Podcasts about lose lose

Alex Dunlap and Cody Carpentier break down the the troublesome spot the Cleveland Browns find themselves in before discussing Quinshon Judkins vs. Trey'veon Henderson in the 2025 NFL draft and other fantasy football buzz from free agency. ----------------Join RosterWatch Nation TODAY to support your boys.Go PREMIUM for Weekly, Dynasty and Best Ball Rankings plus DFS Tools and MORE -- https://rosterwatch.com/buy-rosterwatchFollow us on Twitter -- https://www.x.com/RosterWatchFollow on Instagram -- https://www.instagram.com/rosterwatch/----------------RosterWatch is your year-round source for the best Fantasy Football analysis, including updates LIVE from Training Camp, The NFL Combine, Pro Days, and the Senior Bowl and Shrine Bowl.----------------Subscribe to the podcast:iTunes -- https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rosterwatch-podcast/id493875129?mt=2Spotify -- https://open.spotify.com/show/2jWDOZcppg9uYVaAWA7YdM?si=0b9aeaa77ae24316&nd=1&dlsi=1b5923c3f21b43c7iHeartRadio -- https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-rosterwatch-podcast-48874884/RosterWatch PRO offers the best toolset available to help you win your fantasy football league. What is RW PRO?* A full season of fantasy football power tools designed to make winning easy and fun.* Year-round NFL player analysis.* Exclusive live off-season coverage from all major NFL scouting events.Read lessSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/rosterwatch-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

‘ਨਮਸਤੇ' ਜਾਂ ‘ਨਮਸਕਾਰ' ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਕ ਦੂਜੇ ਦਾ ਸੁਆਗਤ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕੀਤੀ ਜਾਂਦੀ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਦਾ ਅਰਥ ਹੈ, ‘ਤੁਹਾਡੇ ਅੰਦਰ ਵਸਦੇ ਦੇਵਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਣਾਮ'। ਵੱਖ ਵੱਖ ਸੱਭਿਆਚਾਰਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਰਤੇ ਸੁਆਗਤ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਅਜਿਹਾ ਹੀ ਸੰਦੇਸ਼ ਦਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਸ਼ਬਦਾਂ ਦੀ ਉਤਪਤੀ ‘ਸਾਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਖੁਦ ਨੂੰ ਅਤੇ ਖੁਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਾਰੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਣੀਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਸਮਾਨ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੇਖਣਾ' ਹੈ (6.29)। ਜਦੋਂ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਸੁਆਗਤ ਦਾ ਜਾਗਰੂਕਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਆਦਾਨ-ਪ੍ਰਦਾਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਤਾਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਖੁਦ ਦੇ ਨਾਲ-ਨਾਲ ਦੂਜਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੀ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਸਮਰੱਥਾ ਹੰੁਦੀ ਹੈ। ‘ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਮਾਨ ਭਾਵ ਰੱਖਣਾ' ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ ਦਾ ਮਾਰਗ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਨੂੰ ਇਕ ਔਖਾ ਮਾਰਗ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ। ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਿ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਤੁਰੰਤ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਆਸਾਨ ਬਣਾਉਂਦੇ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਕਹਿੰਦੇ ਹਨ ਕਿ ਮੈਨੂੰ ਹਰ ਜਗ੍ਹਾ ਮਹਿਸੂਸ ਕਰੋ ਤੇ ਵੇਖੋ, ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਮੇਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਵੇਖੋ, ਜੋ ਕਿ ਸਾਕਾਰ ਦਾ ਮਾਰਗ ਹੈ (6.30)। ਇਹ ਦੋਵੇਂ ਸਲੋਕ ਸਾਕਾਰ ਜਾਂ ਨਿਰਾਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਮਾਧਿਅਮ ਰਾਹੀਂ ਪ੍ਰਮਾਤਮਾ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੱਦਦ ਕਰਦੇ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਅਧਿਆਤਮਕ ਮਾਰਗਾਂ ਦੀ ਨੀਂਹ ਇਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਦੋਵਾਂ ਵਿਚੋਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਇਕ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੰੁਦੀ ਹੈ। ਅਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਸੀਮਾ-ਰਹਿਤ ਹੈ ਜਦੋਂ ਕਿ ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਵੰਡਿਆ ਜਾ ਸਕਦਾ ਹੈ ਤੇ ਸੀਮਾਵਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਬੱਝਾ ਹੋਇਆ ਹੈ। ਖੁਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਭ ਨੂੰ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਖੁਦ ਨੂੰ ਵੇਖਣ ਦੀ ਅਨੁਭੂਤੀ ਅਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਨਾਲ ਇਕਮਿੱਕ ਹੋਣਾ ਹੀ ਹੈ। ਆਧੁਨਿਕ ਸੰਦਰਭ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਭਰਪੂਰਤਾ ਪੂਰਨ ਮਾਨਸਿਕਤਾ ਜਾਂ ਜਿੱਤ (Win-Win) ਦੀ ਮਾਨਸਿਕਤਾ ਵੀ ਕਿਹਾ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਦੇ ਅਭਾਵ ਵਿੱਚ ਇਹ ਸਰੀਰ ਇਕ ਅਤ੍ਰਿਪਤ ਮਾਨਸਿਕਤਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸ ਦੇ ਪਰਿਣਾਮ ਸਰੂਪ ਹਮੇਸ਼ਾ ਹਾਰ (Lose-Lose) ਹੰੁਦੀ ਹੈ। ਧਿਆਨ ਦੇਣ ਯੋਗ ਗੱਲ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਭਾਵ ਦੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਹਿਸਾਸ ਹੋਣ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਦ ਵੀ, ਪ੍ਰਗਟ ਦੁਨੀਆ ਦੀਆਂ ਮੂਲ ਗੱਲਾਂ ਬਦਲਦੀਆਂ ਨਹੀਂ। ਸਾਨੂੰ ਫਿਰ ਵੀ ਭੁੱਖ ਲੱਗੇਗੀ, ਅਤੇ ਇਸ ਲਈ ਜੀਵਤ ਰਹਿਣ ਲਈ ਕਰਮ ਕਰਦੇ ਰਹਿਣਾ ਚਾਹੀਦਾ ਹੈ (3.8)। ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਸ੍ਰੀ ਕਿ੍ਰਸ਼ਨ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕਰਨਯੋਗ ਕਰਮ ਦੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਸਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ (6.1) ਜਿਹੜਾ ਕਿ ਵਰਤਮਾਨ ਛਿਣਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਸਰਵੋਤਮ ਸਮਰੱਥਾਵਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਕਾਰਜ ਨੂੰ ਕਰਨ ਤੋਂ ਇਲਾਵਾ ਹੋਰ ਕੁਝ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ। ਇਹ ਇਕ ਨਾਟਕ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੋਈ ਭੂਮਿਕਾ ਨਿਭਾਉਣ ਵਰਗਾ ਹੈ ਜਿੱਥੇ ਹੋਰ ਕਲਾਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਅਲੋਚਨਾ ਜਾਂ ਪ੍ਰਸ਼ੰਸਾ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਵਿਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦੀ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੇ ਹੋਏ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੰੁਦੇ।

Today, POLITICO Energy reporters Ben Lefebvre and Zack Colman chat with Canadian Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson for an extended interview. They discuss the future of the US-Canada energy alliance under the second Trump administration, President Donald Trump's threats to impose tariffs on Canada, areas of potential cooperation between the two countries, how Trump's reelection is impacting global climate efforts and more. Zack Colman covers climate change for POLITICO.  Ben Lefebvre is an energy reporter for POLITICO.  Nirmal Mulaikal is a POLITICO audio host-producer.  Annie Rees is the managing producer for audio at POLITICO. Gloria Gonzalez is the deputy energy editor for POLITICO.  Matt Daily is the energy editor for POLITICO. For more news on energy and the environment, subscribe to Power Switch, our free evening newsletter: https://www.politico.com/power-switch And for even deeper coverage and analysis, read our Morning Energy newsletter by subscribing to POLITICO Pro: https://subscriber.politicopro.com/newsletter-archive/morning-energy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Who do you even root for in the Super Bowl if you are a 49ers fan? Chiefs? Eagles?? A Giant Meteor???

We recap Real Housewives of New York S15 finale - oh dear lord, Real Housewives of Potomac S9 Ep 15, Real Housewives of Beverly Hills S14 Ep 8 and Real Housewives of Salt Lake City S5 Reunion Part 1. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Picking Your Poison | How to Make the Best Choice, When You Only Have Lose-Lose Scenarios to Choose Not all choices are created equal. We will encounter moments in life where we need to choose, and none of the choices are favourable. So how do you move forward? How do you make decisions that enable you to honour yourself, and feel good about the path you're taking, and the consequences of that path? When you will be required to endure a period of challenges and hardship, regardless of the scenario, better to exercise the following principles. Do you have any questions? Send us an email: inquiries@spe-projectpurpose.com #mentalhealth #pickyourpoison #decisionmaking 0:00 - 2:30 - Introduction 2:30 - 10:50 Picking Your Poison 10:50 - Wrap Up *RESOURCES* - Letting Go of Habits that No Longer Serve You: Letting Go of Habits That No Longer Serve You! - How to Recognize Habits that No Longer Serve You: https://www.teaspoonofhealing.com/how-to-recognize-what-is-no-longer-serving-you/ For all topics related to renewing and rebuilding family, communities and relationships, check out our blogs! We post bi-weekly: https://www.spe-projectpurpose.com/blogs Make sure to come visit us, subscribe to the website, and join our Member's Area for more valuable content: *SOCIALS* Website: www.spe-projectpurpose.com Facebook Page: @ProjectPurposeSPE Instagram: @ProjectPurposeSPE or my personal account @realistrae Twitter: @Purpose_SPE Pinterest: @ProjectPurposeSPE If you'd like to read my research thesis, "ADHD: Is it a Social Construct or does it have a Neurophysiological Basis?" you can find it at the following address: https://rachellerealist.wordpress.com​​. ​I'm more than happy to answer your questions, feel free to send an email to: inquiries@spe-projectpurpose.com OUR AUTONOMY, SELF-EFFICACY, COMPASSION & SELF-CONCEPT WORKSHOPS ARE AVAILABLE (AGES 4-8, 9-13 & 14-17) BE SURE TO GO TO THE WEBSITE AND MAKE YOUR PURCHASE! Do you like the intro/outro music? Check out the artist on Spotify: Artist Name: Valdii Song Name: I Learn --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/projectpurposespe/support

Does the jack of all trades really have to be master of none? Does being friends with more people mean you have weaker connections with each? What's the science behind sibling rivalry?   In less than 4 minutes, understand how pies and friendships may or may not be comparable.

Iran & Israel are in a lose-lose situation, they can't cross the red line or back out

The NBA is officially back! This episode I talk about 6 NBA first impressions that I have after watching the first few days of the season, including a team that looks unbeatable, newcomers who shined in their debut, and a big trade I think both teams will regret.

Space Power: A National Guardsman's View On Why A Pentagon Plan Is A “Lose-Lose Proposal” Last week Air Force Gen. Steven Nordhaus assumed responsibility as the 30th Chief of the National Guard Bureau, inheriting a politically thorny issue: a piece of legislation that, if passed into law, would transfer Air National Guard space units into the Space Force. This episode is about why some, possibly upwards of 80 percent, of the men and women who make up these units will not join the Space Force, which could leave the branch short of some critical capabilities. Laura Winter speaks with Lt. Col. Andrew Gold, Director of Strategic Plans, Colorado Air National Guard, and a space operator, who recently finished a deployment to Africa commanding the 138th Electromagnetic Warfare Squadron.

SummaryIn this episode of the Golf Lovers United podcast, hosts Golf Lover UK and Pro Golf Critic discuss the recent Dunhill event, the dynamics of Pro-Am tournaments, and the ongoing discussions surrounding LIV Golf and the PGA Tour. They delve into the implications of Rory McIlroy's involvement with LIV, the legal challenges facing the PGA Tour, and theevolving relationships between players and the media. The episode concludes with a segment on future golf events and the potential for Hideki Matsuyama to headline a LIV event in Japan.TakeawaysThe Dunhill event was a highlight of the year.Pro-Am events attract celebrities and funding for golf. Rory McIlroy's involvement with LIV Golf raises questions.The PGA Tour faces significant legal challenges ahead.Eugenio's future in LIV Golf is uncertain but promising.Media coverage of LIV players is improving but still biased.Golf is evolving with new opportunities for players.The relationship between players and media is complex and strained.Future events in Saudi Arabia are set to attract attention.Hideki Matsuyama could be a key player for LIV in Japan.Chapters00:00Introduction and Podcast Growth01:47The Dunhill Event and Its Significance05:51Pro-Am Events and Their Appeal09:48The Match: Anticipation and Sponsorship13:30Rory and Scotty's Involvement in Upcoming Events17:40PGA Tour's Legal Challenges and Future21:35Player Contracts and Team Dynamics24:37The Global Golf Landscape27:06Ryder Cup Dynamics and Player Inclusion29:39The Need for Unity in Golf31:23Media Dynamics and Player Relations39:17The Future of Golf in Saudi ArabiaGolf Lovers United Fanzone!Fan of the show? Get involved even more by visiting our fanzone, with a range of membership and support options to bring you even closer to the action and to give you chance to have your say on the show!Vist the fanzone now: https://www.glugc.com/support--Thanks to our current GLU Brand Ambassadors:LIV Golf Forecasting - https://www.twitter.com/LIVGolf54Red Harrington - https://www.twitter.com/RedHarrington44Kevin Dignan - https://www.twitter.com/VivaLa54Andy Moore - https://www.twitter.com/AndyFreelance1Padmini Krishnan - https://www.twitter.com/YoungPadawan051Charles Barnes - https://www.teetimes.pubThanks to our current GLU Golf Lovers:Lisa Lamagna - https://www.twitter.com/LisaLamagna--If you like the show, remember to tell your golf-loving friends that they can subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at https://www.glugc.com. The easiest way to do all of that is at https://www.glugc.com/listen.If you want to support the show, we appreciate you and you can do that at https://www.glugc.com/support.Golf Lovers United is produced by Mark (@MrAsquith), Ben (@GolfLoverUK) and J (@ProGolfCritic) every week.

J-E-T-S lose lose lose!

Heute gibt es nochmal eine Nachbesprechung zum Amphi Festival, sogar noch zu Klaffenbach und natürlich auch zu Zeraphine auf dem M'era Luna Festival. Es gab auch viele Fragen, die wir zu den Konzerten beantworten. So geht es ums Licht, Setlisten und Gastsingen. Außerdem gibt es eine kleine Vorschau aufs NCN mit Zeraphine, Morphose und außerdem IAMX und unsere Tourkollegen-Bands Matte Blvck und Astari Nite. Außerdem warnen wir schon mal vor, dass wir am 08.02. in Hamburg spielen werden und der VVK in Kürze startet. :-) Und Nina hat uns die Auflösung der heiteren Amphi-Dialekt-Runde geschickt! Das Cover dieser Folge kommt dieses Mal von Isa! Wir freuen uns immer über positive Bewertungen, z.B. auf Spotify oder Apple Music. Schickt uns gern weiter Fragen, Schnellrunden, Themen für den Podkasten oder einfach nette Mails an podcast@solarfake.de Cover Image © Isa.R

To celebrate the imminent start of the Summer Olympic Games in Paris, France we have an episode originally reported in 2016. No matter what sport you play, the object of the game is to win. And that's hard enough to do. But we found a match where four top athletes had to do the opposite in one of the most high profile matches of their careers. Thanks to a quirk in the tournament rules, their best shot at winning was … to lose. This week, in honor of the 2024 Summer Olympics, we are rerunning a story from 2016 in which we scrutinize the most paradoxical and upside down badminton match of all time. A match that dumbfounded spectators, officials, and even the players themselves. And it got us to wondering …  what would sports look like if everyone played to lose?Special thanks to Aparna Nancherla, Mark Phelan, Yuni Kartika, Greysia Polii, Joy Le Li, Mikyoung Kim, Stan Bischof, Vincent Liew, Kota Morikowa, Christ de Roij and Haeryun Kang.We have some exciting news! In the “Zoozve” episode, Radiolab named its first-ever quasi-moon, and now it's your turn! Radiolab has teamed up with The International Astronomical Union to launch a global naming contest for one of Earth's quasi-moons. This is your chance to make your mark on the heavens. Submit your name ideas now through September, or vote on your favorites starting in November: https://radiolab.org/moonOur newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)!Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today.Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org.Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The Dallas Mavericks advance to the NBA Finals for the 3rd time in franchise history after defeating the Timberwolves in 5 games. Kyrie Irving and Luka Doncic combined for over 70 points in this closeout game. Take a listen to where the Wolves went wrong in this series...The Dallas Mavericks and the Boston Celtics will clash in an electrifying NBA Finals, showcasing a great amount of star power between the Mavericks' dynamic offense and the Celtics' top-tier defense. Here's what to expect...(6:30)News For The Run: (12:30The Boston Celtics face a unique predicament: if they lose the NBA Finals, critics will highlight their shortcomings and how they missed another opportunity to be Champions, but if they win, detractors might attribute their victory to external factors such as injuries to key opponents. This double-edged sword means that regardless of the outcome, the Celtics cannot win...(17:00)--Voicemail call in: (219) 413-9405Instagram: @TheRunPodcast Facebook: PodcastTheRunYouTube: The Run with Manny WilsonTheRunUSA.com--Use the Promo Code: THERUNPODCAST for $20 OFF your first ticket purchase with SeatGeek. https://seatgeek.onelink.me/RrnK/teamseatgeek  

Could a New York City jury issuing a guilty verdict help President Donald Trump's popularity? Many in the media (e.g., Fox News' Steve Doocy interview with former U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy) are theorizing that Trump's poll numbers could soar even higher regardless of the NYC jury's decision – making the verdict a lose-lose for President Biden. The Sekulow team discusses the potential fallout of President Trump's NYC felony trial, heavy criticism of the Biden campaign's decision to have Robert De Niro stump outside the courthouse, the 2024 presidential election, a recent ACLJ case defending religious liberty – and much more.

Am vergangenen Donnerstag haben pro-palästinensische Studierende der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin das Institut für Sozialwissenschaften besetzt. Es kam zu Auseinandersetzungen mit der Polizei, Vorwürfe von Antisemitismus und Rassismus wurden laut und innerhalb sowie außerhalb der Uni fanden verschiedene Diskussionen zu den Protesten statt. Unser Gast Dr. Daniel Kubiak ist Sozialwissenschaftler am Berliner Institut für empirische Integrations- und Migrationsforschung an der HU Berlin und beobachtet Uni-Proteste schon seit langem. Die Radikalität der Proteste resultiert seiner Meinung nach aus der Not heraus, etwas besprechen zu wollen, was wenig Gehör findet. Denn einen offenen Dialog über Israel und Palästina zu führen scheint momentan schwieriger denn je - selbst in der Wissenschaft. Wie wir die Proteste einordnen können und warum es bei allem, was in der Welt passiert, so wichtig ist, einander zu fragen, wie es uns geht, erfahrt ihr in der aktuellen Folge „Alles Muss Raus“ mit Thilo Mischke. Hast du Fragen oder Feedback? Schreibe uns eine Nachricht an amr@pqpp2.de oder auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/allesmussraus_podcast/ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/allesmussrauspodcast „Alles Muss Raus“ wird vermarktet von Podstars by OMR. Du möchtest in „Alles Muss Raus“ werben? Dann hier* entlang: https://podstars.de/kontakt/?utm_source=podcast&utm_campaign=shownotes_alles-muss-raus

On this episode of the MalloryBros. podcast, the guys start with a recap of Mothers Day Weekend! They speak to the weekend as a whole and talk about their experiences with their significant others who are both mothers now. The first thing they get into is a recap of the Beef. With Drake speaking to summer vibes coming, they talk "why Kendrick won", if Drake was in a Lose Lose situation and whats next to come. The guys then speak to the teacher that was recently fired for making tiktoks with his students taking out his hair. They give their thoughts and speak to whether the firing was right or wrong. With their birthday tomorrow, the guys talk turning thirty and the very real reality of adulthood. This leads to some reflection on the past and a conversation about the generation they come from as it compares to the one in front and behind them. Terrell speaks to Netlfix's decision to change how they talk to investors, and Terrance speaks to Anthony Edwards comments on Michael Jordan. This leads to a conversation about if NBA/NFL players were to take on each others league and who would do better. Terrance has a ranking for Terrell, they have Movie Suggestions of the Week and More!    Movie Suggestions of the Week:  Terrance | "Shrek" | Netflix Terrell | "The Equalizer" | Netflix

The consequences of online abuse can be fatal, and in the early 2000s, even experts were naive to the dangers of the online world for us, and our kids. Yasmin London is a former NSW Police Officer who took on a diverse set of roles in her decade in the force. She tackled the everyday stress of general duties, the diverse crimes of Rosebay in Sydney and the complex and unknown world of cyberbullying in the early days of the internet.  Yasmin joined host Brent Sanders to talk through her career, and to unpack how her time in the force impacted her motivation for the work she does now.  This episode contains references to suicide and mens violence against women, if it affected you, the number for Life Line is 13 11 14. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Tuesday, April 23, 20244:20 pm: Frank Miele, a Columnist with Real Clear Politics joins the show to discuss how Intifada, Palestinians that continue to resist the existence of Israel, have brought their “death to America” shouts to the United States.4:38 pm: Zachary Faria, Commentary Fellow at the Washington Examiner, joins the program to discuss his piece about how “elite” universities are molding a new generation of hateful people.6:05 pm: Bob McEntee and Blair Brandenburg, members of the Weber County Conservatives, join Rod to discuss a resolution they'll present at this weekend's state GOP convention asking for Utah to elect a Secretary of State to run elections instead of the Lieutenant Governor.6:20 pm: Dennis Powell, a Strategic Management Consultant with Massey Powell and a contributor to The Hill on his piece about why 2024 is a lose-lose election.6:38 pm: Jim Antle, Politics Editor for the Washington Examiner, joins the show to discuss how, despite its dysfunction, the GOP can keep the House in 2024.

On a recent day in the Cardamom Mountains of southwest Cambodia, a local resident steered a boat along a calm waterway, pointing out plants grown by community members: durian, banana, jackfruit, avocado. This area has seen increased patrolling by the Cambodian military, environmental officials and staff of the New York-based nonprofit Wildlife Alliance, according to the man, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution. “All of this farmland belongs to people. Starting from the border of the forest, that's where people have enjoyed farming every year for a long time,” he said. “We've done farming here for many years already before they came to do conservation.” Cambodia's monsoonal wet season drenches Toap Khley village in the Southern Cardamom National Park's Areng Valley. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe The small farms dotting the riverbank are part of a protected area that is now being enforced through a forest carbon offset project known as the Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project. A new report from Human Rights Watch found that the project had violated the rights of Indigenous Chong people who live here, documenting forced evictions, arrests and harassment. The project brought in more than $18 million by 2021 through carbon credit sales. Companies including Delta Air Lines, Stella McCartney, McKinsey and Boeing bought the credits in an attempt to reduce their overall carbon footprint, in this case, by supporting a project that patrols a conservation area to prevent deforestation. The industry has faced a slew of critical coverage in the last few years, with accusations that projects have overstated their climate benefits. The research from Human Rights Watch indicates that these projects can also harm local and Indigenous groups in the name of conservation.  A sign in Chamnar village, the furthest community in Areng Valley, indicates that a new water tower was supported by the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project within the national park. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe Empty boats line one side of the riverbank, as the Chong Indigenous fishers and farmers are restricted from crossing over to cultivate their crops, the resident explained.The local people support conservation of forested areas, he said, but want to continue cultivating crops in areas that have long been agricultural plots. Instead, members of his community have been arrested for collecting sustainable forest products, had their crops destroyed and huts burned down, according to the report.“People are farming on land that they have customarily thought belongs to them but the interpretation of the project is that this farming amounts to an environmental crime,” said Luciana Téllez Chávez, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and the lead author of the report. “Some people have also been jailed for basically just performing the activities that have formed the core of their livelihoods for generations.”Luciana Téllez Chávez, senior researcher, Human Rights Watch“Some people have also been jailed for basically just performing the activities that have formed the core of their livelihoods for generations.” A bathroom, supported by the Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project within the national park, is visible from the rain-drenched gate of a home in Samraong village. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe This carbon offset project was able to sell credits at higher prices because it received additional certifications reserved for projects that specifically benefit local and Indigenous communities. But Human Rights Watch found that the process of obtaining "free, prior and informed consent" from residents did not begin until 2 and 1/2 years after the project had already started. “I cannot imagine a more egregious problem than reversing free, prior and informed consent. If you say that happened and the opposite happened, why should I trust anything you say anywhere else?” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and lawyer. For Cullenward, the report findings are made even worse by the fact that some of the issues were documented in the project's own audits years before the investigation. The auditing firm SCS Global Services, for instance, noted that the free, prior and informed consent meetings with residents began 31 months after the January 2015 project start date, but still determined that the project was “in conformance” with certification requirements. “Every single party in this transaction has a financial interest in there being more credits issued,” Cullenward said. “It's a lose-lose situation here because, either one of the parties has really screwed up at its job or the rules are so weak, you really don't want to have any confidence in their application elsewhere.”The credits are certified by the US nonprofit Verra, the world's leading carbon credit certifier, which is meant to confirm that the projects produce certain environmental and social benefits. Verra began its own investigation of the project after Human Rights Watch shared its preliminary findings in June. Joel Finkelstein, Verra's senior director for media and advocacy, told The World that the allegations are appalling. He believes Verra's auditing system is something the organization can really stand behind.“It's a system designed to get to meaningful, credible, high-integrity climate impact and ethical processes in these projects,” he said. “If that was not the case here, our investigation will find that out and there will be censures for that, too.”Verra would not provide a timeline for when its investigation will be completed, and said its policy is to not provide commentary while an investigation is ongoing. SCS Global Services said in an email that its policy was to not comment on ongoing reviews. Cambodia's Environment Ministry did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Wildlife Alliance said in a statement that the Human Rights Watch report “fundamentally distorts the reality of the project.” A local resident walks down the red road to Chamnar Village in the Areng Valley of the Southern Cardamom National Park. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe At his family home, a Chong Indigenous man in his late 50s said the rangers and officials carrying out the carbon offset project have cut down crops grown by his community. "They should be protecting only the forest, not [patrolling] the plantations and trees that people have planted for years,” the man said, who also asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the Wildlife Alliance. He still farms in the area despite the patrols, but is afraid of being spotted. He doesn't earn enough for his family's daily living expenses, and had to take out private loans for $150."I only ask the companies that gave to [Wildlife Alliance] and the REDD+ Project to review the map that overlaps with people's land,” he said. “Do not hurt the people anymore."The authorities don't go after people who have excavators, he said, but they come for people with small farms like him. Additional reporting and translation by Phon Sothyroth.

On a recent day in the Cardamom Mountains of southwest Cambodia, a local resident steered a boat along a calm waterway, pointing out plants grown by community members: durian, banana, jackfruit, avocado. This area has seen increased patrolling by the Cambodian military, environmental officials and staff of the New York-based nonprofit Wildlife Alliance, according to the man, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution. “All of this farmland belongs to people. Starting from the border of the forest, that's where people have enjoyed farming every year for a long time,” he said. “We've done farming here for many years already before they came to do conservation.” Cambodia's monsoonal wet season drenches Toap Khley village in the Southern Cardamom National Park's Areng Valley. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe The small farms dotting the riverbank are part of a protected area that is now being enforced through a forest carbon offset project known as the Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project. A new report from Human Rights Watch found that the project had violated the rights of Indigenous Chong people who live here, documenting forced evictions, arrests and harassment. The project brought in more than $18 million by 2021 through carbon credit sales. Companies including Delta Air Lines, Stella McCartney, McKinsey and Boeing bought the credits in an attempt to reduce their overall carbon footprint, in this case, by supporting a project that patrols a conservation area to prevent deforestation. The industry has faced a slew of critical coverage in the last few years, with accusations that projects have overstated their climate benefits. The research from Human Rights Watch indicates that these projects can also harm local and Indigenous groups in the name of conservation.  A sign in Chamnar village, the furthest community in Areng Valley, indicates that a new water tower was supported by the Southern Cardamom REDD+ project within the national park. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe Empty boats line one side of the riverbank, as the Chong Indigenous fishers and farmers are restricted from crossing over to cultivate their crops, the resident explained.The local people support conservation of forested areas, he said, but want to continue cultivating crops in areas that have long been agricultural plots. Instead, members of his community have been arrested for collecting sustainable forest products, had their crops destroyed and huts burned down, according to the report.“People are farming on land that they have customarily thought belongs to them but the interpretation of the project is that this farming amounts to an environmental crime,” said Luciana Téllez Chávez, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch and the lead author of the report. “Some people have also been jailed for basically just performing the activities that have formed the core of their livelihoods for generations.”Luciana Téllez Chávez, senior researcher, Human Rights Watch“Some people have also been jailed for basically just performing the activities that have formed the core of their livelihoods for generations.” A bathroom, supported by the Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project within the national park, is visible from the rain-drenched gate of a home in Samraong village. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe This carbon offset project was able to sell credits at higher prices because it received additional certifications reserved for projects that specifically benefit local and Indigenous communities. But Human Rights Watch found that the process of obtaining "free, prior and informed consent" from residents did not begin until 2 and 1/2 years after the project had already started. “I cannot imagine a more egregious problem than reversing free, prior and informed consent. If you say that happened and the opposite happened, why should I trust anything you say anywhere else?” said Danny Cullenward, a climate economist and lawyer. For Cullenward, the report findings are made even worse by the fact that some of the issues were documented in the project's own audits years before the investigation. The auditing firm SCS Global Services, for instance, noted that the free, prior and informed consent meetings with residents began 31 months after the January 2015 project start date, but still determined that the project was “in conformance” with certification requirements. “Every single party in this transaction has a financial interest in there being more credits issued,” Cullenward said. “It's a lose-lose situation here because, either one of the parties has really screwed up at its job or the rules are so weak, you really don't want to have any confidence in their application elsewhere.”The credits are certified by the US nonprofit Verra, the world's leading carbon credit certifier, which is meant to confirm that the projects produce certain environmental and social benefits. Verra began its own investigation of the project after Human Rights Watch shared its preliminary findings in June. Joel Finkelstein, Verra's senior director for media and advocacy, told The World that the allegations are appalling. He believes Verra's auditing system is something the organization can really stand behind.“It's a system designed to get to meaningful, credible, high-integrity climate impact and ethical processes in these projects,” he said. “If that was not the case here, our investigation will find that out and there will be censures for that, too.”Verra would not provide a timeline for when its investigation will be completed, and said its policy is to not provide commentary while an investigation is ongoing. SCS Global Services said in an email that its policy was to not comment on ongoing reviews. Cambodia's Environment Ministry did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Wildlife Alliance said in a statement that the Human Rights Watch report “fundamentally distorts the reality of the project.” A local resident walks down the red road to Chamnar Village in the Areng Valley of the Southern Cardamom National Park. Credit: Anton L. Delgado/Southeast Asia Globe At his family home, a Chong Indigenous man in his late 50s said the rangers and officials carrying out the carbon offset project have cut down crops grown by his community. "They should be protecting only the forest, not [patrolling] the plantations and trees that people have planted for years,” the man said, who also asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the Wildlife Alliance. He still farms in the area despite the patrols, but is afraid of being spotted. He doesn't earn enough for his family's daily living expenses, and had to take out private loans for $150."I only ask the companies that gave to [Wildlife Alliance] and the REDD+ Project to review the map that overlaps with people's land,” he said. “Do not hurt the people anymore."The authorities don't go after people who have excavators, he said, but they come for people with small farms like him. Additional reporting and translation by Phon Sothyroth.

Full Hour 1

【Galaxy S24 旗艦系列 l AI手機來真的

On this week-in-review, Crystal is joined by metro news columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll! With two weeks left in the State legislative session, Crystal and Matt dig into several bills with potential for huge impact and needing public support to get across the finish line - HB 2114 (rent stabilization), HB 1932 (even-year elections), and SB 6105 (Stripper Bill of Rights). See the resources section for links to contact your legislators about each of these bills! Next, they discuss the promise of the City of Tacoma's detailed Anti-Displacement strategy, Mayor Bruce Harrell pledging no new taxes at his annual State of the City address, and no charges against the SPD officer who killed Jaahnavi Kandula. 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, Matt Driscoll, at @mattsdriscoll.   Resources Why Seattle's Proposed Surveillance Mash-Up is a Lose-Lose with Amy Sundberg and BJ Last of Solidarity Budget from Hacks & Wonks   “Pass bill limiting rent hikes to help stabilize households” by The Seattle Times Editorial Board   “Seattle's LGBTQ Communities Demand Rent Stabilization” by Rich Smith from The Stranger   HB 2114 - Improving housing stability for tenants subject to the residential landlord-tenant act and the manufactured/mobile home landlord-tenant act by limiting rent and fee increases, requiring notice of rent and fee increases, limiting fees and deposits, establishing a landlord resource center and associated services, authorizing tenant lease termination, creating parity between lease types, and providing for attorney general enforcement.   HB 2114 - Send a comment to your legislators   “NPI's even year elections bill advances out of Senate State Government Committee” by Andrew Villeneuve from The Cascadia Advocate   HB 1932 - Shifting general elections for local governments to even-numbered years to increase voter participation.   HB 1932 - Send a comment to your legislators   “Why a dancer with Tacoma ties is fighting for WA's 'Stripper Bill of Rights'” by Matt Driscoll from The News Tribune   Strippers Are Workers Campaign   SB 6105 - Creating safer working conditions in adult entertainment establishments.   SB 6105 - Send a comment to your legislators   “Some Tacomans are being pushed out of their neighborhoods. The city wants to intervene” by Shea Johnson from The News Tribune   Anti-Displacement Strategy | City of Tacoma   “Mayor Bruce Harrell Promises to Deliver Bare Minimum at 2024 State of City Address” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger   “$230 Million Deficit Hangs Over Annual Harrell Speech” by Doug Trumm from The Urbanist   “King County Prosecutors Decline to Charge SPD Officer for Killing Pedestrian” by Ashley Nerbovig from The Stranger   Find stories that Crystal is reading here   Listen on your favorite podcast app to all our episodes here   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. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Tuesday topical show and our Friday week-in-review shows delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. If you missed our Tuesday topical show, our producer Shannon Cheng was guest host and welcomed back Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget to discuss how the City of Seattle is rushing to bring three surveillance technologies to the streets of Seattle with minimal public input. Make your voice heard at the final public meeting next week on Tuesday, February 27th at 6 p.m. Today, we're continuing our Friday week-in-review shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Metro News columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll. [00:01:31] Matt Driscoll: Thank you for having me - it's always wonderful to be here. And of course, as luck would have it, hammering started in the background. Hopefully that's not too annoying, but yeah - it's great to be here. Thanks for having me. [00:01:42] Crystal Fincher: Excellent - love having you back. Well, we have a couple weeks left in this legislative session, which is scheduled to end on March 7th. Houses have already gotten done passing legislation that originated in their chambers, now the other chambers are taking up things. And there's a few bills that I wanted to talk about that are trying to make it through, that a lot of organizations have as policies, and that would be really impactful to residents throughout the state. The first one is one talking about rent stabilization - different than rent control - rent stabilization basically limits rent and fee increases during the year. So this is something that a lot of renters have been talking about. We've certainly covered the housing affordability crisis at length on this program, but it really is a challenge for renters facing seemingly endless rent hikes. And those rent hikes currently don't have any caps. We've seen instances of rent literally doubling in some places, but fees 20-30% increases annually, which is way beyond the cost of inflation, generally, and really challenging for people to be able to afford. This has been cited as contributing to income inequality, to our homelessness crisis, and to just regular affordability, to displacement. Really challenging, so one thing that has been in the works for over a year has been the effort to try and limit rent increases. This bill would limit rent increases to 7% during any 12-month period, which is still a pretty substantial increase for most people - but within the realm of reality and affordability and achievability for a lot of people. How do you see this bill? [00:03:38] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting and it is very similar to a citizens' ballot initiative that we covered here in Tacoma last election cycle, which did place some rent increase limits on local landlords and some caps on local fees. To me, it's kind of the other side of the coin - although this coin is probably not a coin, it has a bunch of sides. But we talk a lot about just the affordable housing crisis and the need to build more housing of all kinds, particularly affordable housing - being able to meet all sorts of different economic demographics with that. And this is another side of that, which is people faced with the crisis of housing, calling on lawmakers and policymakers to enact some protections and some regulations to keep them from just getting gouged and forced out financially. And particularly in this bill and in the initiative that ended up passing just barely in Tacoma, I mean, the rent increases and the fees that they still allow are not insignificant. And the fact that we see the pushback to it that we do, particularly from landlords' associations, and conservative lawmakers, really speaks to how out of whack the market is. If you can't get by by raising rent 7% annually, I think it raises questions. Now, there are, I think, some legitimate concerns about how far to crank that lever, because I personally believe at some point, if you do crank it too far, you are going to impact the "mom and pop" landlords who do exist, who are real providers of legitimate affordable housing to people and housing to people that they might not be able to get otherwise. So I do think you have to walk that balance. Certainly to me, this bill seems reasonable, but I'm sure for a lot of lawmakers, it comes down to that question of how much reach do you want the government to have in dictating what are supposed to be those free markets we love so much in this country. But really, this conversation is indicative to the crisis that's happening in cities across Washington and across certainly the West Coast, where the cost of housing is just greatly outpacing any income growth or job growth that we might have. People are freaked out, and rightly so. You talk about all the necessities, whether it's food or - there are safety nets for that. But I think the housing one is one that feels really close because there aren't safety nets. If you lose housing, you lose housing. If you need to go to a food bank, you can go to a food bank, but there's not a house bank. And so it'll be interesting to see what happens and then see where the momentum goes on this. [00:06:02] Crystal Fincher: It will be interesting to see where the momentum goes. And you raised a good point in talking about the Tacoma Renter Protection Initiative, which is similar to other renter protection initiatives and legislation we've seen in various cities throughout the state - whether it's Spokane, Bellingham, Tacoma, Federal Way, we've seen local communities across the state take action on this because this is plaguing communities. That housing expense is almost everyone's biggest expense and so if that is skyrocketing, that's taking families' available discretionary income, that's impacting the local economy, and obviously causing a lot of housing insecurity that is really putting a lot of people in tough positions, and communities in tough positions, and governments and how to deal with that. And it's so much more expensive to deal with once it gets to the crisis level - once someone is displaced or can't afford housing, loses their apartment. All of those are really, really expensive to deal with from a city and county perspective. So I am hopeful that this legislation passes. It's currently in the Senate and it faces an uncertain future, so this is going to be one where community feedback to all of your legislators is really going to make a difference on this - particularly your senators, because they're going to determine the fate of this. There are a number of people on the fence - some moderate to conservative Democrats who have voiced some concerns. Jamie Pedersen is working on this in the Senate - has expressed some reservations, but has certainly heard a lot of feedback from his constituents who overwhelmingly are renters in his district. We'll see how this turns out, but this is one where - for folks listening - if this is something that's a priority to you, reach out to your senators. Fortunately, we make it really simple in Washington to be able to send communications about legislation. We'll also put links in the show notes to make that easy. But they're going to need to hear from you on this - certainly would be a big step forward for the state in terms of renter protections here. Also want to talk about another bill, which we've certainly talked about before and recently in our conversation with Andrew Villeneuve in one of our Tuesday topical shows, that the Northwest Progressive Institute has been very active with. The even-year elections bill, which has advanced out of the House and then advanced out of the Senate State Government Committee. So it's looking fairly positive, but still has to go through some more hurdles. This would enable cities and towns to choose to hold their elections in even-numbered years instead of odd-numbered years. This is a big deal because turnout is much higher in even-numbered years. And as we've seen in the state of California, when we do put those other races - municipal races, local races - on the ballot with those national races, people still vote, still great turnout, even better turnout than they would see in those odd-year elections. We just got done with an election in November that had the lowest turnout since we've been keeping records here in Washington. It is a problem. We're deciding elections with sometimes close to only 20% of the residents participating in the election - that's not representative. I don't think that's doing anyone any favors. The more people who can participate, the better. I also sometimes hear - This is all a progressive conspiracy to turn things out because we see so many elections that trend progressive in the end. And one thing that I would remind people is Seattle is a very visible place. Seattle has more progressive voters than conservative ones, so certainly elections in Seattle and therefore King County do trend as ballots are counted in the final days - those late ballots certainly do trend in a progressive direction. That's not the case statewide. It really just depends on what the local population is. If we're looking at southwest Washington, for example, those often trend red in a lot of those swing districts there. It just really depends on what there is on the ground. And even in those situations, I still think it's better for more people to participate in elections, and voting, and deciding what their communities are going to look like. What do you think about this bill? [00:10:23] Matt Driscoll: First and foremost, Crystal, it's awfully generous of you to acknowledge that even where there are more conservative voters, it's better for more people to vote - that's very bipartisan of you, I appreciate that. This is one of those ones that makes me question myself - am I a super liberal hack? Because there really doesn't seem to be a good reason not to do this, in my mind. At the end of the day - participation in democracy, in our elections - the more people, the more registered voters we can get involved, the better. That's what we should all want. None of us should be afraid that our arguments should stand up and they don't - if they're in the minority, they're in the minority - that's the way it's supposed to work. I will say that there's also part of this that frustrates me because we do look at those even-year versus odd-year elections, and one of the reasons that this gets cast as perhaps a progressive-motivated thing or a progressive scheme is because in those odd-year elections, the voting demographic does skew older, whiter, landowner, property owner - that's real - and i guess the frustrating part about it is just progressives could vote. I just went through that election last November and it was brutal to go through the endorsements. I do think election burnout is real. It does feel like there's always an election. I think we got to be generous to the general public and realize that most people are just trying to get through their lives, and put food on the table, and get their kids to school, and all that. And I think we're asking a lot of them to constantly be kind of in election mode, which is certainly how it feels. But at the end of the day, if progressives are concerned about the disparity, they could just vote in odd-year elections and they just don't - historically - we talk about it every time until we're blue in the face, and then they don't. But full circle - this is about participation. Whether we like the reality or not, the reality is people don't vote in off-year elections nearly as much as they do in the even year. We have historical data backing this up. And I also think it's important to note that all this bill will do is give places the ability to do it. It doesn't dictate it. It's local control of it. If you want to make that change, you can. So to me, again, I don't see an argument against this. It seems like a no-brainer, but so little is a no-brainer when it comes to Olympia. [00:12:34] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree with what you're saying. And as this makes it through and follows the path that a lot of bills do, one of the things that happens is amendments are offered and sometimes accepted. So this passed the House. Once it did arrive in the Senate, it received some amendments that passed out of committee. I'm not in love with these amendments. One of them not only requires the city to basically opt-in legislatively and pass an ordinance to say we're going to do this, but now it requires a popular vote from the people. So the city has to both adopt an ordinance or policy by its legislative body- [00:13:10] Matt Driscoll: An odd year? Do they have to vote in an odd year? Is that part of the stipulation? [00:13:15] Crystal Fincher: You know, it probably is. And yeah, it would have to receive approval from its voters. Now, this is something where the voters vote for their city council or their town council - whatever their government legislative body is, usually a city council - who make decisions like this all the time. Putting this out to a public vote is a costly endeavor. Elections aren't free. You have to pay to administer them, it's costly, it's time-consuming. And as you say, this is probably going to be on another odd-year election ballot. This is pretty simple. I wish we would let people and the electeds that they selected make these decisions. I would love to see that amendment taken out before it does get to a final vote, but we'll see how it goes. It would be progress either way. Definitely better than nothing, but would love to see as much good as possible and not add another hurdle to this that is seemingly unnecessary and also costly at a time when a lot of cities and counties are dealing with budget deficits and are really trying to trim costs instead of add them. Another bill that you covered this week is about a proposed Strippers' Bill of Rights that's currently in Olympia. What is happening with this and what would it do? [00:14:29] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I mean, I kind of became mildly fascinated with this over the last week because it was pretty new territory for me, to be honest with you. So basically, the background on it is adult dancers, strippers in Washington essentially lack a whole lot of protections that I was, for one, shocked to hear didn't exist - like requirements of clubs to have security. In recent years, there have been some slight upgrades, installations of panic buttons and stuff, but really it's kind of a Wild West out there in terms of staffing, and training requirements, and de-escalation requirements. And basically, whether you frequent strip clubs or not, just picture a strip club and think of all the things that you would assume would be in place to protect people and employees and the reality is that many of them don't exist currently. And so this bill would do a lot of that around training, de-escalation, that sort of thing - which all, to me, feel like no-brainers. And I think in the legislature's view - from the testimony that I've heard, at least in the House - it seems to be a shared sentiment. Where it gets tricky is this bill also opens the door for the legal sale of alcohol in strip clubs. And at least initially going into it, for me, it's a juxtaposition until you get into it. Because on one hand, you're talking about safety and regulations. And then - oh, yeah, we're going to add alcohol - and you're like, what the? that doesn't necessarily seem like that's about safety. But at the end of the day, as I learned and wrote about - and others have written about it plenty this session - essentially the deal for strippers is they pay a nightly rate, if you will, to work, to perform. They're independent contractors. They're not employees of the strip club. So you will end up owing $100, $200 just to start your shift. And then the money that you make in the process of your job, after you pay that back, that's what you make. One, that's clearly exploitative. It sets up bad situations, as you can imagine. But the reality of it is because there's no legal alcohol sales in Washington strip clubs, that's really the only financial model that exists for club owners. And so it puts pressure on them to exploit the dancers. And then that puts pressure on the dancers to maybe ignore warning signs about things that make them uncomfortable because they're all of a sudden in financial distress trying to pay what they owe just to work. So it just creates this whole set of tensions that I think - really a lot of the supporters of this bill would argue - really decrease the safety in these clubs. So this bill would do all of that - it made its way through the Senate, it's now over to the House, it's out of committee as of earlier this week. But the hang up is going to be around that alcohol point. I think most lawmakers seem to agree with the safety measures, but there's hang up around the alcohol and how that works. We could go into the weeds - some legislators think that the Liquor Cannabis Board already has the ability, they could just make a rule. Liquor Cannabis Board says - No, we need you to grant us the licensing authority, yada, yada, yada. It's all very complicated, but it's going to come down to the booze. [00:17:22] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and this is really interesting - I personally am absolutely in support of this. Strippers are workers. They deserve protections that any worker deserves. Employers have an obligation to protect their employees, or in the case of independent contractors to protect the people who they are making money from when they work in their establishment. As you said, this does require adult entertainment establishments to provide dedicated security personnel during operating hours. It does establish restrictions on the leasing fees charged to not exceed what a dancer can make so they don't go into debt while they're dancing - that serves no one. It also requires adult entertainment establishments to provide mandatory training to their employees on first aid, conflict de-escalation, and identifying and preventing human trafficking, sexual harassment, discrimination, and assault. Expands certain safety requirements, including key padlocks for locker rooms, cleaning supplies, and certain safety signage. And then, as you said, it prohibits the Liquor and Cannabis Board from adopting or enforcing a rule that restricts the exposure of certain body parts or that restricts sexually-oriented conduct. That particular element, I believe, came out of the targeted enforcement of gay establishments in the City of Seattle - seemingly with these lewd laws - saying that those can't be in the proximity of alcohol, which just seemed really out of touch, antiquated, potentially a way to harass the LGBTQ+ community, and just not something that is consistent with the values - certainly that we hold in Seattle, but in Washington state, as we've shown. So I do hope this gets through. The alcohol issue - for me, I trust the strippers working in the establishment to know what's safe for them and if they're advocating for this and saying this is part of what we need to have a safe and sustainable environment, I trust them with that. There are plenty of situations where we allow alcohol where, if you take away the purity-attached issues to it, that seem to me to be dicey in a lot of situations. I'm also someone who it's just like - Wow, we have parking lots at bars. Doesn't that seem like it's setting up a very problematic thing? So that's a much broader conversation there. But if the strippers don't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with it, really. They know the business and their environment much better than I do, certainly. [00:19:48] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I just think the whole thing's fascinating because I was talking to Laurie Jinkins about this last week when I was reporting on it - and she comes from a public health background. And her basic reaction to it is the expansion of alcohol is not good - she points to health data. I think you can certainly make that argument, but it's very interesting what you hear from folks working in the industry, and they a lot of times will compare it to Oregon. And admittedly, I'm going to lose any Pierce County street cred here, but it's been a long time since I've been inside a strip club - but I've never been in one in Oregon. What they say is - Look, in Oregon, whether you agree with strip clubs or not, they're actually a place that legitimate people might want to hang out because you can get a drink and maybe you can get some food, and if that's what you're into - entertainment - it works for you. And guess what you have in Washington? Strip club, honestly, is almost the last place you would want to hang out unless you were really driven to go to a strip club. Door charges are insane, you're buying $15 Cokes, there's nothing to drink, there's nothing to eat, it's empty and kind of sad. And lo and behold, what do you get? You get the folks who are choosing to go to those establishments - and I'm trying not to paint with a broad brush here, but I think we can all imagine the scene that this creates. And then when you really talk about the fact that you've essentially created an economic model where the clubs in Washington rely on taking income straight from the dancers as opposed to everywhere else, where they make their income off the booze and the food - like every other sort of nightlife establishment. You can see how that would even out the relationship or the power dynamic between the dancer and the club, where here the club has all the incentive to suck as much as possible out of the dancer, and the dancers are in tough positions where they're trying to make it work. So I think it's fascinating. And again, this is not very satisfying, but it'll be very interesting to see where this goes in the coming days. [00:21:41] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely will be. And I agree, it will be very interesting to see where it goes. Moving on from legislation and where things stand there, there was something that I wanted to talk about that I found really interesting and perhaps a model that other cities may be able to look at, depending on how this turns out. And that is a plan from the City of Tacoma to prevent displacement in the city. And this is in addition to a housing affordability action plan that was adopted by the City that they seem to have been making positive progress on. But a specific anti-displacement strategy that consisted of 21 actions, including buying property to build affordable units in areas that have a high risk of displacement, requiring owners of subsidized properties to issue notices if they intend to sell, or opt-out, or refinance. But really saying it's as much of a problem that people are being economically displaced, forced out of neighborhoods - we're losing the culture and character of our neighborhoods, we're losing cohesive communities that are being displaced - and the fallout from that is undesirable. So often we hear in other conversations about zoning - maintaining the character of the neighborhood - well, the people are essential to the character of the neighborhood. And when the people are being lost, that's a problem that the City of Tacoma has recognized and is taking action on, which I think is very commendable. What do you see in this anti-displacement strategy? [00:23:12] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, I think it goes back to that multi-sided, not-a-coin thing I was talking about earlier. Well, we've got the need for housing and you've got policy pushing to place some regulations and protections for tenants. This is another part of that where cities, certainly in Tacoma, are recognizing that the economic realities and the housing realities in the city are, in fact, displacing untold number of people. We've been seeing it here for a long time. Hilltop is often painted, at least regionally, as the epicenter of it, where we've had Link Light Rail expansion and we've seen the housing going in, and if you see a lot of families that have been here for a long time getting pushed out. This is an acknowledgement of that from City leaders, and so I think it's commendable, they get credit. Of course, the cynic can me points out that cities, including Tacoma, are great at coming up with plans - we already had an affordable housing action strategy, and now we've got our anti-displacement strategy, and we passed our anti-racism legislation with 21 bullet points of what we commit to do. And at the end of the day, the proof's in the pudding and people are still getting pushed out. And so the hard part is the work of - is the city actually going to acquire land and do the sorts of things that it lays out as its vision? I've been here long enough to have seen lots of visions - very few of them have come to full fruition - it's usually you get pieces and then a crisis pops up or some other thing happens. And so we'll see what happens at the end of the day, but certainly if nothing less, it's an acknowledgement of those very same forces we started talking out with at the beginning of this show of just the crazy increases of the cost of living, particularly of the housing. I hear from Chamber of Commerce types sometimes who point out - You keep saying rents are skyrocketing and really it's raising similarly to everything else. Yes, everything's getting more expensive. And yes, in theory, there have been some income gains - although I think it's totally fair and accurate to say they have not kept pace with the cost of living. But I just think housing is that one that people feel just so closely and it feels so razor thin and desperate that lawmakers, city council - here in Tacoma - are hearing it loud and clear from their constituents who are actively being pushed out or just looking around and realizing that one wrong move and they would no longer be able to afford to live here. I don't take any shame in admitting that's certainly my family's situation - if we had not purchased our house when we purchased our house, we could absolutely not live where we live today. We would be in Parkland, somewhere other than that - and that's just the reality. And so again, we'll see what comes long-term, but it's an acknowledgement and it's an important one, and I think it's right. [00:25:40] Crystal Fincher: I also think it's right. This affects everybody. A lot of times I hear a lot of people say the same thing you did - Well, thank goodness we were able to buy our house at the time that we did because we certainly couldn't afford it now. This is an issue that is really affecting seniors in the community and whether they can age in place - whether they can remain in the communities that they have built their lives in, that they have relationships in, that is so important to maintaining their own safety net as perhaps their abilities evolve and change as they age. Lots of people need to downsize houses, need to have more accessible homes. And right now in many communities - certainly in Seattle and Tacoma, but also many of the suburbs - it is not possible to buy in the same area and get something similar that you would there. They're looking at a much different quality of life if they were to do that, or they need to move far away, basically, from perhaps family, support systems, the doctors that they've seen forever, the people who've been helping them in their lives for so long, and really lose touch with those things that keep them healthy and supported. And often their family too - and their families aren't able to afford to move in and live in the same area - it's really a problem that a lot of families are facing in this multi-generational way that is really, really troubling. And I'm glad this is being addressed. [00:27:05] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, it's just a subset of the folks being affected by this - you probably know the data better than I do - but if you want to be terrified at some point, look at the data about the number of people moving into retirement age and that age bracket in the next decade or more. It's a significant amount of people. And if we don't come to terms with the fact that our economy as it currently stands, particularly in relation to housing, is just cruel and out of whack right now - there are going to be countless people really with no flexibility, nowhere to move, creating those situations that you just described where you get stuck. You have a house you probably can't look after anymore. You can't afford to move anywhere else. You don't have whatever it would take to get into senior - I mean, it's terrifying. And so one small part of a bigger pie of the economic cruelty that we have, but it's a big one. And so I'm hopeful, but again, cities are great at the plans and the bullet points and the statements of great aspiration. The proof is in how it pans out. And so I think it's important for people to keep an eye on it and keep folks accountable, so it's more than just talk. [00:28:11] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely agree with that. Getting more into the details of this, there were a number of actions - I was happy to see that this was a pretty comprehensive report - there are metrics to track over the time. As plans from cities go, especially ones that we're seeing these days in major cities, it at least had a lot of detail - that they'll either follow or they won't - but certainly a lot less vague than some of the plans that we see elsewhere. Some of the other things included were expanding one-time cash assistance to keeping families housed, offering incentives for developers to build affordable housing in at-risk areas, prioritizing new units to be rented or sold to at-risk or displaced residents, focusing down payment homebuyer assistance in high-risk neighborhoods, or reducing the cost to build accessory dwelling units. In addition to proactive rental inspection programs or community land trust with the intention of preserving affordable housing, increasing funds to the City's tenant protection program and housing assistance contracts, or creating a property tax relief program. The strategy also called for the City to consider establishing a reparations committee that would research the possibility of reparations for historical racist policies, particularly because BIPOC communities have been disproportionately displaced. Those communities have been decimated - they're far less than half of what they initially were, and that percentage is still declining there. It is a challenge - they're being disproportionately displaced, and certainly reparations are being looked at in a variety of areas and is justified. We'll see how this does play out, but I'm excited. The plan excites me because it was quite detailed. We'll also link that in the show notes for people to read themselves and see the data behind the policies, the justifications behind them, the metrics that they'll continue to be tracking, and what their metrics for progress are. It'll be interesting to see, but we talk about affordability under a whole umbrella of a homelessness crisis, the housing crisis - but it is going to take addressing these discrete elements, each one by themselves, and a plan to address all of them. And I think Tacoma is certainly showing leadership so far in that area. Also want to talk this week about Mayor Bruce Harrell delivering his 2024 State of the City address. This is his third State of the City address since he has been elected, these addresses are annual. He touted some reductions in crime, which I'm sure everyone is happy to see. He talked about the CARE Department that they established, which has started with a small trial of a co-responder model during limited hours during the day. Hopefully we will see that expanded - certainly, to at least cover 24 hours throughout the day, and more than a handful of responders there - that would certainly be welcome. And I think polling continually shows that residents want to see this expanded and available at all times and in all areas. He also made news with basically a no new taxes pledge, which is very different than what he said before. He said that he'd be looking to implement progressive revenue. He convened a task force to look at different progressive revenue options because there's a $250 [million] budget shortfall that the City is going to have to deal with this year. And he basically said - Hey, we're not going to raise taxes. I'm not going to support any raising of taxes. Our challenges are much more fundamental to that. We need to basically look at every inch of the budget and re-examine what we're doing. This seems aligned with Council President Sara Nelson's pledge and op-ed where she said not only was she looking to not implement new taxes, but also cut taxes for business. This is also at a time when they're saying they're going to increase funding for public safety. So this seemingly indicates, particularly if they're looking at cutting taxes - but really either way, whether they do or don't cut any taxes - some pretty significant cuts for services and programs throughout the city that don't have to do with public safety. And this has a lot of people alarmed. How did you see the State of the City address? [00:32:31] Matt Driscoll: What I always enjoy about our conversations is I view all this stuff from afar, from Tacoma. I know what Tacoma and Pierce County budgets look like, and I know what Seattle and King County budgets look like -and there's part of me that looks at that, and if you guys can't figure it out with the resources you have already? But I also acknowledge that the challenges in a place like King County and Seattle are not insurmountable, but are sizable. And when you look at budgets and you look at the need for these services and potential of cuts, it's very real and it could be not good for a lot of people. From a broader perspective, I do think the dynamic and the shift that we've seen in Seattle is interesting - particularly as it relates to homeless response as an example of that, because there was a development where some funding appears like it's going to get taken back from the King County Regional Housing Authority. And I do think from the broad constituency that is now reflected in certainly the city council - and you could argue in Mayor Harrell's election as well - there's a dissatisfaction with the amount of money that we are spending towards trying to address some of these problems and the actual outcomes that we are seeing. And I think a lot of that is very natural because the positive outcomes of homeless response are difficult to track. People always want to break it down - we spent this much and we housed this many people. The reality is it's just not that simple. There's more human nature involved in that. But at the same time, I do believe - and I think Seattle in some ways can be the poster city for this - is it's understandable when people look at the more progressive side of homeless response and say - You're basically advocating that we can't sweep encampments, what we see around us is okay. But I think for most people, when they look around and the problems that they see and the suffering they see, it feels not okay. A lot of times, from one side of it, the solutions you get are really long-term. And because of the way these debates stick us into stupid corners, it starts sounding like you've got one side advocating for - Shut up about the encampment in front of your business, just deal with it. And I think that, at some extent, bleeds into the electorate where they start having pushback to that. And I feel like that's the tension point where Seattle's at - yes, it's a progressive city. Yes, people genuinely want humane responses to the homelessness crisis. They're not looking to criminalize people. They're not looking to make matters worse. They want to address the underlying root causes and the lack of housing and the lack of everything that we need. But at the same time, the status quo is unsustainable. I think you see that in some of this talk of re-evaluation of what we're doing, is it working? And those can be tricky evaluations because like I said, they're not always straightforward. And I think there's a lot of good work being done. And I think attempts to purely quantify it in hard data can be suspect. But at the same time, I don't think it's entirely wrong when people say we're spending a lot of money, we've been talking about this a lot, and all I see is it getting worse. And so that's a very rambly way of - my view on Seattle politics from 33 miles away. [00:35:33] Crystal Fincher: Well, there's a lot there to talk about. I absolutely agree that people see the problem getting worse and are frustrated by that. And hear the amounts of money that are being spent and are wondering if that's effective or not - because the amounts do sound big. With the budget in Seattle - Seattle is unique in the state, in the types of industry that it has and the types of companies that it has. And Seattle certainly gets a lot from those companies. But I also feel we absolutely need to talk about and acknowledge that those companies get a lot from Seattle. As of a few years ago, Amazon had more office space in the city of Seattle than any corporation in any other city in the country. So great - Amazon is hiring. But Amazon is also taxing our infrastructure. They're causing a lot of stress on the roads - people talk about potholes and trucks - and well, Amazon is impacting a lot of that. Amazon is a lot of the impacts on our transit network. Amazon is impacting just the use of our resources, right? And Amazon is benefiting from the great resources that the city of Seattle does provide. And again, this goes both ways. Certainly people benefit from being employed, but we can't say - And that's it, that's the end of the story. There's also the desire to have those corporations, some of the richest ones in the world in Seattle, pay their fair share. In our state - as we've talked about, our regressive state tax code without an income tax - I do think there's a very valid conversation, especially in a city that has as many high-earners and as many mega-corporations as the city of Seattle does, whether people are paying their fair share. And when you look at how residents in the city of Seattle vote, that answer continues to be - No, we don't feel like everyone's paying their fair share yet, and we need to move further in that direction. City government currently, both the council and the mayor, seems to feel differently. So that will be a continuing tension that carries on. We'll see what happens, but certainly looks to be a bumpy ride coming up. The last thing I wanted to talk about this week was the announcement that there are going to be no charges for the officer who killed a student, Jaahnavi Kandula, as he was driving 74 miles per hour down a city street - the speed limit is 25 miles per hour - responding to a call. This is the incident that a lot of people probably became familiar with because they heard another officer, who is also the vice-president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, mock her death - saying that her life didn't have value, basically laughing about it in just a really sick and sadistic way. No charges will be faced by that officer either. For the officer who was mocking, the rationale that the county prosecutor gave was that it's up to the Office of Police Accountability in Seattle to determine what, if any, discipline should be faced by that officer. And then for the officer who actually ran over this young woman, just saying there was not enough evidence to show that basically he was acting recklessly. And a lot of people's response to this has been if driving 74 miles per hour with no indication that it is in a different category of emergency, certainly - and really responding to a call that police are not needed at and that other cities don't have police responding to those calls, but that's a side issue - but hey, if that's not reckless, then what is? And so we're again in a situation where the law feels woefully inadequate. And we have the county prosecutor saying - Okay, but according to the law, this would be tough, if not impossible, to prosecute and get a guilty verdict. And people looking at the common sense of it and saying - But that just doesn't make sense. Can we drive 74 miles per hour on a city road and have no consequences for any actions, any harm that results from that? And so we're once again in a situation where our laws seemingly have endless loopholes or exceptions for people who work in public safety that don't seem to apply to the rest of us. How did you see this? [00:39:53] Matt Driscoll: Yeah, we're certainly tackling the big ones on today's show, aren't we? I mean, to me, and I realize that this is a difficult view to articulate fairly, and I'm going to try my best because people feel very passionate about it for a lot of reasons. But I think two things are true. One, creating the type of police force that we need does demand accountability. There has to be accountability. And I think right now, a lot of folks genuinely feel like there is no accountability. Attempts are made to hold police accountable for what many feel are reckless, or dangerous, or whatever behavior. The result we get is - well, it wasn't illegal, it was fine. And so accountability has to be part of that, but I don't think you can change police culture through accountability. I feel like what this situation represents is more the reflection of a police culture, particularly in the mocking comments. I don't know enough about the intricacies of this case to re-litigate it. I've read the same things you read - I know the speed, the lack of lights, I also know the prosecutor came back - the interviews with other people, that they heard it, that the student seemed distracted. I don't feel prepared to re-litigate that exact string of events. What I will say is when you're in an emergency or your family members in an emergency, you'd probably want the first responders driving 75 miles an hour - maybe not 75, but you get my point. I do think there has to be leeway in the law that gives first responders and cops the ability to do things that otherwise would be considered reckless. I think that needs to happen, but I think the problem we run into is that responsibility that we've given to a police force - the police force, their culture, doesn't reflect those values that are behind that. In a perfect world, if we had the police force we had, they would use these powers responsibly. But a lot of times what we see - and again, particularly in the commentary, that's what feels inhumane. The cop who was involved in the accident, it sounds like they were distraught at the scene - I don't know what's going on with them. But I know when people hear cops talking about this person's life in a way that assigns it no value, it feels like a reflection of police culture that feels above the law, and feels drunk on power, and feels reckless. So if this cop had been charged with this, I don't know what it would have changed. I do think accountability is necessary, but I think the bigger problem is the police culture we have. And maybe, best case scenario, we're in the process of slowly transforming our police forces to - hiring the type of people and weeding out the bad - I don't know if I have a lot of faith in that. But it's not going to happen overnight. My overarching point is - yes, you need accountability, but I don't think accountability can be your vehicle towards the change that we need, if that makes sense. [00:42:49] Crystal Fincher: It makes perfect sense. I completely agree with that. It's just a really, truly unfortunate situation. And this young woman deserved better - from everybody, at all points in time from this. And I hope we take this seriously as a community, both locally and statewide, and really do look at issues with culture and start to get to the root of that problem. And with that, I thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, February 23rd, 2024. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Shannon Cheng. Our insightful co-host today was Metro News columnist and opinion editor for The News Tribune in Tacoma, Matt Driscoll. You can find Matt on Twitter or X at @mattsdriscoll, with two L's at the end. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter at @HacksWonks. You can find me at @finchfrii, with two I's at the end, on all platforms. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. 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.

On this topical show, special guest host Shannon Cheng welcomes back Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget to discuss how the City of Seattle is rushing to bring three surveillance technologies to the streets of Seattle with minimal public input - a final public meeting happens next week on Tuesday, February 27th, 6pm! Amy and BJ fill Shannon in on Seattle's Surveillance Impact Report process and their concerns that three technologies - Acoustic Gunshot Location System (AGLS, aka ShotSpotter), Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV), and Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) - are being rushed through without providing the public transparency into potential privacy concerns, especially relating to equity and community impact, ahead of their potential adoption. After identifying the problems the City claims to be solving with these surveillance technologies, Amy and BJ discuss how each proposed technology, both individually and in combination, have been shown to be ineffective and at times harmful when used in other cities around the country. They then provide examples of solutions proven to address gun violence that show great promise but are chronically underfunded. Finally, Amy and BJ share a host of opportunities that concerned listeners have to make their voice heard, including at the final public meeting next week on Tuesday, February 27th, 6pm!  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the guest host, Shannon Cheng, on Twitter at @drbestturtle, find Amy Sundberg at @amysundberg, and find Solidarity Budget at https://www.seattlesolidaritybudget.com/.   Amy Sundberg Amy Sundberg is the publisher of Notes from the Emerald City, a weekly newsletter on Seattle politics and policy with a particular focus on public safety, police accountability, and the criminal legal system. She also writes about public safety for The Urbanist. She organizes with Seattle Solidarity Budget and People Power Washington. In addition, she writes science fiction and fantasy, with a new novel, TO TRAVEL THE STARS, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice set in space, available now. She is particularly fond of Seattle's parks, where she can often be found walking her little dog.   BJ Last BJ Last is a business analyst, and former small business owner, with two decades of budgeting experience across a wide range of industries. He organizes with the Solidarity Budget and Ballard Mutual Aid.   Resources Public Comment Period Opening for the Technology Assisted Crime Prevention Pilot Technologies | City of Seattle Information Technology   STOP Surveillance City - Solidarity Budget Call to Action   Stop Surveillance City Sign-On Letter | Solidarity Budget   “Harrell Plans Hasty Rollout of Massive Surveillance Expansion” by Amy Sundberg from The Urbanist   “Seattle's New Policing Panopticon” by Puget Sound Prisoner Support for Puget Sound Anarchists   The Surveillance Ordinance | City of Seattle   “Mayor Johnson to end ShotSpotter deal after summer, making good on key campaign promise” by Tom Schuba and Fran Spielman from The Chicago Sun-Times   Seattle Police Department 2023 Year-End Overview | Presentation to Seattle Public Safety Committee - February 13, 2024   Dangerous Surveillance #1 - Closed-Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) | Solidarity Budget   Dangerous Surveillance #2 - Acoustic Gunshot Location System (AGLS), aka ShotSpotter | Solidarity Budget   Dangerous Surveillance #3 - Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) | Solidarity Budget   “Cook County, Ill., officials say ICE using data brokers to purchase protected information” by Lindsay McKenzie from StateScoop   @DivestSPD on Twitter/X: SPD sociopath Micah Smith #7714 involuntarily committed people to score a date w/ an ambulance driver   “OPA Documents Show Current SPD Officer Misused Internal Police Data to Try to Get a Date, “Caused Anxiety and Concern”” by Carolyn Bick from South Seattle Emerald   Rainier Beach Action Coalition   King County Regional Office of Gun Violence Prevention   “Richmond is offering an important lesson on public safety at a critical time” by Justin Phillips from San Francisco Chronicle   “Want to reduce violence? Invest in place.” by Hanna Love from The Brookings Institution   Seattle Solidarity Budget on Instagram   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. Be sure to subscribe to the podcast to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review show and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, the most helpful thing you can do is leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. [00:00:52] Shannon Cheng: Hello, everybody. This is Shannon Cheng, producer of Hacks & Wonks. I am going to be your special guest host again today, and I'm super excited to be welcoming back to the show Amy Sundberg and BJ Last from Solidarity Budget. Some of you may recall that we did a show back in November about the Seattle City budget process. And we talked at that time about a proposed crime prevention pilot program that included technology such as ShotSpotter and CCTV. Well, today we're sort of doing this as an emergency show because we're trying to follow up on what's happening with the City's process in acquiring and implementing these technologies. So I just really wanted to have these experts back on to fill us in on what's going on and why it's important. So starting off, what is happening? What are these surveillance technologies that are being considered by the City? [00:01:41] Amy Sundberg: Good to be back. We're happy to be here talking about this. Yeah, so there are three different technologies that are currently being discussed and reviewed. The first one is Acoustic Gunshot Location Systems, or AGLS - or colloquially known as ShotSpotter. So I would say as we continue to have this conversation, you should consider those phrases interchangeably. I might say AGLS, I might say ShotSpotter, but it's the same technology in either case. The second one is CCTV, and the third one is a Real-Time Crime Center software. [00:02:13] Shannon Cheng: When we talked about budget back in November, I feel like there were only two at the time. And now we're talking about three - is that true? [00:02:19] BJ Last: Yes, that has come in. They're claiming magically that it's all going to work under the same dollar amount. Back when we talked, it was just the AGLS, the Acoustic Gunshot Location Service, and the closed circuit television cameras, the CCTV. So now it's the Real-Time Crime Center, the RTCC, which is largely just a massive compiler of data that goes and pulls in tech from ShotSpotter, from AGLS microphones, from City-owned CCTV cameras, from privately-owned CCTV cameras, and a bunch of AI algorithms - a real quick overview of what that one is. But yeah, we're now up to three techs as a suite. [00:02:57] Amy Sundberg: I should say, too, that the RTCC software also will integrate the license plate readers, which we just saw a massive expansion of at the end of last year. [00:03:05] Shannon Cheng: Right. Just to remind everybody where we were at at the end of 2023 - during that budget process, funding for this surveillance technology was allocated, and I believe it was $1.8 million total. And of that, $1.5 million was supposed to be for a pilot project for this Acoustic Gunshot Locator System plus the CCTV - and there was no Real-Time Crime Center at the time. And then the other $300,000 was for this expansion of Automatic License Plate Readers that Amy just mentioned. So where are we now with these three surveillance technologies? [00:03:46] Amy Sundberg: Well, we are in the middle of a convoluted process that BJ and I and others have been spending a lot of time trying to understand and to help other people understand. So it's called a Surveillance Impact Review, which all surveillance technologies that are going to be used in the City of Seattle now have to go through this review process because of an ordinance that was passed. [00:04:09] BJ Last: And do you want to give a shout out to who was the primary sponsor of this ordinance? It is our current mayor, Bruce Harrell - just a fun one to know, given with how this process is unfolding. [00:04:21] Amy Sundberg: I actually didn't know that, and that is kind of ironic - so thank you for sharing. So this process has to be done for any technology that is deemed to be surveillance technology, which all three of these technologies have been deemed. And it is a review process that has many steps. We have the draft reports available now, which I believe were filled out by SPD and maybe also the executive's office. And right now we're in the stage where we are able to give public comment. So there has to be at least one public hearing for this report - they are having two public hearings. One of them already happened, and the other one is upcoming on February 27th at 6 p.m. at Bitter Lake Community Center and online, of course. [00:05:14] BJ Last: And I will say this process is being exceptionally, I'd say, rushed and short. So they started taking public comment on February 5th. They stop taking public comment on February 29th. So y'all can do the math - that's well less than 30 days that people actually get to go and provide feedback on this. And as Amy mentioned, there will be a grand total of two public hearings on this. So we're looking at literally less than a hearing per technology being done - three technologies, but only two total hearings. And as a comparison of how this works - Dayton, Ohio, an area I think a lot of people in Seattle would probably look down as like red state, flyover country - when they were looking at adopting just one of these technologies, they had 13 public hearings versus nominally progressive Seattle doing its grand total of two for three technologies. [00:06:05] Shannon Cheng: Okay, so at the end of last year, the City allocated the money for these technologies. Now they're going through this process. As you said, it's this Surveillance Ordinance - so that took effect in November of 2018. It was designed to provide greater transparency when deciding whether the City was going to adopt any technology that is surveillance, as Amy said. And just to be clear, this is not just restricted to the Seattle Police Department wanting to implement surveillance technologies. When I was looking back at some of the past technologies that had to go through this process, SDOT had to do this for some cameras they had for traffic detection to help streets moving smoothly. So this is just - whenever we're implementing something that is going to be observing, it's so that the public and the city council can understand - what are the impacts and are there any concerns that we need to know about before we just roll all this stuff out onto our streets. So that's where we're at. And in the past, I noticed it took them maybe 6-7 months to go through this process. But as you're describing it, BJ, it sounds like it could be less than a month that they're trying to do everything right now. [00:07:16] BJ Last: Correct. They're trying to limit all the public input to less than one month just to go push it through. You did a great job summarizing the Surveillance Ordinance, Shannon. It really was designed so the people of Seattle get to meaningfully - A) find out what surveillance they're potentially going to be impacted to, and B) get a chance to evaluate it so that we don't end up - Oh wow, there's this new surveillance because five people fell for a sales pitch. That people of the city actually got a chance to research the thing, find out what they were dealing with, and that's really hard to say that's happening when you're trying to do three different technologies in less than 30 days. [00:07:50] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, that's a lot of information. I admit I've been having trouble wrapping my head around everything. So it sounds like we're already past the point of one of the public meetings having happened. We're recording this show Thursday, February 15th. The first one happened on Monday, February 12th. So what was that public meeting like? Did they provide in-depth information about the impacts that these technologies might have? And how did people react? [00:08:17] Amy Sundberg: No, I wouldn't say that. About half of the meeting was a presentation about the technologies, but it was more about why they're going to adopt them - what they think will be helpful about the technologies. They didn't really go over any of the negative impacts that we are so worried about. And then there was a chance for public comment. I would say there was about 15 or 16 people who wanted to give comment at this first meeting, which - people didn't have a lot of advance notice. And like you said, it is three different technologies - some of which people are hearing about for the very first time - and they are technical. It does take some time to learn even what they are and how they work and why we should maybe be worried. So 15 or 16, given that, I feel like was higher than anticipated. And what I heard over and over again is people saying - This is too rushed. We need to slow down. We have concerns. We are against this surveillance technology. And also this is too fast, and this process is not serving the people of Seattle well. I would say there was maybe one comment that wasn't that. It was very uniform, in terms of people being very concerned about this. And it was at noon on a Monday, so people are taking their lunch break or time off in the middle of a workday - that's how worried they are, right? I am happy that the second public meeting is in the evening to give a different demographic of folks the chance to come out and give comment. But I still think two one-hour sessions is not sufficient. I will also say that there are other worrisome things about this process. For example, there is a Surveillance Advisory Working Group. And how they plug into this process is once everything else is kind of done, they are supposed to review these reports. And then they complete a civil liberties and privacy assessment, which for a surveillance technology, you can see how crucial that would be. And right now, that group has one confirmed sitting member. So they can't meet quorum, right? And I know that there are some other folks that are lined up, but they do need to be confirmed in the committee first. And again, this is being very rushed - the mayor's office gets to appoint some and then the council gets to appoint some - the timing of it all makes me feel uncomfortable, to be frank. That this is going to be rushed right before these three technologies are going to be discussed - who is being chosen and why? I don't know the answers to that, but these are questions that we're going to have to ask as those appointees come on board. And then they're going to be brand new, and right away have to do this review. Again, a very rushed process. And then perhaps my - all these things are very concerning, but one of my biggest concerns is the Racial Equity Toolkit component of this process. So all of these Surveillance Impact Reports have to have a Racial Equity Toolkit as part of the process. And it's been very unclear as to how - is the Racial Equity Toolkit a concurrent process? Is it a separate process? What is the timeline? What kind of outreach is going to happen? How are they reaching out to the impacted groups? Are they making sure to do so in a way that is best for those groups and to do it in a variety of different ways, et cetera, et cetera? There's a lot of open questions that I have not been able to get answers to thus far. I've been hearing that possibly these public hearings that we're having for the Surveillance Impact Report might be kind of rolled into the Racial Equity Toolkit, which seems inappropriate to me, frankly, for technologies that have such potential for grave misuse and negative impact. As well, we do not yet know exactly where this technology is going to be deployed. We've been told several locations - Aurora Avenue North, Belltown, and the Downtown commercial core - that's what we were told last year. Then a couple weeks ago, they added Chinatown International District - apparently at the last minute, and they don't know where. They've said that it's probably not going to be all of these places, but wherever they're going to deploy this technology, they need to do - in my opinion - a separate RET, Racial Equity Toolkit, because each neighborhood is going to have different dynamics, different demographics, different things going on, different groups that need to be consulted. And I haven't heard about any individual outreach. So it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I have been actively asking and I have not been able to find anything out that this is actually happening. As well, you're going to want to look at reports, studies for racial impacts, potentially. Again, I'm not seeing those being cited in the draft report. So it seems like a very slapdash, non-serious job that is being done. And it doesn't seem like the communications that have been sent out to the public don't seem to come from an administration that's serious about equity and social justice. And I'm very concerned, frankly, that I am even having trouble getting my questions answered. [00:13:38] BJ Last: Also, that's a great point on the four different areas that are up for consideration, because there are four areas - again, two public comment periods. Last one that's open is up in Bitter Lake - that is not exactly close to Chinatown International District, that is not close to Belltown, that's not really close to Downtown core. So three of the four areas that could potentially get this will have never even had a public hearing in their area. Fortunately, people can join that remotely, but that's also not even an option for everyone. So they've said this might go out in one of four areas. They're not even trying to do outreach in each of those areas, which is - as Amy said, seems like a problem, and that's something they're not really taking seriously. Same with when they wrote up the Surveillance Impact Reports - there's a section of what studies have they looked at for each technology. And for two of the reports, those are entirely blank. And for one of them, for CCTV, they referenced one study that actually found this has no impact on violent crime. So this seems very slapdash, just trying to push it through, not trying to get the community involved. [00:14:41] Amy Sundberg: We also really expected to see them talking to other cities. None of these technologies are particularly new. A lot of cities have used these technologies, have deployed them in various combinations. I will say also, it is not new to put all three of these technologies together in one place. Chicago, for example, does it - they've been doing it for a while now. And we're seeing a lot of cities backtracking - having had a contract for ShotSpotter or similar technology, and then discontinuing that contract. And just this week, we got the news that Chicago is going to be discontinuing their very large contract for ShotSpotter by fall at the latest. And it seems that it would make sense for a city who is considering deploying this technology to talk to other cities about the experience that they have had, especially if it seems like maybe they've had kind of a negative or mixed experience. [00:15:37] Shannon Cheng: So what I'm hearing from the two of you is that we're on the brink of potentially acquiring or implementing these technologies, which we have some concerns about, that the product of this Surveillance Impact Report process is to provide the city council a holistic view of what these technologies are meant to do, whether they work, what kind of drawbacks they might have. And unfortunately, it sounds like the process that they're going through, there's just a lot of things wrong with it - the speed at which it's going, the incompleteness of their filling out the draft report, the not making sure that the last group who is going to review the report before it goes in its final form to city council even has people on it. It just makes you wonder - it's not like they didn't know this was coming. I remember when we spoke last November - BJ, you pointed out they had been trying to get ShotSpotter since the year before. They had an entire year. Now they've had two years to start planning, filling out this report, getting all these ducks in a row. And it just seems like we're now here at the last minute and there's some kind of false sense of urgency being put on the city council - who is also brand new to all of this as well - to just accept things that are going to have ramifications for everybody who lives, works, or plays in Seattle for many, many years to come. So I feel worried listening to the two of you talk. So that's just the process. What about the technologies themselves? When we hear the word "surveillance," my concerns are my privacy rights - when I just go about my daily life, I don't necessarily want to feel like I am being monitored and all the details of that are being kept somewhere. When people feel like they are being surveilled, there can be a chilling effect on just how they behave - whether that's in public, or where they go, or who they associate with, or what they say. We're trying to live, theoretically, in a vibrant community with diversity in it. And I think that surveillance does have this effect that homogenizes - when people try to play to the camera and make sure that they're not going to get singled out for whatever that is being looked for. And then there's a lot of discrimination when it comes to surveillance - just the way that it's implemented - it's just got issues where the system's just never perfect at understanding what it's seeing. And so unfortunately, biases trickle through. So just generally, that's why surveillance is bad. And so that's why it's really important and why there's supposedly this process where before we undertake letting more of it into our lives, we want to understand what are the issues with it. So here we are - we're in the City of Seattle, we're thinking about implementing these three technologies. Again, that would be the Acoustic Gunshot Location System, the CCTV cameras, and the Real-Time Crime Center. What problem does the City claim that we're trying to solve with these technologies? And does it seem like that they will? [00:18:53] BJ Last: So the claim is that this is specifically for gun crime - which is always the claim that these technologies and a lot of other surveillance technologies use as an excuse - because that is a very real and very, very serious problem. And the thing is, they know it absolutely doesn't work - their technologies don't actually work to reduce that. And that's why you see what their pitch is keeps changing - from, Oh, this is going to prevent or reduce crime, to, Okay, this will help gather evidence for after crime has occurred, to, Maybe this will help the community know to improve the emotional health of kids, to, Maybe this will get people to medical treatment faster. It's just sort of as studies come out showing one doesn't work, they just keep moving the goalposts and moving the pitch. That's why even the technology suite keeps changing. From it's just, Oh you need CCTV - that's gonna solve it - make us a crime-free world, to, Oh, you need Acoustic Gunshot Location, AGLS. Oh no, you need the two of them combined. Oh no, you need the two of them plus RTCC, the Real-Time Crime Center, and all of its algorithms. It just keeps going because it absolutely does not work on this. And this is actually even really reflected in how the City has kept trying to pitch these things. This right now is called the crime prevention pilot - emphasis on the word "prevention." So when they tried to get it back in the 2023 budget, an actual quote from Mayor Bruce Harrell - "Cities across the country have used this as an evidence gathering tool, not a violence prevention tool." So 2023, they're - Nope, no prevention. 2024 budget, they're back to calling it prevention. They're just constantly trying to change what it is. So nominally, it is for gun violence, but we've seen time and again that it does not work for that. Studies that you look at - like Chicago, they found that it's missed hundreds of gunshots in an actual year, while at the same time having an incredibly high false positive rate, with 9 out of 10 alerts being no evidence of any gun crime occurred. CCTV - again, the study that the city mentioned, found that it has absolutely no impact on violent crime rates or clearance. So what it's supposedly for, it absolutely doesn't work and does a whole host of harm in the meantime. [00:21:02] Amy Sundberg: Another way that it's being pitched is to deal with SPD's unprecedented staffing shortages - that's a quote from the report. So conveniently this week, we just had the new numbers released for crime in Seattle in 2023. In terms of staffing for SPD - in 2023, they lost 36 more officers than they were able to hire in the year. So they're a net negative 36 - so it went down - they have less staffing now than they did before. And yet in 2023, they had a 9% reduction in overall crime and a 6% reduction in violent crime. Now, I don't want to be gaming these statistics - what is very serious is that there was a 23% increase in homicide. And obviously, we don't want to see that. But the question is, does staffing actually impact these numbers? Is that the thing that does it? And so in that case, does alleviating this staffing issue with these techs - is that going to have any impact on the numbers? And the studies, in general, say no - with CCTV, it would maybe have an impact on car theft or maybe some types of property crime. But property crime actually went down 10% in 2023 already. The numbers don't really line up either in terms of this unprecedented staffing and needing this technology. And at a certain point, I think you have to do a cost-benefit analysis of what do you expect to potentially gain from adopting a technology versus what are the harms that might happen. And so far, this conversation has been shifting the goalposts a lot on what we hope to gain and ignoring all of the potential and documented in other cities harm that could be caused. And I feel like that's a really unfortunate way for this conversation to be framed. [00:22:53] BJ Last: And before getting into some of the harms, I want to - you mentioned, Amy, that they're using the - what they have been trying to claim since 2019 is a massive police staffing shortage. That is just a complete nonsensical argument for these. Acoustic gunshot Location Services - it's a false call generating machine. I mentioned Chicago found a 90% false positive rate. Atlanta found a 97% false positive rate. That's one of the reasons why both of those cities have stopped using Acoustic Gunshot Location Services. Other cities have as well, with police coming out and saying - This is a massive strain on our resources, because we're constantly getting these alerts that are coming through as, Oh, it's a shots fired incident. We're dispatching cops and they get there and they're like - there's absolutely nothing around. So the claim that this somehow would help for staffing levels is absolutely absurd, when again - AGLS just generates false positives, that's what it does. [00:23:45] Amy Sundberg: Another thing that they're saying is that this would help get more justice for victims and victims' families of gun violence - and that also doesn't seem to be the case. There was a new review that just came out in the last couple of weeks by Cook County state attorney's office in Illinois that found that - they're using ShotSpotter. They found it has, "a minimal effect on prosecuting gun violence cases." And, "ShotSpotter is not making a significant impact on shooting incidents, with only 1% of shooting incidences ending in a ShotSpotter arrest." And then they also said - Also, it's really expensive. - so that's a thing, too. And then I spoke to an expert at the MacArthur Justice Center - attorney named Jonathan Manes - and he says that ShotSpotter doesn't make police more efficient or relieve staffing shortages. He says - Actually, it's the opposite. It vastly increases the number of police deployments in response to supposed gunfire - these false alerts that BJ was talking about - but with no corresponding increase in gun violence arrests or other interventions. And then he went on to tell me that it actually increases response times to 911 calls as a result of flooding the system. [00:24:56] BJ Last: And it isn't just Acoustic Gunshot Location Systems that don't work on this. Again, with CCTV as well - there was a study from Dallas looking into this, and it found it didn't have any impact on clearance rates for violent crime. There was no benefit from actually going and putting out a bunch of CCTV cameras. And this actually corresponds with a lot of the studies done in London that have also shown the same thing - when they put cameras out through the city, they don't see that. The British Home Office looked into 14 different CCTV ones and found that they didn't reduce crime, make people feel any safer. So it's not just acoustic gunshot location, but even CCTV doesn't work, which I feel like for some people - it feels almost counterintuitive on that because we see so much crime dramas and all of - Oh, cameras solve everything - often with someone saying the word "enhance" multiple times and you get perfect evidence that never would have existed otherwise. And that's just not borne out by reality, they just do not do that. [00:25:54] Amy Sundberg: I also just wanted to mention - this is called a pilot project, so it is not necessarily going to have a huge deployment right from the start. But the reason it's still really important to have this public conversation now, as opposed to later, is that this Surveillance Impact Review is happening now. This is our chance to discuss it. And once it passes this review, it won't go through another review if they decide they massively want to expand. So this opens the door to any future expansion that the City might decide that they want to do. And we've seen a recent example with the license plate readers, which did go through a surveillance review process in the past. They had it deployed on only a few SPD patrol vehicles, and now they're going to be on every single patrol vehicle that SPD owns. And that took very little effort. It received very little coverage in the media. So this is our one opportunity to most effectively push back against the broader use of these technologies, even though right now it's just being discussed as a pilot. [00:26:59] Shannon Cheng: So during budget season, as we discussed before, they only talked about those first two - the Automatic Gunshot Locator System and the CCTV - but now they're adding on this Real-Time Crime Center. This is the one that I feel the least familiar with, but it also sounds potentially very insidious. And now they're trying to sell this as a package of these three together, claiming that - maybe these individually don't work that well on their own, but somehow magically, if we combine them together, it's going to completely be a Transformer robot or something and be able to save the world. So my understanding with this Real-Time Crime Center - and this ties into this expansion of Automatic License Plate Readers you were just talking about, Amy - is that it's just trying to basically aggregate a bunch of data from different sources that the police department has and then give this one view or something to some observer to call the shots about what's happening or what's not happening. What really worried me when I was reading about it is that it takes in these sources that maybe the City has deployed around, but it also offers this opportunity for private cameras to be incorporated. So people can opt-in to let their own - whether they have a Ring doorbell camera, that type of thing, or just a security camera at their business or their home - and they can allow, basically, law enforcement have access to that without their neighbors necessarily knowing or people coming into their store. And that doesn't go through a process on its own at all and wouldn't be subject to maybe public disclosure requests to know where the location of those cameras were or where they're being pointed. So what more can you tell me about RTCC? Because I just - I'm worried. [00:28:56] Amy Sundberg: I think you should be worried. Yeah, it is worrisome. And the more I read about it, the more worried I become. You always hope in these situations that you start out being worried and then those worries are ameliorated through gaining more knowledge. But in this case, it is the opposite. I think the ability to plug in all these private cameras into the system is a big issue. The amount of data that is going to be collected - I don't think that can be understated - it's a massive amount of data because it's taking in all the data from all these other surveillance technologies, both the already existing ones like license plate readers and these potential new ones. And then all of these private cameras, which can keep expanding over time without oversight because they're privately owned cameras. So the public doesn't really get to weigh in on those private cameras. They can be pointed anywhere - you are correct. And the City has no control over where the private cameras are pointed. But that data still is then brought back to the software and collated and run through algorithms and available for people to have access to. So that is definitely worrisome. [00:30:03] BJ Last: Yeah, the fact that the City doesn't control where the cameras go - since they now allow the private ones in there - is a huge thing. You may think - Hey, the City wouldn't point a camera at, oh, say, the parking lot of Planned Parenthood or a healthcare facility, because Seattle wants to be a sanctuary city for people seeking abortion healthcare or people seeking transgender healthcare. Hey, a private individual can. The Denny Blaine Beach - we just had that, where someone tried giving the city $550k to put in a playground there to effectively drive a queer beach - to disband it. Hey, they wouldn't have to give the City $550k, they could just point a camera there. So any place, if you were like - Oh, well, the City wouldn't do that because for whatever reason - they wouldn't target any groups. Guess what? Any private individual can go and point a camera wherever they want, and now that's getting fed in. And that is now data that does not need a warrant to be accessed. And so any potentially marginalized group anywhere that Seattle is trying to be a sanctuary city for is completely at-risk off of this. So just all of that is now in play as these private cameras roll out. And beyond private cameras, RTCC, the Real-Time Crime Centers, they're also another Software As A Service, like the Acoustic Gunshot Location. And part of that is they openly brag about how they are constantly rolling out new algorithms as part of your subscription package - A) that really seems like that violates the Surveillance Ordinance because those aren't going up and getting public review as a part of that, so now that can't happen. And then what even are the ones that they're doing? So some of the ones that groups are trying to do is the theory of detecting whether or not someone has a gun on them by using cameras and looking at the way they walk, which unsurprisingly is incredibly inaccurate - as inaccurate as that actually even sounds, just from me trying to describe it. So you now have the potential of - that's now part of the RTCC. So SPD is now going to potentially roll up because - Hey, the camera algorithm thought you had a sort of funny walk, so guess what? The cops are now getting called as if you're someone carrying a gun on you. That is really - like that's so absurd, it doesn't sound like it should be accurate, but that is actually what this is. [00:32:11] Amy Sundberg: I have a couple of other concerns as well - going back to the privately-owned cameras for just a moment. Because they're privately owned, what that means is it makes it more complicated and confusing in terms of restrictions that normally govern the police. So, for example, they wouldn't necessarily have to get a warrant for footage that they normally would be required to get a warrant for. And there's settings that the private users can do, but it's confusing. I don't think your layperson is necessarily going to know what they're opting into. I've spent the last two weeks immersing myself in information about this, and I still find aspects of it confusing. And your average person doesn't have two weeks to do that, you know? So it kind of disrupts the current checks and balances we have around surveillance and police power, which I find very concerning. And then in terms of undermining Seattle's status as a sanctuary city, one of the things that is key to understand about this software is - the privacy of the data is not guaranteed. Once it's in that Real-Time Crime Center software, there's a lot of interagency exchange. So SPD might originally get the data. And then it could be exchanged with another law enforcement department somewhere else. And they could exchange it with another law enforcement department somewhere else. And then it could end up with ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], as one example. I asked some experts - because we do have an ordinance here in Seattle that requires that when ICE makes a request, that it be referred to Mayor's Office Legal Counsel when they ask SPD for something. I was like - Well, would that help? But probably not, because of what I just stated - because it can pass from agency to agency to agency. So it's some fourth agency that's giving it to ICE - it's not SPD, so there's no chance to have that interruption there. As well, there are documented cases when a police officer will just give the data to ICE and they'll just - whatever policies are in place, they'll just kind of conveniently ignore that and hand over the data. So the idea really is that once this data is being collected and being collated, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to firewall it, protect it, make sure it stays in a limited space at all. And that has implications, as we've said, to undocumented people. It has implications for people who are seeking abortion - especially from other states where abortion is no longer legal. But we might eventually live in a world where abortion is no longer legal here in Washington state, and then it would apply to anybody seeking an abortion. It applies to all sorts of cases where privacy is really crucial, and not because anyone is committing gun violence - that's not why. [00:35:08] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, that point about who does get access to the data that's collected. It's one thing to have all these things collecting the data, but if it isn't well-protected or there isn't a good system to limit or manage who has access to it, that's very concerning. And as you said, it impacts vulnerable communities first, but ultimately it impacts all of us. When marginalized communities feel like they're being targeted, they tend to go into the shadows and the margins - and that just is not good for anybody. Right after the Muslim Ban, we worked for - trying to make sure that local law enforcement wasn't cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. And one of the arguments was that if undocumented folks can't trust local law enforcement to not turn them in for deportation - if they're a witness to a crime or something like that - they're not going to want to engage and help the community solve these ills. They're just going to go into hiding. And that's just bad for all of us in general. So it's really worrying. And then also, in addition to these unknown other people who have access to the data, Seattle Police Department officers themselves, in theory, might have access to that data. And we have some documented cases, even recently, where they have abused their access to data. Is that correct? [00:36:25] BJ Last: Yeah, yeah - absolutely. That is correct. We have had cases of SPD officers abusing access to data. One of the most famous ones was an officer effectively stalking a ambulance driver, an EMS person, and even having people involuntarily committed just to get to see that EMS person. By the way, they are still on the force. So, you know, in terms of how well our accountability system supposedly works. [00:36:50] Shannon Cheng: Wait, what? Because they wanted a date with the EMS person or something? [00:36:55] BJ Last: Because they wanted a date with them - that they were going and doing that. [00:36:59] Shannon Cheng: Wow. [00:37:01] Amy Sundberg: I would also just chime in and say we're talking about these really harmful impacts to our most vulnerable residents, our most marginalized residents. And I would say that is true across all three of these technologies, and it's documented. In terms of just ShotSpotter - increases pat downs, frisks, increases policing in the more marginalized communities, which tends to be where the microphone arrays are located in a city. And CCTV, it's been shown that people of color are more likely to be surveilled than other folks, so there is a disparate impact. So this is a throughpoint between all three of these technologies in terms of some of my gravest concerns - because again, these are not new technologies, so we've already seen how they've operated in the real world. [00:37:52] BJ Last: Yeah, and just to go on that, a couple of real concrete examples on each of these technologies - of them causing massive amounts of harm and abuse. In Washington, D.C., there was a case of a very high-ranking police officer - believe he was a lieutenant offhand - blackmailing gay men using CCTV footage. UK, case of a CCTV operator - got fired because he kept pointing cameras into a lady's apartment - I'm sorry, a flat, because it was in the UK. Very real risks of harm. Acoustic Gunshot Location - we know Adam Toledo, a 13-year-old that was chased and shot while unarmed by Chicago Police Department because they were responding to a ShotSpotter alert. Just last month in January in Chicago - cops responding to what was listed as a ShotSpotter alert opened fire on an unarmed man that they saw because one of them heard a loud noise when he stepped out of a car. Also out of Chicago - we have seen police officers literally run over gunshot victims because they were responding to ShotSpotter alerts. These are all things of really real actual harm that these technologies have caused. [00:38:57] Amy Sundberg: In addition, once we start talking about algorithms - which is what a lot of these technologies use - the algorithms tend to have racial bias baked into them because they're trained on datasets, and their datasets are informed by the racial bias that created them. So you end up in this loop where people are - Oh, well, the algorithms will solve racial bias. No, that is not true - because the data they're trained on has racial bias in it. So you see it instead perpetuated and potentially strengthened. [00:39:27] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, garbage in, garbage out. In my past life, I hung out with a lot of people who were very technology-focused, and I can see this - Oh, we'll just add all these things together and it's going to work. The problem is that they're trying to model the real world based on these just very concrete assumptions about what cause and effect are, when we know the real world is actually very nuanced and requires a lot of context to interpret. And the problem is with these surveillance things is you're getting a very narrow view of different aspects of the world. So, for example, for the Acoustic Gunshot Locator, you're just getting random sounds. And then okay, maybe now you're trying to match it up with video feed to try to figure it out. And then now you're adding in this algorithm that's going to compile it all together. But the thing is, we're talking about real people's lives at stake - that they're basically experimenting on. This is a testbed for unproven models with real world consequences, and when we're talking about the actual people who live in our city, that if they make a mistake - somebody gets run over or somebody gets shot. Because we've seen that there's this worldview that law enforcement has where they see a lot of things as a threat or they just feel like there's a lot of danger out there when that may not be the case. There's a difference between being uncomfortable and unsafe. And I don't know that these surveillance technologies are really going to help with determining between being uncomfortable or unsafe. In some ways, surveillance technology is allowing them to abstract from the real situation - when you look at things through the camera, you're like, Oh, well, it's a fancy technological solution, so it's got to be right. But you can't just assume that what the camera sees is the truth. [00:41:19] BJ Last: Yeah, and you talked about how these are unknown, haven't been studied - guess what? Stuff that actually reduces violent crime has been studied - this isn't something that we don't know - there are very real solutions on this, which is the much cooler thing. And I'm really happy that we're now transitioning into this, but most of them largely boil down to actually invest in community. Instead of giving the money to a tech company somewhere, invest in the actual communities themselves on that. There are some examples of that - the Rainier Beach Action Coalition - their program of youth violence interrupters, which are people in the community that are out there activating neighborhood street corners, they've been shown to reduce violence by 33%. In terms of that difference on actual invest in community on this - so for that $1.5 million, they could go and actually give 168 young people jobs for two years. So invest in community - it is proven, what Rainier Beach Action Coalition does. You can invest in community, give 168 people jobs, and you reduce violence. Or give the money to a couple big tech companies - that's just one of the things. [00:42:20] Amy Sundberg: We also have this work done in King County through Public Health and the new Office of Gun Violence Prevention. And I sat in on their meeting, giving their briefing to the new council. And for example, they give out free firearm lock boxes. And basically it means that you have a safe place to store your gun - because a lot of times kids get the guns because they're just laying around in a closet or a drawer or whatever. But if you have them locked up, then the kid can't get to the gun and suddenly everybody's safer. So they hand out those for free, which is very effective. They also had a gun buyback that they hosted where people could go and they got gift cards. And apparently it was so well attended last year that they ran out of gift cards before the end of the event. So there is actually an appetite in this community for these sorts of programs. It's more a question, I think, of funding than anything else. Which instead - what we're going to throw $1.5 million away on this technology that we're pretty sure isn't going to work, when we have these things that community wants and that we know will help. And that office also coordinates with the Peacekeepers Collective and their gun violence prevention programs as well. So there is a lot of stuff happening on a local level. And then as well, there's Guaranteed Basic Income, which I always have to give a shout-out to. But the reason I want to shout it out, and one of the reasons I'm so excited about it, is because it has been shown in studies to reduce firearm violence specifically. And also addresses inequality - and what we know, again, from other studies, is that inequality predicts homicide rates better than any other variable. So the more unequal your society is, or your city is, the more likely homicide rates are to go up. So if you address that and give people their basic needs - give them what they need - then that number tends to go back down. And maybe not the sexiest idea ever, but it works. And that's what's important. We've seen a violence interruption program in Richmond, California - which I love to pieces because it's been going on for a long time - it has hugely positive results for that community. And it actually combines the idea of a basic income with other services like mentoring for young people that live in Richmond, California. And like I said, they saw a huge reduction in violence. So you can get creative in terms of how you combine these different elements, but all of them have studies backing them up that show that they're effective in the real world. [00:44:55] BJ Last: Yeah, and that's a phenomenal point, Amy - that it's not even community investments that are specifically linked to this, or specifically targeting - it's not just doing things like cure violence model or gun violence interruption things. Like you mentioned GBI, restoring vacant land - so pretty much making things into little parks, putting out grass and a few trees - that's shown to go and reduce violent crime, including gun crime. Upping the number of nonprofits in the community, mental health treatment facility options - even things like that that aren't specifically directed or don't in their name say, Hey, our mission statement is directly addressing this - these community investments, as Amy said, you reduce inequality, you reduce crime, because that is the biggest thing connecting them. So doing that - reducing inequality, invest in community will actually reduce crime and cut down on gun violence. Whereas giving money again to these three tech companies, that doesn't do that. [00:45:48] Amy Sundberg: I also am really excited about the idea of creative placemaking, as a creative artist myself. That, again, has been shown to reduce gunshot violence - it's putting up art installations and cool, funky, creative plays and concerts. Basically, we have this opportunity to invest in making Seattle a more fun and vibrant and exciting place to be. And that will also reduce gun violence. It's one of these win-win, right? Same with some of these violence prevention programs - you're investing in community and you get the reduction in gun violence at the same time - it's another win-win. As opposed to the surveillance tech, which isn't going to be effective and it has all of these different harms, so it's kind of more of a lose-lose. And when you have win-wins and you get to pick between a win-win and a lose-lose, the fact that we're having this big debate and wanting to go with the lose-lose is a little bit baffling. [00:46:49] Shannon Cheng: And the lose-lose is super expensive - we're talking about $1.5 million now. But my understanding is these companies - they're for-profit companies. So they obviously have business models which range from the subscription services, to just trying to expand their footprint of deployment, to selling their database that they're collecting all this information from us from to other parties who we may not have any control over. It boggles the mind. [00:47:16] BJ Last: It is massively expensive. For just one of these technologies, Acoustic Gunshot Location, Chicago has spent over $50 million over six years. And again, that's just one of these technologies. Seattle wants three. And not to be - Oh, we should be penny pinching to try to reduce gun violence by going with investments like restoring vacant land, placemaking, cure violence models. We shouldn't be doing them because they're cheaper, but A) they work and you can do so much more as you go and invest in that. It goes a lot further, the number of investments you can make. And all of these investments are ones that actually do go and - yeah, make your city cool. Make it a better place, like Amy said, with the creative placemaking, they're restoring vacant land, they cut down on violence, and you can do a heck of a lot more of it than you can if you go for this surveillance tech. [00:48:06] Amy Sundberg: While actually involving community - the people that live here - and giving them the resources and giving them more agency. [00:48:13] Shannon Cheng: Yeah, wow. Well, here on Hacks & Wonks, we interviewed a lot of the City Council candidates - many who are seated now - and I remember hearing a lot from them about really needing to audit the budget and making sure that the money being spent is being used effectively. And so I hope they hear this - pick the win-wins, not the lose-loses. So we're partway through this messy process, which seems like it's being rushed. For our listeners who have listened to this and they have concerns, what can they do about it? [00:48:42] Amy Sundberg: They can do so much. Now is the time. There is a lot that can be done right now. And I really encourage people to get involved in whatever way feels best for them, because there are several options. I'd say the top option is to attend that second public hearing, which again is on Tuesday, February 27th at 6 p.m. - and it's both, there's a virtual option and it's at Bitter Lake Community Center. So I really, really encourage people to go, to give public comment, to support your community members who are in this fight with you. There also are forms online for each of the three technologies, which you can fill out - and you do have to fill it out three times, which I understand is not ideal, but I think, again, it is part of trying to make this process less accessible to community. So if you can stomach it, I say - let's show them that it's not working by filling out those forms. You can call and email your councilmembers because they're ultimately the ones that get the final say - they're going to have the final vote on whether or not these surveillance technologies are deployed. Start talking to them now - it's not too early, it is definitely not too early. Whatever you can do, if they're going to be talking in your community, if they're having a town hall - go talk to them there - the more, the better, frankly. You can write a letter to the editor at The Seattle Times. And again, those are shorter - those aren't op-eds - they're much shorter and easier to do. I encourage you to do that. And Solidarity Budget has put together a letter objecting both to the use of these technologies in our communities and also objecting to this rushed and sloppy process, which you can sign on to. We'll put a link in the show notes for that. You can sign on as a group or an organization, or you can also sign on as an individual. And I really encourage you to do that because it shows that we as a community are standing together. [00:50:38] BJ Last: And follow Solidarity Budget - we will have more updates as this goes. If there are any more educational items that come up or additional ways to give input, we will definitely be sending that out through those channels. As Amy said, there's that hearing coming up on the 27th - you can do public comment. Or you can do comment forms online anytime until the 29th. And talk to your friends about this. This has not been something that has been widely covered - which, by the way, thank you so much, Shannon and Hacks & Wonks, for covering this, because it really hasn't gotten much coverage in local media that there are these three big surveillance techs coming. So there's a chance your friends, co-workers, whoever else you chat with doesn't even know about this. So let them know as well. [00:51:21] Amy Sundberg: I really think that increasing surveillance to this level - this does represent a massive expansion of surveillance in Seattle, and I really don't want to understate that at all - it's a huge expansion. And I really think it's deserving of a really robust public conversation about what we want for our city and what direction we want our city to go into. And I don't want to get into national politics, but you have to think about the national political climate and the ramifications that are coming down the road, too. When you're thinking about increasing surveillance to this level - not only what is that going to enable us to do in June or July when it's first implemented, but what is it going to mean in the future? What is it going to mean next year and in future years, in terms of where your data is going to be, what the laws are going to be, et cetera, et cetera. This is something we should all be talking about, as far as I'm concerned - all the time - we should be talking about this. [00:52:18] Shannon Cheng: Well, thank you so much. We will definitely include all the links to all the information and the resources in the show notes. This show will be airing on February 20th, so you have a week before that final public hearing on the 27th to get your comments in, to figure out how to attend, to tell all your friends to get out there. So thank you so much, Amy and BJ - it's been so great to have you back on again. Bye! [00:52:43] Amy Sundberg: Thanks. [00:52:44] BJ Last: Thank you. [00:52:45] Crystal Fincher: Thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks, which is produced by Shannon Cheng. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on every podcast service and app - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday week-in-review shows and our Tuesday topical show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. 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.

Michael says Thibs was in a lose-lose situation with Brunson last night. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The I Love CVille Show headlines: $5.9M To Kill 245 Homes During Housing Crisis Here's Why City Council In Lose-Lose Scenario Here Is How Housing Watchdogs Are Responding Who Are Winners & Losers From $5.9M Deal? Chris Seaman Admits To Creating Fake Website TJ Fadeley Sizzle From The Kyle Miller Show Georgia Tech at UVA (-2), 2PM, SAT, 56.5 O/U Follow I Love CVille On All Social Media Read Viewer & Listener Comments Live On-Air Jerry Miller was live on The I Love CVille Show! The I Love CVille Show airs live Monday – Friday from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm on The I Love CVille Network. Watch and listen to The I Love CVille Show on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, iTunes, Apple Podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Fountain, Amazon Music, Audible and iLoveCVille.com.

自從我國與中國在2021年，相繼申請加入CPTPP以來，日本政府一直都表態支持，我國的加入。但是卻有日媒報導，由於會員國對兩岸態度，相當分歧，為了避免CPTPP分裂，最後只能採取，兩岸都不入會的妥協做法。 YT收看《寰宇全視界》

Far from being an effective way to interact with people in life – and definitely as you navigate the many changes you face following bariatric surgery, aggressive communication is almost ALWAYS a lose-lose! If YOUR natural or habitual manner of talking to others has an aggressive edge, or if someone in your life regularly speaks to you using an aggressive tone, you'll want to listen to this episode – maybe a number of times! Let's get started so you know why!Resources:BariAfterare: www.bariaftercare.comConnie Stapleton PhD website: www.conniestapletonphd.comBariAftercare website: https://www.conniestapletonphd.com/bariaftercareBariAftercare Facebook page (for members only): https://www.facebook.com/groups/BariAftercareInstagram: @therealbariboss (Tabitha Johnson)Instagram @drsusanmitchell (Dr. Susan Mitchell)Instgram: @lauraleepreston (Laura Preston)Instagram: @chefhealthyhenry (Henry Baker)Instagram: @cale101 (Caleshia Haynes)Instagram: @myweightishistory (Rob Dimedio)Please subscribe to the show and rate it on Apple Podcasts, download free information at www.conniestapletonphd.com, and follow me on Twitter (@cstapletonphd), Instagram (@cstapletonphd), YouTube, LinkedIn, and on Facebook.

00:00 Broncos/Bears on Sunday.13:32 Why this is lose-lose game for the Broncos.32:25 Sean Payton was apparently tougher on his team this past week.

 Biden's $72 Million Student Loan Plan: Pags Breaks Down Why It's a Lose-Lose Situation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 Biden's $72 Million Student Loan Plan: Pags Breaks Down Why It's a Lose-Lose Situation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to episode 141 of the A List Podcast with A. Sherrod Blakely, Gary Washburn, and Kwani A. Lunis. In this episode, Sherrod, Gary and Kwani are joined by 76ers beat writer Keith Pompey (@PompeyOnSixers) of the Philadelphia Inquirer to talk about the James Harden scenario. Are the Philadelphia 76ers in a lose-lose situation with Harden? This episode of the A List Podcast w/ A. Sherrod Blakely, Gary Washburn & Kwani A. Lunis is brought to you by: This episode of the A List Podcast is brought to you by Fanduel Sportsbook, the exclusive wagering partner of the CLNS Media Network. Visit https://FanDuel.com/BOSTON and start earning BONUS BETS with America's #1 Sportsbook! Because right now, when you bet on a Super Bowl Winner, you can GET BONUS BETS EVERY TIME THEY WIN IN THE REGULAR SEASON! 21+ and present in MA. First online real money wager only. $10 Deposit req. Refund issued as non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at fanduel.com/sportsbook. Hope is here. GamblingHelpLineMA.org or call (800)-327-5050 for 24/7 support. Play it smart from the start! GameSenseMA.com or call 1-800-GAM-1234.  Indeed! Visit https://Indeed.com/ALIST to start hiring now! Indeed understands the importance of making every dollar count when growing your business. That's why you only pay for quality applications that match your must-have job requirements with Indeed. If you need to hire, you need Indeed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dan Wetzel, Ross Dellenger and SI's Pat Forde react to San Diego State deciding to return to the Mountain West conference for another year after flirting with the Pac-12.First, they kick off the pod with top defensive line recruit Justin Scott committing to Ohio State over Notre Dame and Michigan. As Fighting Irish fans grow frustrated with their squad always coming close, but never signing ‘the guy', the hosts ponder how much juice Marcus Freeman has with recruiting at an elite level. Freeman has consistently recruited very well, but needs to take the next step to truly compete for the 5-star players.After a drama-filled offseason, San Diego State has decided to stay with the Mountain West for another year. Ross breaks down the soap opera while Dan & Pat determine why the Aztecs decided to stay instead of move up to a Power Five conference.In college athletics legal news, the California revenue-sharing bill has been pushed back a full year after being passed once. If passed twice, colleges would have to distribute money received from athletics back to the athletes.A recent report noted that an anonymous Pac-12 coach believes that the Deion Sanders Colorado hire will end up being a lose-lose situation. The coach believes that if Coach Prime wins enough games, he will leave the program quickly, and if he loses too many games, the dismissal will be a ‘circus'. The guys decide what would dictate a good season for the Colorado Buffaloes and what would prompt this statement from a fellow coach in the first place.New UAB head coach Trent Dilfer went on a radio program & talked about tampering with his student athletes. Dilfer notably dared other coaches to try and poach his players so he could expose them.Lastly in news of the weird, this Friday is National Dive Bar Day, a woman survived three days in a swamp & we may see more chicken sandwich innovation soon.1:00 Introduction4:02 Justin Scott chooses Ohio State over Notre Dame22:57 San Diego State stays with the Mountain West34:01 The California revenue sharing bill has been delayed a year36:50 An anonymous Pac-12 coach thinks Coach Prime at Colorado is a lose-lose44:08 Trent Dilfer dares other coaches to try and poach his players48:45 National dive bar day is approaching55:20 Restaurant Brands International is looking to strengthen their position in the chicken wars58:13 A woman was found by a rescue team after being stuck in mudFollow Dan @DanWetzelFollow Pat @ByPatFordeFollow Ross @RossDellengerCheck out all the episodes of the College Football Enquirer and the rest of the Yahoo Sports podcast family at https://apple.co/3zEuTQj or at Yahoo Sports PodcastsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It was revealed that an anonymous Pac-12 coach decided to say that Deion Sanders at Colorado is a lose-lose, something he responded to. A statement that has since can viral and viral over the past weekend. We appeared to get a response from Deion Sanders on Instagram, so I break down what he had to say and why people are so willing to shoot him down.09:45 With issues surrounding San Diego State and them heading back to the Mountain West for now, one ESPN analyst believes that Colorado is still the program to watch when it comes to the next school to leave for the Big 12. I break down why this is happening again, and what Colorado's stance on the situation is.15:21 Lastly, I you guys asked them and I answer them! It's mailbag time. I answer some of the most interesting questions asked by viewers or listeners and discuss various topics0:00 Deion Responds09:45 Colorado on the move?15:21 Mailbag!Read Colorado on Athlon: https://athlonsports.com/college-foot...Follow on Twitter: @Kevin__Borba and Follow the show on Twitter:@LockedOnBuffsSupport Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!BirddogsGo to birddogs.com/lockedoncollege and they'll throw in a free custom birddogs Yeti-style tumbler with every order.FanDuelMake Every Moment More. Don't miss the chance to get your No Sweat First Bet up to ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS in Bonus Bets when you go FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON.FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It was revealed that an anonymous Pac-12 coach decided to say that Deion Sanders at Colorado is a lose-lose, something he responded to. A statement that has since can viral and viral over the past weekend. We appeared to get a response from Deion Sanders on Instagram, so I break down what he had to say and why people are so willing to shoot him down. 09:45 With issues surrounding San Diego State and them heading back to the Mountain West for now, one ESPN analyst believes that Colorado is still the program to watch when it comes to the next school to leave for the Big 12. I break down why this is happening again, and what Colorado's stance on the situation is. 15:21 Lastly, I you guys asked them and I answer them! It's mailbag time. I answer some of the most interesting questions asked by viewers or listeners and discuss various topics 0:00 Deion Responds 09:45 Colorado on the move? 15:21 Mailbag! Read Colorado on Athlon: https://athlonsports.com/college-foot... Follow on Twitter: @Kevin__Borba and Follow the show on Twitter:@LockedOnBuffs Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! Birddogs Go to birddogs.com/lockedoncollege and they'll throw in a free custom birddogs Yeti-style tumbler with every order. FanDuel Make Every Moment More. Don't miss the chance to get your No Sweat First Bet up to ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS in Bonus Bets when you go FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Los Angeles Angels dropped the weekend series to the Cleveland Guardians, winning on Friday and losing back-to-back games on Saturday and Sunday. Friday consisted of an epic comeback win in the 9th as we've seen with this Halo team a few times this season, and it's always nice to see the team play without any quit in them. The Super Halo Bros. we'll recap game 1 and give you all the details on how Mike Trout sparked a rally to give them the win in segment 1!Then, in game 2 on Saturday, the Halos were cruising to a victory on Mickey Moniak's birthday. The former number-one overall draft pick led off, hit a home run in his first at-bat, stole 2 bases, and went 3-4 on his big day. In addition, Zach Neto made two incredible plays on defense and also added a 2-run home run to his stats. Unfortunately, the Angels had an all-too-familiar blowpen game, where Ryan Tepera gave up 2 home runs trying to relieve Andrew Wantz. He was DFAd on Sunday after this outing, but unfortunately, it cost the Angels a very winnable game and series on Saturday night. We'll break down the game in segment 2.Plus, Sunday was an early one for us on the West Coast, as Patrick Sandoval and Tanner Bibee had themselves a pitchers' duel. The two former high school teammates went pitch for pitch into the 8th inning, but Josh Naylor, who'd had the Angels' number all weekend, put this one out of reach with a home run off Carlos Estevez. There was a lot of questioning Phil Nevin's decision-making here, as he walked Jose Ramirez to get to the hot bat of Naylor and pulled Patrick Sandoval, but it felt like a tip-your-cap kind of a game in this case. We'll explain what happened in segment 3!GET IN OUR VOICEMAIL! CALL US: (714) 409-6396Tell us what's on your mind!Give us a follow @LockedOnAngels on Twitter, and for the best Angels memes around, connect with us on Instagram and Twitter @SuperHaloBros!Super Halo Bros. MERCH is available now! super-halo-bros-shop.fourthwall.comSupport Us By Supporting Our Sponsors!BirddogsToday's episode is brought to you by Birddogs. Go to birddogs.com/lockedonmlb and when you enter promo code, LOCKEDONMLB, they'll throw in a free custom birddogs Yeti-style tumbler with every order.SorareHead to sorare.com/lockedon to draft your free team of player cards, set your lineup, and start competing today to win epic rewards.eBay MotorsFor parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit. eBaymotors.com. Let's ride. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply. GametimeDownload the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONMLB for $20 off your first purchase.Built BarBuilt Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKEDON15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order.FanDuelMake Every Moment More. Don't miss the chance to get your No Sweat First Bet up to ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS in Bonus Bets when you go to FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON.FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Los Angeles Angels dropped the weekend series to the Cleveland Guardians, winning on Friday and losing back-to-back games on Saturday and Sunday. Friday consisted of an epic comeback win in the 9th as we've seen with this Halo team a few times this season, and it's always nice to see the team play without any quit in them. The Super Halo Bros. we'll recap game 1 and give you all the details on how Mike Trout sparked a rally to give them the win in segment 1! Then, in game 2 on Saturday, the Halos were cruising to a victory on Mickey Moniak's birthday. The former number-one overall draft pick led off, hit a home run in his first at-bat, stole 2 bases, and went 3-4 on his big day. In addition, Zach Neto made two incredible plays on defense and also added a 2-run home run to his stats. Unfortunately, the Angels had an all-too-familiar blowpen game, where Ryan Tepera gave up 2 home runs trying to relieve Andrew Wantz. He was DFAd on Sunday after this outing, but unfortunately, it cost the Angels a very winnable game and series on Saturday night. We'll break down the game in segment 2. Plus, Sunday was an early one for us on the West Coast, as Patrick Sandoval and Tanner Bibee had themselves a pitchers' duel. The two former high school teammates went pitch for pitch into the 8th inning, but Josh Naylor, who'd had the Angels' number all weekend, put this one out of reach with a home run off Carlos Estevez. There was a lot of questioning Phil Nevin's decision-making here, as he walked Jose Ramirez to get to the hot bat of Naylor and pulled Patrick Sandoval, but it felt like a tip-your-cap kind of a game in this case. We'll explain what happened in segment 3! GET IN OUR VOICEMAIL!  CALL US: (714) 409-6396 Tell us what's on your mind! Give us a follow @LockedOnAngels on Twitter, and for the best Angels memes around, connect with us on Instagram and Twitter @SuperHaloBros! Super Halo Bros. MERCH is available now! super-halo-bros-shop.fourthwall.com Support Us By Supporting Our Sponsors! Birddogs Today's episode is brought to you by Birddogs. Go to birddogs.com/lockedonmlb and when you enter promo code, LOCKEDONMLB, they'll throw in a free custom birddogs Yeti-style tumbler with every order. Sorare Head to sorare.com/lockedon to draft your free team of player cards, set your lineup, and start competing today to win epic rewards. eBay Motors For parts that fit, head to eBay Motors and look for the green check. Stay in the game with eBay Guaranteed Fit. eBaymotors.com. Let's ride. Eligible items only. Exclusions apply.  Gametime Download the Gametime app, create an account, and use code LOCKEDONMLB for $20 off your first purchase. Built Bar Built Bar is a protein bar that tastes like a candy bar. Go to builtbar.com and use promo code “LOCKEDON15,” and you'll get 15% off your next order. FanDuel Make Every Moment More. Don't miss the chance to get your No Sweat First Bet up to ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS in Bonus Bets when you go to FanDuel.com/LOCKEDON. FANDUEL DISCLAIMER: 21+ in select states. First online real money wager only. Bonus issued as nonwithdrawable free bets that expires in 14 days. Restrictions apply. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling Problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER or visit FanDuel.com/RG (CO, IA, MD, MI, NJ, PA, IL, VA, WV), 1-800-NEXT-STEP or text NEXTSTEP to 53342 (AZ), 1-888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org/chat (CT), 1-800-9-WITH-IT (IN), 1-800-522-4700 (WY, KS) or visit ksgamblinghelp.com (KS), 1-877-770-STOP (LA), 1-877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY), TN REDLINE 1-800-889-9789 (TN)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What You Need to Know is the Title 42 onslaught at the border is a lose-lose situation. Not only is it a huge loss for We the Citizens in that it creates lawlessness and chaos. But frankly, it's creating a horrible situation for anyone authentically trying to make a better life in America. It's destroying our prosperous and safe nation. And remember, the 80/20 rule applies: there are definitely a lot of people going along with this, but at least 20% of those in charge are willfully destroying America for their own gain.  Todd Bensman, Senior National Security Fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, gives us an update from the border in the shadow of May 11's expiration of Title 42 protections. The Biden Administration is letting thousands of illegal immigrants flood in already and releasing them into the interior, and they're lying about it! Border towns are bracing for a mad rush of asylum seekers. Get a copy of Todd's book Overrun, and follow his work at ToddBensman.com.  Michael Volpe, investigative journalist, talks about one of his latest articles, Southern California Woman Struggles for Custody with Ex-Husband Linked to Sammy "the Bull" Gravano. Michael gives us a window into another example of what happens when courts cater to abusive personalities. Follow Michael's investigations on his substack here.  Wrap Up: Does anyone really believe it's a coincidence that the DOJ goes after a GOP congressman the day the House Oversight Committee has a press conference to name names on the Biden Crime Family? C'mon man! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Zach Lyons from BroadwaySportsMedia.com and the F-Words pod and Braden Gall talk Tennessee Titans and SEC football. Win the division, host a playoff game? Lose the division, get a top 10 pick? Healthy defense makes all the difference Derrick Henry motivated Josh Dobbs changes the offense Three ways the Titans win Official predictions Georgia-TCU national title Historic nature of a TCU upset What would a lose say about UGa? Blue-chip ratio in control Bobby Petrino joins the SEC! The most volatile coaching staff in history! Thank you, content Gods! A Football Show is brought to you by two locally owned Nashville companies: The Pharmacy Burger Parlor and Beer Garden! Come hang with us every Monday at 1 pm. The Kingston Group

From '1st & Pod' (subscribe here), Andrew and Danny ponder where Zach Wilson's next destination will be, the fraud bowl in Minnesota, if Dallas is in a lose-lose situation this weekend and more! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Join Steve Palazzolo and Sam Monson as they discuss the Eagles loss, Heinicke getting the W, lose-lose trades and Nick Wright talks ball with Sam and Steve. (9:00) - Eagles get first loss of the year vs. Commanders (26:28) - Responding to the Mailbag (36:30) - Explaining The Grades (49:42) - Nick Wright joins Steve and Sam

Sports media personality Veejay Huskey is in for Rob, and he and Chris discuss what Kevin Durant should do if Kyrie Irving ends up leaving the Brooklyn Nets in the coming days, debate what a reasonable return would be for Kyrie in any potential trade, tell us if the Nets Big 3 of KD, Kyrie and James Harden is the biggest Super Team bust of all-time, and explain why the Los Angeles Lakers are crazy if they think Russell Westbrook will become a 'defense first' player overnight.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Key is sweating in Houston. Jay was right about James Harden...and Joel Embiid is in a lose-lose situation. Jay says the Bulls should give Zach LaVine a super max contract. Dan Graziano joins to talk about Tom Brady's future on the field and as Fox's lead NFL Analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Key is sweating in Houston. Jay was right about James Harden...and Joel Embiid is in a lose-lose situation. Jay says the Bulls should give Zach LaVine a super max contract. Dan Graziano joins to talk about Tom Brady's future on the field and as Fox's lead NFL Analyst. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The major U.S. equity indexes were mixed Monday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 in the red but the tech-heavy Nasdaq holding a modest gain on reports that Elon Musk is nearing a deal to take Twitter private. Investors continue to grapple with the fact that the Federal Reserve is aggressively tightening monetary policy into what appears to be a slowing economy. As Mark Ritchie II notes, this “feels like a potential lose-lose for riskier assets.” Ritchie II, managing partner and chief investment officer at RTM Capital Advisors, joins Maggie Lake for today's Real Vision Daily Briefing to talk about recent price action, relative strength, and whether the Fed will be able to engineer a soft landing. Want to submit questions? Drop them right here on the Exchange: https://rvtv.io/3k8eqxw Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices