Podcasts about never never land

Novemberg (ugh) continues. If you didn't know yet, this means we'll be covering films by the legendary Mr. Stephen Spielberg.We're continuing things with Hook, Join us to hear Lemar bemoan something about tone or whatnot while Mackenzie just leaaans into the magic (and the nerd, obvs). Grab a drink, we're off to Never Never Land!Also, this episode VIDEO is live on YouTube AND Spotify!Follow us on Instagram and TikTok to get ep sneak peaks and find out what's coming next. DM us what you want to hear about next or email us at wedrinkandwewatchthingspod@gmail.com.

Editor: Imagine you lived in South America, much of which is among the most violent and impoverished places on the planet. Your neighbors are excitingly telling you about a magical kingdom in the north and all you have to do is go there and all your needs will be provided. You join them with nothing more than a backpack full of meager necessities. Most of the journey is on foot, although some sort of mechanical conveyance becomes available for short distances. Along the path is a constant threat from specialists who will rob, rape, kidnap, and kill you. There are...Article Link

In the tales of Peter Pan, why is Hook always trying to go after Peter? Is it the usual aspect of child vs adult, child like wonder vs reality? Or does it have a darker theory where Hook is actually trying to save the Lost Boys from Peter Pan because of the loss of remembering where they come from, and the promise of never growing up in Never Never Land... Copyright to Two Takes

We all know about Peter Pan, the boy who never grows up. But what about the concept of Never Never Land? Why is it even called that? Is it so you can never forget the adventures you have with Peter, or is it so you can eventually forget about where you came from? Copyright to Two Takes

Although Diamond loves the song "Enter Sandman," she's always been too dubious of heavy metal to venture further into Metallica's catalog. But we face our fears here on At First Listen, and challenge ourselves (we are so brave). So on this episode of the podcast, we're digging into Metallica's seminal 1991 self-titled album — affectionately referred to as the Black Album.Does Diamond deem Metallica a one-hit-wonder or will she find some sleeper standouts on the Black Album? Will Andrew's masterplan of turning Diamond into a metalhead begin to take shape or will it blow up in his face?

Join Premium! Ready for an ad-free meditation experience? Join Premium now and get every episode from ALL of our podcasts completely ad-free now! Just a few clicks makes it easy for you to listen on your favorite podcast player.  Become a PREMIUM member today by going to --> https://WomensMeditationNetwork.com/premium In a quaint little town nestled between rolling hills and vast, azure skies, there lived an unassuming librarian named Ellie. Ellie had a passion for stories, not just any stories, but those that whispered of adventure, magic, and distant lands. She believed in the power of words to uplift and transport the soul to realms of endless possibility. Despite her love for these tales, Ellie had never ventured beyond the confines of her town. Yet, her heart yearned for an adventure of her own, one that would take her to the places she had only visited in her dreams. One evening, as the sun dipped below the horizon, painting the sky in shades of pink and gold, Ellie stumbled upon an ancient, leather-bound book hidden away in the forgotten corner of the library. Its cover was embossed with the image of a majestic hot air balloon, its basket woven from golden threads of light. The title read, "The Hot Air Balloon Ride to Never Never Land." With a heart full of curiosity and hands trembling with anticipation, Ellie opened the book. The pages fluttered to life, glowing with an ethereal light, and the words seemed to dance before her eyes. As she read, the world around her began to shift and change. The dusty shelves of the library melted away, replaced by the soft, emerald grass of an unknown land. Ellie found herself standing in a field, bathed in the golden light of dawn, with the hot air balloon from the book waiting just for her. Its vibrant colors shimmered in the morning light, beckoning her to step closer.

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latino-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/caribbean-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Myths about the powers held by the United States are often supported by the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which derives its logic from the interpretation of a document that the US itself developed. Therefore, when pressure is placed on a specific legal precedent, the shallowness of its validity is revealed. Dr. Mónica A. Jiménez accomplishes this kind of scholarly work in her recently published book Making Never-Never Land: Race and Law in the Creation of Puerto Rico (University of North Carolina Press, 2024). By tracing the legal logic of what continues to animate the colonial dynamics between the United States and Puerto Rico, Jiménez offers a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that both folds time and space to make clear how late-19th century Supreme Court logics and opinions continue to subjugate the land and people of Puerto Rico to colonial violence. Split into two sections, the first half of the book details the key case Downes v. Bidwell (1901), while the second half explores how the legal ramifications of Downes continued to haunt the archipelago. The first chapter focuses on the development of Downes and its outcome, which argued that territories of the United States were not allowed to access certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ambiguous legal foundation for this decision was established in 1900 after Puerto Rico was acquired by the United States when the US Supreme Court established the territorial incorporation doctrine, effectively creating the legal category of “unincorporated territory." Chapter two probes the white supremacist U.S. legal landscape to offer a “genealogy of racial exclusion in law” (36) that shows the reader how U.S. settler colonialism and empire-making are dependent on the reuse and recycling of legal precedents and tactics that disenfranchised and dispossessed racially marginalized communities. By excavating the legal opinions handed down during the Marshal Trilolgy and Dred Scott v. Sandford – a collection of Supreme Court cases that defined 19th-century legal policy for Native Americans and African Americans, respectively – Jiménez makes clear that “It is not a coincidence that the most shameful cases in the United States' legal history of race should serve as direct precedents to a decision that continues to serve as the basis for Puerto Rico's exclusion more than one hundred years after it was handed down” (9).

In this episode, Dave and Jamison answer these questions: I'm a bootcamp graduate working on a career shift from massage to software development. How much of my previous career should I bring into my résumé? I've been building projects in public, and doing open source contribution in a part-time capacity for the past two years, but ultimately have not gotten very many bites on my résumé that resulted in interviews. It's something like three skill tests and one for roughly 800 applications at the moment? That's a guess. That's basically the gist of it. Thanks! Curious Coder Tries Tech Transition Listener Joshua says, I've done a number of things in my career, from Java to web dev on PHP and Angular/Node to low code development on Ignition SCADA and UIPath RPA . Because I love learning technologies and I want to go where the money is, I keep hopping to new teams. This usually comes with a decent pay bump, but it's a lot of rescue operations and self-teaching. This doesn't feel like a career path, and always being the junior team member sucks. I'm often studying for certs trying to meet the requirements for the job I'm already doing or being the senior dev on the team while still a Junior. I get that I'm relatively new to each team, but I'm also punching above my weight consistently. It feels like I'm always having to jump through hoops to get the title and pay for the level of responsibility I take on and it feels like my mixed-up background is the reason why. How can I pitch a 10 year career of wearing all the hats all the time to get better results? How can I avoid being on teams where all my coworkers think I'm a guru and I'm building all of the architecture, but my manager goes “gee, I don't know if you have the years of experience to be a Senior”? I'm looking towards Architecture as a long term goal and I'm wondering if there's a way to spin this skillset towards that goal. Can you get Architect if you aren't a certified black belt in highly specific tools but rather a demonstrated improviser? What is a jack-of-all-trades supposed to do? Thanks, love the show, your advice and the fun relationship you guys bring to the conversation.

Kimberly Caprini grew up on the north side of Minneapolis participating in activities at the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center. Like other young Black kids at the time, she spent many summers as a camper at its Camp Katharine Parsons. “I was always afraid of everything outdoors, bugs, birds, squirrels, grass,” she said.She visited the 106-acre campground on Oak Lake near Watertown as an adult recently as part of a group working to clear brush. Memories of her time at the camp first trickled then flooded her mind during her visit. She said she remembered the time when camp counselors introduced her to the night sky.“They had us close our eyes walking down out … where the lake is and then have us open our eyes,” Caprini said. “I screamed because I had never seen that many stars in the sky before. Never seen anything like it. Grew up in the city and didn't do those kinds of things.”Providing kids the chance to explore the outdoors, listen to the sounds of nature and take a dip in a lake had been a high priority for Phyllis Wheatley. It began summer camp programs in 1932. The mission of “the Wheatley,” as many refer to the center, has always been service to the community. And this year, the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center is turning 100 years old and celebrating a century of its mission.The north Minneapolis center has shifted priorities over the years as society has evolved. The center was founded in October 1924 as the Phyllis Wheatley Settlement House. The building was established to help the growing African American community that was new to Minneapolis.  The history of the Phyllis Wheatley Househttps://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline3/latest/embed/index.html?source=1BaCZBx8lItLYgQ72LDQGblu5LXsLFuTkmuePLjViU10&font=Default&lang=en&initial_zoom=2&height=350It had been spearheaded by the WCA — Woman's Cooperative Alliance — a community organization that liaised with religious, political and racial groups. During the 1910s, young African American women migrated to Minneapolis to find jobs. There were services to help young, single white women, but none for Black women.The WCA and other partner social agencies soon realized that all African Americans living in Minneapolis were in need of services, according to the Minnesota Historical Society. The agencies then decided on a settlement house for the growing African American community.Not only did the Black population grow, so did the organization. It became a social and cultural center offering sports, camping, drum corps, child care, after-school activities and medical services.  And it became so much more.Theartrice “T” Williams was its executive director from 1965 to 1972. “It was a gathering place. It was a cultural center,” he explained. “It was a convening place for the public and community, and it has been an organizer in the community.”Williams said during segregation, Phyllis Wheatley was a welcoming and safe space for African Americans. The Wheatley, which changed its name to the Phyllis Wheatley Community Center in 1962, was included in the Green Book, a guide for African Americans traveling across the country.“When Duke Ellington and Cab Calloway and all those big name entertainers back in the ‘30s and ‘40s, would come to play at venues [in Minneapolis] they couldn't stay in the hotels down there,” Williams said.University of Minnesota students also stayed at the Wheatley, Williams said. The U of M barred Black students from living in its dormitories. One such student, Carl Stokes, went on to become the first African American elected mayor of a major city in 1967 when voters chose him to lead the city of Cleveland, Ohio. The center also has a distinguished role in Prince history. His parents John L. Nelson and Mattie Shaw met as musicians at Phyllis Wheatley. Nelson's jazz group, the Prince Rogers Trio, performed there. He recruited Shaw to sing in the band. A camp official says a young Prince also attended Camp Parsons.In 1956, Katharine Parsons, a board member of the Phyllis Wheatley Settlement House, helped establish a campsite for the organization, according to a website that lays out the summer camp programs' histories. Parsons, who was white, bought the land and transferred the property over to the Wheatley. She also funded the camp buildings and amenities early on.“There were adults that cared enough to bring these inner city kids out, to Never Never Land, basically, you know, the outdoors, who otherwise may not have been able to see it until they were older,” Caprini said. “And provided that experience, an opportunity to, to make a difference.”Parsons campers, none the wiser, simply enjoyed attending the day camp year after year. In 2001, the Wheatley closed it down due to financial challenges. But they still own the land.Five years ago, the center and the Minnesota Land Trust signed a conservation easement that preserves 83 acres of the 106-acre camp as natural habitat.This past spring, state lawmakers set aside $550,000 for the organization to restore the camp. It is unclear when it will reopen.Over the years, Phyllis Wheatley has expanded its mission to include a wide range of programs and services for children, families and the community as a whole.The center is expected to name a new executive director this week.

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 1040, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Pop Culture From Bartlett'S 1: He made Bartlett's with his signoff "Here it is... your moment of Zen". Jon Stewart. 2: This movie line is listed under M. Night Shyamalan, though Bartlett's notes that it was spoken by Hayley Joel Osment. "I see dead people". 3: Muhammad Ali used this boxing credo that mentions 2 insects. "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee". 4: From Series 2, Episode 2 of "Monty Python's Flying Circus": this 5-word phrase about a surprise to all. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!". 5: Trey Parker and Matt Stone get credit for "Oh my God" followed by this 3-word catch phrase. "They killed Kenny!". Round 2. Category: Answer The Homophone! 1: Having a scratchy throat, and the equine you rode in on. hoarse/horse. 2: Multiple beers, and the minor injury you got when you fell after multiple beers. brews/bruise. 3: The act of aiding, and the personal errand runners for a movie star. assistance/assistants. 4: To construct, and what the contractor did to the customer after construction was completed. build/billed. 5: To cause to be disconcerted, and a stage in a process of development. faze/phase. Round 3. Category: The Game'S A Foot. With Foot in quotation marks 1: You'd think this creature said to be 7 to 10 feet tall and 600 to 1,000 lbs. would be pretty easy to find, but no. Bigfoot. 2: It's an acute contagious febrile disease of cattle. foot-and-mouth. 3: A "delicate" newcomer or novice. a tenderfoot. 4: It's been slang for a sailor as well as a policeman. a flatfoot. 5: You're said to "gain" this when you establish a firm basis for further progress. a foothold. Round 4. Category: Fantasy Island 1: Turn out the lights, Caliban; you're the last one left on the island in this play, written around 1611. The Tempest. 2: Peter Pan can bring visitors to this island, home to the Lost Boys. Never-Never Land. 3: The temple of Poseidon was on this legendary island that was said to lie west of the Strait of Gibraltar. Atlantis. 4: The Chateau d'If isn't a 5-star hotel in this 1844 novel; it's an island prison. The Count of Monte Cristo. 5: In one version of the legend, King Arthur was offered Excalibur when Merlin brought him to this island. Avalon. Round 5. Category: Monopoly Tokens 1: This piece is a Scottie. a dog. 2: As Roy Scheider said in "Jaws", "You're gonna need a bigger" one. a boat. 3: Domicile for the nursery rhyme old woman with a family of unmanageable size. the shoe. 4: This load-carrying item is lifted and pushed by 2 horizontal shafts. a wheelbarrow. 5: This speedy item is also a palindrome. a racecar. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia!Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/ AI Voices used

No, you don't have déjà vu, we are talking about The Italian Job again…only this time it is the 2003 version directed by F. Gary Gray. For The Vault section of our show, Leo is taking us to Never Never Land by talking about Steven Spielberg's Hook. Charles is being a rambunctious high school kid and talking about Ferris Bueller's Day Off. The big picture is The Italian Job, starring Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron, Edward Norton, and Jason Statham. Leo and Charles debate, which is the better version 2003 or 1969, enjoy discussing the status of its stars when it was made, and if it should have been called The Italian Job at all. Give a listen and everything will be just fine…

Date: June3, 2023 Reference: Kotani et al. Etomidate as an induction agent for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Journal of Critical Care April 2023 Guest Skeptic: Dr. Amber Gombash is an emergency physician in Concord, NC. Case: You have a critically ill patient that you are preparing to intubate and wonder […] The post SGEM#405: We're Off To Never-Never Land – But Should We Use Etomidate for the Rapid Sequence Intubation? first appeared on The Skeptics Guide to Emergency Medicine.

Just like Peter Pan, Dr. Tony Evans says a lot of Christians are living in their own kind of Never-Never Land. Well, he'll talk about what happens when we refuse to grow up into the mature believers God wants us all to be. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/222/29

Just like the Lost Boys the Roosters love making loud noise...@bangarangtampa killed in on the balcony above the Ritz.  If this is life we are never leaving Never Never Land!!Watch the show on YouTube!!https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCA4yyB82mjr_xy2g3o38ZQw

An “awakening”, feeling accepted in a non-judgmental community, thriving in your body that once held you back. The sex positive and swinger lifestyle is nothing short of “the answer” many people have been looking for. A way to re-ignite their inner light and make them feel alive again from the inside out. In this episode I felt inspired to share why I believe the sex positive lifestyle is truly the mystical “Never Never Land” we once learned about from the story of Peter Pan. What if, just what if, there WAS a place to go and stay young (on the inside) forever? Let me be your guide, your Lady Peter Pan

Don’t call something unclean that GOD has declared as clean! Be transformed by this revelatory message from Jesse and Cathy, as they discuss how to replace “NEVER” with the everlasting and unchanging Word of God. Follow JDM on these social media platforms: *Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JesseDuplantisMinistries*Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jesseduplantisministries/*Twitter: http://twitter.com/jesse_duplantis *Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/jesseduplantismin For more information, visit www.jdm.org Ways to Give: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/jdmgivingWebsite: https://www.jdm.org/donate Text to Give: https://www.jdm.org/w-JDMTextToGive Join TotalJDM now and get access to years of messages by Jesse and Cathy Duplantis for free! *TotalJDM: https://total.jdm.org/

Don’t call something unclean that GOD has declared as clean! Be transformed by this revelatory message from Jesse and Cathy, as they discuss how to replace “NEVER” with the everlasting and unchanging Word of God. Follow JDM on these social media platforms: *Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JesseDuplantisMinistries*Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jesseduplantisministries/*Twitter: http://twitter.com/jesse_duplantis *Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/jesseduplantismin For more information, visit www.jdm.org Ways to Give: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/jdmgivingWebsite: https://www.jdm.org/donate Text to Give: https://www.jdm.org/w-JDMTextToGive Join TotalJDM now and get access to years of messages by Jesse and Cathy Duplantis for free! *TotalJDM: https://total.jdm.org/

Rob, Ciara and Laura went to Never Never Land for Friday's guess the panto, the 745 went unguessed and Jonathan was in the van with hams for Instagrand.

It's another Aaron's Audio Audibles, and this time we welcome our friend Tim O'Connor back to review one of his favorite disks, "A Wizard A True Star" by the inventive Prog rock genius of the 1970's, Todd Rundgren. Tim gets nostalgic for the days when he composed the first music video of all time on his Apple II computer to Todd's "International Feel", the first indice (do NOT call them tracks!) on side one of this iconic record. Pay attention for a cameo by the inimitable George Carlin towards the end! #toddrundgren #progressiverock #awizaardatruestar #internationalfeel #utopia #justonevictory Indices for A Wizard a True Star International Feel       2:53 Never Never Land   1:25 Tic Tic Tic It Wears Off       1:15 You Need Your Head       1:07 Rock And Roll Pussy      1:10 Dogfight Giggle    1:10 You Don't Have To Camp Around  1:05 Flamingo     2:35 Zen Archer   5:25 Just Another Onion Head; Da Da Dali  2:25 When The Shit Hits The Fan; Sunset Blvd. 4:01 Le Feel Internacionale   1:46 Sometimes I Don't Know What To Feel  4:15 Does Anybody Love You    1:31 Medley       (10:35) I'm So Proud       Ooh Baby Baby      La La Means I Love You   Cool Jerk    Hungry For Love    2:11 I Don't Want To Tie You Down   1:56 Is It My Name?     3:50 Just One Victory   4:50 YUH Theme by David T and Mojo 3 https://www.amazon.com/Insanity-Sobriety-Blues-David-Mojo3/dp/B091N8BJNB Facebook video from this episode: https://www.facebook.com/100066858614566/videos/1324203214991903/ A Wizard a True Star on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/1RSC0dy1oOIS3RO8tomZOV?si=xFkBrmiUR9il1NmmQdNyjA Yeah Uh Huh Social Stuff: Yeah Uh Huh on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@yeahuhhuhpod Yeah Uh Huh on Facebook https://facebook.com/YeahUhHuhPod Yeah Uh Huh on Twitter https://twitter.com/YeahUhHuhPod Yeah Uh Huh on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/7pS9l716ljEQLeMMxwihoS?si=27bd15fb26ed46aa Yeah Uh Huh on Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/yeah-uh-huh/id1565097611 Yeah Uh Huh Website: https://yeah-uh-huh.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/lisa-huey/message

It's that time of year! That time when things get busy and reading gets dropped! How can we keep reading during this intense season? In this episode, we discuss a concept we're calling Hustle Bustle Books (#hustlebustlebooks), or books that can be carried with you and read in small chunks. We don't always agree on what makes a good Hustle Bustle Book, but we've got lots of laughs and suggestions for you! Books mentioned in this episode: David's Article on Books for Everyday Carry- https://closereads.substack.com/p/books-for-everyday-carry Girl Waits With Gun by Amy Stewart Romance for Dummies by Ruth Westheimer Red Sea Rules: 10 God-Given Strategies for Difficult Times by Robert Morgan One More Day by Mitch Album The ABCs of Men's Fashion by by Sir Hardy Amies The Melody of the Earth: A Poetry Collection The Last Lecture by Randy Parish I'd Rather be Reading: The Delights and Dilemmas of the Reading Life by Anne Bogel The Spiritual Poems of Rumi: Translated by Nader Khalili (Volume 3) (Timeless Rumi, 3) Your Guide to Not Getting Murdered in a Quaint English Village by by Maureen Johnson and Jay Cooper The Bean Trees by Barbara Kingsolver The Lion of Judah in Never-Never Land by Katherine Lindskoog Imagined London: A Tour of the World's Greatest Fictional City by Anna Quindlen The Poetry of AA Milne The Beatrix Potter Books A Child's Garden of Verses by RL Stevenson Save the Cat!: The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need by Blake Snyder Is This Anything? By Jerry Seinfeld

Elon Musk just revived his bid for Twitter Inc. at his original offering price of $44 billion — or $54.20 a share — thereby avoiding a courtroom fight. (Musk made the proposal in a letter to Twitter on Monday, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.)So, after six months of brainless brawling bedlam, it looks like Twitter now goes to Elon.But should this critical social platform go to someone with the attention span of a fruit fly and the impetuousness of Donald Trump, just because he's finally now willing to pay what he bid for it?That depends on whether buying Twitter just a simple market transaction, like buying soap. Or has Twitter come to have a set of social roles and purposes that make it more like a public space such as Times Square, or a public utility — where the question of who owns it looms large? I no longer have any idea what Elon wants to do with Twitter. He has talked loosely about “free speech” but, of course, the First Amendment applies to government — not to a billionaire's folly. He's said Donald Trump should be allowed back on, but exactly why? So Trump can have a more efficient means for continuing his attempted coup?Today he tweeted that buying Twitter is an “accelerant to creating X.” What's X? It's “the everything app.” Earth to Elon: Can you be a tad more specific? Through the entire on-again-off-again melodrama, Elon has behaved like a one-man version of the Three Stooges. After expressing interest in a seat on the board, he rejected it. “I'm not joining the board. This is a waste of time.” Then he said he'd “make an offer to take Twitter private” because “fake users will make the numbers look so terrible” that it should be a private company. Then he made a bid, but didn't even begin due diligence until a month after announcing it. Then he got cold feet because he feared fake users made the numbers look too good. Then he said he didn't care about the economics of the deal. And then had “no plan” for how to finance or manage it. And then he tried to back out. And was sued. And now …He made it up as he went along. As did his inner circle of billionaires. Larry Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, messaged Elon that he was in for “a billion … or whatever you recommend.” What about … um … business strategy? Analysis? Thought?Marc Andreessen, a top Silicon Valley venture investor, assured Elon that $250 million is available “with no additional work required.” Blank check? Jason Calacanis, an angel investor and entrepreneur, told Elon, “You have my sword,” an apparent reference to the movie The Lord of the Rings.Antonio Gracias, another investor and a former member of the Tesla board of directors, told Elon that free speech is “a principle we need to defend with our lives or we are lost to the darkness.” What? Mathias Döpfner, CEO of Axel Springer — headquartered in Berlin — urged Elon to buy Twitter and then have Axel Springer run it (“Would be a real contribution to democracy” and “fun.”) We're now in Never-Never Land, folks. One texter, identified only as TJ, exhorted Elon to “buy Twitter and delete it” and “please do something to fight woke-ism.”So my Office Hours question this week: Does the public have a legitimate interest in who buys Twitter? Is this social media platform more like a bar of soap or a public square? And, based on your answer, is there anything that the government — representing the rest of us — can or should do about Elon's bid?Please note: Subscribers to this newsletter are keeping it going. Thank you! We also appreciate you sharing this content with others and leaving your thoughts in the comments. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

One of the most challenging things someone can do is have tough conversations when they know there will be hell to pay. Little boys walk on eggshells, and little girls run and hide when it gets too hot in the kitchen. You there! The reader…you know what I'm talking about. How many times have you done it? - kept quiet about the elephant in the room because to address it would mean experiencing immediate discomfort. Very few of us can summon the courage and have the discipline to follow through with a committed relationship with the truth. I'm talking about a quest to know what is true…what is real…what is ACTUAL…at all costs…to forsake all others…to fuck WHAT IS with all the passion and commitment one can muster. If we aren't committed to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth…all that's left is living a lie…and that, my fair-weathered friends, is no life at all. Living a lie is death…dead as a rusty rotten doornail. Let the dead bury the dead. Homie ain't got time for that happy horseshit. When confronted with the ugly reality that every result in our lives is our own damn fault, how much longer will we play Peter Pan and never grow up…determined to reside in Never Never Land. Always a “should”...a wish or a prayer…if only blah blah blah. LIARS…all of us…right down to the bone. Of course, I'm not talking about YOU…haha. Integrity Love Will Heresy Please message me, leave a comment, or drop your email at https://thesagesurfer.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“If much of Deuteronomy is a prophetic vision or dream, the tochachah is the nightmare.”-Metallica"Exit light! Enter night! Take my hand — we're off to Never Never Land."-Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks[note: check to see if quote attribution is correct before publishing]Please email rabbideena@mishkanchicago.org with any corrections to this week's episode description.Produced by Mishkan Chicago.  Music composed, produced, and performed by Kalman Strauss. See our upcoming Shabbat services and programs here, and follow us on Instagram and like us on Facebook for more updates. Check out Shabbat Replay on Contact Chai for more from Rabbi Deena.Transcript

As I discovered this week on the line-up we need to have Discipline. It is vital. The word “discipline” comes from a Latin root: "punishment for the sake of correction, or suffering for the sake of learning and growth.” So, to whom will I become a DISCIPLE? To what AUTHORITY will I SUBJECT myself? ONLY the SOURCE that gives life…only that which creates my CONSTITUTION. Constitution - a BODY of LAW. NATURAL LAW - That which requires ZERO beLIEf. If it ain't self-evident, it ain't shit. Plenty will play Peter Pan, refusing to grow up and become accountable. Those sad sacks prefer Never Never Land, where fantasy provides the chains of enslavement. ONE LAW, ONE LOVE, ONE LIFE, ONE DIRECTION that gets straight to the POINT. No separation..no more Mickey Mouse games of 1-up, virtue-signalling, victim/perpetrator/hero. KILL your CULTure Let the DEAD bury the DEAD. Integrity Love Will Heresy P.S. All the clothes in the marketing material are part of the new Sage Surfer Clothing Line. Also, I have a unique platform where I am offering my courses and mentoring packages. Drop your email at thesagesurfer.com to keep up to date.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For Video Edition, Please Click and Subscribe Here: https://youtu.be/BoQXAbvWjWo A Sprinkling of Stardust over the Outhouse is the long-awaited follow-up to Paul Brogan's highly successful first book, Was That a Name I Dropped? released in 2011. Paul came out as gay when he was ten in the early 1960s and faced a number of obstacles for doing so. He approached them without losing sight of who he was, eventually winning over the naysayers who urged him to be someone other than himself. A Sprinkling of Stardust is a true story that is rich in detail as it tells Paul's story with humor and heart as well as harsh and sometimes shockingly brutal reality. In the 1980s, playing the starring role in a musical production of Peter Pan, Paul Brogan sang the song "Never Never Land." The lyrics "I have a place where dreams are born, and time is never planned. It's not on any chart. You must find it with your heart. Never Never Land" had a great deal of meaning to Paul. Frequently he found himself getting choked up as he sang them. After coming out at the age of ten, Paul created his own Never Never Land. It represented a safe haven, a refuge where he could do and be himself. It was a place to which he escaped after being sexually abused, raped, and suffering a series of life-threatening health issues. His latest book is not a sequel to his 2011 best-seller, Was That a Name I Dropped? Instead, it is the rest of the story told in the same frank and honest manner that earned him kudos for the first book. It is funny, sexy, insightful, moving, and will have the viewer turning away in shock and horror in some instances. Ultimately, it is life. Paul's first book, "Was That a Name I Dropped?" was released in 2011 and was so successful that it hit number-one on numerous best-seller lists.   

For Video Edition, Please Click and Subscribe Here: https://youtu.be/BoQXAbvWjWo A Sprinkling of Stardust over the Outhouse is the long-awaited follow-up to Paul Brogan's highly successful first book, Was That a Name I Dropped? released in 2011. Paul came out as gay when he was ten in the early 1960s and faced a number of obstacles for doing so. He approached them without losing sight of who he was, eventually winning over the naysayers who urged him to be someone other than himself. A Sprinkling of Stardust is a true story that is rich in detail as it tells Paul's story with humor and heart as well as harsh and sometimes shockingly brutal reality. In the 1980s, playing the starring role in a musical production of Peter Pan, Paul Brogan sang the song "Never Never Land." The lyrics "I have a place where dreams are born, and time is never planned. It's not on any chart. You must find it with your heart. Never Never Land" had a great deal of meaning to Paul. Frequently he found himself getting choked up as he sang them. After coming out at the age of ten, Paul created his own Never Never Land. It represented a safe haven, a refuge where he could do and be himself. It was a place to which he escaped after being sexually abused, raped, and suffering a series of life-threatening health issues. His latest book is not a sequel to his 2011 best-seller, Was That a Name I Dropped? Instead, it is the rest of the story told in the same frank and honest manner that earned him kudos for the first book. It is funny, sexy, insightful, moving, and will have the viewer turning away in shock and horror in some instances. Ultimately, it is life. Paul's first book, "Was That a Name I Dropped?" was released in 2011 and was so successful that it hit number-one on numerous best-seller lists.   

NB: Here is the link to the SLEERICKETS Secret Show. Please go and see.Some of the topics mentioned in this episode:– My Beautiful Never-Nevers: Yoko Ono's Poetry Revisited by Austin Allen– More Things in Heaven: New and Selected Poems by David Yezzi– Grapefruit by Yoko Ono– Cut-Piece by Yoko Ono– Instant Karma by Plastic Ono Band– Tulipmania by Austin Allen– Hamlet and His Problems by T. S. Eliot– King Lear– King Leir– Woman Holding a Fox by David Yezzi (kind of hard to read on this website, but I couldn't find a better one)Twitter: @sleerickets, @BPlatzer, @poetry_saysEmail: sleerickets [at] gmail [dot] comMusic by ETRNLArt by Daniel Alexander Smith

In this HCI Podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover shares his recent keynote address at an HR Leadership conference in the Republic of Slovenia. See the video here: https://youtu.be/60x5MBDltZQ. Please leave a review wherever you listen to your podcasts! Please consider supporting the HCI Podcast on Patreon. Check out the HCI Academy: Courses, Micro-Credentials, and Certificates to Upskill and Reskill for the Future of Work! Check out the LinkedIn Alchemizing Human Capital Newsletter. Check out Dr. Westover's book, The Future Leader. Check out Dr. Westover's book, 'Bluer than Indigo' Leadership. Check out Dr. Westover's book, The Alchemy of Truly Remarkable Leadership. Check out the latest issue of the Human Capital Leadership magazine. Ranked #5 Workplace Podcast Ranked #6 Performance Management Podcast Ranked #7 HR Podcast Ranked #12 Talent Management Podcast Ranked in the Top 20 Personal Development and Self-Improvement Podcasts  Ranked in the Top 30 Leadership Podcasts Each HCI Podcast episode (Program, ID No. 592296) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, aPHRi™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™ and SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute® (HRCI®).

In our 108th episode, YeaJean talks to JungJae Hur, DaeWook Jang, YoungMin Kim about their dance film, Never Never Land. Their film was an official selection and award winner in the NBFF 2021. If English is your primary language we will see you back on April 27th! (29:19) 이번 인터뷰는 2021노박스댄스필름페스티벌에서 관객상을 수상한 작품 허정재 감독, 장대욱 배우, 김영민 배우님과 함께하였습니다. 제작 비하인드 스토리와, 댄스필름과 몸의 상호작용에 대해 이야기 나누었습니다. Episode Show kNOwtes | Podcast Home

Barry and Julia think happy thoughts, douse themselves with Julia Roberts dust and fly off to the green screen world of Never Never Land. Your hosts examine one of the most divisive of Steven Spielberg's films and emerge from the Lost Boys' club med with sheepish, adoring grins. Where else can you hear grown adults chant “Ru-fee-oh! Ru-Fee-Oh!”? Follow us on Instagram @soimarriedafilmcritic_podcast and please leave us a review.

The New Zealand Initiative has released a report on climate change called the Pretence of Necessity. It's been written by a bloke called Matt Burgess who used to be Bill English's Senior Economic Advisor for 4 years and has a long history working on public policy, competition, governance and network industries including electricity, gas and telecommunications and infrastructure for both the government and private industry. In it, he says that at May's Budget, the government will commit $4.5 billion to new spending on climate change, more than $2,000 per household and it will not reduce our emissions at all. His argument is we already have a cap-and-trade framework. We cap the total emissions and then we trade the spare with the Emissions Trading Scheme. So, if we launch a new policy to reduce a specific emission then the credits earned will then get transferred to other emission sectors. Meaning that overall, we get no gain at all. James Shaw will join me later to dispute this but the claims ring true with me. After all, so far nothing has worked and New Zealand emissions have increased year after year after year. I'd like to see emissions lowered. We have a finite world and we don't need to fill it full of exhaust. But I also know the whole world is run on energy and apart from hydro and wind it all comes from burning stuff. So, when we cap emissions, we're asking somebody to burn less stuff. But ever since the Emission Trading Scheme emerged as the world-wide tool to lower emissions, I've realised that it's a failed scheme, a market dreamt up by academics, a scheme that doesn't reduce emissions just moves them around a bit. Along with offsets it's created Never Never Land. A world where people make themselves feel good by transferring their energy use to someone else. The mindset hit its nadir when Coldplay announced their last world tour would be the world's first carbon-neutral concert tour. Which meant that the band still jetted around the world in their aeroplanes, consuming vast amounts of electricity at each show, while showering confetti over a hundred stadiums but claim it's all good for the planet because they plant forests all over the show. There's only one way to cut emissions and that's to cut emissions.  And the only way to cut emissions and keep the planet working is to develop a clean way to power it. Everything else is virtue signalling and blame-shifting. 

Paul Rudolph - The Deviant, The Pink Fairies, Hawkwind & Brian Eno - in conversation with David Eastaugh At the recommendation of his childhood friend Jamie Mandelkau, he relocated to London, England joining the Mick Farren led band The Deviants as a guitarist. After recording their third album and contributing to Twink's Think Pink album, the band and singer parted company during a disastrous tour of the West Coast of North America. Returning to England, the band hooked up with Twink forming The Pink Fairies, signing to Polydor and embarking upon a career centred on Ladbroke Grove, occasionally hooking up with Hawkwind for sets as Pinkwind. Recording two albums, Never Never Land and What a Bunch of Sweeties, Rudolph left immediately after the release of the second album to pursue other ventures, including a stint in Uncle Dog with Carol Grimes. He was invited by Roxy Music producer John Porter in early 1973 to participate in demo sessions for Sparks, before that band had found British musicians (Adrian Fisher, Martin Gordonand Dinky Diamond) for their UK re-launch. It was at the final Uncle Dog gig that he met former Roxy Music musician Brian Eno which would lead to him contributing to four of his albums in between 1973 and 1977, namely Here Come the Warm Jets, Another Green World, Music for Films and Before and After Science. At the same time he became the main musical interpreter for Hawkwind collaborator Robert Calvert, to which Eno also became involved, recording the concept albums Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters and Lucky Leif and the Longships.

This time Scott, Jeff, and Justin get together to talk CBD, the first pig-to-human heart transplant, the old Never Never Land and a variety of other topics in between! 01:48 – Robo Brogan kicks off the podcast, they talk about GCP staying remote for now, and give props to Union Club. Justin talks about AOL chat rooms back in the day, the variety of available chat rooms, and their discord rules. He talks about the different Discord channels GCP has, the special Patrons channel, and when the next Unleashed at the Stadium Bowl is happening. He shares information about the Help Save The Peace Bus GoFundMe, the great things Kwabi had done for the community, and they discuss plans for future guests. 19:40 – Justin talks of plans for enjoying food from Southern Kitchen in Tacoma, they make plans to have another podcast with Billy, and Justin talks about using CBD for his back pain. Scott talks about the rules of working in an open office, Justin expresses his want to work from home, and his ability to listen to two different things at once. Justin talks about how his wife has helped him understand how he interacts with humans, his membership to Urban Float, and the benefits of doing the sauna before the float. 36:15 – Scott talks about owning a float center, they talk about the mugs each bought to support Cosmic Bottles, and they jump into Scott Topics. They talk about the first pig-to-human heart transplant that has been done, the controversy over the person that the scientists chose for the transplant, and discuss if they would prefer that over a mechanical heart. They talk about the first time drones were used in the military, the recent sunny day in Tacoma, and Justin talks about his recent hike. 58:18 – Justin talks about seeing Fort Nisqually at Point Defiance, Scott encourages him to volunteer there, and they talk about the history of Never Never Land at Point Defiance back in the day. They look through old pictures of Never Never Land, Justin talks about the amount of money that was spent when items from there were auctioned off, and new t-shirts they have for the Patrons.

What's up 'Cuse fans! Fresh off a big win in Blacksburg, we talk all things Syracuse Football from Coaching decisions, to QB play, to Sean Tucker reaching 1000 rushing yards in only 8 games. We also talk a little hoops after the Exhibition opening win over Pace. Don't forget to subscribe and share, as well as follow us on Twitter and Instagram @MarshallStPod44. Let's Go Orange!

This week's episode someone got their sister pregnant it's not me or john don't worry. Boobs are flying out and the cat's peeing like crazy. Andrew saw one of peters elves from Never Never Land. Hope you enjoy this week's podcast!! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

If you would like to tell your Truth story about your experience on Jan. 6th, 2020 at the capital, then click the link below.https://www.wethepeoplestand.org/There's a story narrative being carried out by Nancy Pelosi in the Biden administration right now, in regards to what happened on January 6, its US Capitol. At first, when this developed, it was a rally in a protest. And as the media took hold of it now became an assault, a riot, an insurrection, a coup attempt. And now with Nancy's own words, it's a terrorist attack. So what really happened on that day, we may never know as long as the powers that be have control of the mic. As you will see in the upcoming conversation I have with two people that were on the grounds of the Capitol in the mall during that time, and then their subsequent 12 FBI agent siege on their home, you will see how deep and far fetched this narrative begins to develop in what they're willing to do to intimidate God-fearing country-loving individuals, and get ready for a conversation and a story that should make you really wonder who's in control. Okay, welcome back to Faith and freedom Fridays. I'm Gary Duncan, your host and again, we're continuing the second part of our conversation with Maryland and about their experience and their what we're calling I'm calling the Gestapo encounter with Nancy Pelosi his laptop. I think it was in April, y'all had the encounter.They were at the Capitol on the sixth, but we'll pick up, we're gonna pick up where we left off. I'll just give a quick synopsis Cliff Notes too, if you haven't listened to the first podcast, check the one before this one. Y'all were visiting some friends, I think it was just it was in Portland.And we had a wedding and South Dakotaand South Dakota. And then they just happened to know that, you know, they were following what was going on with the Capitol and the counting of the, the electoral votes and all that, and they checked on some flights to to Washington DC is like $39. I mean, $39, who wouldn't fly to Washington to see a historic event. So they went hung out down at the mall at the eclipse ground there. You know, from that point on it just it was an enjoyable time for him. But he went through the process step by step of what they did. So y'all were in DC, just thought you'd go down there, you know, $39 flight, who wouldn't go to, to do that. So you're down there, you're on the grounds, you're enjoying meeting people, and you're just having a good time. And so we left off when you were around near the Capitol about 330 or so. And you commented on just there wasn't any semblance of, of communication, there was no cell service. So you're just kind of Never Never Land with understanding what's going on. Because I mean, you know, half a million a million people run around with all kinds of, uh, you know, flags and agendas and stuff like that you just was interesting to what? What's out there. So what's going on? So I'm gonna share the screen here and show their timeline as we get to talking. Alright, so here we are, I think we left off around 330 you were looking around you just people, you have something like a Animal House. And you know, this picture showing all the people hanging around, it does look pretty wild. Again. So people understand you never went into the Capitol. Correct? Correct. Now never went into the Capitol. And sometimes it's good to state that because sometimes I forget that other people might assume everybody who was there within the Capitol, but there was only a small fraction of people, if you figure there were at least half a million, maybe a million people there. And I think the current count, they're putting out as there were maybe 600 or something. Really, that's a very, very tiny fraction. I'm not even sure that's not even 1% we have a small fraction. So the majority of the people who were there have no first-hand knowledge, no experience of any of the oddness going on the side of the Capitol building and of the people that we chatted with, because we got there pretty late 330. And everything of newsworthy, interested already happened before we ever got near the grounds. And we were just asking people as we went along because there was no cell service, there was no way to get any understanding in the way we were customers. Really, we all expect people to go online and find out what's happening. We couldn't find out anything, couldn't hear anything. If Trump was speaking to the people or giving any direction, none of the people would have been able to hear that. Anyway, I know there's a lot of critiques about how long or what time he took to share. But it wouldn't have mattered. There was no service for anyone to hear anything. What would have been helpful is if someone in uniform with the Capitol had come out and borrowed one of the megaphones or, you know, hey, maybe bring their own. Maybe they have some equipment to communicate with groups, I would presume, somewhere in their vast storehouses of supplies. But there were plenty of people there with little remote, you know, mobile speaker systems or just megaphones, sharing whatever their stick was about whatever they were passionate about. wanting to talk to people standing around, they could have borrowed any of those and communicated and given instruction or information to all the people milling around outside, but from the people we spoke with, and from our experience being there, there was never any attempt or add direction and nobody ever heard anything. them being asked to do anything such as Can you please clear a building? Can you please clear the scaffolding? Could you please back up so we can clear the building, there was never any information or instruction to any of the people milling about. So people just kind of stayed curious and hanging out. And whatever their timeline was that they had set aside to be free to be in the mall. They just kind of continued that way. For us. That was till four o'clock because we had to catch a flight at six. So even at the party at four o'clock, we were in a bit of a race to get to our claim.And you so around 350, you say, Rob police showed up heading towards the Capitol. So at that point, I knew something was was getting pretty serious, I guess.I guess we couldn't figure out why they were they were forming on the street, to the would-be the Well, obviously, I'm directionally challenged, though, not gonna attempt that. But we were looking for a taxi. We were on some street near next to the Capitol grounds. And we could see right, you know, a squad of riot police forming up and starting to march towards the Capitol building. And it seemed very odd, because it's, you know, a lot late, and there's nothing going on now that you would need right least forks for the weekend, observe all you again, all you would have needed is a megaphone and say can you please clear the lawn? Are you kidding me? You know, can you please step back here. And everybody would have easily you they would have easily done that. I just needed to know what, what they wanted to do. So there was nobody climbing on statues and spray painting statues and, and putting ropes around them and yanking them down.No cans on fire. And throwing bottles at you know, the police or whoever was hanging out there was none of that going on. During this there was none of that going on. There were people in all fairness, there were people enjoying hanging off of stuff, there were a lot of primarily young men there who you know, enjoy climbing. And they were hanging off of all kinds of things and getting their photos taken. But if there wasn't any spirit of destructiveness to it, I would say more just exuberance and, and energy. So they were some statues that were covered with people and people, I guess, not in a destructive manner, but more in a commemorative manner. Like, hey, look, I'm getting a picture with this famous person, this statue of this famous person or this famous person, or, you know, hanging out, taking pictures with the Capitol Police up on the balcony, or just standing around not doing anything. So yeah, no remarkable. And even in the photo, I always remark that even in the video footage, a few minutes, I don't know is that like 10 total minutes of footage that gets shown over and over on all the popular media sites. How well behaved everyone was. And in our own intrusion in our home, the rate on our home, there were a couple of Capitol Police there and I asked them questions about it and remarked at how well behaved people were that, you know, no paintings were slashed. And nothing was spray painted, no statues were toppled, and how amazing that was for such a large room. They could have done anything they wanted to and it appeared what they wanted was pictures of themselves in a place that they highly revered. And then that's getting portrayed as some kind of a seditious act. So, so how, so, you flew back home and you're just you're living your life, like, you know, that was enjoyable being there. But then as you saw all the stuff that was happening how did it come to be that FBI agents 12 of them, right would come to your doorstep. You know, granted, there's probably a bureau somewhere close by but you think, you know, Washington DC is almost 5000 miles away. In other words, show up on your doorstep with their guns drawn. Take us from that point on have you know, you're just one what time of day was it? That they showed up?It was morning for my very early morning. 9 am. Because I'm not usually up till 1030 or so cuz I'm on the night shift. And that's just I get up. And I objected to that. Point. I don't know I, my husband and I, we both like we were supernaturally parents somehow because we didn't take it that seriously. We just, it was so surreal and odd that we kind of laughed a lot and just kept saying, Are you serious? Are you, you know, take us to the site. No, nothing here. You're completely in the wrong place.So take us through that.Yeah, we never heard a knock on the door. But our bedroom is set back. They said that they knocked on the door. They were a couple of doors back from the door they were trying to get into which is kind of humorous because all of our doors were open except for that kitchen doors. We laughed that they could have picked any other door to come in and not have to break the door down. But apparently, they picked the one lock door through. So our kitchen door because our front doors are open or backward or open or bedroom doors are open. But our kitchen door between the business in our personal space locked, don't like s wandering and traversal space. So they found the kitchen door. Currently, they said they knocked on it didn't answer. It was 70. And all we heard was FBI come out with your hands up. And my husband has already headed in that direction because he heard some ruckus. And he thought one of our daughters was coming to shake him up to go to work. As they do sometimes, though, as he was heading towards the dining room. We both heard this. And so he's in his pajamas. And he heads in that direction. And they command him to turn around and walk back to them and they handcuff him and put him in a chair. And then I come out and they do the same. And then they ask if there's anyone else in our home. And we had a couple of friends who have come young men who'd come to help us for the summer had just arrived a few days earlier. So they had them come out and the customer, Gunny also, one of them being 17 years old with no Guardian, no legal guardian on-site. And they didn't ask who they were, they didn't care who they were. They don't ask any of us. I think they asked Paul and I but they handcuffed us all behind our backs, put us into chairs. And then they announced that the good news was that no one was getting arrested that day. And I was a little bit confused, because I consider being handcuffed, being arrested. And so I was like this already is not making any sense. Or they're they were here to search the space. They didn't offer that they had a search warrant that they were here to search this space. And that no one was gonna be arrested that day, which was contradictory because we already were handcuffed in my mind. And they said, and they just wanted to have a little chat. And so I immediately objected and said, Well, usually if people want to have a chat, they call it to make an appointment. And they don't bust in our door and hold us at gunpoint and then handcuff us. And besides, it's before noon, and I don't have chats before noon, because I'm not a morning person. So could they please reschedule? And they said they weren't gonna do that. And that they were going to have a chat now. And then one of the officers, one of the men acting as an offer said like, well, we came at seven and knocked and nobody answered. So we went to breakfast and came back two hours later. So we've already been waiting. And we don't even usually not usually we just bust the door in so I was like, is not supposed to make me feel good that normally you treat other people worse than you're treating us today because that's not encouraging to me at all. So so we were kind of I don't know why I started off immediately not taking their bluff overly seriously. I'm of course I knew they could drag us out any moment and you already heard plenty of stories about people that they don't have anything on that they haven't made any charges that they're holding in detention without counsel and without charges for months on end. So I'm like okay, I don't want to you know, push it too far, but at the same time, this feels like this behaving to me, I'm not just gonna be quiet about it. So they quickly separated me from the rest of the family and took me into a separate room and said, Well, you know, we want to, you know, come with us. And they uncuffed me, which, you know, and said, you know, you probably know why we're here. And I said, not really. They said, well, we're looking for Nancy Pelosi his laptop, and I don't think I laughed out loud. But I was sure laughing inside. Because I thought, wow, are they off the mark here? Totally. They really are lost. They have no idea what they're doing if they think I have any type of connections or any type of desire to do anything like that.But it took a 5000 mile turn at the wrong intersection, didn't they?Yeah, yeah. Right. And I got lost in the mall. But Wow, they were really lost. So yeah, they had agents, FBI agents from Manassas from the big whatever, the big FBI and Capitol Police there, and agents from Anchorage. And there were just a lot of agents there. And I was, and I said, Well, good to know, though Nancy Pelosi, his laptop really was stolen. And is that large? That's a real thing. That's no thanks for the Intel. What does that have to do with me? So then they said, Well, we know that you were inside the Capitol, we just, we know that you were part of the raid and you're working with? And I said, Oh, well, we're gonna have a big problem, because I know I wasn't in the capital, and that I wasn't part of any things. So we already and I need to know who wants Who told you that I was in the capital. And why does somebody want me to be in the Capitol, and I was never there. And so we started this debate. And I demanded that they show me some form of evidence that they had, but I was in the Capitol, they showed me a distant photo from one of their, their Capitol cameras. And they boasted like, Oh, this is from one of our Capitol cameras, we have hundreds of hours of footage that the public doesn't know about. And we know exactly what was going on in there. So we have footage of you all over the Capitol that day. And they showed me distant footage of a middle-aged Caucasian with brown hair with a long black coat on from the side. And from a distance. And I said, that looks like me who photoshopped me into the capital because now I need to talk to whoever is in charge of this because this is total, this is very weird. And this is really scary. Somebody is photoshopping me. And I said, they said, Oh, we have tons of footage of you all over the Capitol. I said, Well, I would like to see it. I need to see it. But they wouldn't show me anything except this distance side footage. That does look like somebody with brown hair Caucasian with a long black coat on. And so then I became very nervous. And I decided in my head that they were trying to cover up for somebody that was part of their whatever, whoever was planning this event inside the Capitol because it never felt genuine to me that patriots had broken in. So I thought, well, one of their they're trying, they're trying to use me to cover for one of their people that was inside the capitals, what I thought. And then I, I asked them, I said, so if you're watching me, who's watching your people because you guys don't have a very good reputation. And I'm concerned that you're planting the evidence, and then suddenly, you're going to find it. And I'm going to be pinched for it. So he wasn't very happy about that. And he continued to ask me, you know, we need to know who you were working with and who is following you. There are clearly people following you around in the Capitol that day. And I said, Well, obviously anyone who knows me would never follow me anywhere because I'm lost all the time. But the truth of what I said, which is that's not me, and I was never in the capital, but it's your report, I guess you can put it in whatever you want to. So he was started, he was threatening me to give information. And because I had not been in the capital, I believe, even though I was sharing and doing things that I would never recommend anybody else do. I would plead the fifth, ask for your counsel and stop talking to them. I think I'm still I'm still free because I never entered the capital. Or perhaps there was a genuine mistake and they realized it and were embarrassed and backed out of the situation. I'm not sure because there's a lot of people in custody right now and I'm not one of them. And so now, you had some When, uh, Jim Jordan that that has mentioned y'all during some meetings and some people telling you that they could string you out for a couple of years, you know, without? I mean, you're totally sound like to me, you're totally innocent. So they still have power over you. Right? Or is that the center getting? That it's just not a closed case? Well, I did look up, I have filed a rebuttal to the affidavit, which I would encourage everyone to do to find out if there you believe your name is on the record somehow for them if you have been contacted if you have had a chat, which means now you've consented to an investigation, they've opened a file on you they have filed a 302 report, I would find out what your case number is, what that report is. And I would recommend doing what I did, which is filing a rebuttal to whatever their affidavit is, whatever they have, or whatever report they've made on. So that's what I have started doing. And when I looked at that it's considered a closed case. But that's the warrant issue on the warrant and the execution of the warrant. When Jim Jordan spoke with FBI Director, Christopher Ray, his only response was, I can't comment on an open investigation. So we'll also be doing an FOIA request, we have a flare request into the FBI, to ask them for whatever information they have that they might be attempting to use to create charges against us. And in fact, we did have an attorney communicate with us and tell us that they are planning on bringing charges against us still from d. e, we have not had our local legislators contact them as well and ask them like, hey, it seems pretty obvious to the public to all of us that you had the wrong people, can you just let them go, just don't keep on stringing them along for a couple of years, just let them go. And their apparent response to that was to put us on the Homeland Security, high watch list, and make it very difficult for us to travel anywhere. Now. We have to get to the airport for hours before we want to go anywhere. And if we have any connecting flights, we have to have a couple of hours, there's that we can go through all their checks and harassment again. So so far, it hasn't brought any fruit. As far as us feeling less harassed and not on their purview anymore. They're definitely there's definitely still feels like they're after us.Wow. I don't know how to respond to something like that, to where this could be anybody. This could be you. Yeah.And I think that's why that's why our story I think is important, and why people tend to be drawn to it. Because as one person said to me, like, we're in America right now, this is where America is that right now we're middle class, minding your own business, small business owners participate in your local civic, nonprofits, government activities. And now there's a net being set in. In Alaska terms, we're a big fishing community here. So in terms of Alaskan, there's a type of fishing that's called perceiving, where you set buoys out around a large circumference. And then as you're setting those buoys out, you're encircling a large school, if you hope, a large school of fish, and then at the bottom, it's open. But once it's all set, then you perceive that there's a drawstring where you close the purse at the bottom, so that and then the boys are up the top. Now everybody who's in there can't get out, all the fish in there cannot get out. And then they lift the net and haul all of those fishes. And it feels like that, to me. That's what, I guess our executive branch is attempting to do with a huge segment of the American population. They're using this terminology like we're hearing from Nancy Pelosi and et cetera, to set the boundaries of what is, you know, insurrection now means people dressed up and taking selfies inside the Capitol. That's now defined as an insurrection. Who were they caused me there? Their misbehaving antics have caused me a delay. It's like now that's considered no apparent plan but a delay happened. So obviously now that's a seditious insurrection. And now these people and in our case, the FBI raided our home, they took electronics which were allowed in the warrant of the search. And the only other item they took, besides electronics to forensically audit, they were allowed to take anything that indicated an intent or actual planning of some, you know, heinous crimes with a capital on January 6, what they took was a pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. That's what they took us evidence against us. So to me, that lets me know how they're setting the buoys, they're setting a very wide, wide net. And I believe, with this new move, where Nancy Pelosi is, is redefining terrorism, that now they're trying to gain cause they're trying to give probable cause or a logical reason to now purse, the net, and start hauling all these people in. That's what I believe it's, it's happening. So we need to move fast to get our affidavit into the public eye, because of our experience there. And we also need to get it into the court records. So anybody who would like to help to do that we're seeking to do that as well and maybe join with others. We're taking action because we're allowing, by our silence, we're sensing to the lie. And that's the way law understands things so silent, the violent majority is guilty. Verbal, people can get the truth of their account and experience on the record. So we have to not be intimidated into silence. We have to speak, or we allowed them to write the history books, and define everything and plus,  

Join Jessica Sterling (@thejesssterling), Sara Fergenson (@sarafergenson) and special guest, Kevin Mahadeo (@kevmahadeo) as they journey to Never Never Land to chat about the 1991 film Hook! They theorize on why critics didn't enjoy the movie, talk about their love of Robin Williams and discuss the larger mythos of Peter Pan.Follow us on Twitter and Instagram at @shit90spod.Email us at shit90spod@gmail.comSpecial thanks to JD McGuire (@jdmcguire) for our theme song!Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Cecille Richards, the maniacal ghoul who for the past dozen years has run the largest abortion mill in America, is reportedly stepping down from the eugenics factory and organ harvester. We'll take a look back on the abject misery Cecile leaves in her wake. Then Liz Wheeler and Erielle Davidson join the Panel of Deplorables to discuss Trump's apparent willingness to speak with special counsel Robert Mueller under oath, Trump's vowing to cut off aid to the Hamas-electing Arabs in the fictional country of Palestine, right never to Never-Never-Land, unless they return to peace talks, and CNN advocates cuckoldry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices