Podcasts about lisl

Matze die Person hinter dem Character Matzo ist bei Ari und Lisl zu Gast und Sie reden über die Rolling Madness Episoden "das Ablenkungsmanöver" und "brutale Befragung" in denen Matzo entführt wird und wir langsam erfahren, wer eigentlich die großen Bösen sind hinter all den komischen Machenschaften in Ferun. Matze erzählt von dem Gefühl, wie es ist, keine lange Rast machen zu dürfen und dadurch zu wissen, dass etwas passieren wird.

"Tänane saade sai alguse ajalehest Sakala, mida lugedes sain teada, et Ugala teatris jõuab taas lavale legendaarne lavastus "Džinnimäng". Eesti teatriloos on see juba neljas taoline, kuid mulle meenus kohe see esimene – 41 aastat tagasi etendunud lavastus, mis tõi teatrilavale Kaljo Kiisa ja tema kõrvale Lisl Lindau," tutvustas saate autor Piret Kooli seekordse "Päevatee" saamislugu.

"Tavern Crawl", Unerwartetes Wiedersehen und das Hutgeschäft sind die Rolling Madness Episoden, die Lisl und Ari diesmal besprechen. In diesen Episoden beschließen die Abenteurer nach Neverwinter zu gehen und erinnern sich, dass sie ja dort jemanden kennen. Rubina/Hilda der Charakter von Lea Zauner (Aris Co-Moderatorin bei den Nerd Sisters). Lea ist auch zu Gast und erzählt, wie es war, wieder ihren Charakter spielen zu dürfen.

"I Don't Know If It's Irony" heißt die am Freitag erscheinende Debüt-EP von Lisl – und das ist vielleicht auch der Gedanke, der dem einen oder der anderen angesichts des Künstlernamens von Lisa-Marie Kämpf durch den Kopf geht. Denn statt der traditionellen Volksweisen, die dieser zu suggerieren scheint, spielt die aus Gotha stammende Wahl-Würzburgerin feinsten Gitarren-Pop und -Rock mit viel Gefühl, der nicht nur Fans von Phoebe Bridgers oder Becks ansprechen dürfte.

"I Don't Know If It's Irony" heißt die am Freitag erscheinende Debüt-EP von Lisl – und das ist vielleicht auch der Gedanke, der dem einen oder der anderen angesichts des Künstlernamens von Lisa-Marie Kämpf durch den Kopf geht. Denn statt der traditionellen Volksweisen, die dieser zu suggerieren scheint, spielt die aus Gotha stammende Wahl-Würzburgerin feinsten Gitarren-Pop und -Rock mit viel Gefühl, der nicht nur Fans von Phoebe Bridgers oder Becks ansprechen dürfte.

"I Don't Know If It's Irony" heißt die am Freitag erscheinende Debüt-EP von Lisl – und das ist vielleicht auch der Gedanke, der dem einen oder der anderen angesichts des Künstlernamens von Lisa-Marie Kämpf durch den Kopf geht. Denn statt der traditionellen Volksweisen, die dieser zu suggerieren scheint, spielt die aus Gotha stammende Wahl-Würzburgerin feinsten Gitarren-Pop und -Rock mit viel Gefühl, der nicht nur Fans von Phoebe Bridgers oder Becks ansprechen dürfte.

"I Don't Know If It's Irony" heißt die am Freitag erscheinende Debüt-EP von Lisl – und das ist vielleicht auch der Gedanke, der dem einen oder der anderen angesichts des Künstlernamens von Lisa-Marie Kämpf durch den Kopf geht. Denn statt der traditionellen Volksweisen, die dieser zu suggerieren scheint, spielt die aus Gotha stammende Wahl-Würzburgerin feinsten Gitarren-Pop und -Rock mit viel Gefühl, der nicht nur Fans von Phoebe Bridgers oder Becks ansprechen dürfte.

Lisl Dunlop, Partner, Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, speaks with Mark Seidman, Partner, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, about some of the potential health care antitrust priorities of a second Trump Administration. They discuss how antitrust enforcement has changed over recent administrations; and the incoming administration's potential approaches to the new Merger Guidelines, hospital merger enforcement, focus on labor market impacts, private equity in health care, and the FTC's rule banning non-competes. From AHLA's Antitrust Practice Group. Sponsored by Axinn.Listen to Lisl and Mark's October 2023 podcast, when Mark was Assistant Director for the Mergers IV Division of the FTC's Bureau of Competition.New Health Law Daily Podcast Coming in January 2025 Coming in January 2025, AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter will also be available as a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Listen to all the current health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! Subscribe Now

Zum Ende des Jahres haben Lisl und Ari beschlossen, das Jahr mit allen zu besprechen. Von wie viel Content wir in Zeit haben bis zu den Lieblings - NPC's der Madness Crew. In diesem Sinne, frohe Weihnachten und guten Rutsch.

Zusammen mit ihren Lore Keepers Michi und Lisl spricht DM Ari über „Rolling Madness“ aus der Sicht der Hörer. Michi und Lisl schildern ihre Eindrücke als erfahrene D&D-Spieler/in und teilen, wie sie „Rolling Madness“ wahrnehmen. Sinan hingegen beschreibt, wie der Podcast auf jemanden wirkt, der noch nie D&D gespielt hat und somit ganz neue Welten entdeckt.

LISL ist zu Gast im Podcast 2wischendurch. Mit Raphi und Lenz spricht die aufstrebende Newcomerin über die unterschiedlichsten Gefühle. Wieso sieht man zu anderen Personen auf und was ist gefährlich daran? Was eine richtige Umarmung in einem auslöst und wie man sich ab und zu mal selbstbewusster fühlen kann. Es geht also in die Tiefe - ohne dabei schwer zu wirken. Viel Spaß. Die Folge wird unterstützt vom Verband für Popkultur in Bayern, kurz VPBY: https://popkultur.bayern/ ... und Aqua Monaco - 100% klimaneutrale und vegane Getränke aus München: aquamonaco.com Alle Infos zum Podcast 2wischendurch: https://linktr.ee/2wischendurch.podcast

In dieser Ausgabe besprechen Ari und Lisl die Rolling Madness-Episoden 'Der Angestellte' (47.) und 'Unsichtbare Hobgoblins' (48.). Ari gibt dabei Einblicke aus der Sicht des DMs und teilt wertvolle Storytelling-Tipps. Gemeinsam reflektieren sie die wichtigsten Ereignisse der beiden Episoden.

Nach der Sommerpause starten Ari und Lisl wieder mit den Rolling Madness Episoden "Observation", "Verdeckter Beschützer" und "Informatives Verhör". In diesen geht es um den Arc Tristan Bolbec. Der Ladenbesitzer die Abenteurer observiert haben, bis sich ihre Vermutungen bestätigten. Sie stellten ihn zur Rede, doch es kam zu einem Kampf, danach wurde Tristan Bolbec bei den Harfnern verhört. In diesen Episoden haben unsere Abenteurer einiges an Lore erfahren.

Die Themen der Folge: Schon in seiner ersten Woche nach Release hat das Action-Abenteuer „Black Myth: Wukong“ die Verkaufszahlen des Gaming-Hits „Elden Ring“ getoppt. In China geben manche Arbeitgeber:innen ihren Angestellten jetzt sogar Urlaub, um das neue Spiel zu zocken. Im Trubel um die Oasis-Reunion könnte man fast übersehen, dass auch Linkin Park große Neuigkeiten mit der Welt zu teilen haben. Auf der Website der Nu-Metal-Band läuft ein Countdown bis Mittwoch, 28. August – Fans spekulieren, dass dann neue Musik, ein Konzert oder gar eine Tour angekündigt wird. Mit Lisl geht gerade ein neuer großer Stern am Indie-Himmel auf! Inspiriert vom Grunge der 90er und Größen wie Phoebe Bridgers findet die Newcomerin ihren Sound gerade irgendwo zwischen Indie-Rock und Dream-Pop. Live-Tipp für alle NNDW-Fans: Steintor Herrenchor gehen im Januar 2025 auf ihre erste eigene Tour durch Deutschland, Österreich und die Schweiz. Alle Infos zur „Oh scheiße Gefühle“ Tour von Steintor Herrenchor: https://diffus.de/p/live/steintor-herrenchor-oh-scheisse-gefuhle-tour-2025/

In an inspiring journey that spans continents and industries, Lisl MacDonald has established herself as a formidable force in the entrepreneurial world. With over 20 years of experience in Asia and a background that includes working in the strategy department at British Telecom, MacDonald now heads Spring and Atlas, a company dedicated to fostering growth, innovation, and diversity. In this episode, she shares her path to becoming a coach, the challenges entrepreneurs face, and the critical factors for scaling a startup. Join us as we delve into the wisdom and vision that drive Lisl MacDonald, and Spring and Atlas. [00:39] - About Lisl MacDonald Lisl is the Owner of Spring and Atlas. She is a Consultant and Angel Investor. Lisl is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and an Honorary Fellow of the Marketing Society. She is currently co-writing a book on all aspects of entrepreneurship. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tbcy/support

Lisl und Ari besprechen die Rolling Madness Episoden: "Yheri ist wieder da", "Erste Waffenlieferung" und "Waffen - Safe" Lisl gibt eine ausführliche Zusammenfassung über alle drei Episoden, die Lore technisch gut zusammenpassen und Ari haut noch ihren DM-Senf dazu. Bevor es bis in August in die Sommerpause geht.

Hartgold Villa Teil 1 und Hartgold Villa Teil 2 sprich Episoden 37 und 38 werden besprochen. Mit niemand geringerem als Mr. Bartur Hartgold himself bzw. dem Rollenspieler natürlich. Rimi. Lisl fragt Rimi und Ari und wie es war Barturs Familie von seiner Frau gespielt zu bekommen. Ari gibt wieder DM Gedanken ab zu gewissen Szenen und dropped sogar einen wichtigen hint.

Lisl und Ari besprechen in Rolling Madness Manier die Episoden "der Auftrag" und "die Verfolgerin". Warum es zu diesen Episoden gekommen ist und worum es in diesen Rolling Madness Folgen geht.

Lisl hat sich wieder Fragen an Ari überlegt, diesmal aber nicht an die DM, sondern an die D&D Spielerin. Wie tickt die DM als Spielerin?

You're so clever you could definitely build a jet pack.

Die "Halloween Episode - Die Clowns - Puppe" und Folge 32 "Wiedervereint" gehören ja quasi zusammen, da unsere Abenteurer erst in der 32 Episode das Bedürfnis haben zu Sheila zu gehen, wissen aber vorerst nicht warum. Dort finden sie heraus, dass Sheila sie das Erlebte hat vergessen lassen. Lisl und Ari sprechen über die großartigen Ideen der Abenteurer und bequatschen diese Folgen in Ruhe.

Hoy con Janett Arceo y La Mujer Actual: El Lic. Fernando Macotela, con todos los detalles de la Feria Internacional del Libro del Palacio de Minería. El Terapeuta Juan Carlos Armenta hablando de problemas relacionados con el hígado según la medicina tradicional china. En el Día Internacional del Gato, platicare con la Dra. Lislén Contreras, Médica Veterinaria Internista y Clínica en el Hospital Veterinario de la UVM. Te presentamos el libro: “México 10 Emprendedores Sustentables – Agua”. El César de la Tecnología y la seguridad de Whats App.#PorSiTeLoPerdiste Albert Chávez y tres elementos clave de las finanzas en pareja.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ9AGRvEMf4 Margarita Naturalmente con el tema: “Angustia, Ansiedad, Depresión: Tratamientos Naturales”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6FKjQTYY9w “¿Cómo evitar gritos y amenazas para que los niños sean disciplinados?”. Escucha a la Dra. Julia Borbolla. Parte 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hzGwPwa1o Parte 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCm9cRHgfeU Janett Arceo y La Mujer Actual es uno de los pocos programas radiofónicos que desde 1982 y hasta la fecha actual se mantiene en el cuadrante, constituyéndose en un concepto de gran éxito gracias al talento y experiencia de la mujer que le da vida a la radio y televisión y a su gran familia de especialistas quienes, diariamente, apoyan al auditorio y lo motivan a elevar su calidad de vida.La Mujer Actual es el único concepto radiofónico que ayuda a lograr la superación integral de la familia en las diferentes etapas de su vida y, diariamente, realiza un recorrido por ámbitos tan diversos como desarrollo humano, nutrición, salud (en todas las especialidades), asesoría legal, neurociencias, finanzas personales, estimulación temprana, escuela para padres, hábitos y técnicas de estudio, bolsa de trabajo, turismo, entretenimiento, gastronomía, sexualidad, tecnología, astronomía, belleza, moda, astrología y más. La Mujer Actual siempre está a la vanguardia, por eso atendemos puntualmente las necesidades del público con teléfonos abiertos y nuestras redes sociales, creando así una completísima revista radiofónica en vivo. La Mujer Actual es pionera en programas de contenido para la familia, por eso muchos han intentado imitarlo, sin embargo, gracias a su estilo único no solo ha permanecido sino que continúa siendo uno de los programas preferidos que ha evolucionado al ritmo de los tiempos. Esto se debe en gran medida a su conductora Janett Arceo, que gracias a su frescura y a su capacidad de convertirse en la voz del auditorio, ha logrado consolidar una fórmula de comunicación verdaderamente exitosa, donde interactúan el público, la conductora y el especialista, basándose en un principio fundamental: ¡la prevención!

Ep 165: A woman is sentenced to life under a strict felony murder charge. But would her case cause the country to reevaluate how we define felony murder? This is the Lisl Auman story. Sources for Today's Episode: The Denver Post Summit Daily Vanity Fair Aspen times Credits: Written and Hosted by Amy Shlosberg and Meghan Sacks Produced by James Varga Script Editor, Abagail Belcastro Music by Dessert Media Show your Support: The easiest way you can support us is by leaving a review, telling your friends, sharing on social media or by sending us a note. We love to hear from our audience! You can also support the show through the following ways: Follow Us on Social: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/womenandcrime Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/womenandcrimepodcast/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@womenandcrime Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/womenandcrime Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/womenandcrime Twitter: https://twitter.com/WomenAndCrime Patron - ad-free shows starting at $2 a month, or upgrade to get an extra episode every month, exclusive AMAs with the hosts, lecture series on criminal justice, our true crime book club, and more! Check out our Patreon page for more info: https://www.patreon.com/womenandcrime Apple Subscriptions - Ad-free shows are now available through Apple's podcast app for only $1.99 a month. Merchandise - For T-shirts, Hoodies, notebooks, stickers and mugs check out: https://www.womenandcrimepodcast.com/merch Help is Available: If you or someone you know is in a crisis situation, or a victim of domestic, or other violence, there are many organizations that can offer support or help you in your specific situation. For direct links to these organizations please visit https://womenandcrimepodcast.com/resources/ Keywords: Bruce Vanderjagt, Hunter S. Thompson, Johnny Depp, Woody Harrelson, John Cusack, Jimmy Buffet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bei den Episoden "Geschwisterliebe" und "Liebe > Vernunft" des Rolling Madness Podcasts dreht sich alles rund um die "Geschwister" (Heimkinder) von Matzo. Daher ist auch Matze wieder bei Ari und Lisl zu Gast. Sie reden einwendig über die Dynamik, die er mit seinen "Geschwistern" hat, sowie das erste Face Off mit dem derzeitigen "Anführer" dieser Heimkinder. Sowie seine zweite Spinnenaction der Kampagne in der 31 Episode.

Dieses Mal besprechen Lisl und Ari die Episoden 23: "Parasitenparty" und Episode 24: "duschen, schlafen, waschen". In diesen Episoden tritt die Abenteurergruppe mit anderen Bewohnern Waterdeeps in Kontakt, die ebenso ihren Körper teilen müssen. Gemeinsam versuchen sie, eine Verbindung zu finden, warum gerade diese Personen in dieser Welt gelandet sind. Dazu kommt auch das Erste richtige Eintauchen in Yheris Geschichte.  https://youtu.be/GGSYMPA8q4I

In dieser Episode haben Ari und Lisl, Matze eingeladen, um mit ihm die Rolling Madness Episoden: 17 - "Die Ankunft" und 18 - "Neue Klänge", zu besprechen. Da es sich in diesen unter anderem um Matze handelt, der in Waterdeep ankommt. https://youtu.be/FehKqs2fI1M

Für die 10te Episode haben wir uns etwas Besonderes überlegt. Lisl stellt Ari Fragen.  Das wird jetzt bei jeder 10. Madness Minutes Episode passieren. In Zukunft kannst auch du uns Fragen schicken an contact@rollingmadness.at oder per DM auf jedem SM-Kanal deiner Wahl. Video: https://youtu.be/dRROsiPFtPc

„Hægt og rólega verður mylsna á borði til misskiptingar, sem [hann] tekur jafnvel ekki eftir“, er lýsandi setning úr ritgerð Ragnheiðar Davíðsdóttur sem rannsakaði hugræna vinnu meðal íslenskra para í meistararaverkefni sínu í kynjafræði við Háskóla Íslands. Líklega er þetta fyrsta íslenska rannsóknin sem mælir hugræna vinnu og niðurstöður eru í samræmi við reynslu sem ansi margar konur hafa lýst og erlendar rannsóknir hafa dregið ítrekað fram. Verkaskipting hugrænnar vinnu er bæði misskipt og kynjuð. Mæður í gagnkynhneigðum samböndum báru meiri hugræna byrði en feður. Mat viðmælenda á verkaskiptingu virtist bjagað, hefðbundin kvennastörf voru vanmetin en karlastörf ofmetin og pörin leituðust við að réttlæta misskiptinguna með ýmsum hætti og leituðust þannig við að falla að félagslega viðurkenndum jafnréttis- og réttlætishugsjónum.   Ragnheiður segir frá rannsóknarferlinu og fjallar nokkuð ítarlega um helstu niðurstöður sem vægast sagt eru afar áhugaverðar. Þá finnst mér við hæfi að draga fram að einkunn Ragnheiðar fyrir ritgerðina var 9,5 sem endurspeglar hversu vel þessi ritgerð var unnin, fræðilega vel undirbyggð og rannsóknarniðurstöður settar í fræðilegt samhengi. (Hægt er að ná á Ragnheiði í gegnum ragnheidurd96@gmail.com)    Umsjón: Þorsteinn V. Einarsson Tónlist: Mr. Silla - Naruto (án söngs)   Bakhjarlar karlmennskunnar bjóða upp á þáttinn og þú getur gerst bakhjarl á karlmennskan.is/styrkja

Lisl and I are excited to kick off a new season (era? reboot?) of That Jesus Podcast! After the usual navel-gazing, we pick up with the book of Judges, exploring the rise of Gideon. Does God want us to demand signs before we act? Is cowardice a sin? Did Gideon make noise with a ram's horn or with a trumpet? Tune in to find out. You can catch up on our previous studies on Judges on this feed - episodes 93 and 94. Share your questions and ideas on WhatsApp: 218.353.1725 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thatjesuspodcast/message

Talk von Johannes Radl mit Lisl van Dam, Marcus Harrison und Hanns Mühl am 16. April 2023

Sie ist eine lebende Legende – und kann getrost als die Grande Dame der österreichischen Spitzengastronomie bezeichnet werden. Wie keine andere Köchin verkörpert sie den internationalen Aufstieg der österreichischen Spitzenküche. Ende der 1970er-Jahre übernahm sie das Restaurant ihrer Eltern, das Landhaus Bacher, in der Wachau – und wurde durch ihre damals bahnbrechenden Kreationen nicht nur zu Österreichs erster Haubenköchin, sondern auch zu Österreichs allererstem „Koch des Jahres“ vom Gault Millau gekürt. Damals wurde bekanntlich nicht gegendert, heute würde man wahrscheinlich „Köchin des Jahres“ sagen. Das war 1983 und ist also genau 40 Jahre her. Bis heute legendär sind ihre Signatur Dishes wie das Kaviar-Ei oder ihr Milchrahmstrudel, und sowieso: ihr Einfluss auf die Generationen nach ihr kann gar nicht hoch genug bewertet werden. Wie ist sie geworden, was sie heute ist? Wie sagt eine Autorität wie sie, nach über 50 Jahren in der Gastronomie, über die Lage der gastronomischen Nation Österreich? Was, findet sie, hat sie gut gemacht? Was nicht? Das alles und vieles mehr verrät Elisabeth „Lisl“ Wagner-Bacher im großen Rolling Pin-Podcast. https://www.landhaus-bacher.at Die spannendsten Gastro-News, die aktuelle Ausgabe von Rolling Pin und die besten Jobs der Branche: www.rollingpin.com Alles über die Rolling Pin.Conventions -> www.rollingpinconvention.com

This week, we thought Phuket and sailed the Thai seas to catch marketer and problem solver, Lisl MacDonald. With over 30 years of experience in the business, Lisl cut her teeth in London with BT, Virgin, and Ogilvy, before her sense of adventure and curiosity took her to Asia to set up her own consultancy. Obsessed with interrogating ideas, she is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and chairs judging panels for the prestigious MSS Star Awards. Lisl talks to us on her unusual upbringing on a tiny Scottish island, her ‘white coat and condom' phase, learning whilst doing at BT, moving to Asia, what kept her in Thailand, finding her job being advertised in The Sunday Times, being the only backpacker with Estee Lauder sun cream, realising that you are not the cultural baseline, her experience as a woman in the industry, ego, complacency, solving oddly shaped problems, and tons more. We also wade through a shedload of overwhelmingly good listener questions we had in (including one from Call To Action alumni Rory Sutherland). ///// You can find Lisl on LinkedIn She wants you to watch this case study for TMB And keep your eyes peeled for her book that's coming soon Thank you to everyone who has lent their ears and their brains for over 100 episodes of the Call To Action® podcast. It's a real privilege. Please do share and review the podcast to help more marketers feel better about marketing.  Timestamps (01:53) - Quick fire questions (03:51) - Her first-ever jobs on a tiny Scottish island (05:31) - The 'white coat and condom' phase (09:02) - Learning whilst doing at BT (18:12) - Moving to Asia in a dramatic fashion (21:27) - How to succeed working in Asia (28:30) - Differences she sees in the trajectory of the industry nowadays (38:31) - Being a woman in the industry   (49:31) - Listener questions (including one from Rory Sutherland) (55:36) - 4 pertinent posers  Lisl's book recommendations are:  Delusions of Brandeur by Ryan Wallman  How to Build a Better Business Plan by Alastair Thomson  Nonviolent Communication by Marshall B. Rosenberg Hex by Jenni Fagan   On Connection by Kae Tempest The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu  /////

We sit down this week for a fantastic chat with author Lisl Detlefsen, whose book Farm Boots releases from Feeding Minds Press in a scant couple of weeks as of our episode drop date! Lisl has a bunch of books out in the world, from jetpacks to kicking kittens, but this will be her third book specifically exploring the world of food. As I've covered in previous episodes, I work in agriculture science communications, so this material is really near and dear to my heart! My food bona fides are nothing compared to Lisl's, though. She is our first - and perhaps last, or only? - guest who married into a cranberry farm, leading to her 2015 debut, Time for Cranberries. We had such a fun chat with Lisl. ------ Lisl's upcoming book with Feeding Minds:  Farm Boots, illustrated by Renee Kurilla ------ Our reviews for the week: Lost & Found by Oliver Jeffers ROAWR! by Barbara Joosse, illustrated by Jan Jutte Do Not Lick This Book by Iden Ben-Barak and Julian Frost   (Special shout-out link to Kelly Swemba's Missing Violet!) ------ And finally, check back to our original discussion with Justin Colon, for a really great conversation that apparently appeals to preteens!  Check out our sponsor The Kidlit Hive! Find more on our Linktree! 

Hunter S. Thompson once wrote, “The case of Lisl Auman, who first wrote me from prison three years ago, is so rotten and wrong and shameful that I feel dirty just for knowing about it, and so should you.” So, let's see how you feel about the case of the 21 year old woman who was arrested for the brutal murder of a police officer while she was handcuffed in the back of a cruiser.  Patreon.com/truecrimecouple https://truecrimecouples-store.creator-spring.com Sourcing https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/spate-of-skinhead-violence-catches-denver-by-surprise.html https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/123017NCJRS.pdf https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/06/innocent-murderer-200406 https://www.westword.com/news/zero-to-life-5059766 https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/denver-police-officer-death-anniversary-bruce-vanderjagt/73-a126d789-8e1a-4f60-aae0-b9136093d0d4 https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2005/02sc885-0.html https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb21-124 https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/auman-v-people-no-893143927 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1126808.html https://extras.denverpost.com/news/news1109q.htm https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA150266782&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=03624331&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E5ec9070a https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2005/02sc885-0.html

Dru and Lisl begin a study in the Old Testament book of Joshua. It's a bit different from our usual fare, but quite possibly worth a listen! They discuss genocide, the sovereignty of God, and how fast a person could run without their big toes. Join the conversation by texting or sending a voice message on WhatsApp. Dru's number is 218.353.1725. You can also leave a comment on our Facebook page: facebook.com/thatjesuspod --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thatjesuspodcast/message

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by former Seattle mayor and current Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. The show starts with a plug for the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF) graduation party in Seattle this Saturday, 6/18, to celebrate its Class of 2022 completing a program focused on recruiting, training, and promoting the next generation of Democratic civic leaders, and extends an invite to others interested in the program Crystal credits with starting her political career. On the topic of civic leadership, Mike and Crystal note that primary ballots are a month out from arriving in mailboxes and discuss what they each look for in a candidate: where they lie on the urban vs suburban spectrum, whether they hedge or make strong statements on policy, how they demonstrate living the values they espouse, what kind of campaign they run, and a demonstration of being strong in tough scenarios before they are elected. The two then wrap up with a look at the opportunity voters have on the November ballot to make changes to future elections with Seattle set to vote on approval voting and King County Council moving a ballot measure on even-year elections forward. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Institute for a Democratic Future: ​​https://democraticfuture.org/   IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://www.facebook.com/events/677339030035686   RSVP for IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://secure.anedot.com/idf/graduation   “What's The Difference Between Candidates in the 36th Legislative District?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/17/75176294/whats-the-difference-between-candidates-in-the-36th-legislative-district   “Voters Could Change How And When We Vote This November” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/15/75135178/voters-could-change-how-and-when-we-vote-this-november   “Election Nerds Feud Over Whether or Not Approval Voting Violates Voting Rights” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/01/67571578/election-nerds-feud-over-whether-or-not-approval-voting-violates-voting-rights   @GirmayZahilay - Twitter thread on even year vs odd year elections: https://twitter.com/GirmayZahilay/status/1537124459080929280   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program: friend of the show, super popular cohost, activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle and Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. [00:00:57] Mike McGinn: Glad to be here - again - thank you. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Glad you are here - always a fun time when you are here. So I wanted to start off just by mentioning - we've talked about the Institute for a Democratic Future before, which is pretty much responsible for my political career and the careers of so many people in politics and policy in Washington State and DC. This year's class is actually graduating tomorrow - super proud of all of them. That is actually a public event that people can attend - tickets are on sale and you can attend, so if you're free Saturday, June 18th, in the evening - check out the Institute for a Democratic Future website for tickets - democraticfuture.org. We'll also put a link in the show notes and it'll be available on the website - or just hit me up on Twitter, whatever - would love to see you there, meet some of you. I'll be there. Look forward to that and seeing this current class graduate and a great opportunity just to learn more about the program - see if you might be interested in doing it. Also, ballots arrive in a month for the primary election. Things are coming in quick, time evaporates really quickly. And so lots of people are trying to figure out who's who, what's differentiating the candidates. The Stranger had an article come out this morning talking about - what's the difference between candidates in the 36th? So starting off, Mike, as you evaluate - how do you evaluate how candidates are different, how are you going to be making the decision about how to vote and who to support? How do you go through it? How do you recommend voters go through it? [00:02:48] Mike McGinn: Yeah, now this is such a great question in Seattle elections, right? Because one of the real, and we could carry on about this at length, one of the things about Seattle is - Seattle is, by comparison to national politics, a very progressive place. You find that 90+ percent voted for Biden in this city - I think was the number, if you go back. So it's pretty clear - some people will try to make it "what flavor of progressive are you," but everybody's gonna work to sound like they're progressive. And occasionally we'll see - for some reason, we seem to get this more from the Seattle Times and the more right side of the spectrum - "but they're all really the same, aren't they?" And I'll warn you about something - that that's not always the case, or they try to claim it - that well, one side is more ideological and the other side is more pragmatic or reasonable - something like that. But there is, in fact, a dividing line in Seattle politics that I'd ask people to consider and maybe about where they fit on that dividing line. So nationally, the ends of the spectrum are urban versus rural. In a city like Seattle, I'd suggest to you that it's urban versus suburban and the attitudes that accompany those. Now, of course, Seattle has areas that are suburban in nature - single-family homes on nice, quiet, tree-lined streets and a fair number of the voters come from those precincts. But they have indeed chosen to live in a city, so they're not - there are progressive sensibilities there. And urban is a catchall that could cover a lot of things. But let me see if I can dig into this just a little bit. Housing and zoning - a suburban approach would be single-family houses are great, an urban approach would be we should have lots of different kinds of housing. Policing - a suburban approach might be how do we keep bad people out of the neighborhood and how do we patrol the neighborhood to prevent folks from getting here. And a more urban approach might be - well, bad things are gonna happen. How do we make sure that the police can work effectively with the community and treat 'em fairly? So you see an urban versus suburban divide there. Homelessness - suburban mentality is can we give them a bus ticket to the city - this is an overstatement. An urban mentality is - well, we're gonna have homeless people, what are we gonna do? So I think on every issue that we look at - where do they fit on that spectrum is a way to look at it. And candidates - we already saw it in that article you showed about the 36th - what would you do about single-family zoning - a couple of whom were hedging, were hesitant. Bruce Harrell, as mayor, when he ran was hesitant - I'm not sure, we shouldn't just rezone the whole City. And then when you look at where they get the votes from, they tend to get the votes from the folks who are more resistant to building more housing and more different types of housing in the exclusive or exclusionary neighborhoods of Seattle. So that would be the first thing I'd look at in candidates - is where do they fit on that divide, and how to ask some hard questions to get at it. Like really pin 'em down - 'cause everybody's for more housing, everybody's for affordable housing - but would you upzone single-family neighborhoods is a hard question. You could ask 'em about what laws they might change in the State Legislature to make it easier to hold police accountable - see where they fall on that. There's a whole bunch of different places you can go to try to pin 'em down on something. So that's my first cut. I have a second cut on that, but Nicole - not Nicole - Crystal! I know you have answers to that one. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: That's so funny - you called me Nicole. My name is Nicole, but yes - [00:06:56] Mike McGinn: Is it really? [00:06:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, my family's called me Nicole my entire life - that's my middle name. So yes, lots of people call me Nicole. I don't know if you heard someone call me that, but anyway - [00:07:05] Mike McGinn: No, I think it's just that Nicole - it's been on my brain from prior discussions. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: Anyway, I think that's good - certainly, housing affordability, the approach to getting people housed - basically, whether you're looking to take a housing first approach and house people primarily. Or if people think the problem is visible homelessness - always a red flag to me when I hear people characterize the problem as visible homelessness - the visible is not the problem, the homelessness is the problem. And a lot of times the characterization of visible homelessness positions people who witness homelessness, or have to see it, as the victims - are somehow harmed - when clearly the harm is absolutely being done mainly to the person who doesn't have a house and who is out there in the elements with no shelter, much more likely to be a victim of crime than most other people in the community. And so that's always something to me. And are we okay with sweeping, even if we don't have shelter available. Or is it - hey, we need to find places for people to stay, we need to create places for people to stay. Are we satisfied with shelter, congregate shelter, which we now have so much data showing that it's really counterproductive in some situations - absolutely as emergency shelter, and some situations better than being on the street and some situations it's actually not. So are we providing people with rooms with a bathroom, a door that locks - somewhere where people can stabilize. Just especially in these Seattle elections - where they are D versus D races - we can have a lot richer conversations. And frankly, be pickier about who we decide to support. This is not a situation where the choice is between a Democrat and a Republican who is denying the 2020 election, who doesn't prioritize democracy and one person, one vote, who wants to end abortion protections, and all of that - where it's almost a - it's a harm reduction approach at minimum to vote for a Democrat, but the consequence is horrible. So you stop quibbling on issues and policy and we're talking really broad strokes. That's not the case in Seattle. You can make a choice for a progressive person or someone who is aligned with you on policy. There isn't something as - well, we don't know if we can elect a progressive in Seattle. We absolutely can. People can make that choice. And so one, drilling down further to see - are people hedging? Are they willing to answer strongly? Are people trying to not take a position? Are they saying - this is where I am, and trying to make the case for bringing other people along with them. I think that's a big thing. Another thing I would say is - working in politics for a while - campaigns are actually horrible job interviews for governing. The skills and the stuff that you use on a campaign - lots of them do not translate to governing, and it's just so interesting that we go about things like this. There's a saying that - Hey, we have the worst system except for all the other ones. Who knows, but I do think that there - one thing that I've seen that has been a consistent transfer is, what are the decisions that people make in their campaigns? How are they choosing - they may not have been in a situation where they were in control of a budget before. They may not have been in a situation where they were making hiring decisions and staffing decisions. Well, now that they are - what are they doing? Are they making decisions in alignment with their values and how they're talking? Are they working with people who are aligned with them, or who are aligned with folks who are doing things very different than what they say they anticipate doing? How are they living their values in this situation, in a campaign, where they are the ones making the calls and making the decisions? How are they using their resources? Just things like that are - you can see how someone is processing information. You can see - hey, you talk about workers - are you paying your campaign staff? Everyone has volunteers, but your campaign manager, other people involved - do you have a diverse staff? Lots of people have pictures with lots of diverse people in them. Who are the people that they're paying. It is a question - [00:12:17] Mike McGinn: That's such a great observation. Everybody's got the right pictures. [00:12:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. How are they investing their resources? And that, to me, consistently translates into the decisions that they make when they're elected and how they choose to allocate resources. And so look at their campaigns, see what they're doing, what kinds of decisions they're making, who they're hiring. I think who you hire, a lot of times, speaks a lot more than who you work for. Lots of times people are trying to pay their bills, all that kind of stuff. So - hey, I work for - people, I certainly have lots of issues with Amazon, but am I gonna take issue with someone who works for Amazon? Absolutely not. It's hard to pay bills, it's hard to find a job that - so do that, but once you're doing the hiring, that's a different story. Who are you choosing? How are you going about that? How are you living your values? What have you done that gets away from the rhetoric and more to - are you walking your talk? That is how I look to candidates and campaigns and decisions. I'm looking - this is me, obviously - I'm looking at PDC expense reports to see who they're working with, to see how they're being a steward of the resources in their control. So that would be my recommendation - look and see how they're living the values that they say they're living. That's a good indication of what they're gonna do when they're elected. [00:13:56] Mike McGinn: Those are all great points. So let me see, I'll come around for my second cut and I'll hit some of the ones you hit too. How they run their campaign - are they - is it a top-down campaign which is money and some consultants, or are they really showing the ability to engage and draw volunteers? 'Cause that gives you a sense of how they will operate in office - who's part of their coalition. That's - I think the next one is endorsements matter and they don't matter. I wouldn't - a lot of the endorsing organizations may be trying to figure out who's gonna win as well as their values. But if you look at their money and everybody's gonna have some - everyone's gonna have a mix of checks, but where's the weight of the money coming from? 'Cause the reality is most people, once elected, are gonna serve the base that got them elected. So where's the political base as can be told from looking at all of the data around endorsements and dollars and then again, how they're running the campaign. So does it appear to be a campaign that's built upon a broad coalition of community members volunteering, or is it being financed by certain industries or sectors of the economy? That'll tell you who they'll speak to. So that's worth looking at. Your comments reminded me of two other things. One question I asked, and this is now coming from a Sierra Club background and we interviewed people for endorsements. And again, everybody came in, everybody knew what the right answer was for Seattle politics, and people would hedge a little bit - but this is expanding on one of the things Crystal said. And by the way, your LinkedIn is Crystal Nicole Fincher, so I - [00:15:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I usually put all three names. [00:15:53] Mike McGinn: Nicole is there in a lot of places, so maybe that was there, maybe it was there in my head somewhere. The question is - I would ask - tell me about a time you did something for the environment. Not what's your position on clean air, or what's your position on walking and biking - but tell me about a time you took action because you cared about the environment. And some people have great answers and some people have no answers - and if the answer is, well, I recycle regularly - well, so that's Seattle, right? But if your answer was - oh, I took a summer to volunteer at an animal rescue center or something - okay, this person in their heart really feels something about the world around them. And you could ask that in any number of contexts - tell me a time when you acted on this impulse. The other question I love to ask people and - 'cause people still come to me and ask me for endorsements - and I say, tell me about a time you did something in your life or career that was hard and maybe even unpopular - the time that you had to have some guts and courage. And the reason is 'cause if you don't show guts or courage before you take office, you are not gonna show it once you take office. [00:17:13] Crystal Fincher: That is the truth. [00:17:15] Mike McGinn: This is - yeah, because the dynamic, once you're in office, is really pushing you to not take chances, to go with the flow, to not stand out too much - it's the safer place to be. And those forces only get harder and harder, which is why you end up with elected officials who just - you feel like after a few terms, they don't really seem to be doing anything anymore because it's been taken out - [00:17:43] Crystal Fincher: Ground out of them? [00:17:44] Mike McGinn: Ground out of them, man - it's like a tea bag that's been dipped into the hot water too many times - there's just not much flavor left after they're in for a long time. So that's my thing - tell me about a time you did something hard, unpopular, tough, but you did it anyway. And why you did it 'cause you do want somebody who's gonna be willing to step up on a hard issue and take a chance. My 2 cents - when we're looking at the challenges we face, incremental changes to the status quo in the face of all the challenges we face - you'd like to see people step up and do something hard and take a risk politically for the right thing. And that's what I'd like to see in a candidate too. [00:18:27] Crystal Fincher: That's so good. That's absolutely true. I definitely tell candidates and have conversations with lots of people. To your point, it gets harder after you get elected. There's pressure on candidates sometimes to - well, don't offend these people, you might lose this, don't say this, don't say that don't. And the mindset is almost - well, if I just get elected - I just need to get elected and then I can really do the thing I really wanna do. It does not work like that - it gets harder - the stakes are higher, actually. And so you have to be willing to stand by what you believe before you're elected. If, when it comes down to a negotiation and you're going back and forth on - and we're talking about legislative races - with your colleagues on - well, we can keep this in, I'll agree to keep this in if you take that out. What are the things that aren't going to be compromised on, what are the things that you know you can count on them to say I'm a No vote without this. And that's a big deal. The other thing that I think is really useful and that candidates have to do - they have to be out talking to voters. They have to be out in the community. They have to be knocking on doors. They have to be talking to regular people who are not hacks and wonks, who are not insidery insiders - who are saying this is what I'm dealing with, what are you gonna do about it? And who - you have to talk to them about - I hear you, this is what I think will help - go back and forth, get their feedback on it. Most candidates who are talking to voters regularly - you can tell. And to me, that's the difference between someone who is coming from a philosophical or purely ideological point of view, they may be very online - but you have to engage with your constituents, you have to hear tough feedback, you have to talk to people who are going through rough moments, and you have to see what you can do to help, and explain to them and bring them along with you. You have to actually build a coalition to govern. You have to bring people along to your side. If you want to change policy, you're going to have to change people's minds. And if you don't have practice doing that, if that's not a habit of yours, then it's not gonna happen after you get elected. The pressures to do that lessen after you get elected - schedules get busier. You have to prioritize engaging with people in your district from all different backgrounds, all different walks of life, viewpoints. And if you aren't comfortable with that, if you haven't done that in all of those situations - it does not serve you well as a candidate or as someone who's elected. [00:21:33] Mike McGinn: It's super hard as a candidate too, 'cause candidates - new candidates, in particular, and I'll toss myself - I was pretty engaged in civic affairs before I ran for mayor, but there were still big chunks of issue areas that I was not terribly sophisticated in my thinking on. And so I may have been better than your average new candidate in some areas, but compared to somebody who'd been in office - and so this is one of the traits you see of someone who's been in office for a while - they've got their talking points on every issue, they know where the safe space is on each one. So there's this learning process that occurs when you're running as well. And going back to your point about talking to people, you're not gonna learn if you're not talking to people. So I do like to see that too. It's funny - we're talking about somebody who can hold their principles, but you also want somebody who can be educated by the people they speak to and begin to understand the complexities of the issues. But also understand what really matters to people, and your point is really a strong one. And then be able to say, 'cause if you're running, you're saying you're the best person for the job. If you don't think you're the best person for the job, you shouldn't be in the race. Well, if you think you're the best person for the job, you're gonna have to start challenging yourself to answer the questions in a way that demonstrates that you're capable of making some forward progress on that issue. And I hold new candidates, at the beginning of that race, to a pretty low bar - because they're learning and you're allowed to say - well, I'm learning more about the - I don't recommend any candidates say that in any endorsing interview or to anybody - when you run, you're supposed to have all the answers. It's terrible. And then when you're elected, you're supposed to listen to everybody 'cause you shouldn't have all the answers. So that's another dynamic of running and winning. But when you're running, it is okay to keep learning and I see candidates learn and progress. So that's the other thing I look for in a candidate - just is, are they - what their ability to take up issues, identify, and attach a philosophy to it, and actually start making real recommendations, as opposed to simply talking points. And by talking points, I mean - one of the things to look for is - when you're talking to a candidate, are they just giving you value statements? "Affordable housing is really important. We need to care for every person in our community that's homeless." That's a value statement and it's good - I'm glad to hear people's values - but somebody can say, "We need to fight crime and we need to hold the police accountable." Okay, what's your plan? What's your plan to hold police accountable? How far would you be willing to go, or how far is too far for you as a candidate, and what do you think should be done differently to fight crime? What would you support? So, in a way it's the actual taking a position on an issue. And I also get super suspicious of candidates who don't take a position - who wanna, and I recommend this to candidates too - the way I phrase it now is, if you win votes, sometimes you have to lose votes. If somebody is afraid of losing a vote in the way they talk to you - it's in a way - it's a little bit taking the voter for granted if you're just trying to tell everybody what they want to hear and never take a hard position. Voters can - and I experienced this as a candidate and as a mayor - people will sometimes, people can disagree with you on things and still vote for you. If they like what you say on other issues, or if they like your approach, or if they just think you're coming from the right place, they're gonna work hard to get the right answer even if they don't like your answer then. So don't get hung up on - take a position, particularly on the things that really matter to the voters, so that you can give them some direction. There is a candidate - this is the thing, though - there is a candidate that can get through without taking positions. And this is why I think voters should be suspicious of those candidates. Those candidates can get through without taking a position, 'cause often they're the anointed candidate in the race. Races tend to end up with only one anointed candidate - that's why they're anointed - sometimes you see multiple people fighting for it. And the anointed candidate is the candidate who's wrapping up all the endorsements from the political insiders and the interest groups and the campaign funders. And with those dollars, and then usually with the support of the Seattle Times - in those races, everybody will say what a wonderful person this candidate is. And they will reflect on that person's personal characteristics. And their goal, their way of getting through the campaign is to present themselves to the world as - well, I'm clearly the best person for the job, look at my resume and my wonderful personality. And they don't wanna take a position, 'cause they're gonna count on that to get 'em over the top. The problem with that candidate is they are so beholden to the interests that helped elect them, that they'll never take a hard stance. Now, if you're not the anointed - a lot of candidates make the mistake, then, of trying to be the anointed candidate - getting all the endorsements and not taking a position, 'cause they look at that candidate and they go - so many of those candidates succeed, that's my path too. But there can only be one of them in a race. So what I'd be looking for in a race is who's somebody who's running on something. This is my personal experience, this is my lived experience, these are the things I've thrown myself into, this is the thing I wanna change in the world. Let me tell you how I'm gonna change it. And then evaluate - are they working on the right thing? Does their plan have a good likelihood of success? And that person at least will be willing to take some risks on change. If you want the status quo, elect the anointed candidate. If you think there are problems and unique change, look for the candidate who's willing to take some risks and potentially lose some votes, but hopefully they're gonna win votes because - hopefully the City believes that there are problems that need to be solved and we should elect problem solvers and not defenders of the status quo. [00:27:58] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. Take a stance. You have to know where people stand - your point about value statements, it's so interesting being in a lot of situations where I'm watching how people and audiences react to things or - hey, this person said "Housing is a human right." I believe housing is a human right. Okay, done. And it's like okay, but have they explained how they're going to house people, what they're willing to do and what they're willing to not do, what their priority is, what they will prioritize funding? What are the details of that? What will you actually do? And there also is sometimes a plague of people, a type of candidate, whose priority is to get elected and who doesn't necessarily understand the type of office that they're running for. 'Cause running - what you can do as a legislator is very different than what you can do as a King County Councilmember or Port Commissioner, it's different than a city councilmember or a mayor - those are all very different things, very different jurisdictions. Your levers of power, your tools of change are very different. So do you understand the jurisdiction that you're running for? Or are you running for Legislature, like you're a mayor or a city councilmember? Those are very different things. And even the conversation on public safety is very different - and what they can do and how they can engage with that - or homelessness is different based on what you're running for - what you can actually do and what you can't do is different based on the jurisdiction. Has someone even engaged with that yet? Or are they just - this is me, I've always wanted to be elected, this open seat popped up, and so I'm running for it. This is not a commentary on anyone who's running right now. That was an example - I'm not referencing anyone specific, but that is a thing that I see often, that I see every cycle. And it's just - this person wants to be elected, they don't actually wanna make change. [00:30:08] Mike McGinn: So the - yeah, this is - you're reminding me of one of my other favorite sayings - is the candidate - do they wanna be somebody or they wanna do something? And it's a little unfair, 'cause nobody's a 100% one or the other. Like I definitely thought - I was running to do stuff, but it is fun to have people call you mayor, so I'm not immune to that. And I even think the people who I look at and go - oh, they just wanna be somebody, they've just been positioning themselves for the last 15 years to get an elected office, and spent so much time positioning that they haven't actually gotten anything done - they still have a beating heart and there's still things they wanna do. I think it's a mix of both, but where on that spectrum are they - of wanna be somebody or want to do something. And one of the best ways you can tell if they're people who want to do something is the questions we asked earlier - have they made, have they taken hard choices and taken some hits as a result of it? Have they thrown themselves into a cause to try to make change, even if there was no personal gain attached to it or status attached to it. And those can help answer that question of whether they want to do something or just be somebody. [00:31:22] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Well, this - a lot of times Fridays are Weeks In Review, but we have a unique opportunity here, when we're speaking with Mike McGinn, who has so much experience in activism, as an executive of one of the largest cities in the country. And so I do think this is a helpful conversation, as we're going to begin to hear a lot more from candidates - as candidates are gonna be communicating with voters, and your mailbox is about to fill up, and they're gonna be commercials and videos that you see - all that. But looking beyond that, this is always such an interesting conversation. As a political consultant, I'm involved in doing all of that - to be clear - but if you actually do care about this stuff, you actually want it to be with good people. I'm extremely picky about who I work with for that reason, this cycle I'm working with one person - working for other causes and in support of things, but when it comes to working with a candidate, I want a candidate that I know is in it to create change, has a history of walking their talk, is doing those things. And so - I'm working with Melissa Taylor in the 46th legislative district - there are lots of great candidates everywhere. I also still volunteer for candidates, because it's important who we elect to do that. And it is heartening - I see so many leaders who pass progressive policy, which is a distinction from people who just label themselves as progressive. That's more of a verb - it should be a verb - but it actually matters who we elect and we do have the opportunity in Seattle to not settle because we're scared of how horrific the opponent can be. We have better choices, so let's not settle for the status quo in so many situations - let's move forward, but do it in a way that just applies a little bit more discernment. And I appreciate having this conversation with you, 'cause I think it's really hard for people to figure out how to make this decision. [00:33:41] Mike McGinn: This will be the final point on this that I'll make, which is - I worked on endorsements within the Sierra Club for 10 years or so, I'm asked for my personal endorsement, I've run for office, gone through everyone else's endorsement processes multiple times. But let me just say - in doing endorsements for the Sierra Club, we got tricked more than once. It's hard. Somebody came in, they said all the right things, they seem to be the right person - but then, and it's really hard in this progressive versus progressive space, and then they get into office and you discover that they're not really with you. And it happens. And so, if you're trying to figure it out, and you find it hard, and you make a mistake, you're not - I can assure you - you're not alone here on this. So we're just trying to give you the best tools we can give you to make what can often be a very hard choice. [00:34:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is - I get it - it's actually a big reason why I do this show - to try and - I've seen people in the candidate stage, I've seen 'em in policy, I've seen the intentions of policy and things that seem good and things that I thought were good. And then seeing, time after time, it go through the legislative process and how it ends up. Or, hey, this type of person or this type of profile does well in an election, and this is how it usually turns out when they govern. And you just start to see the patterns. I think it's hard, if you aren't watching this all the time, to pick up on those patterns. And I think that is helpful in trying to determine who actually does - who actually can make change. And a lot of things go into that - having the right principles, but also understanding how to work productively with your colleagues - balancing that line between yeah, absolutely standing by your principles and listening - and that helping to develop your policy. And testing what you're saying - yeah, this is what I believe - and if you encounter something that challenges that, you have to contend with that, you can't just ignore it - does that mean that your policy needs some tweaking or something - all those things. I just hope to contribute to that conversation, to contribute to help people figure out - what's happening, why it's happening, and what they can do about it - who they can vote for to do something about it. But I really appreciate having this conversation. I'm fine with this being this conversation instead of a Week In Review, because hopefully - and there's just tons of news and sometimes - [00:36:30] Mike McGinn: Well, we gotta bunch of races coming up. Speaking of races, we have different voting methods coming up about or under debate right now. One of the things we've seen is that approval voting will be on the ballot this November. And we also see an effort in King County to move King County elections from odd years to even years, which are big, significant changes. [00:37:01] Crystal Fincher: Big significant changes - we've talked about even year elections, just the difference - King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay tweeted actually this week - just a chart of voter turnout and it just looks - it's high, low, high, low, high, low, high, low - such a stark difference. And it's just even year, odd year, even year, odd year - 53%, 36%, 83%, 54%, 65%, 47%, 84%, 50% - that's the difference between even years and odd year elections. 2021 turnout was 44%, 2020 was 87%. And you're like - okay, well that was a presidential year, maybe that was the reason why it was different. 2019 was 49% - still less than half. 2018 - 76% - every single year - 2017 was 43%, 2016 - 82%. You're, in some years, almost doubling the amount of people who participate in that. To make an argument that we're okay with the amount of people being half that participate in our elections just does not make sense. And in this situation, I think we need to do all we can to help make sure everyone can vote. Speaking as someone who works in politics, you certainly see this yourself. It is tough, especially with how much local media has disappeared, how comparatively thin the resources are stretched now than they were 20 years ago - to just let people know that they're - forget a general election in an odd year - a primary election, it's rough and you basically have to pay to communicate with people and let them know. That's part of what drives up the cost of elections. There is almost no way for you to reach a large chunk of the voters without paying to send the mail, paying to target communication at them - that's the only way to let them know you exist. If you are someone who's a non-incumbent or challenging someone, your biggest opponent isn't your opponent, actually. It's just being known, period. So moving these to even years will just do a lot more and hopefully reduce the amount that needs to be spent on elections 'cause they are too expensive. The race I'm working in has - there's a ton of money in this race, which - okay, this is what it takes to win this race, unfortunately now - congressionally. We need to change the system to get some of the money out of it. And it's a tough go, especially for someone who's standing by their principles, not accepting corporate donations - it's rough to be able to try and afford and do those things. And we need to make it easier for people to get engaged without having to pay so much money to make that happen. [00:40:12] Mike McGinn: Well, if you believe in voter turnout - if you believe democracy is better when more people vote, then conversation should be over for you. But it turns out that there are some people who would prefer that fewer people vote. And so, it was not unanimous on the King County Council. And it goes back to that comment I was making earlier 'cause what we know is - when voter turnout is higher, you tend to have greater, more diverse representation in the voting pool. Similarly, you tend to have more people of lower incomes in the voting pool in high turnout years. More renters, more apartment dwellers, so it's more representative of the population as a whole in high turnout years. And low turnout years are less representative of the population as a whole. It tends to skew older, whiter - which then means also more single-family home ownership. We were talking earlier about the suburban or urban approach to city issues. Well, that's the - this is a difference between a more urban voting bloc, or one that trends towards the more suburban sensibilities about how cities should work. And, it's funny - I've used this line before - we talk about urbanists, but trust me, there are suburbanists in the City of Seattle that run for office and win. And that's challenging when you're trying to make sure you have enough housing for everybody, or that you want progressive policies towards - more progressive policies towards policing and the like. So, there are people who will argue - well, this enables more focus on the races and people can make more informed decisions, but it's a smaller pool of people. So they're really arguing for a smaller, less representative pool of people. And if you wanna put this in a national frame - the people arguing for odd year elections, because it does allow for a greater focus - it has the same effect as people who think the electoral college is good because it gives rural voters more say - without them - it's false to say that the electoral college is meant to protect small states and rural voters. Well, the electoral college has the effect of giving voters from smaller states an undue influence in the course of the country, right? The majority of the country believes certain things and that's not reflected in what the majority of the US Senate is, or what a majority of the electoral vote would count. Same thing happens in local elections held in odd years. The people who participate in the elections and the people who get elected don't actually represent the sentiment of the City as a whole, or the county district that they're running in. So moving to even year elections is just the right thing to do if you believe in democracy. And try to come up with a system to reduce turnout or to favor one population or over another - well, that's pretty anti-democratic, so honestly hope no one would speak up for it, but watch what would happen. I'll make you a bet that if Seattle had the opportunity to do it, state law would have to change. You'd see a whole lot of interests arise to argue that it's wrong, because they're used to helping shape and influence and anoint candidates - we talked about this earlier - their ability to anoint the candidate and push 'em through would be lost in a year in which there was bigger turnout than when holding these in low turnout elections. [00:43:46] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. And especially with the momentum that ranked choice voting, which is not on our ballot in King County, at least this year, but there's a lot of support and momentum for here and across the state. It looks like they've actually seen this coming, that they've seen the momentum behind even year elections, ranked choice voting and have launched a preemptive strike in the form of this approval voting initiative, which will land on ballots in the City of Seattle in November. Now Hannah Krieg wrote a story about this and ran into a signature gatherer who told her - hey, ranked choice voting and approval voting are the same thing. That's not true, they're very different. And there's a reason why some of the folks who are supporting the main organization who's supporting this look like it would - this approval voting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. It's not - hey, this is my first choice, second choice, third choice. So that if your first choice doesn't make it, at least you can get your second choice in. And that makes a lot more sense in crowded primaries. This is - just vote for everyone who you like, just vote for everybody - which, in a situation where money counts, pretty much guarantees that the most well-funded candidates will make it through. And I think people have seen a gathering threat, especially in districted elections, and saying - okay, well, hey, the recall against Sawant didn't work, we're seeing these progressives being elected in all these different areas, let's make sure they get through. I am extremely suspicious of approval voting, especially with some of the misrepresentations that some of the signature gatherers have been making. It just strikes me as a preemptive strike against some of these other measures that do seem to be, that do seem like they'll have the result of increasing the amount of people who are engaged in voting these elections. [00:46:03] Mike McGinn: Well, I may have a slightly different view on this than you. I think that there are people who are totally into what's the best election system, 'cause I've gone down that rabbit hole and people have really strong views about that. I have to say, I think that approval voting has some positives to it, and which are - first of all, I know how I'm going to vote - if I have a clear winner, I'm gonna vote for the person I really like. You only have to vote for one person in approval voting, but boy, I've had races where I would've gladly voted for two or three people and said they're okay, just to show my support for 'em. Particularly they - 'cause here's what we know in Seattle - here's the counterargument for it. And by the way, I like ranked choice voting more than approval voting, but ranked choice voting has to be approved by the State, and it's probably gonna take a few years before we get there in Seattle - and we can always go there. But right now in Seattle, we tend to end up almost exclusively with candidates that are either endorsed by the Seattle Times or The Stranger. So I kinda like the ability of approval voting to get somebody, to give somebody else the possibility to get through. And I can think of races where I would've voted for more than one person in the race, rather than have to pick The Stranger or Seattle - and by the way, I almost, I pick The Stranger - cards on the table - between The Stranger and Seattle Times, I pick The Stranger. But I looked at these other candidates and said - boy, I'd really love one of them to get through, but they just don't really stand a chance. And I think approval voting would lead to The Stranger having to identify more than one candidate. They don't have to - they could, like me, identify one candidate they approve, but they might also be able to identify two or three that they approve. And I think that might yield better outcomes in terms of the candidates we get. [00:48:03] Crystal Fincher: It's an interesting argument. One thing - does approval voting, approval voting, does ranked choice voting need to be approved by the State? I don't think it needs to be approved by the State, does it? There are initiatives on the ballot for ranked choice voting in Clark County and maybe one other county right now. [00:48:24] Mike McGinn: I think counties are different. I think counties are different than cities in what people can do. I think that there's a - and same thing is true of the district election, excuse me, not district elections, odd year versus even year elections. Right now, the voting system for cities - there's a state statute that says what system you must follow, and when you must vote. And I think counties have greater flexibility, for whatever reason, under state law. So you need a law to give cities the authority to choose ranked choice voting and/or move into even years. And there have been efforts to do both in the legislature, both of which I support. [00:49:10] Crystal Fincher: So I just texted someone for clarification, really - the answer given to me via text, we can obviously clarify this at a further time - speaking from a county point of view, for non-charter counties, they can implement it. As you just said, for charter counties need - should be able to implement county-level, or charter counties should be able to implement it. Non-charter counties can't. Cities - question marks. You probably you're - yeah, I guess I didn't realize that. You probably dealt with this. [00:49:48] Mike McGinn: I'm pretty sure of this because I've worked on promoting the state legislation that would give authority for this. [00:49:54] Crystal Fincher: So how can we get approval voting? [00:49:58] Mike McGinn: Approval voting - just it, that one, I guess, just works differently. It's a good question, but I think it just works differently in the top-two primary system. I don't have legal analysis for you, but I'm sure if somebody did the legal analysis and concluded that it fit under the statutory system in a way that ranked choice voting did not. Yeah. [00:50:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, very interesting. I'm always learning here, I'm learning every week. [00:50:26] Mike McGinn: Oh, I was all ready to collect signatures for moving Seattle elections to even years until I discovered the State prohibition. So Mia Gregerson has legislation in the State Legislature. I actually think that a lot of the organizing that was done around odd year, even year elections has helped influence the County. In fact, when I met with Girmay, when he was running for office, I now recall this - I told Girmay - hey, by the way, win or lose, I hope you could support an effort to move elections to even years. We'll see if Girmay remembers the conversation the same way - that was at The Station up on Beacon Hill, at The Station coffee house. And he said, absolutely, I'd be all in for that. So Girmay, thank you for being - not just saying it, but doing it. So really cool - really cool to see the leadership he's showing on the King County Council. [00:51:25] Crystal Fincher: I would - back to our prior conversation - I would put Girmay in the category of doers. He wants to do something, is not primarily motivated by being someone. So, I appreciate this conversation. Always an interesting conversation with you, former Mayor Mike McGinn, now Executive Director of America Walks - you talked about your Sierra Club days, your City days, just all of it. And just talking about growing over time - look, I'm one of the people who you have convinced on some policies - back when - when you were "Mayor McSchwinn" - [00:52:08] Mike McGinn: Oh my goodness. And I never even owned a Schwinn - why would they say that? Yeah. [00:52:16] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. Yeah, I have certainly learned a lot, continue to learn a lot - but, and it's one of those hallmarks of someone who is willing to engage in conversations. We've had conversations about policy - I'm like, red, and you're like, blue - and it's well, you know what? [00:52:35] Mike McGinn: Well, you've changed my mind, Crystal - [00:52:37] Crystal Fincher: He's making sense. [00:52:37] Mike McGinn: You changed my mind on things too, for what it's worth. You've absolutely changed my mind. [00:52:42] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate all of you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 17th, a month out from when we get our ballots and can start voting in this primary election. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng - Dr. Shannon Cheng is a United States orienteering champion - once again, we've talked about this a little bit before - she is just dominating in every where and every way, and is just extremely amazing and incredible. With assistance from Bryce Cannatelli - also, Bryce is just so great. Bryce is a newer addition to our team here and just oozes competence and is a delight. The Hacks & Wonks team is absolutely a team, I just wanna reinforce that again - you hear my voice most of the time with a guest, but this does not happen without these other people. It would be impossible to get one show a week done, let alone two - the amount of editing, preparation, just everything from soup to nuts - I am eternally grateful to Lisl, Shannon, and Bryce. You can find Mike McGinn on Twitter @mayormcginn, you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks wherever - wherever podcasts are, Hacks & Wonks is. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

Wastl Fanderl war ein Sammler alter Volkslieder, seine Frau Lisl eine Handarbeitslehrerin, die sich für rare Strickmuster aus früheren Zeiten begeisterte. Sie fing an, im alpenländischen Raum Wadlstrümpfe und Muster zu sammeln. Daraus entstanden mehrere Bücher. Am 2. Februar wäre sie 100 Jahre geworden. Evi Strehl hat die Tochter, Monika, besucht und mit ihr übers Stricken, Muster und Volksmusik geratscht.

On this rebroadcast, Melissa Santos from Crosscut joins Crystal to talk about her deep dive into Washington State's Brady List, which is a list maintained by prosecutors of cops with credibility issues which may compromise their testimony in court. In her research she found that nearly 200 cops in our state have such credibility issues. They also get in to how recent laws may affect police accountability in Washington State, what happens when a police officer's account of an incident differs from other accounts, and how the media could more responsibly report on official police accounts of an incident.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Crosscut resources on Brady list investigation: https://crosscut.com/brady-list-investigation   “Nearly 200 cops with credibility issues still working in Washington state” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/nearly-200-cops-credibility-issues-still-working-washington-state   “How fired cops win their jobs back: arbitration” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/how-fired-cops-win-their-jobs-back-arbitration   “How public records gave us a window into WA police misconduct” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/inside-crosscut/2021/04/how-public-records-gave-us-window-wa-police-misconduct   “3 WA families on how new police laws could have helped their loved ones” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/05/3-wa-families-how-new-police-laws-could-have-helped-their-loved-ones   “Recapping the 2021 Legislative Session and Uncovering Washington Police Credibility Issues: A Double Episode – Melissa Santos – Crosscut - #127” from the Nerd Farmer Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/recapping-2021-legislative-session-uncovering-washington/id1223805236?i=1000519554971   “Full investigation of Manuel Ellis' death casts new doubts on Tacoma officers' stories” by Patrick Malone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/full-investigation-of-manuel-ellis-death-casts-new-doubts-on-tacoma-officers-stories/   “Tommy Le May Have Been Shot While Facedown on the Roadway, May Not Have Even Had a Pen, Documents Show” by Carolyn Bick: https://southseattleemerald.com/2020/10/09/tommy-le-may-have-been-shot-while-facedown-on-roadway-may-not-have-even-had-a-pen-documents-show/   “Opinion: Remember Tommy Le” by Senator Joe Nguyen: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/14/opinion-remembering-tommy-le/   “Newspaper carrier who was confronted by Sheriff Ed Troyer files $5 million legal claim against Pierce County” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/   “How Headlines Change the Way We Think” by Maria Konnikova: https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/headlines-change-way-think   Transcript [00:00:00] Lisl Stadler: Hi, I'm Lisl, the producer of Hacks & Wonks. Last summer Crystal interviewed Melissa Santos, an exceptional journalist from Crosscut, about her investigative reporting regarding what's called a Brady list - a list that prosecutors keep of law enforcement officers who may have legal credibility issues. Since Melissa started writing about this, several counties around Washington state have changed the way in which they treat reports of officers who have had shaky relationships with the truth, but others have not. As we are currently in Legislative Session again, we thought that this would be an interesting episode and issue to revisit. You can find out more about this investigation at crosscut.com/brady-list-investigation. Additionally, there you can submit information about an officer experience you've had, or ask questions that you'd like answered about policing in our city and state. Thanks for listening and enjoy the show. [00:01:11] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, I'm Crystal Fincher and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I'm really excited to have you join us today because lots of people are familiar with your reporting. You are known for doing very in-depth, long form reports and really diving into the details of issues - reporting thoroughly. And you really outdid yourself this time by doing a long-term investigative series on officers on the Brady list in the State of Washington. What motivated you to even do this story? [00:02:08] Melissa Santos: Well,, I had known about these lists, where essentially these are lists prosecutors have of officers that have some sort of issue - an issue that often deals with their veracity, whether they tell the truth, not always, but sometimes. And especially after George Floyd's death, and we were seeing, sometimes, the initial narrative surrounding what happens during police uses of force especially isn't later found to be exactly what happened or some details are different. And sometimes we've been hearing a long time also - families of police shooting victims saying that they don't think the official story is right. So I just figured, if we have known officers who may have issues with truth, to the point that prosecutors keep lists of them and have to tell defense attorneys about this past issue, then it's worth finding out who those folks are, why they still have jobs, what the issue was. And so that's why I started on it last summer. [00:03:16] Crystal Fincher: Right, and so as you covered, the Brady list is a list of officers who for some reason, their truthfulness has been called into question. What types of issues, or is it just lying that lands you on the Brady list? Are there other types of behaviors or activities that put you on there? [00:03:34] Melissa Santos: Lying is the most common, or some sort of dishonesty. There also though, I mean, if you demonstrate racial bias and there's some documented incidents of that, you can get on the Brady list. I'm not sure that every officer that is suspected of having some bias is on this list - there's only some that are on there. But also, uses of force get some folks on there as well. If there was deemed to be some sort of questionable or excessive use of force, they could be on the Brady list. The other things that get you on there are - maybe they don't really think you lied - exactly, intentionally - but somehow your official report really doesn't match the other evidence. Especially if it's dash cam video - if your reports do not match official dash cam video, and there's some discrepancy that seems like it could potentially affect the outcome of a case. That's something that has to be disclosed - that will put you on the list. And I mean, prosecutors will say this list is just an administrative tool by which we kind of keep track of officers for whom we have to send out notices to defense saying, "Hey, you should know about this past thing." Because it's a due process issue - they should have all the evidence that might indicate a cop's credibility is in question. And that can relate to future cases if the cop, maybe has been less than truthful in the past or there's suspicion that they were. [00:05:04] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And it is important to really consider and talk about why the honesty and integrity of officers is really important and why this list is necessary. You just talked about it being a due process issue - and certainly in a trial, if there is reason to doubt the testimony of an officer, oftentimes that can be the determining factor on whether someone is viewed to be guilty or innocent. An officer's word is taken as truth universally. And that, in issues of guilt and innocence, you can dramatically impact and infringe upon someone's civil rights, their constitutional rights if you don't tell the truth, and that can result in them going to jail. It can be a lot, to some people, simpler. It could be, hey, maybe they didn't take a report of a crime seriously, and it depends on whether insurance is going to cover something, or their employer covers something, or whether or not they eventually wind up arrested. They have so much control and influence over people's lives and what happens to them that they should be, and theoretically, are held to a higher standard when it comes to their conduct and their honesty. And so this list is saying, hey, these officers have not met standard of high conduct, and we need to consider that - that we can't automatically take their word as being truthful and honest, which has also been an issue in reporting overall. And I know you've had conversations, there was a great conversation you've had on the Nerd Farmer Podcast about this, talking about how reporters take officer's words as fact. And how after incidences, it can be an officer, an "officer-involved shooting", when an officer shoots and often kill someone. Or they do something and they come out with their statement about what happened - that has, as a default, been reported as fact. Is that practice changing - is that practice, do you think, worthy of being changed, and have you seen that talked about in reaction to your piece that you did? [00:07:27] Melissa Santos: I think in the last couple of years, especially, I feel like there has been a broader discussion in the media about how to use police statements. But I do think there's pressure, especially for daily media outlets and newspapers, to get a story out quickly, immediately. And the police statement really is all you have at first, most of the time. And so I just think that that needs to be presented in the proper context. And not just kind of - I think that we've kind of been a little flip with being, like, "We said, 'Police said.' That it was the police who said it." Yeah. But I think that we might need to be more explicit and say, "This is the police's side of the story. We don't have other witnesses to tell their side of the story right now. So this is only..." I think we might just need to call that out a little more clearly, rather than just a small attribution and assuming readers can follow that. And certainly readers can follow - they're smart - but people read things quickly. So, I just think that you need to stop readers and say, "Hey, this is all the information we have. We're working to get more. This is what the police say. There was some..." Especially now since we have the internet, there's usually some sort of, not all the time, but sometimes there's conflicting reports from the scene from social media. And I think maybe that can be acknowledged too. And I just think that it does need to be considered. Because I think the original press release from George Floyd's killing was like - it was not saying that Derek Chauvin stood on his, put a knee on his neck for nine minutes, right? It was like, "Oh, he died of natural causes after an altercation." It was something like that, right? Or he died of respiratory failure, or something like that. It wasn't like, "Respiratory failure because our person was constricting his airway with his knee for nine minutes." That was not what it said, right? So I think we're all learning we need to be more cognizant that the police story is not the correct story, but all the time. However, there's been people saying this for a very long time. So I think media is a little slow to catch up on that. Sometimes that first statement may be accurate. I mean, it's not always inaccurate necessarily, but certainly there's enough instances where it has not been an accurate depiction of what happened during a use of force incident that there's reason to question whether you should just run with that narrative in the very beginning. [00:09:51] Crystal Fincher: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we've seen that here locally recently. We saw it with Manuel Ellis, we saw it with Tommy Le. We saw it with Pierce County Sheriff Ed Troyer, where their account of events does not match up with that. I think your point of putting it in context and the need for media to independently work on verifying that narrative - that is one reported perspective, that should not be the only reported perspective. It should be noted that if that hasn't been able to be independently verified or verified through reporting by other means, that that is called out and explicitly said. I think that's helpful. [00:10:45] Melissa Santos: I think we also need to be mindful of updates to stories, because that's a lot of times sort of how the industry has worked - well, we do a new story and we fix things. I mean, it wasn't inaccurate, that was what police said. That's what we said that was what police said. So that story is still somewhere in the ether. Again, the internet lives forever, basically for the most part. So those older stories can still cloud the truth of the actual matter if they remain up and aren't clear about what actually happened. So I think that there needs to be more deliberate going back and saying - and sometimes you still see this - we have a new version, we have more updates to this story that we've put here. Maybe for integrity's sake you may not want to delete the original story, right? That's not something we generally do. But something at the top saying - We've gotten more information. The updated information is here. You should go there. So people don't find some old story in a vacuum that doesn't have all that important context. And that's something we need to look at as well. [00:11:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. And certainly, also underscoring the importance of headlines - people can discern information, but it is also a reality that a lot of people don't read full articles or they may not have time to read through every article - so rely on headlines sometimes, and may get back to the information to get more detail or may not. So I hope that there is widespread thoughtfulness and consideration being given to putting that reporting in more context and not just treating that as a factual account that just gets passed through and kind of transcribed without it being verified, or at least explicitly noted that it hasn't been, that that is a perspective. Back to, I guess the issue of the Brady list overall, do all officers - how comprehensive is the list? We have a list of around, is it around 200 officers right now? [00:12:44] Melissa Santos: Right. About 200. A little under 200 right now - statewide. [00:12:48] Crystal Fincher: Do they feel like that covers the number of officers there? Are there still glaring holes? Or how hard is it, or how easy is it for an officer to wind up on that list? [00:12:58] Melissa Santos: So I do think it varies a little by jurisdiction. But I will say in general, most officers don't get on the list for nothing - just for some casual, maybe they did something, maybe they didn't. I do not think that it is easy in the sense that you have to have some sort of concrete evidence usually. I don't think that prosecutors will put officers on this list of cops that may have issues, issues that have to be disclosed to the defense, without some sort of evidence that something went wrong or that there was some sort of fishy activity. So getting that evidence that a cop lied, for instance, that doesn't always come forth. So it's not always clear that a cop lied, so it's rare to actually have something really specific, like we saw proof that what they said did not match what actually happened. So that's somewhat rare, so that influences who goes on the list and who does not go on the list. It also is dependent a lot on what police agencies report upward to the prosecutor's office. I mean, most of this is based on police officer disciplinary procedures. And if the police agencies do not have a sustained finding of misconduct, of dishonesty, then often that does not end up putting an officer on a prosecutor's Brady list, even if maybe there is some evidence that someone might think, well, wait, wait, wait, wait. I think that that actually was kind of messed up and maybe that investigation didn't actually turn up what it should have. So you're depending on the police officer disciplinary process, which in some cases I think some people would argue does not always kind of identify officer misconduct as reliably as it should, since it's the department investigating its own officers. So that's one issue. And defense attorneys just say that, no, there's all of these officers we kind of know have issues that are not on this list. And so it's an undercount in that respect. And I should add that the 200 or so officers that I identified are ones that are currently working. There was a lot more that were on the list, but maybe have left law enforcement and things like that. So we actually kind of took a look to say, who is still around? Because theoretically if there's officers who have lied or have used force and they've been fired, you're like, okay, well maybe that's an appropriate response. But they still end up on prosecutor's lists in case they get another job in law enforcement or the prosecutors don't keep up with all the personnel stuff sometimes. So, yeah. So we actually narrowed it down, but there are almost 200 still working in the state. [00:15:41] Crystal Fincher: So is it fair to say that usually officers wind up on the list when their own departments have found that there has been some kind of dishonesty or misconduct? [00:15:51] Melissa Santos: Yes. The vast majority of the time that's what I found. In fact, I think that King County even has a system by which they have a pending list, a pending sort of, well, we're seeing how the outcome of this investigation plays out. And if the allegation is not sustained, that they won't end up even necessarily end up on the permanent list. So there certainly is some due process in that respect for officers. I've definitely have gotten some emails saying, oh, people can get put on this for anything. I don't think that's necessarily true. At the same time, there are cases in which a defense attorney brings something forward, being like, I looked at this guy's personnel file and this seems to be like you should've told me about this. And that sometimes will cause a prosecutor to say, yeah, that should actually be something that puts you on our list, even if the police agency did not deem it a problem. I think one example of that is someone I actually used in my story - is a deputy in Whatcom County, who had used a really racist - he just said something really racist on Facebook about Native Americans. It was kind of joking about genocide. It was very bad. So his department didn't discipline him for that. I actually have inquired and I got an answer after my story ran that there was no discipline involved. And that came from a defense attorney who said, "I found this on my phone just looking, when I was looking up the key witness against my client, and you should know about this." And then so the prosecutor said, "Yeah, it does seem like it meets the legal requirements of something we need to disclose, so we are putting him on our list. But I really trust his testimony and I'm going to continue to call on him as a witness." They often say, this technically meets the criteria for something I need to turn over, but I have not had any issue with this cop and I trust that person. [00:17:46] Crystal Fincher: Oh, the old, "I never had a problem with them, so they're not a problem for anyone" excuse, which we've all seen work out so wonderfully. I guess another question I have is, I've certainly heard reports and seen reports before that there can be misconduct that happens or a finding of some misconduct or lying, and that doesn't always make it or stay on an officer's record or in their personnel file. How does that affect or impact who winds up on the Brady list? Can there be actions or findings of misconduct that don't make it to the file, or that are erased from the file, and then that can prevent them from being on the list? [00:18:34] Melissa Santos: In general, it depends on the county. But for instance, I'll use King County as an example. That's one case in which they told me they would not remove someone for their list. If it was something like, "Oh, an arbitrator said, 'We think this punishment was wrong, and we think you should not have disciplined this person.'" But finding the fact didn't change? And everyone agrees this happened, but it wasn't worthy of discipline or something like that. This is one reason why I actually did this story, because I realized the prosecutors have a repository of records on cops that sometimes their own departments may not even have anymore. Especially because in some cases, the police agencies, completely independent of the police contracts, an officer may have left pretty recently, but those disciplinary records are destroyed after usually six years. So even if it was at this point, 2014, 2015, something someone did in their last jurisdiction, that jurisdiction doesn't have those records anymore in a lot of cases, I found. But the prosecutor's office did. So that's one reason I wanted to look at these records, because police disciplinary records are not very well-maintained. I think that's changing with the new law that just passed, it's supposed to hopefully change. But yeah, that was one reason. The prosecutors actually were better about keeping these records than the agencies themselves in some cases. [00:19:58] Crystal Fincher: There seem to be so many loopholes, and we seem to be relying on people and agencies self-investigating and self-reporting, and there don't seem to be many exceptions to that. Looking forward, how are people - what has been the response to your story? How are people looking at the utility of the Brady List? And is there any responses that you've heard about how to make this list better, more comprehensive and more reliable? [00:20:33] Melissa Santos: So I'm waiting to see if this - there is a new law they passed. I wouldn't say it was in response to my story, it was well in the works at the time I wrote. But there was a law that passed that said that police agencies have to send any findings of misconduct to the prosecutor's office within 10 days of their discovery of those incidents. So that's something the prosecutors say, "Okay, that would help us, because right now we don't feel like we're always getting them in a timely manner." Because even though the cops are supposed to turn that stuff over under the case law - that really should happen. They were saying, "Well sometimes it's like, they might turn them over once every six months, or maybe they send over a batch yearly or something." The prosecutors think that could get them in trouble, because they're assumed to know everything that the cops do. Because again, they're all part of the prosecuting law enforcement team. So that new law, maybe it will help. I still think that it's dependent on the disciplinary - I guess we'll see. I think there is a little bit of wiggle room for how, whether the agencies think it's reportable misconduct or not - that law tries to clarify that - like, "You need to report stuff like this, lying, or if an investigation starts, you need to send it over." I'm interested to see how it's implemented on the ground, that's all. And I'm not sure it solves the issue of - something else I'm looking into right now is whether prosecutors always do their job. That was a little too much to get into in my first story, but do they always turn over what they're supposed to to the defense, even for people on their list? Some defense attorneys tell me no, that they don't. They think it's very relevant that this cop lied sometime ago, but they didn't get a notification like they were supposed to from the prosecutor's office, is what some have told me. And I'm going to look at trying to find out how often that happens, that's a little hard to pin down. But there's a lot of ways in which it can still break down, I think, even with this new law potentially. [00:22:47] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I'm glad you're looking at doing that story. Certainly just from attorney friends that I have, have heard stories of that happening. And you alluded to earlier, the very close relationship between police and prosecutors, and those prosecutors relying on the testimony of police to make their cases in sometimes. Sometimes it is the police making their case, and so there seems to be an incentive to present that cop in the best light possible, and to cover up anything that could jeopardize their case - which would be misconduct or lying from an officer. So I'm excited to hear that. Looking at, from what you've reported, as you're looking at the process, what do you see could be put into place to make it more reliable or strengthened? What are the biggest loopholes, or areas of opportunity for improvement? [00:23:49] Melissa Santos: I understand the prosecutors have a workload. I don't think they're just mostly sitting around on their butts not doing anything. I'm not sure how this would exactly necessarily work, but I have a defense attorney who said she just looked at the guy's public Facebook page and found this, and the prosecutor had not had that in their file or anything on this cop. Maybe the prosecuting office does need to take a bigger role in saying, "Maybe we need to do a little more looking at our witnesses ourselves." Because it is a constitutional obligation for them to turn over exculpatory evidence, stuff that could clear someone or affect the outcome of someone's case. They have to do that. I think the prosecutors take that seriously, in general, but I'm not sure how much they're taking it upon themselves to look for stuff that should be disclosed. I've kind of been told, "We can't do our own disciplinary investigations. How are we going to do that? We have to rely on the cops for that." But maybe there's at least some cursory work that needs to be done, or someone in each office that just looks up every witness and finds more stuff on the prosecutor's end. I'm not sure - if that's not feasible, but it does seem like that's where things go missing sometimes in this process. And still could, even with this new law. So that's happened. And then there's also this element of - I'm just really unclear how determinations are made that someone's bias or use of force merits them putting on the Brady List. Because I think that there's plenty of people in our community that would argue that there are more than half a dozen officers who have demonstrated bias in a way that maybe should be mentioned in future cases that they're a witness on. But I only found maybe six or eight cases that were people on the Brady List currently for bias. So that seems like it could be low potentially. That determination is a little fuzzy, I think to me, how is that determination made? I don't know though that there's that many formal determinations of sustained finding that you were racist in the police world right now. And also, uses of force - there's not that many officers on the list for use of force, even though theoretically they should be. And I suspect there's a few more cases that maybe didn't make the list, where officers might have used force in a way that defense attorneys would want to know about in their past. [00:26:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, you make some really good points. And even to your point, it does seem like most people involved in the legal system, prosecutors included, are largely acting in good faith. But the institution sometimes present some obstacles, and it seems like the job of a prosecutor, and investigating, and how they interact with police - 30 years ago, looking up their social media history was not a thing. Seeing if dash cam video or body cameras matched up to their account was not a thing. And so there's just a lot more to look into and they just may not have also expanded their practices and have the daily resources, given their workload, that accounts for being able to look into all of that. But maybe that should be happening, maybe they do need to really explore how to make sure that they're looking at all available evidence to help account for that. [00:27:26] Melissa Santos: I actually thought of something else. In fact, there's a couple of people who got added to the Brady list apparently because of my going around asking everyone for their list, basically. That sort of indicated to me that there was some lag time, I guess, in people being added to the list. That's even on the prosecutor's end, apparently, I think. Or maybe they were like, "Oh, we really should get an update on this guy. Whatever happened with this?" Yeah, I think that there's some potential for wiggle room there. I will say there's some instances when prosecutors were really concerned about a cop and the prosecutor saying, "This is a problem. We need to put that person on our list," happened independently of officers. But that was not the majority of cases. It was only a handful that I saw and had records on. [00:28:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. It also seems like there is a problem with, okay, we only keep records for six years, or however long that is. If an officer changes jurisdictions, we just may not know that they had some egregious things on their record from 2013. Seems like we do that for folks on the other side of the criminal justice system, and if there is something on their record from 2010 or, really anytime, that that counts against them in terms of what they're charged with, how they're sentenced. And if it seems like that should be a factor taken into consideration for people who are defendants, certainly other people involved in that - that should be consistent. And, wow, 2014 just does not seem that long ago to be discounting what people are doing. [00:29:12] Melissa Santos: Right. I was talking - early 2010s, there are some records I don't have. There was a guy who was police chief in one small town that oversaw some really, really bad management of stuff - evidence was just lying around the squad room. Actually, mishandling of evidence could get you on the list too. This was really rampant, bad. An auditor came in, he ended up leaving the department - but that works in another department now. And this, this changeover, he left that department in 2012 or something. There's records I can't get anymore from some of that. Yeah, it doesn't seem like that long ago, really. But I will say there's this new bill. I was asking how much will this really help? This bill that deals with officer decertification, making it so it's easier for the state to pull an officer's license does kind of set new rules for union contracts to not allow them to destroy or remove files from people's personnel records because this actually happens as well. Sometimes officers can request after two years or something - sometimes it's as low as two or three years to have something removed from their personnel file. And all that might be in there then is a letter saying, "This officer asked for this to be - some disciplinary action to be removed." And I think that in some cases you can still get those records by asking a different department somehow, but it obscures the process at the very minimum, even if those records in some cases may be attainable somehow else. And so that's something that will change apparently with this bill. You won't be able to have contracts that let officers remove stuff from their files as often, at least. [00:30:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter at @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in "Hacks & Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

Simon and Lee talk about instability, letting go of cynicism, and being profligate with love.Get in touch with Lee and Simon at info@midlifing.net.Related links (and necessary corrections):casket vs coffin: https://www.legacy.com/advice/what-is-the-difference-between-a-coffin-and-a-casket/pīwakawaka (fantail): https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/fantail-piwakawaka/Simon's eulogy for Gabrielle: https://www.skellis.net/midlifing/eulogyPatere: https://maoridictionary.co.nz/search?idiom=&phrase=&proverb=&loan=&keywords=paterePatere performed by Lisl Prendergast for Gabrielle Anne Eastwood Ellis (16 January 1937 - 4 November 2021). It was taught to Lisl by Maria Copeland (Ngapuhi) in 1978."Hekeheke te manu ki tonu tauranga": The bird comes to her resting place---The Midlifing logo is adapted from an original image by H.L.I.T: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29311691@N05/8571921679 (CC BY 2.0)Get in touch with Lee and Simon at info@midlifing.net. ---The Midlifing logo is adapted from an original image by H.L.I.T: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29311691@N05/8571921679 (CC BY 2.0)

This month on Freelance Minds, Lisl has a conversation with internationally celebrated artist, educator, and writer Melis Agabigum on teaching in higher ed while working as a professional artist, and why the arts are vital for everyone. Melis is a visiting assistant professor at Earlham College and has had her jewelry shown around the world at galleries and exhibitions, most recently winning The Emerging Designer Award at Romanian Jewelry Week 2021. More about Melis: Website: https://www.melisbanu.com/homeArt Jewelry Forum: https://artjewelryforum.org/Instagram: www.instagram.com/ms_melisbanuEarlham College Metals Instagram www.instagram.com/earlham_metalsMelis's work at Pistachios Art Jewelry and Objects Chicagohttps://www.pistachiosonline.com/search?q=melis+agabigumThe Flint Cultural Center in Flint, MI ft. The Flint Institute of Music (FIM)http://flintcultural.org/ More on your host, Lisl Knizner:www.instagram.com/thecreativelisl www.lislknizner.com Join Freelance Minds next month for the finale of Season 1!

Freelance Minds is back and delving into the world of online gaming with Calvin Williams and Alex Vincent. We talk about gaming as a hobby vs monetization, what work/life balance looks like, what it takes to cultivate an online community, and what they love about streaming. Find more from Calvin: GotBooze Twitch @gotboozeInstagram @gotboozeYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/GotboozeTwitter @Gotbooze7Find more from Alex: MisterredProductions YouTube https://www.youtube.com/MisterRedProductionsTwitter @MisterRedPlaysWebsite: http://www.misterredproductions.com/Find more from Lisl and Freelance Minds podcast on Instagram at @thecreativelislListen to all episodes on Amazon Music, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and more. Hosted on Spreaker.com. Next month: The hosts of the "What Makes It Scary?" podcast talk all things spooky for October.

What is it like for men and women to serve together in the Kingdom? How do couples share a vision, and whose vision should it be? How do parents handle protecting and involving their children on the missions field? This week, we feature three couples who've served in ministry and missions in North America, Africa and Asia together and share nuggets of wisdom they've picked up along the way. FB: https://facebook.com/kingdomwomenpodcast/ Podcast: https://anchor.fm/kingdomwomenpodcast YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx8ixBzZ9DIPLg7SQNguJdw

In this episode, I am talking to Lisl who was always very proud to be Jewish and survived a few concentration camps, including Auschwitz-Birkenau. Today, she is 95 years old and asked that I not refer to her as a Holocaust survivor but rather call her a witness to history - such an interesting approach!

Crystal shares that the Friday, almost-live Week in Review show will be back next week, as we take time off to enjoy the long weekend, and we are airing a show with Melissa Santos talking about her excellent reporting on Washington's Brady List.  Crystal also is very thankful for the support and amplification by Hacks & Wonks listeners online, and wants to reinforce that this show is a team effort, and the quality of this show is a result of the work and talent of Lisl Stadler and Shannon Cheng, and was happy to be able to talk about how phenomenal they both are. ❤️ On today's show, Melissa Santos from Crosscut joins Crystal to talk about her deep dive into Washington State's Brady List, which is a list maintained by prosecutors of cops with credibility issues which may compromise their testimony in court. In her research she found that nearly 200 cops in our state have such credibility issues. They also get in to how recent laws may affect police accountability in Washington State, what happens when a police officer's account of an incident differs from other accounts, and how the media could more responsibly report on official police accounts of an incident.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's guest, Melissa Santos, at @MelissaSantos1. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources “Nearly 200 cops with credibility issues still working in Washington state” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/nearly-200-cops-credibility-issues-still-working-washington-state “How fired cops win their jobs back: arbitration” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/news/2021/04/how-fired-cops-win-their-jobs-back-arbitration “How public records gave us a window into WA police misconduct” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/inside-crosscut/2021/04/how-public-records-gave-us-window-wa-police-misconduct “3 WA families on how new police laws could have helped their loved ones” by Melissa Santos: https://crosscut.com/politics/2021/05/3-wa-families-how-new-police-laws-could-have-helped-their-loved-ones “Recapping the 2021 Legislative Session and Uncovering Washington Police Credibility Issues: A Double Episode – Melissa Santos – Crosscut - #127” from the Nerd Farmer Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/recapping-2021-legislative-session-uncovering-washington/id1223805236?i=1000519554971 “Full investigation of Manuel Ellis' death casts new doubts on Tacoma officers' stories” by Patrick Malone: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/full-investigation-of-manuel-ellis-death-casts-new-doubts-on-tacoma-officers-stories/ “Tommy Le May Have Been Shot While Facedown on the Roadway, May Not Have Even Had a Pen, Documents Show” by Carolyn Bick:https://southseattleemerald.com/2020/10/09/tommy-le-may-have-been-shot-while-facedown-on-roadway-may-not-have-even-had-a-pen-documents-show/ “Opinion: Remember Tommy Le” by Senator Joe Nguyen: https://southseattleemerald.com/2021/06/14/opinion-remembering-tommy-le/ “Newspaper carrier who was confronted by Sheriff Ed Troyer files $5 million legal claim against Pierce County” by Jim Brunner: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/newspaper-carrier-who-was-confronted-by-sheriff-ed-troyer-files-5-million-legal-claim-against-pierce-county/ “How Headlines Change the Way We Think” by Maria Konnikova: https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/headlines-change-way-think   Transcript Crystal Fincher: [00:00:00] Hey, this is Crystal Fincher, host of Hacks & Wonks. Today is Friday, July 2nd, and normally we would be doing a week-in-review with a guest co-host. This week, we are not doing that as it is a long holiday weekend, and we are taking time off to enjoy it. So I hope you're able to do the same. I also wanted to take a moment and thank all of you for all of the compliments and just how gracious and kind you've been and reaching out to me and posting online. Just compliments about the podcast. I sincerely appreciate that. It means a lot to me when people say that they feel better informed about candidates and issues. I am passionate about helping us all understand the power that we have to shape our own communities and that starts at the local level. And so people saying that they feel better about that really makes my day and week and month. So thank you all for that.  I also wanted to point out because so many people have been like specifically complimenting me and just to stress that this is not a one-woman operation at all and this show is an absolute team effort. We spend 10 to 15 hours a week, probably a strong 15. Sometimes it gets over that, but just on everything that has to do with putting together this show, there's a number of us. I could not do this by myself. I actually have a consulting firm. By day, I'm a political consultant that is more than a full-time job and a variety of projects and clients that we work on and work with. And so being able to fit this in would not be possible without Lisl Stadler, my producer, Shannon Chang who works with me at Fincher Consulting, and just is a dynamic human being. Maurice Jones Jr. who from the very beginning when I had zero experience talking into a mic regularly like this on the radio who completely just helped me and shepherded me. So I just wanted to take a moment to let you know how incredible they are. Lisl is my producer extraordinaire. She edits the audio beautifully makes me sound much better. And, oh my goodness, if you listen to unedited audio followed by edited audio, then you get so annoyed by mouth sounds and breathing noises and all of that. She is just so good, in addition to being full of ideas. We meet, a couple of times weekly from preparing show notes to the guests that we have to just the composition of shows special events that we do. She's also been instrumental in the forums that I've moderated and that we've put together. Lisl is incredible. And if you ever need to have an excellent conversation about Lord of the Rings or Eurovision or Drag Race, Lisl is your woman. Shannon, Dr. Shannon Cheng. She has a PhD from MIT is... to say she's the wind beneath my wings sounds really corny, but she is so competent in so many different ways and just such a quality human being that she makes everything that I do better. Her involvement in this podcast has absolutely made it better. She's also the chair of ACLU's People Power, and has been doing work on police accountability for years, and the quality of this podcast is directly tied to and has been tangibly improved by my conversations with her and her teaching me enlightening me, helping me understand all the intricacies of just at the different layers of government within contracts and practices and from soup to nuts, she has improved me, improved my understanding, just everything from this podcast and beyond. So I just wanted to take a special moment to thank Shannon. You're incredible and amazing. To thank Lisl, also incredible and amazing. And to just let everyone know that this is a group effort and they are as responsible for the success of the show. I say success, we've gained some traction lately. Things have been going okay. But the extent of it going okay is directly the result of the effort that they have both put in and them walking this path with me. And you may not hear their voices all the time but they do as much work on this show as I do. So thanks so much, enjoy the show, and this audio may sound interesting cause I'm sneaking this on the front. Lisl is not editing this, so hopefully it comes out sounding okay. Talk to you all later. Welcome to Hacks & Wonks, I'm your host Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk to political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight in the local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work. And provide behind the scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available OfficialHacksAndWonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, today we are thrilled to have, joining us again, Crosscut reporter, excellent reporter, one of the best in the state, Melissa Santos. Melissa Santos: [00:05:35] Hi Crystal. Crystal Fincher: [00:05:36] Hello. Well, I'm really excited to have you join us today because lots of people are familiar with your reporting. You are known for doing very in-depth, long form reports and really diving into the details of issues reporting thoroughly. And you really outdid yourself this time by doing a long-term investigative series on officers on the Brady list in the State of Washington. What motivated you to even do this story? Melissa Santos: [00:06:11] Well, I had known about these lists where essentially these are lists prosecutors have of officers that have some sort of issue. An issue that often deals with their veracity, whether they tell the truth, not always, but sometimes. And especially after George Floyd's death. And we were seeing, sometimes the initial narrative surrounding what happens during police uses of force, especially isn't later found to be exactly what happened or some details are different. And sometimes we've been hearing a long time also families of police shooting victims saying that they don't think the official story is right. So I just figured, if we have known officers who may have issues with truth, to the point that prosecutors keep lists of them and have to tell defense attorneys about this past issue, then it's worth finding out who those folks are, why they still have jobs, what the issue was. And so that's why I started on it last summer. Crystal Fincher: [00:07:19] Right. And so, as you covered, the Brady list is a list of officers who for some reason, their truthfulness has been called into question. What types of issues, or is it just lying that lands you on the Brady list? Are there other types of behaviors or activities that put you on there? Melissa Santos: [00:07:37] Lying is the most common or some sort of dishonesty. There also though, I mean, if you demonstrate racial bias and there's some documented incidents of that, you can get on the Brady list. I'm not sure that every officer that is suspected of having some bias is on this list. There's only some that are on there, but also uses of force, get some folks on there as well. If there was deemed to be some sort of questionable or excessive use of force, they could be on the Brady list. The other things that get you on there, or maybe they don't really think you lied, exactly, intentionally, but somehow your official report really doesn't match the other evidence. Especially if it's dash cam video, if your reports do not match official dash cam video. And there's some discrepancy that seems like it could potentially affect the outcome of a case. That's something that has to be disclosed that will put you on the list. And I mean, prosecutors will say this list is just an administrative tool by which we kind of keep track of officers for whom we have to send out notices to defense saying, "Hey, you should know about this past thing." Because it's a due process issue. They should have all the evidence that might indicate a cop's credibility is in question. And that can relate to future cases if the cop, maybe has been less than truthful in the past or there's suspicion that they were. Crystal Fincher: [00:09:06] Yeah, absolutely. And it is important to really consider and talk about why the honesty and integrity of officers is really important and why this list is necessary. You just talked about it being a due process issue, and certainly in a trial, if there is reason to doubt the testimony of an officer, oftentimes that can be the determining factor on whether someone is viewed to be guilty or innocent. An officer's word is taken as truth universally. And that in issues of guilt and innocence, you can dramatically impact and infringe upon someone's civil rights, their constitutional rights. If you don't tell the truth, and that can result in them going to jail. It can be a lot to some people simpler. It could be, hey, maybe they didn't take a report of a crime seriously. And it depends on whether insurance is going to cover something, or their employer covers something, or whether or not they eventually wind up arrested. They have so much control and influence over people's lives and what happens to them that they should be, and theoretically are held to a higher standard when it comes to their conduct and their honesty. And so this list is saying, hey, these officers have not met standard of high conduct. And we need to consider that, that we can't automatically take their word as being truthful and honest, which has also been an issue in reporting overall. And I know you've had conversations, there was a great conversation you've had on the Nerd Farmer Podcast about this, talking about how reporters take officer's words as fact. And how after incidences, it can be an officer and quote-unquote officer-involved shooting, when an officer shoots and often kill someone or they do something and they come out with their statement about what happened that has as a default been reported as fact. Is that practice changing. Is that practice, do you think worthy of being changed, and have you seen that talked about in reaction to your piece that you did? Melissa Santos: [00:11:31] I think in the last couple of years, especially, I feel like there has been a broader discussion in the media about how to use police statements. But I do think there's pressure, especially for daily media outlets and newspapers to get a story out quickly, immediately. And the police statement really is all you have at first, most of the time. And so I just think that, that needs to be presented in the proper context, and not just kind of... I think that we've kind of been a little flipped with being, like, "We said, police said. That it was the police who said it." Yeah. But I think that we might need to be more explicit and say, "This is the police's side of the story. We don't have other witnesses just tell their side of the story right now. So this is only..." I think we might just need to call that out a little more clearly, rather than just a small attribution and assuming readers can follow that. And certainly readers can follow, they're smart, but people read things quickly. So, I just think that you need to stop readers and say, "Hey, this is all the information we have. We're working to get more. This is what the police say. There was some..." Especially now since we have the internet, there's usually some sort of, not all the time, but sometimes there's conflicting reports from the scene from social media. And I think maybe that can be acknowledged too. And I just think that it does need to be considered. Because I think the original press release from George Floyd's killing was like... It was not saying that Derek Chauvin stood on his neck for nine minutes, right? It was like, "Oh, he died of natural causes after an altercation." It was something like that, right? Or he died of respiratory failure or something like that. It wasn't like, "Respiratory failure because our person was constricting his airway with his knee for nine minutes." That was not what it said, right? So I think we're all learning we need to be more cognizant that the police story is not the correct story, but all the time. However, there's been people saying this for a very long time. So I think media is a little slow to catch up on that. ... saying this for a very long time. So I think media is a little slow to catch up on that. Sometimes that first statement may be accurate. I mean, it's not always an accurate necessarily, but certainly there's enough instances where it has not been an accurate depiction of what happened during a use of force incident that there's reason to question whether you should just run with that narrative in the very beginning. Crystal Fincher: [00:13:54] Oh, absolutely. I mean, we've seen that here locally recently. We saw it with Manuel Ellis. So we saw it with Tommy Le. We saw it with Pierce County Sheriff, Ed Troyer, where their account of events does not match up with that. I think your point of putting it in context and the need for media to independently work on verifying that narrative, that is one reported perspective that should not be the only reported perspective. It should be noted that if that hasn't been able to be independently verified or verified through reporting by other means, that is called out and explicitly said. I think that's helpful. Melissa Santos: [00:14:47] I think we also need to be mindful of updates to stories, because that's a lot of times sort of how the industry has worked. When we do a new story and we fix things. I mean, it wasn't inaccurate, that was what police said. That's what we said that was what police said. So that story is still somewhere in the ether. Again, the internet lives forever, basically for the most part. So those older stories can still cloud the truth of the actual matter if they remain up and aren't clear about what actually happened. So I think that there needs to be more deliberate going back and saying. And sometimes you still see this, we have a new version, we have more updates to this story that we've put here. Maybe for integrity sake you may not want to delete the original story. That's not something we generally do. But something at the top saying, we've gotten more information. The updated information is here. You should go there. So people don't find some old story in a vacuum that doesn't have all that important context. And that's something we need to look at as well. Crystal Fincher: [00:15:41] Yeah. And certainly, also underscoring the importance of headlines, people can discern information, but it is also a reality that a lot of people don't read full articles or they may not have time to read through every article. So rely on headlines sometimes and may get back to the information to get more detail or may not. So I hope that there is widespread thoughtfulness and consideration being given to putting that reporting in more context and not just treating that as a factual account that just gets passed through and kind of transcribed without it being verified, or at least explicitly noted that it hasn't been, that that is a perspective. Back to, I guess the issue of the Brady list overall, do all officers, how comprehensive is the list? We have a list of around, is it around 200 officers right now? Melissa Santos: [00:16:47] Right. About 200. A little under 200 right now. Statewide. Crystal Fincher: [00:16:50] Do they feel like that covers the number of officers there? Are there still glaring holes? Or how hard is it or how easy is it for an officer to wind up on that list? Melissa Santos: [00:17:00] So I do think it varies a little by jurisdiction. But I will say in general, most officers don't get on the list for nothing, just for some casual, maybe they did something, maybe they didn't. I do not think that it is easy in the sense that you have to have some sort of concrete evidence usually. I don't think that prosecutors will put officers on this list of cops that may have issues, issues that have to be disclosed to the defense, without some sort of evidence that something went wrong or that there was some sort of fishy activity. So getting that evidence that a cop lied, for instance, that doesn't always come forth. So it's not always clear that a cop lied, so it's rare to actually have something really specific, like we saw proof that what they said did not match what actually happened. So that's somewhat rare, so that influences who goes on the list and who does not go on the list. It also is dependent a lot on what police agencies report upward to the prosecutor's office. I mean, most of this is based on police officer disciplinary procedures. And if the police agencies do not have a sustained finding of misconduct, of dishonesty, then often that does not end up putting an officer on a prosecutor's Brady list, even if maybe there is some evidence that someone might think, well, wait, wait, wait, wait. I think that that actually was kind of messed up and maybe that investigation didn't actually turn up what it should have. So you're depending on the police officer disciplinary process, which in some cases I think some people would argue does not always kind of identify officer misconduct as reliably as it should, since it's the department investigating its own officers. So that's one issue. And defense attorneys just say that, no, there's all of these officers we kind of know have issues that are not on this list. And so it's an under count in that respect. And I should add that the 200 or so officers that I identified are ones that are currently working. There was a lot more that were on the list, but maybe have left law enforcement and things like that. So we actually kind of took a look to say, who is still around? Because theoretically if there's officers who applied or abused force and they've been fired, you're like, okay, well maybe that's an appropriate response. But they still end up on prosecutor's lists in case they get another job in law enforcement or the prosecutors don't keep up with all the personnel stuff sometimes. So, yeah. So we actually narrowed it down, but there are almost 200 still working in the state- Crystal Fincher: [00:19:43] So is it fair to say that usually officers wind up on the list when their own departments have found that there has been some kind of dishonesty or misconduct? Melissa Santos: [00:19:53] Yes. The vast majority of the time that's what I found. In fact, I think that King County even has a system by which they have a pending list, a pending sort of, well, we're seeing how the outcome of this investigation plays out. And if the allegation is not sustained, that they won't end up even necessarily end up on the permanent list. So there certainly is some due process in that respect for officers. I've definitely have gotten some emails saying, oh, people can get put on this for anything. I don't think that's necessarily true. At the same time, there are cases in which a defense attorney brings something forward, being like, I looked at this guy's personnel file and this seems to be like, you should've told me about this. And that sometimes will cause a prosecutor to say, yeah, that should actually be something that puts you on our list, even if the police agency did not deem it a problem. I think one example of that is someone I actually used in my story as a deputy in Whatcom County, who had used a really racist ... He just said something really racist on Facebook about Native Americans. It was kind of joking about genocide. It was very bad. So his department didn't discipline him for that. I actually have inquired and I got an answer after my story ran that there was no discipline involved. And that came from a defense attorney who said, "I found this on my phone just looking, when I was looking up the key witness against my client, and you should know about this." And then so the prosecutor said, "yeah, it does seem like it meets the legal requirements of something we need to disclose, so we are putting him on our list. But I really trust his testimony and I'm going to continue to call on him as a witness." So that's also something that was interesting, that even at times when people are on the list, the prosecutors who are, they're part of the same team as the cops in general, really, they often say, this technically meets the criteria for something I need to turn over, but I have not had any issue with this cop and I trust that person. So that's also part of the discussion. Crystal Fincher: [00:22:04] Oh, the old, I'd never had a problem with them, so they're not a problem for anyone, excuse, which we've all seen workout so wonderfully. I guess another question I have is, I've certainly heard reports and seen reports before that there can be misconduct that happens or a finding of some misconduct or lying, and that doesn't always make it or stay on an officer's record or in their personnel file, how does that affect or impact who winds up on the Brady list? Can there be actions or findings of misconduct that don't make it to the file, or that are erased from the file, and then that can prevent them from being on the list? Melissa Santos: [00:22:52] Well in general, it depends on the county. But for instance, I'll use King County as an example. That's one case in which they told me they would not remove someone for their list. If it was something like, "Oh, an arbitrator said, 'we think this punishment was wrong, and we think you should not have disciplined this person.'" But finding the fact didn't change? And everyone agrees this happened, but it wasn't worthy of discipline or something like that. They told me that would keep someone on the list, and certainly I did see examples of this discipline was overturned, but through some sort of settlement, but that person is still on the King County prosecutor's list. So actually that's one thing I thought was... This is one reason why I actually did this story, because I realized the prosecutors have a repository of records on cops that sometimes their own departments may not even have anymore. Especially because in some cases, the police agencies completely independent of the police contracts, an officer may have left pretty recently, but those disciplinary records are destroyed after usually six years. So even if it was at this point, 2014, 2015, something someone did in their last jurisdiction, that jurisdiction doesn't have those records anymore, a lot of cases I found. But the prosecutor's office did. So that's one reason I wanted to look at these records, because police disciplinary records are not very well-maintained. I think that's changing with the new law that just passed, it's supposed to hopefully change. But yeah, that was one reason. The prosecutors actually were better about keeping these records than the agencies themselves in some cases. Crystal Fincher: [00:24:34] There seem to be so many loopholes, and we seem to be relying on people and agencies self-investigating and self-reporting, and there don't seem to be many exceptions to that. Looking forward, how are people... What has been the response to your story? How are people looking at the utility of the Brady List? And is there any responses that you've heard about how to make this list better, more comprehensive and more reliable? Melissa Santos: [00:25:10] So I'm waiting to see if this... There is a new law they passed. I wouldn't say it was in response to my story, it was well in the works at the time I wrote. But there was a law that passed that said that police agencies have to send any findings of misconduct to the prosecutor's office within 10 days of their discovery of those incidents. So that's something the prosecutors say, "Okay, that would help us, because right now we don't feel like we're always getting them in a timely manner." Because even though the cops are supposed to turn that stuff over under the case law, that really should happen. They were saying, "Well sometimes it's like, they might turn them over once every six months, or maybe they send over a batch yearly or something." The prosecutors think that could get them in trouble, because they're assumed to know everything that the cops do. Because again, they're all part of the prosecuting law enforcement teams. So that new law, maybe it will help. I still think that it's dependent on the disciplinary... I guess we'll see. I think there is a little bit of wiggle room for how, whether the agencies think it's reportable misconduct or not, that law tries to clarify that. Like, "You need to report stuff like this, lying." Or, "if an investigation starts, you need to send it over." I'm interested to see how it's implemented on the ground, that's all. And I'm not sure it solves the issue of... Something else I'm looking into right now is whether prosecutors always do their job. That was a little too much to get into in my first story, but do they always turn over what they're supposed to to the defense, even for people on their list? Some defense attorneys tell me no, that they don't. They think it's very relevant that this cop lied sometime ago, but they didn't get a notification like they were supposed to do from the prosecutor's office, is what some have told me. And I'm going to looking at trying to find out how often that happens, that's a little hard to pin down. But there's a lot of ways in which it can still break down I think, even with this new law potentially. Crystal Fincher: [00:27:23] Yeah, I'm glad you're looking at doing that story. Certainly just from attorney friends that I have, have heard stories of that happening. And you alluded to earlier, the very close relationship between police and prosecutors, and those prosecutors relying on the testimony of police to make their cases in sometimes. Sometimes it is the police making their case, and so there seems to be an incentive to present that cop in the best light possible, and to cover up anything that could jeopardize their case. Which would be misconduct, or lying from an officer. So I'm excited to hear that. Looking at from what you've reported as you're looking at the process, what do you see could be put into place to make it more reliable or strengthened? What are the biggest loopholes, or areas of opportunity for improvement? Melissa Santos: [00:28:27] I understand the prosecutors have a workload. I don't think they're just mostly sitting around on their butts not doing anything. I'm not sure how this would exactly necessarily work, but I have a defense attorney who said, she just looked at the guy's public Facebook page and found this, and the prosecutor had not had that in their file or anything on this cop. Maybe the prosecuting office does need to take a bigger role in saying, "Maybe we need to do a little more looking at our witnesses ourselves." Because it is a constitutional obligation for them to turn over exculpatory evidence, stuff that could clear someone or affect the outcome of someone's case. They have to do that. I think the prosecutors take that seriously in general, but I'm not sure how much they're taking it upon themselves to look for stuff that should be disclosed. I've kind of been told, "We can't do our own disciplinary investigations. How are we going to do that? We have to rely on the cops for that." But maybe there's at least some cursory work that needs to be done, or someone in each office that just looks up every witness and finds more stuff on the prosecutor's end. I'm not sure if that's not feasible, but it does seem like that's where things go missing sometimes in this process. And still could, even with this new law. So that's happened. And then there's also this element of... I'm just really unclear how determinations are made that someone's bias or use of force merits them putting on the Brady List. Because I think that there's plenty of people in our community that would argue that there are more than half a dozen officers who have demonstrated bias in a way that maybe should be mentioned in future cases that they're a witness on. But I only found maybe six or eight cases that were people on the Brady List currently for bias. So that seems like it could be low potentially. That determination is a little fuzzy, I think to me, how is that determination made? I don't know though that there's that many formal determinations of sustained finding that you were racist in the police world right now. So yeah. And also, uses of force. There's not that many officers on the list for use of force, even though theoretically they should be. And I suspect there's a few more cases that maybe didn't make the list, where officers might have used force in a way that defense attorneys would want to know about in their past. Crystal Fincher: [00:31:02] Yeah, you make some really good points. And even to your point, it does seem like most people involved in the legal system, prosecutors included, are largely acting in good faith. But the institution sometimes present some obstacles, and it seems like the job of a prosecutor and investigating and how they interact with police... 30 years ago, looking up their social media history was not a thing. Seeing if dash cam video or body cameras matched up to their account was not a thing , and so there's just a lot more to look into and they just may not have also expanded their practices and have the daily resources, given their workload, that accounts for being able to look into all of that. But maybe that should be happening; maybe they do need to really explore how to make sure that they're looking at all available evidence to help account for that. Melissa Santos: [00:32:06] I actually thought of something else. In fact, there's a couple of people who got added to the Brady list apparently because of my going around asking everyone for their list, basically. That sort of indicated to me that there was some lag time, I guess, in people being added to the list. That's even on the prosecutor's end, apparently, I think. Or maybe they were like, "Oh, we really should get an update on this guy. Whatever happened with this?" Yeah, I think that there's some potential for wiggle room there. I will say there's some instances when prosecutors we're really concerned about a cop and the prosecutor saying, "This is a problem. We need to put that person on our list," happened independently of officers. But that was not the majority of cases. It was only a handful that I saw and had records on. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:57] Yeah. It also seems like there is a problem with, okay, we only keep records for six years, or however long that is. If an officer changes jurisdictions, we just may not know that they had some egregious things on their record from 2013. Seems like we do that for folks on the other side of the criminal justice system, and if there is something on their record from 2010 or, really anytime, that that counts against them in terms of what they're charged with, how they're sentenced. And if it seems like that should be a factor taken into consideration for people who are defendants, certainly other people involved in that, that should be consistent. And, wow, 2014 just does not seem that long ago to be discounting what people are doing. Melissa Santos: [00:33:50] Right. I was talking early 2010s, there are some records I don't have. There was a guy who was police chief in one small town that oversaw some really, really bad management of stuff. Evidence was just lying around the squad room. Actually, mishandling of evidence could get you on the list too. This was really rampant, bad. An auditor came in, he ended up leaving the department but that works in another department now. And this, this changeover, he left that department in 2012 or something. There's records I can't get anymore from some of that. Yeah, it doesn't seem like that long ago, really. But I will say there's this new bill. I was asking how much will this really help? This bill that deals with officer decertification, making it so it's easier for the state to pull an officer's license does kind of set new rules for union contracts to not allow them to destroy or remove files from people's personnel records because this actually happens as well. Sometimes officers can request after two years or something... Sometimes it's as low as two or three years to have something removed from their personnel file. And all that might be in there then as a letter saying, "This officer asked for this to be... some disciplinary action to be removed." And I think that in some cases you can still get those records by asking a different department somehow, but it obscures the process at the very minimum, even if those records in some cases may be attainable somehow else. And so that's something that will change apparently with this bill. You won't be able to have contracts that let officers remove stuff from their files as often, at least. Crystal Fincher: [00:35:32] Well thank you so much for taking the time today to talk to us. An amazing series that you reported. If people want to find this story and your reporting, how can they find you? Melissa Santos: [00:35:43] Well, this is a good question. We actually have a page where we have kept all of our stories on the Brady list, and we hope to report more on this with followups as well, but right now... I'm actually looking up the URL to make sure. Right now, it's just that crosscut.com/brady-list-investigation. That's where you can find all the stories. And you can also find a form there where if you want to tell us something about a cop, you can let us know. I am looking into a couple of things that people have sent to me. And you also can always direct message me on Twitter. If you're concerned about anonymity, I can give you my signal number or something as well. People can get in touch with me and read the stories that way. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:30] Okay, sounds good. We will also include all of that in our show notes so you can access it there. We appreciate your reporting. You do an excellent job. This is really important reporting; directly impacts the safety of people and the integrity of our process so thank you so much for spending the time and we'll talk to you soon. Melissa Santos: [00:36:52] Thank you. Crystal Fincher: [00:36:54] Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones, Jr. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. You can find me on Twitter at @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H F-R-I-I. And now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts. Just type in Hacks & Wonks into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our mid-week show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full text transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced during the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in. Talk to you next time.

In this final episode in our series on sex and gender, Dru and Lisl have a (mostly) unscripted conversation about God's good design for sex. Learn about the sex lives of camel drivers and whether sex is more like glue or a crescent wrench.

June is here and Freelance Minds is talking all things Disney magic with Kayla Driskell, owner of online shop Fairytale Bows. Drop in as we discuss Kayla's background as a park performer, knack for starting small businesses, and her advice to individuals setting off on their own. More information on Kayla and Fairytale Bows: Website https://shopfairytalebows.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/fairytale_bowsSmartBio to Shop and More https://smart.bio/fairytalebows/ Find Freelance Minds and Lisl on Instagram at http://www.instagram.com/thecreativelislFind a new episode of the podcast every 4th of the month!

Evan Lian is a Michigan based cartoonist and illustrator who has been a New Yorker contributor since 2018. Listen as Evan shares his story of starting off in cartooning, working remotely, collaborating with brands he believes in, and more. You can find more about Evan, including his portfolio of work, here: Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/evahnsanFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/evahnsan/Website: https://www.evanlian.com/Podcast: https://anchor.fm/2dudeswatchcartoonsThank you for listening! Find your host Lisl and Freelance Minds on Instagram at http://www.instagram.com/thecreativelisl

A conversation with Michelle Cygan, owner of Los Angeles based Sleeping Bear Candle Company. After growing up and graduating in Michigan, Michelle took on the LA television world in casting and production. She walks us through her career so far and fills us in on how she turned her candle side hobby into a full fledged businesses. Find Michelle and Sleeping Bear Candle Company online: Instagram https://www.instagram.com/sleepingbearcandleco/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/sleepingbearcandlecoWebsite https://sleepingbearcandlecompany.com/Candles for a Cause: PRIDE https://sleepingbearcandlecompany.com/products/pride?_pos=1&_sid=dd4af2c91&_ss=r BLM https://sleepingbearcandlecompany.com/products/copy-of-clean?_pos=1&_sid=7077bfc4c&_ss=rFind your host, Lisl, online here: Instagram https://www.instagram.com/thecreativelisl/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/thecreativelisl

This week Crystal and Marcus Harrison Green, publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and columnist with The Seattle Times, go over the Kshama Sawant recall petition being allowed to move forward by the WA Supreme Court, a pro-encampment sweep Seattle charter amendment coated in flowery language about compassion, and Marcus' recent column in The Seattle Times that asks: “Why does society shrug when Black men are killed in Seattle's South End?” As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher on Twitter at @finchfrii and find Marcus Harrison Green at @mhgreen3000. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Read Marcus' column here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/when-black-men-are-killed-in-seattles-south-end-why-does-society-shrug/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_tw_m&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1617295546  Learn more about the pro-sweep proposed charter amendment here: https://publicola.com/2021/04/02/16919/  Find out more about the Kshama Sawant recall petition here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/recall-effort-against-seattle-city-councilmember-kshama-sawant-can-move-forward-washington-supreme-court-rules/    Transcript Lisl Stadler: [00:00:00] This is Lisl, producer of Hacks and Wonks. We wanted to let you know that in this episode, around the 24:30 mark, there is some slightly distorted audio. Remote recording during the pandemic is vulnerable to people's fluctuating internet speeds, but we thought it was important enough information to include. If you're having trouble understanding what is said, you can refer to the full transcript included in the episode notes and available at officialhacksandwonks.com. Crystal Fincher: [00:00:50] Welcome to Hacks and Wonks. I'm your host, Crystal Fincher. On this show, we talk with political hacks and policy wonks to gather insight into state and local politics and policy through the lens of those doing the work and provide behind-the-scenes perspectives on politics in our state. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost live shows where we review the news of the week with a guest cohost.  Welcome to the program today's co-host, publisher of the South Seattle Emerald and columnist with the Seattle Times - had an excellent piece in the Times this past week - Marcus Harrison Green. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:01:28] Crystal, it is so great to join you as always. I got to have you as my hype person 'cause you just put a flavor in there, you just drop it, you know? So thank you so much.  Crystal Fincher: [00:01:37] Well, I mean, you deserve it! You deserve it - you are, you know - South Seattle Emerald is killing it in all categories and it's just fantastic and wonderful. And as if that wasn't enough, you're just like dropping columns in the Seattle Times that have the entire city talking. So I'm excited to have you here.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:01:56] Excited to be here. I don't get a lot of sleep, as you know, so I'm highly caffeinated today just for you.  Crystal Fincher: [00:02:02] I am joining you with the highly caffeinated crew. It is absolutely crucial at this point in time - coming up near the end of session, campaigns kicking off, and everyone just doing the most. And so I guess we will start off talking about one piece of news that we got this week out of the Supreme Court. And that was a ruling that the recall effort against Seattle City Council member, Kshama Sawant, is allowed to move forward. And there certainly was a lot of reaction to that. Do you want to recap what happened there?  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:02:40] Yeah. So it looks like this recall effort has been essentially really going on since she was declared the victor in the last election cycle here for D3, which is a majority of Capitol Hill and then a sliver of the CID district as well. It's, you know, I got to say, this is one of those things where it seems like there - as we know, Councilmember Sawant can be very polarizing in this City. And she elicits a very strong reaction from people who are - who love her, and people who do not. And so, it wasn't actually surprising that, at least for me, certainly wasn't surprising that this recall effort has continued on and it honestly wasn't surprising that it was ruled that it could move forward. Now we will see whether or not - one of the rulings, I believe one of the rulings was that it could not actually appear on the primary, which will be happening in August, but it looks like it's - if they can collect enough signatures and I think they needed to collect 33,000, that it can appear on the ballot for the general election in November, which is expected to have high turnout. You'll obviously have the mayoral race on that ballot, along with the at-large City positions, which there are two of them, of course. And so it's - if you were either, you know, a person who was anti the recall or pro the recall, you have the largest sample size and largest voting block, or at least you can anticipate that, in November.  So it should be pretty interesting, I'll say. It does look like some financial backers for the pro recall folks - it looks like there's a member of the Nordstrom family, as well as the political consultants, I should say, Sound Strategies. So it's -  Crystal Fincher: [00:04:50] They're funding the recall effort against Sawant. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:04:54] Yes. The recall effort against Sawant - they are financial backers of it, or have contributed to it, I should say. So it's no surprise there - if you know some of the politics involved. I mean, people will certainly, I think, categorize themselves as a progressive and liberal, who were sort of, I don't know, just anti-Sawant. But that being said, who knows, right? Who knows who people actually are or what their motivations actually are. So.  Crystal Fincher: [00:05:26] Well it'll be interesting and Soundview Strategies has certainly been instrumental in electing and advising Jenny Durkan. So given her rhetoric that many people viewed to be inflammatory against Sawant and other more progressive councilmembers, last election cycle in the City of Seattle, not surprising that they are pushing hard to get Sawant out. But it's also like, what do they think they would get in her place? Like the district is voting her in, so that is clearly what they want. They are - it's no surprise. They know exactly what they're getting - they reelected her. So, if they think that all of a sudden they would get this corporatist candidate, I don't know how they think - even if they got Sawant out that fundamentally many things would change because the district has made its preference clear multiple times now - it wasn't a fluke.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:06:30] Yes. I mean, I think, you know, I guess it should be noted, right? That it was a fairly close race between her - Sawant and Egan Orion, this last go around, right? I mean, I think the initial count, at least the first day count, I should say, had Egan Orion in the lead. As more and more ballots were counted, obviously, by that Friday, I want to say that it was pretty clear that Sawant was going to win. And so I think, you know, this recall effort for Sawant is by people who just never wanted her there in the first place. And they're essentially trying to exhaust every single possibility they can to get her out.  Here's the thing, I mean that - what, that was less than a year ago at this point, where that election took place and there's already a recall effort. I mean - look, whether you like Councilmember Sawant or you don't, what has been the offense that she's supposedly done that it warrants a recall -  Crystal Fincher: [00:07:32] She's a socialist and that should scare you! - is, I think, where people land on that one. And I think you hit the nail on the head. These are people who didn't want her there in the first place. They're viewing this as a remedy for accomplishing something that the election couldn't or wouldn't, and is something that they're looking at there.  So, you know, just reading the details here, it looks like petitioners now have 180 days to collect 10,000 signatures from residents of District 3, Sawant's district. And if they do, the recall election, which would not be competitive - just an up or down vote on Sawant - would be held with the general election in November or early next year. I'm sure, for many reasons, including just economically and giving more of the City of voice, the preference would be for it to be on the general election ballot in November. But we will see what happens and we'll see how that unfolds  It, you know, there are a lot of people who just get really mad at the mention of Councilmember Sawant. I remember there was an interview I did at a TV station, that I will not name, shortly after that primary. After the primary in the last cycle where Kshama did not finish in first place - it was a crowded primary. And the newsperson kept asking me like, Okay, well, you know, Kshama has no chance. right? And I'm like, Well, actually, if you look at it - she has a really good chance. I would rather be her than her opponent at this time. Because if you look at the composition of candidates that were in that crowded primary, they actually shared her positions. And the opposition was, you know, if you're looking at the Amazon-funded - they didn't want the head tax. Well, the candidates that got the majority of the votes across the board favored the head tax. They favored positions that Kshama did. So just looking at where the voters were, it looked like Kshama certainly wasn't doomed. And as I said, I'd rather be her if I'm picking - I think she's in the strongest position. They just looked at me like I had three heads and like, Okay, she must just be this radical, you know, maybe she's a secret socialist. This is a mistake asking her about this race.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:10:02] Well Crystal, you are not a secret socialist. I think you're pretty open about your socialism, so I don't, I don't know why there's -  Crystal Fincher: [00:10:07] Oh my gosh - Marcus Harrison Green: [00:10:08] No,I'll definitely correct myself then - yeah, it was 10,000 signatures. I think I was thinking of the initiative that we'll be talking about. The citywide initiative, potentially city wide initiative, that we'll be talking about soon. But, all that being said - yeah, I got to completely agree with you in terms of that last primary too. I think it was - my read on that whole thing was it seems that the sort of big business class and the Amazons of the world got a little too greedy with trying to go after Sawant, if you will. In the sense of they wanted an all or nothing type thing. And it was if they, I think as you said, if you looked at that primary in terms of policy-wise, I mean, people in that district - they were majority largely - they were all about the head tax. They were all about very progressive policies, right?  Now, the people who maybe voted against Sawant in that primary, maybe they didn't necessarily like her tone or tactics, per se, but I think they're in agreement with her policies largely. And I thought, honestly, that if Amazon truly had wanted to get Sawant out of that position, they would have tried to play the long game of like, Okay. Let's try to get somebody like, I want to say, I think Zachary DeWolf, the current school board director, was running in that race and pretty much had all of the same politics more or less than Sawant, except he came across as - it's more of his tone was more measured, you might say, right? It's somebody who would "reach across the aisle." I think if they had - if Amazon had truly wanted to get Sawant out, they would have tried to either just stay out of that race or try to, you know, more or less back somebody like DeWolf who could - whose tone people might've liked a little bit better. But instead, and then, you know, this election cycle, they get a DeWolf. The next election cycle, then maybe they go for somebody who was more to their liking or what have you. But instead I think they tried to go for that all or nothing approach and it ended up being nothing. And shame on, you know, and they had egg on their face somewhat.  Crystal Fincher: [00:12:21] Yeah, well, I mean, I think that the tone of the political conversation in Seattle over the past 15 years has shifted to the left. No question. You even look at the Council that we had 10 years ago versus the Council that we have now. And, you know, on the Seattle spectrum, which is not a Republican leading to Democratic spectrum. But on the Democratic spectrum, it shifted from one end to the other. And I think that it's hard for a lot of people to contextualize that. And they're still back 10 years ago and thinking that policy and rhetoric from 10 years ago is going to fly today. And it doesn't, it sounds farcical, really.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:13:10] I wholeheartedly agree with you.   Crystal Fincher: [00:13:12] That was the little sub-comment... I have some comments in mind! Marcus Harrison Green: [00:13:13] Some things we were talking about prior to the recording - yes!  Crystal Fincher: [00:13:20] Um, but you know, this is probably a good transition to talking about what you just mentioned, which is the new initiative, a charter amendment change, that will be put on the ballot for City of Seattle. That is being messaged as - a way to compassionately provide services for homeless people, and to make sure they have resources, and we're funding housing, and we're funding services. And also saying that they're going to get more aggressive with sweeps. And basically saying that they can keep sidewalks clear, they can clear public areas. Certainly, for all of the - we've talked a lot about the dog whistles and the coded language that go into cleaning up Seattle streets and keeping our city clean and, and - which are all ways to say, We don't want a visible reminder of people who're unhoused. We don't want to see or deal with it, and do whatever you can do to just get it out of my world and my reality. Which is really manifested through these sweeps that we've been talking a lot about recently. So I guess what's your take on this legislation? Marcus Harrison Green: [00:14:50] Yeah. I mean, you know, I know this isn't a perfect parallel, certainly, but certainly I think that at least when it comes to local politics, it's a decent approximation. When I was reading through this, I was thinking a lot about some of the stuff that's going on in Georgia now with sort of these voter suppression laws and the - it's sort of a logical explanation, or I'll say illogical, but there are these "sound logical arguments" that people were making for some of these appeals. And it's kind of like, well, look - if there was technically like, the onus is on you, right, as the person making this - trying to implement these laws. And are trying to get these laws passed, I should say. If the onus is on you to prove that there's something wrong, right? I mean, is there something wrong with how people vote now, or whatever, that needs to be fixed?  In this case, right, is there something wrong, right now, with how these sweeps and so forth are being implemented? That they're, I mean, are they not aggressive enough for you? Like what is, you know, what - I just don't understand the need for this right now. Other than, as you were saying, people essentially just don't want to see any type of blight on their fair city or what have you. And are trying to essentially make it more and more of a hardship on people who are unhoused to be in areas that are "public spaces" or public amenities. And so for me, I mean, this just seems like an extremely - just extremely callous potential initiative that is couched in this language of compassion and love. And we're all in this together, but we all are not, quite frankly.  Crystal Fincher: [00:16:48] Yeah, and you nailed it right there. It is cloaked in the language of compassion. And you can't get any more forward than the coalition calling itself Compassionate Seattle, who filed this petition to amend the charter amendment. And Erica Barnett and PubliCola have been following this issue for quite some time. I know Erica basically called this development and this happening. And as we look at this, there's certainly - you know, I think everyone can agree. And I see Lisa Daugaard in here, who's Director of the Public Defender Association. And she says, Hey, this is about creating alternatives to living outdoors and really saying that, Hey, we have to do the work to keep people from living in public. People shouldn't be living in public. And on that, I think there's broad agreement. People should not be forced to live in public. There should be effective and compassionate and respectful shelter alternatives and paths to stable, permanent housing. I think the question is - the mandate in here to ensure that parks and public spaces are open and clear of encampments, is a clear direction and clear indication to return to aggressive sweeps. And to return to just default, I see someone in public - call the police, get them out. And afraid - go ahead.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:18:27] Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, no, I was just gonna say that it's - yeah, I mean it's, as you said, I mean, it's very Orwellian language with which they're using to again, try to promote what is a very callous and cruel practice, right? I mean,it's one thing if you do have shelter space that is open and available and accessible to folks. And as you said, there's nobody, I don't think, anybody across the board who doesn't think or doesn't know, I should say at this point, that we need to aggressively build more shelter space and more housing for folks. And I think - what the last, I believe in the PubliCola story that ran on this, it was something like $400 million a year or something is needed county-wide, I want to say, for additional housing for our unhoused population. So, I mean,it isn't as if we just have this shelter space, our leader can snap our fingers and it automatically materializes. And that we have this abundance of that, which will allow people to go into more stable housing if this initiative was to pass. So I, again, it's just a very callous and cruel way to try to implement this. And I hope that folks can see through this and, just as a correction earlier, this is the one that would need 33,000 signatures.  Crystal Fincher: [00:20:04] Yeah. And just kind of a recap of what this does, you're absolutely right - need 30,000 valid signatures from Seattle voters. It'll create 2,000 new units of emergency or permanent housing. Two very different things. Very, very broad category that includes everything from 24-7 shelters, congregate shelters. It says that those 2,000 have to be created within one year and mandate that a minimum of 12% of the city's general fund goes to a new fund inside the Human Services Department. And while that's wonderful to message, the City already spends 11% in this category right now, so lots of people are going, Okay, but what's the difference. And then you're saying 2,000 new units of any kind of housing. How does that address the much larger number of unhoused people who are on the streets right now in Seattle?  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:21:07] Well, and where's that housing going to be placed? Is there going to be wraparound services tied to it? Right, I mean, there's just so many questions that they obviously haven't answered, or bothered to answer, quite frankly, with this. And that betrays the fact that I don't think they really care. I think they care more about just getting folks out of parks and these public spaces and out of their sight. Crystal Fincher: [00:21:33] Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, even just - it can allocate funding and money, but one point that Erica Barnett has made is that - look at how long it has taken, even with money earmarked and, Hey, it's funded - to just build housing. It has been a longterm, lengthy, delayed thing, especially when the mayor and Council do not agree. We've been trying to get a few thousand units of housing built for Durkan's entire term. She made big promises coming in on what she was going to do and has basically crept along and hasn't come close to what she had intended. So, yeah. It's great and wonderful and everything to allocate resources, but is that going to change the entire dynamic of politics in Seattle to make these housing units appear? And among the 2,000, how many of them are going to be units that people who are unhoused can immediately occupy, with the services to help move them to more permanent housing. That looks like it is coming nowhere close to addressing the issue, and really like it was just thrown in the initiative to say, Hey, but look, we're doing something, we're actually helping, in order to sneak in the provision of - Hey, we can keep all public places and spaces clear, regardless of whether there is actually a place and services for people to land, if you do say you can't be in this space. So, and again, when you look at the people who are funding it and the rhetoric that they've used leading up to now, certainly it does not necessarily give you confidence that they are looking at this through, despite their name, a compassionate view of people who are dealing with homelessness on the streets and helping them to get out of that situation. Seems like it's more targeted to preventing people from having to look at people who are unhoused.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:23:39] No, I agree, and as a mentor of mine used to say about initiatives and public policy efforts, always look at the company somebody keeps. That's usually a good indicator of what they actually think. Not what they say. So, there you go.  Crystal Fincher: [00:23:55] Absolutely. But especially in Seattle where people have gotten real savvy when it comes to wrapping issues and all of the progressive and compassionate words and everyone says the right things. But if you look at their behavior, and if you look at where they're at on policy before, those tell very different stories. And my goodness, there sure is a bright history of people's big funders being a very good predictor of where they're going to land on issues despite rhetoric that they have given before the election. So I hope Seattle voters take that into account.  So I want to pivot and talk about an article that you wrote, a column that you had in the Times this week, which was just so exactly on the nose. And I just want to let you really talk about and explain the issue overall.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:24:59] Yeah. Thank you so much for providing space and time for that, Crystal. Yeah. So the - wrote an article that appeared in Thursday's Seattle Times. It'll be in the South Seattle Emerald on Sunday, for those who can't get past the paywall for the Times. But, essentially, it was calling out the facts. That when we have deaths in South Seattle, and they've, honestly, largely been Black males who have been the victims of gun violence. In that area, we kind of shrug our shoulders and, you know, I'm a lifelong South Seattleite and it hasn't changed in the 30 some odd years that I've lived here. It seems like in this area of town, right, there's always a level of detachment and disconnection with the wider, larger city.  And, I remember there were times and bringing an example forward of my friend, Latrel Williams, who I actually talked to his mother for this - kind of opened the article with her. And he's a man that I knew from high school as a friend, who died four years ago. Some people believe that it was a - that he just happened to be in the wrong place, wrong time. And when he died, he left a son, left a mother, left various friends around. And I just remember the reality over how most media covered the story - it was just another statistic. It's just another guy who got one brief sentence in a story that fits the overall narrative that this area is so much more dangerous. And it's ultimately because of the pathology of, you know, Black folks that we're just, you know, I guess in red or inherently more violent than other people. And, quite frankly, I just got tired of that narrative. Tired. We all have been tired of that for quite some time. And I wanted to make sure that people knew that our lives, as cliche as it's become now, but it stays true. That our lives matter. Our lives matter. And I'm just so tired of this sort of asymmetrical compassion shown to people. If it happens in other areas of the City, it's a tragedy. When it happens here, it's a statistic. And there's just too often that we've - that people give lip service and virtue signaling to the fact that Black lives matter, yada yada yada. Well, okay then can you show me that you can do it right? Can you show me more than just rhetoric on Twitter? Can you show me more than just rhetoric on - at a speech? Can you show me when you actually invest in our communities?  We've known - social science has shown, for the longest dang time, that the reason that gun violence is concentrated in the areas is because they have systemically been divested in. We know that, and we know that those areas that have been - that systemically, faced systemic disinvestment have been areas that were subject to redlining, subject to housing discrimination, subject to inferior educational resources than other places. And those places usually match with communities of color, where communities of color live, and specifically with the Black community. And so, if we know that it's because of a lack of investment that these things continue to happen, you would think then the solution would be to actually invest in these communities. And yet, that continues to not be the case. And so I just wanted to finally just call that out in this -again, the City that is supposedly the flagship for all that is woke and is all this progressive, supposedly in our country and yet, right, we can - we've had five homicides so far this year, at least as we have up to the broadcast date of this podcast. Four of them have taken place in South Seattle. And yet, I mean, who - where is our mayor? Where's the City Council in saying, Yeah, this is just as much of a crisis as anything else, and we are going to address this by providing some level of, I shouldn't even say some level, but we are - a maximal level, right, of investment into this area and into this community that we have neglected for so, so long. And, as of now, I haven't heard any of them say anything. And so, as I said at the end of my article, as we - as people continue to deliberate and twiddle their thumbs, there are going to be more people who die. And ultimately that is a choice. That's a choice that we are making. Um, and it's, it's sad. It's very sad.  Crystal Fincher: [00:29:45] It is absolutely sad and a conversation that we have been having in community for so long. And  even - you hit on the head again - the disinvestment in communities. This isn't something that just organically came to be, this is the result of an abandonment by the City, by the public, and then a subsequent almost well, literally blaming the community for its own problem and expecting - with fewer, with lower investments, fewer resources, just, you know, Hey, fix it yourself. And I know it kills me every time I see. And as a Black mother of a Black son, just - when there is a shooting in the South End, there is this dismissiveness and, you know, Well, what did they do to deserve it? It was probably a gang thing or a drug thing, and somehow they deserved it. And just seeing the reflex. And it is so sad that it is now a reflex that grieving parents now have - to show that their child's life had value and was worthy of being valued and celebrated and is actually a loss. Like to have to feel like you have to justify to the broader public that the loss of your child actually is a loss to the community in a way that is assumed to be the case in other areas and in other communities. It's just such a cruel, cruel thing for someone to have to endure on top of the loss of their child and gets me every single time.  Marcus Harrison Green: [00:31:35] Yeah. And it's almost as if every - we're required to all be Emmett Till when we lose a family, Emmett Till's mother when we lose a family member. And, you know, for those who don't know, I'm sure listeners of your show do, but, when - Emmett Till was a young Black man who was, you know, beaten beyond recognition and lynched because he had supposedly whistled at a white woman going down the street. And so his mother decided to have an open casket at his funeral so people could see exactly - so the country at the time could see exactly what racism had done to so many people. So, was doing, I should say, how it was terrorizing Black people. And it seems like we haven't changed much to be quite frank with you since that time, in the sense that we continue to have to almost, you know, showcase, and showcase our pain, and showcase our struggle, and showcase our heartache, just to make people give a damn about us as individuals, us as a community, us as Black people. And, um, yeah, I don't, I don't know what else to say, to be honest with you. Crystal Fincher: [00:32:47] Yeah, no, I mean, but you certainly said what needed to be said in your column and I just deeply and sincerely thank you for writing it. And for continuing to be a voice of strength and clarity and that's just so necessary in our community. And not just the Black community, but overall. And you are a gem in Seattle and I just appreciate you. Marcus Harrison Green: [00:33:15] Well, it takes one to know one, Crystal. It takes one to know one.  Crystal Fincher: [00:33:20] With that - that is our time. I want to thank everyone for listening to Hacks and Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM, this Friday, April 2nd, 2021. Our chief audio engineer at KVRU is Maurice Jones Jr. The producer  of Hacks and Wonks is Lisl Stadler. And our wonderful co-host today was South Seattle Emerald publisher and Seattle Times columnist, Marcus Harrison Green. You can find Marcus on Twitter @mhgreen3000. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F I N C H F R I I. And now you can find Hock - you can find Hacks and Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts and just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe, to get our Friday almost live show and our mid-week show sent directly to your podcast stream.  Thanks for tuning in and we'll talk to you next time.

FDP-Politiker Jens Brandenburg spricht über Queerpolitik im Bundestag, seinen Kampf für die "Familie für alle" und wie es ist, Alice Weidel im Fahrstuhl zu treffen. Am 11. Oktober 2018 sorgt Jens Brandenburg für einen Gänsehautmoment im Deutschen Bundestag. Der FDP-Politiker, der erst seit 2017 im Parlament sitzt, spricht zu einem Antrag der AfD, die Ehe für alle wieder abzuschaffen, und wird am Ende sehr persönlich: "Seit 15 Jahren lebe ich einer sehr glücklichen Partnerschaft mit meinem Mann, und keine einzige Sekunde davon möchte ich missen", sagt Brandenburg. "Dieses Glück, diese Liebe und auch diese Lebensfreude werden wir uns durch Ihren Hass und Ihre Kaltherzigkeit nicht nehmen lassen. Die Ehe für alle bleibt". Für seine Rede erhält er langen Beifall von allen demokratischen Fraktionen. Aus seiner Homosexualität hat der 35-jährige FDP-Politiker nie ein Geheimnis gemacht, queer.de-Leser*innen wissen seit langem Bescheid, und doch markierte seine starke Rede vor zweieinhalb Jahren im Plenum eine Art öffentliches Coming-out. Im QUEERKRAM-Podcast von Johannes Kram spricht Brandenburg erstmals über die Vorbereitung, die eigenen Zweifel und die anschließenden Reaktionen. Die Politiker der Liberalen hat sich das gut einstündige Gespräch redlich verdient. Jens Brandenburg mag vielleicht nicht mit besonders viel Charisma gesegnet sein, doch neben Ulle Schauws und Sven Lehmann von den Grünen ist er der mit Abstand fleißigste und kompetenteste Queerpolitiker im Parlament. Der frühere Ehrenamtler beim Schulaufklärungsprojekt SCHLAU nimmt seinen Job nicht nur ernst, er brennt auch für die Themen, gibt der FDP ein glaubwürdiges queeres Gesicht. Seine Partei verteidigt er im Podcast selbstbewusst. Muffige Attacken auf sogenannte Identitätspolitik wie in der SPD seien in der FDP nicht zu befürchten, meint Brandenburg. "Selbstbestimmung und Freiheitsrechte stecken in unserer DNA." Die gesamte Fraktion hätte ihn auch bei den starken Angriffen auf seinen Entwurf eines transfreundlichen Selbstbestimmungsgesetzes in Schutz genommen. Mit seinem Vorstoß, die nichtkommerzielle Leihmutterschaft zu legalisieren, betritt der FDP-Politiker nicht nur queerpolitisches Neuland, sondern treibt auch die anderen Parteien vor sich her. "Auch die Grünen könnten noch LGBT-freundlicher werden", sagt er im Podcast – und prägt ein neues Schlagwort. Nach der Ehe für alle fordert er die "Familie für alle". Im Gespräch mit Johannes Kram erzählt Jens Brandenburg wenig Privates, plaudert als Profipolitiker aber zumindest aus dem Nähkästchen. Was bei den Frühstücksrunden mit allen queerpolitischen Sprecher*innen vereinbart wird und wie er sich verhält, wenn er Alice Weidel im Fahrstuhl trifft. Warum Guido Westerwelle für ihn ein Vorbild war und welche Regierungskoalition er sich nach der Bundestagswahl wünscht. Energisch plädiert Jens Brandenburg im Podcast für mehr Solidarität in der queeren Community – und für mehr Engagement. "Es reicht halt nicht nur zu feiern, wir haben auch in diesem Jahrzehnt viele wichtige queerpolitische Themen, für die wir kämpfen müssen". Sätze, die man aus der FDP früher eher selten gehört hat… -- Micha Schulze auf queer.de, 27.03.2021

What does it look like to take the New Testament - even the confusing bits - seriously? Today, a conversation on the practice and meaning of 1 Corinthians 11.2-18. We explore this symbol of authority and power - power to live out Christ's Kingdom in our words and prayers. Featuring Brenna, Kimberly, Lisl, and Rebekah.

Brenna and Lisl joined us for the aftershow where we talked about everything from vaccinations to fathers giving their daughters permission to date to mutual submission in marriage! Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/thatjesuspod

Titus, Brenna, Dru, and Lisl discuss topics surrounding our conversation with Christy Smucker about her work in Atlanta. Are the Scriptures often used to condemn abortion mere prooftexting? Has the pro-life fight in politics made a difference? And what would Titus do if he had a vial full of zygotes? Tune in!

disagreeablesubjects.com https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/lisl-stadler/disagreeable-subjects https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disagreeable-subjects/id1330918896

In this missions-focused aftershow, Titus and Brenna grill Dru and Lisl on their experiences in Thailand. How much incarnational living is too much? How careful should we be to tiptoe around cultural expectations? What does the word twitterpated actually mean? Join the conversation by leaving a comment or emailing at druseth@gmail.com. Facebook: facebook.com/thatjesuspod thatjesuspodcast.com Music this week: Himalayan Freedom by septahelix (c) copyright 2019 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial (3.0) license. http://dig.ccmixter.org/files/septahelix/60722 Ft: JeffSpeed68, bangcorrupt

Lisl Walsh (https://twitter.com/lislanna), Associate Professor of Classics at Beloit College, on Homeric and Senecan bodies, corporeal discord, and how performance venue informs the meaning of drama. Recorded at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Classical Studies in 2019. You can donate to the podcast here: https://www.paypal.me/itinerapod  

Lisl Walsh (https://twitter.com/lislanna), Associate Professor of Classics at Beloit College, on forging personal connections with students, her unusual path into the field, and how her disability informs her teaching. Recorded at the 2018 Annual Conference of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South. You can donate to the podcast here: https://www.paypal.me/itinerapod  

Saru and Baru are joined by ,a very special guest, Steven Dias (India international and Mumbai FC) in the studio. The boys talk to Steven about half-time team talks, Steven's career in football, current state of Indian football and Mumbai Football. Also, Steven's plans for the future and his football academy. FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION: Find us on Facebook and Instagram: Football Twaddle Send us a tweet: @Footytwaddle You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcast App on Android: https://goo.gl/tGYdU1 or iOS: https://goo.gl/sZSTU5 You can check out our website at http://www.ivmpodcasts.com

In this podcast, Canada's History speaks wit Maxine Hildebrandt and Lisl Gunderman, finalists for the 2018 Governor General's Award for Excellence in Teaching. Through a unique teaching partnership, Maxine and Lisl have created a cultural exchange for their young students from different backgrounds and communities. After initial steps to introduce the students from Mother Earth's Children's Charter School (Canada’s first and only Indigenous charter school) and students from Wildwood School (a small rural public school), the teachers planned and delivered four field trip days rich in history learning where each school hosted the other over a period of four months.

This week Tony sits down to talk about what really matters with Lisl Stadler. Lisl is a "loud lady person" who grew up religious, but now finds herself living a secular life. She has a passionate, and we feel prophetic, voice that is trying to bring people into conversation about different politcial conversations through charitable dialogue. We talk about Lisl's life, and work, but we get into some very tender and sensitive conversations like child sex abuse. Check out Lisl's podcast over at Disagreeable Subjects (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/disagreeable-subjects/id1330918896?mt=2) If you want to talk about what you took away from this week's conversation please join our Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThresholdDiscussion We also have the rough cut of Lisl's conversation, AND some bonus content from her coming Monday on our Patreon page. https://www.patreon.com/thethresholdpodcast Check out Catholic Balm Co over at https://catholicbalm.co/fathersday-2018/ and use the code KNOCKKNOCK to get 10% off. We talk about the follow books, people, or things. Letters to a Young Contrarian (https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Contrarian-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465030335/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1528495428&sr=8-1) Child Abuse Stats (https://www.d2l.org/the-issue/statistics/) Katherine Kuhlman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Kuhlman) We also have great new music for our show from Joe Garofalo. You can find his site over at https://www.joegarofalomusic.com

Listen as Lisl shares her own history with guns in America and covers the history of guns until World War I.

In this episode, Bethany talks to picture book author Lisl Detlefsen. Lisl is the author of TIME FOR CRANBERRIES and IF YOU HAD A JET PACK as well as the forthcoming 3, 2, 1 JUMP!, a humorous book about swimming lessons. Lisl lives on a family-owned cranberry marsh near Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, with her husband and two sons. She grew up with a mother who was a librarian and created a customized class in children’s literature for Lisl to study while she was majoring in art in college. During their conversation, Lisl and Bethany discuss being both picture book writers and novelists. They also talk about how craft study is a lifelong pursuit and that living a creative life is a choice people must make every day. They hash over the feeling of imposter syndrome and how it often sticks with writers, published or not. You can find Lisl online at https://www.lislhdbooks.com. This summer, Lisl will also be teaching Perfecting the Picture Book I online at The Writing Barn for six weeks beginning June 11th. Go to http://www.thewritingbarn.com for more information and to register. 

Between seasons we are taking some time to talk about some of the odd ideas that float around our heads while we work on interviews for Season Two! This week we are talking about if men and women can really be just friends, and what happens when you don't trust your gut. If you want to talk about what you took away from this week's conversation please join our Facebook group. https://www.facebook.com/groups/ThresholdDiscussion Thanks to Lisl and Devon for sharing their answers. Check out their respective work at: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/disagreeable-subjects/id1330918896?mt=2 https://www.hellbentpodcast.com/ For bit of bonus content head over to https://www.patreon.com/thethresholdpodcast If you want more information about the live show we have planned in Dallas head over to the FB post about the event. https://www.facebook.com/events/179641602832520 Music for the episode used under the CC Attribution License through the Free Music Archive. The Joy Drops - Not Drunk Instrumental Track http://freemusicarchive.org/music/TheJoyDrops/NotDrunkEP/Not_Drunk

Tracy and Laura investigate a mysterious monastery, Amy Driscoll has a nerd crush on Dillon, Anna might be Lisl in disguise, the pill bottle fiasco intensifies, and Jax fesses up!

Hayden helps Finn through opiate withdrawal, Olivia gets sent to Darkham Asylum, Anna and Julian try to sort out their past, Curtis might join the PCPD, Sonny and Carly try to find their way, and Lisl calls Faison!

Lisl, Scott, and Emily talk about their favorite year end questions to finish out 2016.

Diego, Lisl, and Scott bring you the buzz about bees and electric fields, another kind of buzz from 5000 year old beer, and what ancient DNA tells us about the domestication of dogs.

Lisl, Rupa, and Scott discuss an impossible rocket engine, fetal alcohol syndrome, and a promising genetically modified tobacco plant.

In honor of Halloween, hosts Natalie, Lisl, and Scott go scientific trick or treating. We find out whether or not the universe is expanding, if GMO crops are saving the world, and if the spectre Patient Zero truly spread a deadly disease to an entire continent.

This week, we're showcasing humans at their best, and their worst. Chelsea, Lisl, and Natalie explore human-driven extinction events and do a who's who of this year's Nobel Laureates.

Lisl, Emily, and Chelsea puzzle over tardigrades, Planck's constant, and the Ig Noble prizes

This week Emily, Scott, and Lisl host our second ever live show, and discuss how humanity will eventually be wiped from the earth.

In this episode, Lisl, Rupa and Emily discuss how sex determination works (and no, this is not a birds and bees kind of talk), how drugs like dopamine affect our sleep habits, and which famous mathematicians are in our research families.

This week, Lisl, Nora, and Chelsea celebrate with a special July 4th Beer Goggles episode. Learn how to make people see red, a more accurate representation of the history and practice of physics, and listen to Nora and Chelsea go head-to-head to determine once and for all what element is the most legit.

Diego, Lisl, and Scott bring you the buzz about bees and electric fields, another kind of buzz from 5000 year old beer, and what ancient DNA tells us about the domestication of dogs.

Diego, Lisl, Emily, and Ted discuss one of the biggest story from last week: the discovery of Einstein's gravitational waves (4:42)! Join our hosts as they discuss what are these waves, what do they sound like, and why they are like bouncing on a trampoline. Then, Lisl shares how the parasite toxoplasma can inflict chimps (20:52) and Emily gets excited about cancer in naked mole rats (24:30).

It's the return of Beer Goggles Optional with Dave, Diego, Lisl, Emily, Ted, and Steven. On World Oceans Day, we discuss the top ten things that are killing our oceans. Diego shares a story about falsified science and the political impacts. Finally, Ted and Steven goes deep into fracking... well not that deep.

Lisl, Tyler, Diego, and Dr. Dave to learn about cooking with chemistry, the paradoxical relationship between BMI and diabetes, and why toxic algal blooms are toxic.

Join Trisha, Diego, Lisl, and Tyler to learn how to establish a deep connection with your dog, what's waving at us from 20,000 leagues under the sea, and why some animals survive while others go extinct.

On this week's show, Diego, Lisl, Kat, and Trisha discuss how to combat anti-vaxxers with logic, boring genomes with promiscuity, and Alzheimer's with antibodies.

To celebrate St. Patrick's Day, Chelsea, Greg, Ted, Dave and Lisl do a special Beer Goggles Optional episode, and chat about dark matter, four leaf clovers, and extraterrestrial life.

Dave, Greg, Lisl, and Chelsea discuss a revival of 'N Sync! No, it's not the boy band from the 1990's; it's the National Synchrotron that will cost $900 million dollars. We also cover a story about a patient's whose disease was cured when her chromosomes shattered, and our physicist duo introduces us to Superfluids.

Alles, was Sie schon immer über das stärkste Eichhörnchen der Welt wissen wollten.

One, two, three... ahahah! Dave, Lisl, Nora, and Diego count all the new security features for the latest method of biocontainment. Speaking of counting, did you know how chicks count? We cover the latest research involving number lines and baby chickens. Plus, Nora shares with us a physics correction that's making waves.

What's the best way to prevent yourself from getting the cold? How about keeping your nose warm? Dr. Ellen Foxman joins Dave, Diego, Lisl, and Nora to explain how the temperature outside can impact your chances of catching a cold. Diego and Lisl discusses how cancer cells are stealing mitochondria, and Trisha and Greg perform a duet for our guest.

Can smoking actually cause you to be come less of a man? Our hosts Diego, Lisl, Nora, and Ted explore how smoking can cause men to lose the Y chromosome. Plus, Lisl shares stories from animals self-medicating, and our physicists Ted and Nora tells us how to build a fuel cell using graphene.

Trisha, Diego, Lisl, and Nora shares how other Stanford scientists are designing gecko-like pads that enables people to walk up buildings. Yes, just like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. Plus, how did cucumbers get so tasty? And our hosts reveal the secrets of sex... for queen termites.

Goggles Optional celebrates Turkey day with a special Beer Gobbles Optional! Join hosts Diego, Lisl, and Greg plus writers Ted, Kat, and Kosh as they have a free flowing discussion over tasty beverages. Topics include: how should you microwave your Thanksgiving leftovers, why bird migration is like college, how superconductors work, is science becoming open access, and why paper towels are superior to blow dryers.

It's a physicist take-over on Goggles Optional! Physicist Ted Sanders joins hosts Greg, Chelsea, and remaining biologist Lisl to talk about solar flares and physics demons. Also, if James Cameron is listening, please check out this cool deep-water ecosystem called a Whalefall. You can listen to Trisha's song for inspiration!

From Planets to Planets | 21 February 2012 What's Your Sign? I Have Your Number! When you are born to a name like LISL MEREDITH HUEBNER, becoming a THE BEST HERB(A)LIST isn't too far fetched! It was an honor to have Herbalisl with us LIVE in the WBCR-LP Studios. Not only did we explore beyond her name why she is creating such harmony upon this earth, but touched upon the true joy of what it means to be in-tune with ones own star secrets.About Lisl Meredith Huebner:Lisl Meredith Huebner, Dipl.CH (NCCAOM), RH (AHG) is a Registered Professional Clinical Herbalist with the American Herbalists Guild, and a Nationally Board Certified Chinese Herbalist with the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (the same board that regulates licensure for acupuncturists throughout the US). In addition, she is a certified practitioner and teacher of Auriculotherapy, Medicinal Aromatherapy and Chinese & Western Herbal Medicine. Lisl is an advanced Reiki practitioner who utilizes other energy techniques such as Acupressure, Therapeutic Systematic Realignment (TSR), Taoist breathing techniques, toning, vibration and works with stones and crystals; she incorporates spiritual counseling, dietary wisdom and meditation/visualization into her deeply informative and revealing sessions. A renowned diagnostician, teacher and published writer in private practice for over a decade, and as the owner and founder of the “Essence of Being at Johnnycake Mountain” healing retreat in Burlington, CT, she continues to develop her knowledge of botanical medicine, agriculture, elemental medicine and shamanism. Lisl is joyfully committed to assisting others on their journey of self-enlightenment through the wisdom of Gaia. ®2011 Herbalisl, Lisl Meredith Huebner[Click Here to Listen]

Der Blick durch Linsen auf Menschen. Wie kann man das lernen? Man muss zunächst alles vergessen. Die berühmten Straßenbilder der schwarz-weiß Street-Fotografie, Magnum, Henri Cartier Bresson. Fotos von Luis Borges, Louis Armstrong in der Unterhose, spielende Kinder. Als sie nach ihrer Flucht nach Argentinien 1938 und später nach New York wieder 1955 zurück nach Österreich kam, war eines ihrer ersten Motive ein Rauchfangkehrer. Lisl Steiner ist Fotojournalistin, Autorin, Zeichnerin. Ihre Fotos sind in der österreichischen Nationalbibliothek auch elektronisch verfügbar. Sie stellt immer wieder aus - in der Galerie Westlicht in Wien etwa, und sie besucht Wien regelmäßig, um Freunde zu treffen. Heute wird alles fotografiert. Ob erlaubt, oder nicht, erzählt Lisl. Lisl Steiner hat mit den ganz großen fotografiert, und sie hat ganz Große fotografiert. Am liebsten aber beschäftigt sie sich mit arbeitenden Männern. Wir sprechen mit ihr über Ihre ganz persönliche Sicht auf die Welt – und natürlich auch über das Lernen.

Do you need greater clarity and motivation around an ongoing project or process? Wondering what's next? Struggling with your response to the world we live in? Tune in to learn how visual artist, Lisl Dennis, has 'reformed the vessel of her life" - weaving old stories into new ones - and how we can too! Sure to inspire and fire up the creative juices. Learn more at www.storyshards.info

Do you need greater clarity and motivation around an ongoing project or process? Wondering what's next? Struggling with your response to the world we live in? Tune in to learn how visual artist, Lisl Dennis, has 'reformed the vessel of her life" - weaving old stories into new ones - and how we can too! Sure to inspire and fire up the creative juices. Learn more at www.storyshards.info