfect pre-injury world that is messy and unhealed, but also how can we find meaning and connection in that?(11:28):That was a lot of thoughts, but that's kind of what comes up for me.Danielle (11:31):Oh man, there's a couple of things you said and I was like, oh, wait a minute, wait a minute. I think you said healing is how do we as a community integrate people who have experienced trauma into our spaces? I think if you think back to Freud, it's plucking people out and then he reintroduced trauma and abuse them in the process. But somehow despite those things, he got to be an expert. I mean, so if you wonder how we got to Donald Trump, if you wonder how we get to all these leaders in our country getting to rape, abuse, sexually assault people, and then still maintain their leader position of power, even in our healing realm, we based a lot of our western ideologies on someone that was abusive and we're okay with that. Let's read them, let's learn from them. Okay, so that's one thing.(12:32):And Freud, he did not reintegrate these people back into the community. In fact, their process took them further away. So I often think about that too with therapy. I dunno, I think I told you this, Jenny, that sometimes I feel like people are trying their therapeutic learning out on me just in the community. Wax a boundary on you or I'll tell you no, and I'm just like, wait, what have you been learning? Or what have you been growing in and why aren't we having a conversation in the moment versus holding onto something and creating these spinoffs? But I do think that part of it is that healing hasn't been a way of how to reconnect with your community despite their own imperfections and maybe even places of harm. It's been like, how do you get away from that? And then they're like, give your family. Who's your chosen family? That's so hard. Does that actually work?Jenny (13:42):Yeah, it makes me think of this meme I saw that was so brutal that said, I treat my trauma. Trump treats tariffs, implementing boundaries arbitrarily that hurt everyone. And I've, we've talked a lot about this and I think it is a very white idea to be like, no, that's my boundary. You can't do that. No, that's my boundary. No, that's my boundary. No, that's my boundary. And it's like, are you actually healing or are you just isolating yourself from everything that makes you uncomfortable or triggered or frustrated and hear me? I do think there is a time and a place and a role for boundaries and everything in capitalism. I think it gets bastardized and turned into something that only reproduces whiteness and privilege and isolation and individuation individualism because capitalism needs those things. And so how do we hold the boundaries, have the time and a place and a purpose, and how do we work to grow relation with people that might not feel good all the time?(15:02):And I'm not talking about putting ourselves in positions of harm, but what about positions of discomfort and positions of being frustrated and triggered and parts of the human emotion? Because I agree with what you shared about, I thought healing was like, I'm not going to feel these things, but who decided that and who said those are unhealed emotions? What if those are just part of the human experience and healing is actually growing our capacity to feel all of it, to feel the sadness that you're feeling over the holidays, to feel my frustration when I'm around certain people and to know that that gets to be okay and there gets to be space for that.Danielle (15:49):I mean, it goes without saying, but in our capitalistic system, and in a way it's a benefit for us not to have a sad feeling is you can still go to work and be productive. It's a benefit for us not to have a depressed feeling. It's a benefit for us to be like, well, you hurt me. I can cut you off and I can keep on moving. The goal isn't healing. And my husband often says this about our medical care system. It's just how do we get you back out the door if anybody's ever been to the ER or you've ever been ill or you need something? I think of even recently, I think, I don't dunno if I told you this, but I got a letter in the mail, I've been taking thyroid medicine, which I need, and they're like, no, you can't take that thyroid medicine.(16:34):It's not covered anymore. Well, who decided that according it's Republicans in the big beautiful bill, it's beautiful for them to give permission to insurance companies, not to pay for my thyroid medicine when actually I think of you and I out here in community trying to work with folks and help folks actually participate in our world and live a life maybe they love, that's not perfect, but so how are you going to take away my thyroid medicine as I'm not special though, and you're not special to a system. So I think it is beneficial for healing to be like, how do you do this thing by yourself and get better by yourself, impact the least amount of people as possible with your bad feelings. Bad feelings. Yeah. That's kind of how I think of it when you talked about that.(17:50):So if our job is this and we know we're in this quote system and we imagine more collective community care, I know you're touring the country, you're seeing a lot of different things. What are you seeing when you meet with people? Are you connect with people? Are there any themes or what are you noticing?Jenny (18:09):Yeah, Sean and I joked, not joked before we moved into the van that this was our We Hate America tour and we were very jaded and we had a lot of stereotypes and we were talking at one point with our friend from the south and talking shit about the south and our friend was like, have you even ever been to the south? And we were like, no. And Rick Steves has this phrase that says it's hard to hate up close. And the last two years have really been a disruption in our stereotypes, in our fears, in our assumptions about entire groups of people or entire places that the theme has really felt like people are really trying their best to make the world a more beautiful place all over in a million different ways. And I think there are as many ways to bring life and beauty and resistance into the world as there are bodies on the planet.(19:21):And one of my mentors would say anti-racism about something you do. It's about a consciousness and how you are aware of the world. And that has been tricky for me as a recovering white savior who's like, no, okay, what do I do? How do I do the right thing? And I think I've been exposed to more and more people being aware whether that awareness is the whole globe or the nation or even just their neighbors and what does it mean to go drop off food for their neighbor or different ways in which people are showing up for each other. And sometimes I think that if we're only ever taught, which is often the case in therapy to focus on the trauma or the difficult parts, I think we're missing another part of reality, which is the beauty and the goodness and the somatic experiencing language would be the trauma vortex or your counter vortex.(20:28):And I think we can condition ourselves to look at one or focus on one. And so while I'm hesitant to say everything is love and light, I don't think that's true. And I don't think everything is doom and gloom either. And so I think I'm very grateful to be able to be in places where talking to people from Asheville who experienced the insane flooding last year talking about how they don't even know would just drop off a cooler of spring water every morning for them to flush their toilets and just this person is anonymous. They'll never get praise or gratitude. It was just like, this is my community. This is one thing I can do is bring coolers of water. And so I think it's just being able to hear and tell those stories of community gives us more of an imagination for how we can continue to be there for community.Danielle (21:38):Yeah, I like that. I like that. I like that you had this idea that you were willing to challenge it or this bias or this at the beginning just talking about it that you're willing to challenge.Jenny (21:59):Yeah, we said I think I know two things about every state, and they're probably both wrong. And that's been true. There's so much we don't know until we get out and experience it.Danielle (22:14):I think that's also symptom of, I think even here, I know people, but I don't know them. And often even just going someplace feeling like, oh, I don't have the time for that, or I can't do that, and the barriers, maybe my own exhaustion is true. I have that exhaustion or someone else has that exhaustion. But even the times I've avoided saying hi to someone or the times I've avoided small connections, I just think a lot, and maybe what is tiring is that the therapeutic model has reinforced isolation without having this other. You're talking about the counter vortex when we talk about healing is done in community, healing is done by witnessing, and somehow the assumption is that the therapist can be all of that witnessing and healing and community, and you're paying us and we're there and we're able to offer insight and we've studied and we have a professional job and we're not enough.(23:33):I often find myself in a state of madness and I can't do everything and I can speak to what I've chosen to do recently, but how do I function as a therapist in a system? I want people to feel less anxious. I want to be there, offer insights around depression or pay attention to their body with them. All of these really good, there aren't bad. They're good things. But yet when I walk out my door, if kids are hungry, that burden also affects my clients. So how do I not somehow become involved as an active member of my community as a therapist? And I think that's frustrated me the most about the therapy world. If we see the way the system is hurting people, how is our professional, it seems like almost an elite profession sometimes where we're not dug in the community. It's such a complicated mix. I don't know. What are you hearing me say? Yeah,Jenny (24:40):Yeah. I'm thinking about, I recently read this really beautiful book by Susan Rao called Liberated to the Bone, and Susan is a craniosacral therapist, so different than talk therapy, but in it, there was a chapter talking about just equity in even what we're charging. Very, very, very, very few people can afford 160 plus dollars a week(25:13):Extra just to go to therapy. And so who gets the privileges? Who gets the benefits from the therapy? And yet how do we look at how those privileges in themselves come at the expense of humanity and what is and what privileged bodies miss out on because of the social location of privilege? And yeah, I think it's a symptom that we even need therapy that we don't have communities where we can go to and say, Hey, this thing happened. It was really hard. Can we talk about it? And that is devastating. And so for me it's this both. And I do think we live in a world right now where therapy is necessary and I feel very privileged and grateful to be a therapist. I love my clients, I love the work I get to do. And I say this with many of my new clients.(26:22):My job is to work myself out of a job. And my hope is that eventually, eventually I want you to be able to recreate what we're growing here outside of here. And I do mean that individually. And I also mean that collectively, how do I work towards a world where maybe therapy isn't even necessary? And I don't know that that will ever actually happen, but if that gets to be my orientation, how does that shift how I challenge clients, how I invite them to bring what they're bringing to me to their community? And have you tried talking to that person about that? Have you tried? And so that it doesn't just become only ever this echo chamber, but maybe it's an incubator for a while, and then they get to grow their muscles of confrontation or vulnerability or the things that they've been practicing in therapy. Outside of therapy.Danielle (27:29):And I know I'm always amazed, but I do consistently meet people in different professions and different life circumstances. If you just sit down and listen, they offer a lot of wisdom filled words or just sometimes it feels like a balm to me. To hear how someone is navigating a tough situation may not even relate to mine at all, but just how they're thinking about suffering or how they're thinking about pain or how they're thinking about feeling sad. I don't always agree with it. It's not always something I would do. But also hearing a different way of doing things feels kind of reverberates in me, feels refreshing. So I think those conversations, it's not about finding a total agreement with someone or saying that you have to navigate things the same. I think it is about I finding ways where you can hear someone and hearing someone that's different isn't a threat to the way you want to think about the world.Jenny (28:42):As you say that, it makes me think about art. And something Sean often says is that artists are interpreters and their interpreting a human experience in a way that maybe is very, very specific, but in their specificity it gets to highlight something universal. And I think more and more I see the value in using art to talk about the reality of being unhealed. And that in itself maybe gets to move us closer towards whatever it is that we're moving closer towards or even it just allows us to be more fully present with what is. And maybe part of the issue is this idea that we're going to move towards something rather than how do we just keep practicing being with the current moment more honestly, more authentically?Danielle (29:51):I like my kids' art, honestly. I like to see what they interpret. I have a daughter who makes political art and I love it. I'll be like, what do you think about this? And she'll draw something. I'm like, oh, that's cool. Recently she drew a picture of the nativity, and I didn't really understand it at first, but then she told me it was like glass, broken glass and half of Mary's face was like a Palestinian, and the other half was Mexican, and Joseph was split too. And then the Roman soldiers looking for them were split between ice vests and Roman soldiers. And Herod had the face part of Trump, part of an ancient king. I was like, damn, that's amazing. It was cool. I should send it to you.(30:41):Yeah, I was, whoa. I was like, whoa. And then another picture, she drew had Donald Trump invading the nativity scene and holding a gun, and the man drew was empty and Joseph and Mary were running down the road. And I was like, oh, that's interesting. It is just interesting to me how she can tell the truth through art. Very, if you met this child of mine, she's very calm, very quiet, very kind, laid back, very sweet. But she has all these powerful emotions and interpretations, and I love hearing my kids play music. I love music. I love live music. Yeah. What about you? What kind of art do you enjoy?Jenny (31:28):I love dance. I love movement. I think there's so many things that when I don't have words for just letting my body move or watching other bodies move, it lets me settle something in me that I'm not trying to find words for. I can actually know that there's much more to being human than our little language center of our brain. I really love movies and cinema. I really love a lot of Polish films that are very artistic and speak to power in really beautiful ways. I just recently watched Hamnet in the theater and it was so beautiful. I just sobbed the entire time. Have you seen it?(32:27):I won't say anything about it other than I just find it to be, it was one of the most, what I would say is artistic films I've seen in a long time, and it was really, really moving and touching.Danielle (32:43):Well, what do you recommend for folks? Or what do you think about when you're thinking through the holiday season and all the complications of it?Jenny (32:57):I think my hope is that there gets to be more room for humanity. And at least what I've seen is a lot of times people making it through the holidays usually means I'm not going to get angry. I'm not going to get frustrated. I'm not going to get sad or I'm not going to show those things. And again, I'm like, well, who decided that we shouldn't be showing our emotions to people? And what if actually we get to create a little bit more space for what we're feeling? And that might be really disruptive to systems where we are not supposed to feel or think differently. And so I like this idea of 5%. What if you got to show up 5% more authentically? Maybe you say one sentence you wouldn't have said last year, or maybe you make one facial expression that wouldn't have been okay, or different things like that. How can you let yourself play in a little bit more mobility in your body and in your relational base? That would be my hope for folks. And yeah.Jenny (34:26):What would you want to tell people as they're entering into holiday season? Or maybe they feel like they're already just in the thick of the holidays?Danielle (34:35):I would say that more than likely, 90% of the people you see that you're rubbing shoulders with that aren't talking to you even are probably feeling some kind of way right now. And probably having some kind of emotional experience that's hard to make sense of. And so I know as we talk people, you might be like, I don't have that community. I don't have that. I don't have that. And I think that's true. I think a lot of us don't have it. So I think we talked about last week just taking one inch or one centimeter step towards connecting with someone else can feel really big. But I think it can also hold us back if we feel like, oh, we didn't do the whole thing at once. So I would say if people can tolerate even just one tiny inch towards connection or a tiny bit more honesty, when someone you notice is how you are and you're like, yeah, I feel kind of shitty. Or I had this amazing thing happen and I'm still sad. You don't have to go into details, but I wonder what it's like just to introduce a tiny a sentence, more of honesty into the conversation.Jenny (35:51):I like that. A sentence more of honesty.Danielle (35:54):Yeah. Thanks Jenny. I love being with you.Jenny (35:57):Thank you, friend. Same. Love you. Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Programa 17/12/25: Colombia enfrenta su tercer día de paro armado del ELN, con violencia generalizada, transporte incinerado, policías asesinados y comunidades confinadas en amplias zonas del país. Paola Bórquez-Arce, de ASeTTS, nos habla de un proyecto de salud mental galardonado por su innovación y enfocado en refugiados latinoamericanos en Australia.

Today, I'm talking with Arturo Aceves Gonzales. Gonzalez is a native of Mexico, and received his Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from Universidad de Guadalajara.He is the Head of Health Equity and Economic Opportunity at the Latino Economic Development Council. In our conversation, we talk about upwards mobility for Latinos in Omaha, as well as the nuts and bolts of entrepreneurship for community members of all citizenship levels. Here is our conversation.

The 2024 election was very confusing for Libs. After years of pandering to minority groups and “expert” predictions that Trump's immigration policies would lose his Latino supporters, a Pew study found Latino Americans surged to MAGA with over 48% – actually rising from 36% in 2020. But for people who aren't racist panderers, the explanation is simple. Cultural traits common among many Mexican-American immigrants — Catholic faith, traditional family values, commitment to hard work and law-following — align with conservative ideas. Many Latino immigrants resent those who cross the border illegally and view legal immigration as a matter of principle – because they worked hard, followed the law, and distrust those who won't do the same. In fact, a recent study found Latino Americans are powering US economic growth, reaching an estimated $3.7 trillion of our GDP. Chris Salcedo is a television and radio broadcaster, political analyst, and podcaster. He is Executive Director of the Conservative Hispanic Society and author of The Rise of the Liberty-Loving Latino. Follow at https://x.com/CSalcedoShow⠀Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar is the U.S. Representative for Florida's 27th District and a five-time Emmy Award-winning journalist. She is the author of “Dignity Not Citizenship” available at https://amzn.to/4q14rdc and was born in Miami's Little Havana to Cuban exiles. Follow at https://x.com/MaElviraSalazar⠀Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring is a board-certified psychiatrist and former FDA Medical Officer. He is Medical Director of TaperClinic, specializing in de-prescribing psychiatric medications, and runs a growing YouTube channel focused on mental health education. Follow at https://x.com/drjosefWD 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 • AUGUSTA PRECIOUS METALS – Thousands of Americans are moving portions of their retirement into physical gold & silver. Learn more in this 3-minute report from our friends at Augusta Precious Metals: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/gold⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or text DREW to 35052 ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠• FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/fatty15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drdrew.com/paleovalley⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • VSHREDMD – Formulated by Dr. Drew: The Science of Cellular Health + World-Class Training Programs, Premium Content, and 1-1 Training with Certified V Shred Coaches! More at https://drdrew.com/vshredmd • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twc.health/drew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) and Susan Pinsky (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/firstladyoflov⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Executive Producers • Kaleb Nation - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://kalebnation.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • Susan Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/firstladyoflove⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Content Producer & Booking • Emily Barsh - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/emilytvproducer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Hosted By • Dr. Drew Pinsky - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://x.com/drdrew⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this raw episode of Crucial Conversations, a husband and wife get real about relationships, masculinity, trauma, and the uncomfortable truths people avoid. They challenge the idea that love is just a feeling, question whether partners should help heal each other, and ask the tough question: do you love your partner—or just the idea of them?The conversation dives into boredom in long-term relationships, cultural identity, immigration fears in LA, interracial dating hypocrisy, and why many Latinos feel conflicted about patriotism and the American flag. Unfiltered, opinionated, and honest—this episode isn't for the easily offended.#CrucialConversations #MarriageTalk #RealRelationships #HardTruths #Masculinity #EmotionalGrowth #LatinoVoices #Identity #ImmigrationTalk #Unfiltered #CouplesPodcast

#1- Expat landlords in Latin America: Is being a landlord worth the hassle? #2- 3rd world landlord rental property dilemmas you won't encounter in the 1st world:   #3- Why Latin American real estate deals don't seem to make sense to gingos and expats: You need to look beyond the obvious. Chances are you're not analyzing the secondary factors...   #4- Yo must get it into your head that Latin America is a “renter's” market:     #5- How smart Latin American real estate owner's low-ball their property tax bills:   #6- Why it's true that for most Latinos owning a home is practically the only way to beat inflation:       #7- Our own Expat Captain Mango has developed a unique one-on-one Crypto consulting and training service (he's been deep into crypto since 2013). To get started, email him at: bewarecaptainmango@gmail.com   

Despite the cold weather, Catholics from across the Chicago area trekked to a shrine in Des Plaines for the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The annual celebration of the Virgin Mary usually draws hundreds of thousands of mostly Latinos but the crowds appeared smaller after months of immigration enforcement actions in the city and suburbs.

On this episode of The South Florida Roundup, we reviewed this week's historic Miami mayoral election — and preview its possible national repercussions after President Trump's endorsement loses in a landslide [01:09]. We also looked at the big local repercussions of the possible expiration of Obamacare subsidies — especially in the largest enrollment group here: Latinos [20:35]. And we discussed how to navigate what's being forecast as unprecedented holiday travel volume starting next week. [35:47].

Step into this powerful, cultural deep dive with Word Life, the Bronx-born Puerto Rican creator behind the viral tagline “Facts is Facts.” Known for his straight-to-camera truth telling, WordLife has become one of the most trusted voices educating the world on Puerto Rico its history, culture, food, music, politics and the real issues the island faces. Before the viral moments and millions of views, he was a New York rapper grinding in the music scene. Now he’s fully committed to storytelling that uplifts his people. In this episode, we get into his journey before content creation, his transition out of music, and what it means to be a Latino in hip hop. We also unpack the biggest misconceptions about Puerto Rico, highlight the major contributions Boricuas have made across entertainment, and dive into the current events he often breaks down online. One powerful point he breaks down is why Latinos must start buying homes in their ancestral countries, the same way tourists are doing in his native Puerto Rico. And because they both love the sport, they end with a fun segment on Puerto Rican boxing legends Honey names Tito Trinidad, Hector Camacho, Miguel Cotto, Edgar Berlanga & Amanda Serrano and he hits back with the perfect one-word descriptions. This episode is informative, educational, funny, and a full celebration of Puerto Rico and the Bronx. BX to the island, this one’s for y’all.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

*Due to technical issues, the posting of this discussion was delayed. Unfortunately, Bernardo Ruiz's  showcase of his films has already passed. We urge you to check out his work via his website. Our apologies for this error.Acclaimed documentary filmmaker Bernardo Ruiz joins Mike Madrid for an intimate conversation about two decades of capturing the Latino experience on film. From his PBS documentary 'VOCES: Latino Vote 2024' to his explorations of wine country labor and journalism under siege in Mexico, Bernardo has documented the contradictions at the heart of the American relationship with Latino communities.Bernardo discusses his journey from the son of a Mexican musician-turned-monk to becoming one of the most important Latino voices in documentary film. He shares insights from filming across eight states during the 2024 election, explains America's "love-hate relationship" with Latinos, and reveals why the same workers celebrated as "essential" during the pandemic are now being targeted at their worksites.Key Topics Discussed:Ruiz's unconventional path to filmmaking and what drives his workThe evolution from "building monuments to heroes" to taking creative risksAmerica's "love-hate relationship" with Latinos—from celebrating "essential workers" during the pandemic to today's mass deportationsWhy long-form documentary storytelling matters more than ever in the age of hot takes and algorithmsThe story Ruiz wishes he could have told: the deeper meaning of the 2019 El Paso Walmart shootingWhy the Mexican-American diaspora needs its own "chicharron circuit" for community buildingBeing optimistic yet wary about the future of Latino communities in AmericaBernardo Ruiz's films explore the complexity and diversity often missing from mainstream narratives about Latino Americans. His approach—observation first, conclusions later—allows him to capture the moral ambiguity and nuance that gets lost in our polarized media landscape.-Recorded November 17, 2025.

   “It's not enough to build a system and then exit stage left when you realize it's broken. The ‘I'm sorry' is not the work — it's only the acknowledgment that work needs to be done. After the apology, you must actually do the repair. And what I see from her is the language of accountability without the actions that would demonstrate it. That's insufficient for real change.” Danielle (01:03):Well, I mean, what's not going on? Just, I don't know. I think the government feels more and more extreme. So that's one thing I feel people are like, why is your practice so busy? I'm like, have you seen the government? It's traumatizing all my clients. Hey Jeremy. Hey Jenny.Jenny (01:33):I'm in Charlottesville, Virginia. So close to Rebecca. We're going to soon.Rebecca (01:48):Yeah, she is. Yeah, she is. And before you pull up in my driveway, I need you to doorbell dish everybody with the Trump flag and then you can come. I'm so readyThat's a good question. That's a good question. I think that, I don't know that I know anybody that's ready to just say out loud. I am not a Trump supporter anymore, but I do know there's a lot of dissonance with individual policies or practices that impact somebody specifically. There's a lot of conversation about either he doesn't know what he's doing or somebody in his cabinet is incompetent in their job and their incompetency is making other people's lives harder and more difficult. Yeah, I think there's a lot of that.(03:08):Would she had my attention for about two minutes in the space where she was saying, okay, I need to rethink some of this. But then as soon as she says she was quitting Congress, I have a problem with that because you are part of the reason why we have the infrastructure that we have. You help build it and it isn't enough to me for you to build it and then say there's something wrong with it and then exit the building. You're not equally responsible for dismantling what you helped to put in place. So after that I was like, yeah, I don't know that there's any authenticity to your current set of objections,I'm not a fan of particularly when you are a person that in your public platform built something that is problematic and then you figure out that it's problematic and then you just leave. That's not sufficient for me, for you to just put on Twitter or Facebook. Oh yeah, sorry. That was a mistake. And then exit stage leftJenny (04:25):And I watched just a portion of an interview she was on recently and she was essentially called in to accountability and you are part of creating this. And she immediately lashed out at the interviewer and was like, you do this too. You're accusing me. And just went straight into defensive white lady mode and I'm just like, oh, you haven't actually learned anything from this. You're just trying to optically still look pure. That's what it seems like to me that she's wanting to do without actually admitting she has been. And she is complicit in the system that she was a really powerful force in building.Rebecca (05:12):Yeah, it reminds me of, remember that story, excuse me, a few years ago about that black guy that was birdwatching in Central Park and this white woman called the cops on him. And I watched a political analyst do some analysis of that whole engagement. And one of the things that he said, and I hate, I don't know the person name, whoever you are, if you said this and you hear this, I'm giving you credit for having said it, but one of the things that he was talking about is nobody wants you to actually give away your privilege. You actually couldn't if you tried. What I want you to do is learn how to leverage the privilege that you have for something that is good. And I think that example of that bird watching thing was like you could see, if you see the clip, you can see this woman, think about the fact that she has power in this moment and think about what she's going to do with that power.(06:20):And so she picks up her phone and calls the cops, and she's standing in front of this black guy lying, saying like, I'm in fear for my life. And as if they're doing anything except standing several feet apart, he is not yelling at you. He hasn't taken a step towards you, he doesn't have a weapon, any of that. And so you can see her figure out what her privilege looks like and feels like and sounds like in that moment. And you can see her use it to her own advantage. And so I've never forgotten that analysis of we're not trying to take that from you. We couldn't if we tried, we're not asking you to surrender it because you, if you tried, if you are in a place of privilege in a system, you can't actually give it up because you're not the person that granted it to yourself. The system gave it to you. We just want you to learn how to leverage it. So I would love to see Marjorie Taylor Greene actually leverage the platform that she has to do something good with it. And just exiting stays left is not helpful.Danielle (07:33):And to that point, even at that though, I've been struck by even she seems to have more, there's on the continuum of moral awareness, she seems to have inch her way in one direction, but I'm always flabbergasted by people close to me that can't even get there. They can't even move a millimeter. To me, it's wild.Well, I think about it. If I become aware of a certain part of my ignorance and I realize that in my ignorance I've been harming someone or something, I believe we all function on some kind of continuum. It's not that I don't think we all wake up and know right and wrong all the time. I think there's a lot of nuance to the wrongs we do to people, honestly. And some things feel really obvious to me, and I've observed that they don't feel obvious to other people. And if you're in any kind of human relationship, sometimes what you feel is someone feels as obvious to them, you're stepping all over them.(08:59):And I'm not talking about just hurting someone's feelings. I'm talking about, yeah, maybe you hurt their feelings, but maybe you violated them in that ignorance or I am talking about violations. So it seems to me that when Marjorie Taylor Green got on CN and said, I've been a part of this system kind of like Rebecca you're talking about. And I realized that ignoring chomp hyping up this rhetoric, it gets people out there that I can't see highly activated. And there's a group of those people that want to go to concrete action and inflict physical pain based on what's being said on another human being. And we see that, right? So whatever you got Charlie Kirk's murderer, you got assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King all throughout history we've seen these, the rhetoric and the violence turns into these physical actions. And so it seems to me like she had some awareness of what her contributing to that, along with the good old orange guy was doing contributes to violence. It seems to me like she inched in that direction.Rebecca (10:27):Yeah, like I said, I think you're right in that inching, she had my attention. And so then I'm waiting for her to actually do something substantive more than just the acknowledgement that I have been in error. And and I think part of that is that I think we have a way of thinking that the acknowledgement or the, I'm sorry, is the work, and it is not the, I'm sorry, is the acknowledgement that work needs to be done. So after you say, I'm sorry, now let's go do the work.Danielle (11:10):I mean our own therapeutic thing that we all went through that we have in common didn't have a concept for repair. So people are coming to therapy looking for a way to understand. And what I like to say is there's a theory of something, but there's no practical application of it that makes your theory useless in some sense to me or your theology, even if your ology has a theology of X, Y, Z, but you can't actually apply that. What is the use of it?Jenny (11:43):And I think that's best case scenario, and I think I'm a more cynical person than you are Danielle, but I see what's happening with Taylor Green and I'm like, this actually feels like when a very toxic, dangerous man goes to therapy and learns the therapy language and then is like it's my boundaries that you can't wear that dress. And it's like, no, no, that's not what we're doing. It's just it's my boundary that when there isn't that actual sense of, okay, I'm going to be a part of the work, to me it actually somehow feels potentially more dangerous because it's like I'm using the language and the optics of what will keep me innocent right now without actually putting any skin in the game.(12:51):Yeah, I would say it's an enactment of white womanhood. I would say it's intentional, but probably not fully conscious that it is her body moving in the way that she's been racially and gendered(13:07):Tradition to move. That goes in some ways maybe I can see that I've enacted harm, but I'm actually going to replicate the same thing in stepping into now a new position of performing white womanhood and saying the right things and doing the right things. But then the second an interviewee calls me out into accountability, I'm going to go into potentially white psychosis moment because I don't actually know how to metabolize the ways in which I am still complicit in the system. And to me, I think that's the impossibility of how do we work through the ways that these systems live in our bodies that isn't clean. It isn't pure, but I think the simplicity of I was blind now I see. I am very skeptical of,Rebecca (14:03):Yeah, I think it's interesting the notion that, and I'm going to misquote you so then you fix it. But something of like, I don't actually know how to metabolize these things and work them through. I only know this kind of performative space where I say what I'm expected to say.Jenny (14:33):Yeah, I think I see it as a both, and I don't totally disagree with the fact of there's not something you can do to get rid of your privilege. And I do think that we have examples of, oh goodness, I wish I could remember her name. Viola Davis. No, she was a white woman who drove, I was just at the African-American History Museum yesterday and was reminded of her face, but it's like Viola ela, I want to say she's a white woman from Detroit who drove down to the south during the bus boycotts to carpool black folks, and she was shot in the head and killed in her car because she stepped out of the bounds of performing white womanhood. And I do think that white bodies know at a certain level we can maintain our privilege and there is a real threat and a real cost to actually doing what needs to be done to not that we totally can abdicate our privilege. I think it is there, and I do think there are ways of stepping out of the bondage of our racial and gendered positions that then come with a very real threat.Rebecca (16:03):Yes. But I think I would say that this person that you're referring to, and again, I feel some kind of way about the fact that we can't name her name accurately. And there's probably something to that, right? She's not the only one. She's not the first one. She's not the last one who stepped outside of the bounds of what was expected of her on behalf of the Civil Rights Movement, on behalf of justice. And those are stories that we don't know and faces and names we cannot, that don't roll off the tip of our tongue like a Rosa Parks or a Medgar Evers or a Merley Evers or whoever. So that being said, I would say that her driving down to the South, that she had a car that she could drive, that she had the resources to do that is a leveraging of some of her privilege in a very real way, a very substantive way. And so I do think that I hear what you're saying that she gave up something of her privilege to do that, and she did so with a threat that for her was realizing a very violent way. And I would also say she leveraged what privilege she had in a way that for her felt like I want to offer something of the privilege that I have and the power that I have on behalf of someone who doesn't have it.(17:44):It kind of reminds me this question of is the apology enough or is the acknowledgement enough? It reminds me of what we did in the eighties and nineties around the racial reconciliation movement and the Promise Keepers thing and all those big conferences where the notion that the work of reconciliation was to stand on the stage and say, I realize I'm white and you're black, and I'm sorry. And we really thought that that was the work and that was sufficient to clear everything that needed to be cleared, and that was enough to allow people to move forward in proximity and connection to each other. And I think some of what we're living through 40, 45 years later is because that was not enough.(18:53):It barely scratched the surface to the extent that you can say that Donald Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom of the problem. To the extent that you could say that his success is about him stoking the fires that lie just beneath the surface in the realization that what happened with reconciliation in the nineties was not actually repair, it was not actually reconciliation. It was, I think what you're saying, Jenny, the sort of performative space where I'm speaking the language of repair and reconciliation, but I haven't actually done the work or paid the cost that is there in order to be reconciled.Danielle (19:40):That's in my line though. That's the continuum of moral awareness. You arrive to a spot, you address it to a certain point. And in that realm of awareness, what we've been told we can manage to think about, which is also goes back to Jenny's point of what the system has said. It's almost like under our system we have to push the system. It's so slow. And as we push the system out and we gain more awareness, then I think we realize we're not okay. I mean, clearly Latinos are not okay. They're a freaking mess. I think Mother Fers, half of us voted for Trump. The men, the women are pissed. You have some people that are like, you have to stay quiet right now, go hide. Other people are like, you got to be in the streets. It's a clear mess. But I don't necessarily think that's bad because we need to have, as a large group of people, a push of our own moral awareness.(20:52):What did we do that hurt ourselves? What were we willing to put up with to recolonize ourselves to agree to it, to agree to the fact that you could recolonize yourself. So I mean, just as a people group, if you can lump us all in together, and then the fact that he's going after countries of origin, destabilizing Honduras telling Mexico to release water, there is no water to release into Texas and California. There isn't the water to do it, but he can rant and rave or flying drones over Venezuela or shooting down all these ships. How far have we allowed ourselves in the system you're describing Rebecca, to actually say our moral awareness was actually very low. I would say that for my people group, very, very low, at least my experience in the states,Rebecca (21:53):I think, and this is a working theory of mine, I think like what you're talking about, Danielle, specifically in Latino cultures, my question has been when I look at that, what I see as someone who's not part of Latino culture is that the invitation from whiteness to Latino cultures is to be complicit in their own erasure in order to have access to America. So you have to voluntarily drop your language, drop your accent, change your name, whatever that long list is. And I think when whiteness shows up in a culture in that way where the request or the demand is that you join in your own eraser, I think it leads to a certain kind of moral ignorance, if you will.(23:10):And I say that as somebody coming from a black American experience where I think the demand from whiteness was actually different. We weren't actually asked to participate in our own eraser. We were simply told that there's no version of your existence where you will have access to what whiteness offers to the extent that a drop is a drop is a drop. And by that I mean you could be one 16th black and be enslaved in the United States, whereas, so I think I have lots of questions and curiosities around that, about how whiteness shows up in a particular culture, what does it demand or require, and then what's the trajectory that it puts that culture on? And I'm not suggesting that we don't have ways of self-sabotage in black America. Of course we do. I just think our ways of self-sabotage are nuanced or different from what you're talking about because the way that whiteness has showed up in our culture has required something different of us. And so our sabotage shows up in a different way.(24:40):To me. I don't know. I still don't know what to do with the 20% of black men that voted for Trump. I haven't figured that one out yet. Perhaps I don't have enough moral awareness about that space. But when I look at what happened in Latino culture, at least my theory as someone from the outside looking in is like there's always been this demand or this temptation that you buy the narrative that if you assimilate, then you can have access to power. And so I get it. It's not that far of a leap from that to course I'll vote for you because if I vote for you, then you'll take care of us. You'll be good and kind and generous to me and mine. I get that that's not the deal that was made with black Americans. And so we do something different. Yeah, I don't know. So I'm open to thoughts, rebuttals, rebukes,Jenny (25:54):My mind is going to someone I quote often, Rosa Luxembourg, who was a democratic socialist revolutionary who was assassinated over a hundred years ago, and she wrote a book called Reform or Revolution arguing that the more capitalism is a system built on collapse because every time the system collapse, those who are at the top get to sweep the monopoly board and collect more houses, more land, more people. And so her argument was actually against things like unions and reforms to capitalism because it would only prolong the collapse, which would make the collapse that much more devastating. And her argument was, we actually have to have a revolution because that's the only way we're going to be able to redo this system. And I think that for the folks that I knew that voted for Trump, in my opinion, against their own wellness and what it would bring, it was the sense of, well, hopefully he'll help the economy.(27:09):And it was this idea that he was just running on and telling people he was going to fix the economy. And that's a very real thing for a lot of people that are really struggling. And I think it's easier for us to imagine this paternalistic force that's going to come in and make capitalism better. And yet I think capitalism will only continue to get worse on purpose. If we look at literally yesterday we were at the Department of Environmental Protections and we saw that there was black bags over it and the building was empty. And the things that are happening to our country that the richest of the ridge don't care that people's water and food and land is going to be poisoned in exponential rates because they will not be affected. And until we can get, I think the mass amount of people that are disproportionately impacted to recognize this system will never work for us, I don't know. I don't know what it will take. I know we've used this word coalition. What will it take for us to have a coalition strong enough to actually bring about the type of revolution that would be necessary? IRebecca (28:33):Think it's in part in something that you said, Jenny, the premise that if this doesn't affect me, then I don't have any skin in this game and I don't really care. I think that is what will have to change. I think we have to come to a sense of if it is not well with the person sitting next to me, then it isn't well with me because as long as we have this mindset that if it doesn't directly affect me that it doesn't matter, then I think we're always sort of crabs in a barrel. And so maybe that's idealistic. Maybe that sounds a little pollyannaish, but I do think we have to come to this sense of, and this maybe goes along with what Danielle was saying about the continuum of moral awareness. Can I do the work of becoming aware of people whose existence and life is different than mine? And can that awareness come from this place of compassion and care for things that are harmful and hurtful and difficult and painful for them, even if it's not that way? For me, I think if we can get there with this sense of we rise and fall together, then maybe we have a shot at doing something better.(30:14):I think I just heard on the news the other day that I think it used to be a policy that on MLK Day, certain federal parks and things were free admission, and I think the president signed an executive order that's no longer true, but you could go free if you go on Trump's birthday. The invitation and the demand that is there to care only about yourself and be utterly dismissive of anyone and everyone else is sickening.Jenny (30:51):And it's one of the things that just makes me go insane around Christian nationalism and the rhetoric that people are living biblically just because they don't want gay marriage. But then we'll say literally, I'm just voting for my bank account, or I'm voting so that my taxes don't go to feed people. And I had someone say that to me and they're like, do you really want to vote for your taxes to feed people? I said, absolutely. I would much rather my tax money go to feed people than to go to bombs for other countries. I would do that any day. And as a Christian, should you not vote for the least of these, should you not vote for the people that are going to be most affected? And that dissonance that's there is so crazy making to me because it's really the antithesis of, I think the message of Jesus that's like whatever you do to the least of these, you are doing to me. And instead it's somehow flipped where it's like, I just need to get mine. And that's biblical,Rebecca (31:58):Which I think I agree wholeheartedly as somebody who identifies as a Christian who seeks to live my life as someone that follows the tenets of scripture. I think part of that problem is the introduction of this idea that there are hierarchies to sin or hierarchies to sort of biblical priorities. And so this notion that somehow the question of abortion or gay rights, transgendered rights is somehow more offensive to scripture than not taking care of the least of these, the notion that there's such a thing as a hierarchy there that would give me permission to value one over the other in a way that is completely dismissive of everything except the one or two things that I have deemed the most important is deeply problematic to me.Danielle (33:12):I think just coming back to this concept of I do think there was a sense among the larger community, especially among Latino men, Hispanic men, that range of people that there's high percentage join the military, high percentage have tried to engage in law enforcement and a sense of, well, that made me belong or that gave my family an inn. Or for instance, my grandfather served in World War II and the Korean War and the other side of my family, the German side, were conscientious objectors. They didn't want to fight the Nazis, but then this side worked so hard to assimilate lost language, didn't teach my mom's generation the language. And then we're reintroducing all of that in our generation. And what I noticed is there was a lot of buy-in of we got it, we made it, we made it. And so I think when homeboy was like, Hey, I'm going to do this. They're like, not to me,To me, not to me. It's not going to happen to me. I want my taxes lowered. And the thing is, it is happening to us now. It was always going to, and I think those of us that spoke out or there was a loss of the memory of the old school guys that were advocating for justice. There was a loss there, but I think it's come back with fury and a lot of communities and they're like, oh, crap, this is true. We're not in, you see the videos, people are screaming, I'm an American citizen. They're like, we don't care. Let me just break your arm. Let me run over your legs. Let me take, you're a US service member with a naval id. That's not real. Just pure absurdity is insane. And I think he said he was going to do it, he's doing it. And then a lot of people in our community were speaking out and saying, this is going to happen. And people were like, no, no, no, no, no. Well, guess what?Rebecca (35:37):Right? Which goes back to Martin Luther King's words about injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. The notion that if you're willing to take rights and opportunities and privileges from one, you are willing to take them from all. And so again, back to what Jenny said earlier, this notion that we rise our fall together, and as long as we have this mindset that I can get mine, and it doesn't matter if you don't get yours, there will always be a vulnerability there. And what you're saying is interesting to me, Danielle, talking about the military service in Latino communities or other whatever it is that we believed was the ticket in. And I don't think it's an accident or a coincidence that just around the time that black women are named the most educated and the fastest rising group for graduate and doctoral degrees, you see the dismantling of affirmative action by the Supreme Court.(36:49):You see now, the latest thing is that the Department of Education has come out and declassified a list of degrees as professional degrees. And overwhelmingly the degrees that are named on that list that are no longer considered professional are ones that are inhabited primarily by women and people of color. And I don't think that that is a coincidence, nor do I think it's a coincidence that in the mass firings of the federal government, 300,000 black women lost their jobs. And a lot of that is because in the nineties when we were graduated from college and getting our degrees, corporate America was not a welcome place for people of color, for black people, for black women. So we went into the government sector because that was the place where there was a bit more of a playing field that would allow you to succeed. And I don't think it is a coincidence that the dismantling intentionally of the on-ramps that we thought were there, that would give us a sense of belonging. Like you're in now, right? You have arrived, so to speak. And I am only naming the ones that I see from my vantage point. I hear you naming some things that you see from your vantage point, right? I'm sure, Jenny, you have thoughts about how those things have impacted white women.Jenny (38:20):Yeah, yeah. And I'm thinking about, we also went yesterday to the Native American Museum and I learned, I did not realize this, that there was something called, I want to say, the Pocahontas exception. And if a native person claimed up to one 14th of Pocahontas, DNA, they were then deemed white. What? And it just flabbergasted to me, and it was so evident just this, I was thinking about that when you were talking, Danielle, just like this moving target and this false promise of if you just do enough, if you just, you'll get two. But it's always a lie. It's always been a lie from literally the very first settlers in Jamestown. It has been a lie,Rebecca (39:27):Which is why it's sort of narcissistic and its sort of energy and movement, right? Because narcissism always moves the goalpost. It always changes the roles of the game to advantage the narcissist. And whiteness is good for that. This is where the goalpost is. You step up and meet it, and whiteness moves the goalpost.Danielle (40:00):I think it's funny that Texas redistricted based on how Latinos thought pre pre-migration crackdown, and they did it in Miami and Miami, Miami's democratic mayor won in a landslide just flipped. And I think they're like, oh, shit, what are we going to do? I think it's also interesting. I didn't realize that Steven Miller, who's the architect of this crap, did you know his wife is brownHell. That's creepy shit,Rebecca (40:41):Right? I mean headset. No, no. Vance is married to a brown woman. I'm sure in Trump's mind. Melania is from some Norwegian country, but she's an immigrant. She's not a US citizen. And the Supreme Court just granted cert on the birthright citizenship case, which means we're in trouble.(41:12):Well, I'm worried about everybody because once you start messing with that definition of citizenship, they can massage it any kind of way they want to. And so I don't think anybody's safe. I really don't. I think the low hanging fruit to speak, and I apologize for that language, is going to be people who are deemed undocumented, but they're not going to stop there. They're coming for everybody and anybody they can find any reason whatsoever to decide that you're not, if being born on US soil is not sufficient, then the sky's the limit. And just like they did at the turn of the century when they decided who was white and who wasn't and therefore who could vote and who could own property or who couldn't, we're going to watch the total and reimagining of who has access to power.Danielle (42:14):I just am worried because when you go back and you read stories about the Nazis or you read about genocide and other places in the world, you get inklings or World War I or even more ancient wars, you see these leads up in these telltale signs or you see a lead up to a complete ethnic cleansing, which is what it feels like we're gearing up for.I mean, and now with the requirement to come into the United States, even as a tourist, when you enter the border, you have to give access to five years of your social media history. I don't know. I think some people think, oh, you're futurizing too much. You're catastrophizing too much. But I'm like, wait a minute. That's why we studied history, so we didn't do this again. Right?Jenny (43:13):Yeah. I saw this really moving interview with this man who was 74 years old protesting outside of an nice facility, and they were talking to him and one of the things he said was like, Trump knows immigrants are not an issue. He's not concerned about that at all. He is using this most vulnerable population to desensitize us to masked men, stealing people off the streets.Rebecca (43:46):I agree. I agree. Yeah, a hundred percent. And I think it's desensitizing us. And I don't actually think that that is Trump. I don't know that he is cunning enough to get that whoever's masterminding, project 2025 and all that, you can ask the question in some ways, was Hitler actually antisemitic or did he just utilize the language of antisemitism to mask what he was really doing? And I don't mean that to sort of sound flippant or deny what happened in the Holocaust. I'm suggesting that same thing. In some ways it's like because America is vulnerable to racialized language and because racialized rhetoric moves masses of people, there's a sense in which, let me use that. So you won't be paying attention to the fact that I just stole billions of dollars out of the US economy so that you won't notice the massive redistribution of wealth and the shutting off of avenues to upward social mobility.(45:12):And the masses will follow you because they think it's about race, when in actuality it's not. Because if they're successful in undoing birthright citizenship, you can come after anybody you want because all of our citizenship is based on the fact that we were born on US soil. I don't care what color you are, I do not care what lineage you have. Every person in this country or every person that claims to be a US citizen, it's largely based on the fact that you were born on US soil. And it's easy to say, oh, we're only talking about the immigrants. But so far since he took office, we've worked our way through various Latin cultures, Somali people, he's gone after Asian people. I mean, so if you go after birthright citizenship and you tell everyone, we're only talking about people from brown countries, no, he's not, and it isn't going to matter. They will find some arbitrary line to decide you have power to vote to own property. And they will decide, and this is not new in US history. They took whole businesses, land property, they've seized property and wealth from so many different cultures in US history during Japanese internment during the Tulsa massacre. And those are only the couple that I could name. I'm sure Jenny and Danielle, you guys could name several, right? So it's coming and it's coming for everybody.Jenny (47:17):So what are you guys doing to, I know that you're both doing a lot to resist, and we talk a lot about that. What are you doing to care for yourself in the resistance knowing that things will get worse and this is going to be a long battle? What does helping take care of yourself look like in that for you?Danielle (47:55):I dunno, I thought about this a lot actually, because I got a notification from my health insurance that they're no longer covering thyroid medication that I take. So I have to go back to my doctor and find an alternative brand, hopefully one they would cover or provide more blood work to prove that that thyroid medication is necessary. And if you know anything about thyroids, it doesn't get better. You just take that medicine to balance yourself. So for me, my commitment and part of me would just want to let that go whenever it runs out at the end of December. But for me, one way I'm trying to take care of myself is one, stocking up on it, and two, I've made an appointment to go see my doctor. So I think just trying to do regular things because I could feel myself say, you know what?(48:53):Just screw it. I could live with this. I know I can't. I know I can technically maybe live, but it will cause a lot of trouble for me. So I think there's going to be probably not just for me, but for a lot of people, like invitations as care changes, like actual healthcare or whatever. And sometimes those decisions financially will dictate what we can do for ourselves, but I think as much as I can, I want to pursue staying healthy. And it's not just that just eating and exercising. So that's one way I'm thinking about it.Rebecca (49:37):I think I'm still in the phase of really curating my access to information and data. There's so much that happens every day and I cannot take it all in. And so I still largely don't watch the news. I may scan a headline once every couple days just to kind of get the general gist of what is happening because I can't, I just cannot take all of that in. Yeah, it will be way too overwhelming, I think. So that still has been a place of that feels like care. And I also think trying to move a little bit more, get a little bit of, and I actually wrote a blog post this month about chocolate because when I grew up in California seas, chocolate was a whole thing, and you cannot get it on the east coast. And so I actually ordered myself a box of seas chocolate, and I'm waiting for it to arrive at my house costs way too much money. But for me, that piece of chocolate represents something that makes me smile about my childhood. And plus, who doesn't think chocolate is care? And if you live a life where chocolate does not care, I humbly implore you to change your definition of care. But yeah, so I mean it is something small, but these days, small things that feel like there's something to smile about or actually big things.Jenny (51:30):I have been trying to allow myself to take dance classes. It's my therapy and it just helps me. A lot of the things that we're talking about, I don't have words for, I can only express through movement now. And so being able to be in a space where my body is held and I don't have to think about how to move my body and I can just have someone be like, put your hand here. That has been really supportive for me. And just feeling my body move with other bodies has been really supportive for me.Rebecca (52:17):Yeah. The other thing I would just add is that we started this conversation talking about Marjorie Taylor Green and the ways in which I feel like her response is insufficient, but there is a part of me that feels like it is a response, it however small it is, an acknowledgement that something isn't right. And I do think you're starting to see a little bit of that seep through. And I saw an interview recently where someone suggested it's going to take more than just Trump out of office to actually repair what has been broken over the last several years. I think that's true. So I want to say that putting a little bit of weight in the cracks in the surface feels a little bit like care to me, but it still feels risky. I don't know. I'm hopeful that something good will come of the cracks that are starting to surface the people that are starting to say, actually, this isn't what I meant when I voted. This isn't what I wanted when I voted. That cities like Miami are electing democratic mayors for the first time in 30 years, but I feel that it's a little bit risky. I am a little nervous about how far it will go and what will that mean. But I think that I can feel the beginnings of a seedling of hope that maybe this won't be as bad as maybe we'll stop it before we go off the edge of a cliff. We'll see.Kitsap County & Washington State Crisis and Mental Health ResourcesIf you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call 911.This resource list provides crisis and mental health contacts for Kitsap County and across Washington State.Kitsap County / Local ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They OfferSalish Regional Crisis Line / Kitsap Mental Health 24/7 Crisis Call LinePhone: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/24/7 emotional support for suicide or mental health crises; mobile crisis outreach; connection to services.KMHS Youth Mobile Crisis Outreach TeamEmergencies via Salish Crisis Line: 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://sync.salishbehavioralhealth.org/youth-mobile-crisis-outreach-team/Crisis outreach for minors and youth experiencing behavioral health emergencies.Kitsap Mental Health Services (KMHS)Main: 360‑373‑5031; Toll‑free: 888‑816‑0488; TDD: 360‑478‑2715Website: https://www.kitsapmentalhealth.org/crisis-24-7-services/Outpatient, inpatient, crisis triage, substance use treatment, stabilization, behavioral health services.Kitsap County Suicide Prevention / “Need Help Now”Call the Salish Regional Crisis Line at 1‑888‑910‑0416Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/Suicide-Prevention-Website.aspx24/7/365 emotional support; connects people to resources; suicide prevention assistance.Crisis Clinic of the PeninsulasPhone: 360‑479‑3033 or 1‑800‑843‑4793Website: https://www.bainbridgewa.gov/607/Mental-Health-ResourcesLocal crisis intervention services, referrals, and emotional support.NAMI Kitsap CountyWebsite: https://namikitsap.org/Peer support groups, education, and resources for individuals and families affected by mental illness.Statewide & National Crisis ResourcesResourceContact InfoWhat They Offer988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (WA‑988)Call or text 988; Website: https://wa988.org/Free, 24/7 support for suicidal thoughts, emotional distress, relationship problems, and substance concerns.Washington Recovery Help Line1‑866‑789‑1511Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesHelp for mental health, substance use, and problem gambling; 24/7 statewide support.WA Warm Line877‑500‑9276Website: https://www.crisisconnections.org/wa-warm-line/Peer-support line for emotional or mental health distress; support outside of crisis moments.Native & Strong Crisis LifelineDial 988 then press 4Website: https://doh.wa.gov/you-and-your-family/injury-and-violence-prevention/suicide-prevention/hotline-text-and-chat-resourcesCulturally relevant crisis counseling by Indigenous counselors.Additional Helpful Tools & Tips• Behavioral Health Services Access: Request assessments and access to outpatient, residential, or inpatient care through the Salish Behavioral Health Organization. Website: https://www.kitsap.gov/hs/Pages/SBHO-Get-Behaviroal-Health-Services.aspx• Deaf / Hard of Hearing: Use your preferred relay service (for example dial 711 then the appropriate number) to access crisis services.• Warning Signs & Risk Factors: If someone is talking about harming themselves, giving away possessions, expressing hopelessness, or showing extreme behavior changes, contact crisis resources immediately.Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.Rebecca A. Wheeler Walston, J.D., Master of Arts in CounselingEmail: asolidfoundationcoaching@gmail.comPhone:  +1.5104686137Website: Rebuildingmyfoundation.comI have been doing story work for nearly a decade. I earned a Master of Arts in Counseling from Reformed Theological Seminary and trained in story work at The Allender Center at The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology. I have served as a story facilitator and trainer at both The Allender Center and the Art of Living Counseling Center. I currently see clients for one-on-one story coaching and work as a speaker and facilitator with Hope & Anchor, an initiative of The Impact Movement, Inc., bringing the power of story work to college students.By all accounts, I should not be the person that I am today. I should not have survived the difficulties and the struggles that I have faced. At best, I should be beaten down by life‘s struggles, perhaps bitter. I should have given in and given up long ago. But I was invited to do the good work of (re)building a solid foundation. More than once in my life, I have witnessed God send someone my way at just the right moment to help me understand my own story, and to find the strength to step away from the seemingly inevitable ending of living life in defeat. More than once I have been invited and challenged to find the resilience that lies within me to overcome the difficult moment. To trust in the goodness and the power of a kind gesture. What follows is a snapshot of a pivotal invitation to trust the kindness of another in my own story. May it invite you to receive to the pivotal invitation of kindness in your own story. Listen with me…  Well, first I guess I would have to believe that there was or is an actual political dialogue taking place that I could potentially be a part of. And honestly, I'm not sure that I believe that.

Mike Madrid sits down with one of the most respected voices in Latino research—Dr. Mark Hugo Lopez, Director of Race and Ethnicity at the Pew Research Center—to unpack a brand-new, blockbuster dataset on Latino attitudes on the second Trump administration and their situation in the country.Pew's October survey of almost 5,000 Latino adults reveals something unprecedented: 65% of Latinos now say the situation for Latinos in the U.S. is worse than a year ago—the highest level of pessimism ever recorded in Pew's history. Dr. Lopez explains how Latino sentiment has shifted dramatically between the 2024 and 2025 elections, with approval ratings, concerns about immigration enforcement, and feelings about economic policies all showing significant changes.Key topics include:Why one-third of Latinos have considered leaving the United States in the past six monthsHow worry about deportation has jumped from 37% to over 52% since FebruaryThe paradox of personal financial optimism amid broader pessimism about Latino progressWhat validated voter data reveals about Latino Trump voters and their evolving viewsThe decline in Latino immigration for the first time in 50 years and what it means for future generationsDr. Lopez brings decades of expertise tracking the political maturation of the Latino electorate through one of America's most profound demographic transformations. He provides essential context for understanding the dramatic electoral swings we've witnessed and what they signal about Latino political identity in an increasingly US-born, intermarried, and established community.-Recorded December 4, 2025.

Las noches de karaoke que organizan Catalina Sepúlveda y Beatriz Arévalo en Melbourne ayudan a combatir la soledad y a crear lazos entre los participantes en un ambiente divertido y seguro. Y a pesar de que la mayoría de las canciones que piden los participantes son en español, también se cantan clásicos aussies y de la cultura anglo.

Este martes 9 de diciembre hablamos con una dirigente comunitaria sobre el reconocimiento de parte del Parlamento de NSW al legado de los inmigrantes lationamericanos; también de la invitación de parte de un importante festival de música clásica a una orquesta filarmónica chilena para tocar en Sídney; y de la nueva estrategia de seguridad de Estados Unidos con foco en Latinoamérica.

Conversamos con Jeannette Oujani sobre el proyecto “Our History, Our Legacy”, un proyecto que celebra las contribuciones de la primera generación de latinoamericanos en Australia y su impacto en la comunidad australiana, conmemorado en el Parlamento de Nueva Gales del Sur (NSW).

CalMatters breaks down recent polling on California voters' evolving attitudes towards expedited removals. Also, new report highlights Latinos contribution to Sac economy. Finally, community band performs first concert of the season.

Plan Dulce Host Stefanie Esteban (she/they) is joined by Christian Llamas (he/him), an emerging planning professional in Los Angeles. They discuss his experiences with design and technical skills coming out of school and jumping right into planning careers in the private and public sector. Bio and Links:A recent graduate with a Bachelor of Science in the field of Urban Studies and Planning with a minor in  Spatial Studies (GIS), Christian Llamas' primary interest is in transportation systems, climate resiliency, and urban  design. Christian wants to use his passion for environmentalism and urbanism in a consulting career with the  intent of improving the vibrancy, mobility, and prosperity in cities globally. Knowledgeable in  architecture and design programs such as AutoCAD, Rhino 3D, and the Adobe Creative Suite after several architecture courses. Learn more about Christian:LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/christian-llamas-8aa3861b0 --------------------------------------Plan Dulce is a podcast by members of the ⁠⁠Latinos and Planning Division⁠ of the American Planning Association⁠. The information, opinions, and recommendations presented in this Podcast are for general information only. Want to recommend our next great guests and stay updated on the latest episodes? We want to hear from you! Follow, rate, and subscribe! Your support and feedback helps us continue to amplify insightful and inspiring stories from our wonderfully culturally and professionally diverse community.This episode was conceived, written, edited and produced by Stefanie Esteban (she/they).Connect:Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/plandulcepodcast/ Facebook:⁠https://www.facebook.com/LatinosandPlanning/⁠Youtube:Subscribe to Plan Dulce on Youtube LinkedIn:⁠https://www.linkedin.com/groups/4294535/⁠X/ Twitter:⁠https://twitter.com/latinosplanapa?lang=en⁠

Dr. Andrea Flores' most recent book, The Succeeders: How Immigrant Youth Are Transforming What It Means to Belong in America (University of California Press, 2021), is a detailed account of how immigrant youth in Nashville, Tennessee negotiated the stakes of academic achievement by reproducing terms of belonging while at the same time recasting what it means to belong in the United States. By focusing on a nonprofit college access program for Latino youth from which the title of the book is derived, Flores argues that Succeeders' educational achievements were viewed “as positive moral proof against deficit constructions of Latinos while also maintaining a link to educación's [emphasis in original] personal, cultural, and familial value” (16). The hybridity of assigning moral value to book learning while also hinging their striving to familial networks is what Flores believes to be critical to the Succeeders' perception of self. By offering a radically different route to belonging through the vehicle of family and care, the Succeeders hoped to earn not just their own national membership, but also the membership of those near and dear. Flores conducted ethnographic research for twelve months while also serving as a volunteer for the Succeeders program of southern Nashville across four campuses for the academic year 2012 - 2013. She observed effective communication skits, field trips, organizational meetings, community service activities, musical performances, athletic games, scholarship selection committees, and graduation ceremonies to best understand the lived experiences of Succeeders within and outside of their educational institutions. Flores also conducted thirty-one semistructured interviews with Succeeders whose families were primarily from Mexican and Central America. Further, half of the interviews included undocumented youth, and students from all levels of academic achievement were selected. Strategic selecting of Succeeders allowed Flores to examine how students across a variety of academic preparations and immigrant backgrounds perceived themselves within larger conceptions of Latindidad and educational achievement. Interviews with the program's leaders, teachers, and admissions officers revealed the internal dialogues of those most tasked with the Succeeders' success. A robust textual archive in the form of college admissions handouts, college entrance essays, and Succeeders curricular materials were collected by the author. These mixed methods allowed Flores to provide detailed and rich accounts of how Latino youth navigated the college application process, the end of high school, and their personal lives. Jonathan Cortez is currently the 2021-2023 César Chávez Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Latin American, Latino, and Caribbean Studies at Dartmouth College. You can follow Jonathan on Twitter @joncortz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In this episode, Fred Lawrence speaks with Geraldo Cadava, Professor of History at Northwestern University and author of The Hispanic Republican. Cadava takes us from the childhood experiences that shaped his interest in complex identities—moving between the affluent suburbs of Irvine and the borderlands of Tucson—to his scholarly work on the contradictory nature of Latino identity. He shares the compelling story of his Panamanian-born grandfather, a veteran and copper miner whose partisan evolution from a Ronald Reagan voter to a staunch Republican demonstrates how individual political reasons can lead to deep ideological shifts. Cadava also previews his upcoming, ambitious project of writing a book encompassing the past 500-year history of Latinos, A Thousand Bridges, which argues that Latinos have historically been both victims and agents of empire. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dr. Andrea Flores' most recent book, The Succeeders: How Immigrant Youth Are Transforming What It Means to Belong in America (University of California Press, 2021), is a detailed account of how immigrant youth in Nashville, Tennessee negotiated the stakes of academic achievement by reproducing terms of belonging while at the same time recasting what it means to belong in the United States. By focusing on a nonprofit college access program for Latino youth from which the title of the book is derived, Flores argues that Succeeders' educational achievements were viewed “as positive moral proof against deficit constructions of Latinos while also maintaining a link to educación's [emphasis in original] personal, cultural, and familial value” (16). The hybridity of assigning moral value to book learning while also hinging their striving to familial networks is what Flores believes to be critical to the Succeeders' perception of self. By offering a radically different route to belonging through the vehicle of family and care, the Succeeders hoped to earn not just their own national membership, but also the membership of those near and dear. Flores conducted ethnographic research for twelve months while also serving as a volunteer for the Succeeders program of southern Nashville across four campuses for the academic year 2012 - 2013. She observed effective communication skits, field trips, organizational meetings, community service activities, musical performances, athletic games, scholarship selection committees, and graduation ceremonies to best understand the lived experiences of Succeeders within and outside of their educational institutions. Flores also conducted thirty-one semistructured interviews with Succeeders whose families were primarily from Mexican and Central America. Further, half of the interviews included undocumented youth, and students from all levels of academic achievement were selected. Strategic selecting of Succeeders allowed Flores to examine how students across a variety of academic preparations and immigrant backgrounds perceived themselves within larger conceptions of Latindidad and educational achievement. Interviews with the program's leaders, teachers, and admissions officers revealed the internal dialogues of those most tasked with the Succeeders' success. A robust textual archive in the form of college admissions handouts, college entrance essays, and Succeeders curricular materials were collected by the author. These mixed methods allowed Flores to provide detailed and rich accounts of how Latino youth navigated the college application process, the end of high school, and their personal lives. Jonathan Cortez is currently the 2021-2023 César Chávez Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Latin American, Latino, and Caribbean Studies at Dartmouth College. You can follow Jonathan on Twitter @joncortz Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Amber Cabrera. Senior Assistant to the City Manager for City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Maylee De Jesús, City Clerk for the City of Boynton Beach, Florida joined to podcast to discuss increasing representation in local government. They shared recent efforts they have worked on for Latinos in Florida Local Government, advice for the next generation, and how to get involved with the Local Government Hispanic Network. This episode was recorded at the 2025 ICMA Annual Conference in Tampa, FL. Host: Meredith Reynolds

"Is there anything wrong with being a punter?" JuJu is here with his Top 10 Disloyal Moves In Sports History That He Can Think Of. He also updates the polls and is willing to listen to constructive criticism from the fans. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Chuck Rocha and Mike Madrid sit down with Dr. Patricia Campos-Medina — immigrant, labor leader, campaign strategist, and the highest-ranking Latina on Mikie Sherrill's 2025 New Jersey gubernatorial campaign.After New Jersey saw massive Democratic losses among Latino voters in 2024—with Trump gaining up to 24 points in some counties—Mikie Sherrill achieved a stunning turnaround, capturing 68% of the Latino vote.Dr. Campos-Medina pulls back the curtain on one of the largest Latino vote swings in America, explaining how New Jersey Democrats reversed years of GOP gains by rebuilding trust, investing early, and talking directly about the economic crisis Latinos are living every day.Key takeaways include:Why Latinos shifted to Trump in 2024 and what brought them backThe importance of having Latino operatives making decisions, not just translating messagesHow opening up consultant contracts transformed the ground gameThe difference between 30-day campaign investments and year-round community engagementWhy both parties competing for Latino votes strengthens the community's negotiating power-Recorded November 12, 2025.

It's News Day Tuesday on the Majority Report On today's program: Rep. Mike Johnson (D-LA) is happy to pass the Epstein buck over to John Thune (R-SD) and the Senate, allowing them to hamstring the release of the files. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks at a presser organized by Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie, alongside a group of Epstein survivors. Donald Trump's approval rating with Latinos has plummeted. I wonder why? ICE has invaded Charlotte, North Carolina, and the response has been fast and robust. In the Fun Half: Bill Maher bombs in front of his own audience, who are PAID to laugh, then announces he is quitting stand-up because he is tired of being twice as funny as people who sell twice as many tickets. Trump is particularly incoherent while speaking at a McDonald's summit. As the Epstein discharge petition is about to pass through the House of Representatives, Trump is getting angrier and angrier with reporters. Tim Pool humiliates himself on Jesse Watters as he strings together a line of nonsense while Jesse nods like he understands what beanie man is saying. Dave Portnoy cries on CBS News as he makes the case that he and Barstool have never believed in making jokes based in hate. It turns out that Barstool's strong moral compass is not pointing toward true north, as we take a look at some of the hateful jokes Portnoy has made in the past. Seattle's new mayor, Katie Wilson, stands with striking Starbucks employees, even encouraging Seattle residents to boycott them until an acceptable contract is signed. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: NUTRAFOL: Get $10 off your first month's subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10 COZY EARTH: Go to FactorMeals.com/majority50off and use code majority50off to get 50% off your first box, plus Free Breakfast for 1 Year. SHOPIFY: Go to zbiotics.com/MAJORITY to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use MAJORITY at checkout. SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and use the code FRIDAY25 to save 30% on all their wellness products for people and pets. This sale ends December 1st at 11:59 ᴾᴹ Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com

It’s been a year since Donald Trump won the elections. And last week, voters elected candidates that are far from what Trump represents. Democrats made history in New York City, and they won big in places like Virginia, California, and New Jersey—and Latinos and Latinas, as usual, played a big role. But these victories don’t necessarily mean Democrats are poised to sweep in future elections, including the 2026 midterms. A panel of journalists discuss how the elusive so-called Latino vote influenced the most recent elections, and what lessons the Democratic Party should learn. Latino USA is the longest-running news and culture radio program in the U.S., centering Latino stories and hosted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Maria Hinojosa. Follow the show to get every episode. Want to support our independent journalism? Join Futuro+ for exclusive episodes, sneak peeks and behind-the-scenes chisme on Latino USA and all our podcasts. Follow us on TikTok and YouTube. Subscribe to our newsletter. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.