Podcasts about never never land

Exit Light, Enter.... mites? Like dust mites? That turn into big monsters because you're not sleeping right? ........Off to Never Never Land!

Even though it's Star Wars Day, someone else can talk about Luke & Leia. What I have is a  super-long episode about much-older movies: the 1932 Tarzan & the 1924 Pan. Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan star in an exciting, sexy, action-adventure story. They worked with lions and hippos and crocs (and actors in animal suits) and it's all convincingly done, especially since none of the principal photography was actually in Africa. Then I talked about the boy who just refuses to age. Betty Bronson's Peter is going to stay in Never(Never)Land forever and ever (and ever)...even if Ernest Torrence's Captain Hook is gunning for his insouciant head. The film is well-made and the acting is not bad either, even if the concept is remarkably mockable. So check out my monlogues about some more good (and sometimes bad) guys here in Heroes Month in this 737th episode: Tarzan The Ape Man and Peter Pan. Be a subscriber to Have You Ever Seen in your app, but also take a little time to rate the show and even write a review saying nice things. Follow me on Twitter (@moviefiend51), Bluesky (ryan-ellis) and send out an email (haveyoueverseenpodcast@gmail.com). I also post stuff on Letterboxd (RyanHYES).

Most agency owners have read Built to Sell. But many have internalized the wrong lesson from it—fixating on that final chapter where the protagonist drives off into the sunset with a pile of cash, rather than the actual business-building advice throughout the book. The result is owners spending years building businesses optimized for a sale that may never happen, or that won’t deliver the outcome they’re imagining. In this episode, Chip and Gini discuss Chip’s “Build to Own” philosophy as a counterpoint to the built-to-sell mindset. The core principle: focus on creating a business that serves you today, not some hypothetical buyer tomorrow. This doesn’t mean you can’t or won’t sell—it means you stop treating the sale as the primary objective and start treating ownership as the thing you’re optimizing for right now. Chip breaks down the TMRW framework for thinking about what you want from your business: Time (how much you spend and what flexibility you have), Meaning (what gives you satisfaction—clients, team, impact), Rewards (financial outcomes that fund your life today and tomorrow), and Work (the actual role you’re crafting for yourself). Gini shares her decision to retire from speaking despite conventional wisdom saying agency owners should be out there raising their profile—because the anxiety wasn’t worth the marginal business benefit. The conversation tackles the uncomfortable reality that most agency owners counting on a sale to fund their retirement are likely building businesses that won’t command the multiple they’re hoping for. Meanwhile, owners who build businesses that throw off enough cash to fund retirement directly—while also being enjoyable to run—end up with something far more attractive to buyers when and if they do decide to sell. Gini tells the story of a friend who prepared five years in advance for a sale: removing himself from day-to-day operations, hiring a president to build culture, ensuring the business wasn’t founder-dependent. The result? An 18x multiple. But the episode’s point isn’t “here’s how to get a great sale”—it’s that you should make every decision through the lens of “would I still be happy with this if I never sold?” Key takeaways Chip Griffin: “What’s the point of taking on all the risk and stress of owning the business if you’re not getting what you want from it? At that point you are working for the business you own rather than putting the business to work for you.” Gini Dietrich: “If you think about it from the perspective of let’s just pretend you’ll never sell the business, what do you want right now? Write those things down and be really honest with yourself, and then build the business around that. I promise you that if you do those things, you’re gonna be much more attractive to a buyer later.” Chip Griffin: “You should always ask yourself the question, would I still be happy with this decision if I didn’t sell? Because that is candidly the more likely scenario for most people listening to this show.” Gini Dietrich: “If you’re implementing somebody else’s plan, just go work for somebody else. There’s no reason to have all the risk and blood and sweat and tears, just go work for someone else.” Turn ideas into action Define your TMRW priorities this week. Block 30 minutes and write down what you actually want from your business right now across four areas: Time (how many hours, what flexibility), Meaning (what gives you satisfaction), Rewards (what financial outcomes you need), and Work (what role you want to play day-to-day). Be brutally honest—not what you think you “should” want, but what you actually want. This clarity becomes your filter for every business decision going forward. Audit your last five major decisions against your ownership goals. Look back at recent significant choices—a new service line, a hiring decision, a client you pursued, a speaking commitment you accepted. For each one, ask: “If I never sell this business, would this decision still make sense for what I want from ownership?” If more than half don’t pass that test, you’re optimizing for the wrong outcome. Calculate whether you’re funding your future or gambling on it. Open your financials and answer three questions: Are you paying yourself a competitive salary (what you’d make if you took a job elsewhere)? Are you contributing to retirement at the level you’d need to retire comfortably without a sale? Is the business profitable enough to sustain both? If the answer to any is “no,” you’re counting on a sale rather than building a business that works for you today—and that’s a bet most owners lose. Resources Chip’s Build to Own philosophy Related Build to Own: Getting More From Agency Ownership Build for TMRW to get more from your agency Adopting the Build to Own Mindset The Build to Own mindset Building the agency you want to own (featuring Chris Williams) View Transcript The following is a computer-generated transcript. Please listen to the audio to confirm accuracy. Chip Griffin: Hello and welcome to another episode of the Agency Leadership Podcast. I’m Chip Griffin. Gini Dietrich: And I’m Gini Dietrich. Chip Griffin: And I think we’re gonna talk about construction today, Gini. Gini Dietrich: We are. Chip Griffin: We’re gonna talk about building. Gini Dietrich: Yes. Structure. I, Nope, I can’t do it. Sorry. Chip Griffin: It’s my job to torture things. You’re, yes, you’re, Gini Dietrich: yes. I, Chip Griffin: you are too grounded in reality. I’m the one who’s off in Never Never Land making up weird stuff. So, yes. No, we are not talking about about construction, I think. Gini Dietrich: No, but we are talking about building. Chip Griffin: into all sorts of zoning violations and probably code compliance issues and all that. Don’t listen to us on that stuff. Gini Dietrich: We’re not touching construction. Chip Griffin: We are talking instead about my Build to Own concept because it’s something I’ve talked about a little bit over the years, but haven’t really focused on well enough. So I wrote an article about it recently to try to underscore a little bit about my overall philosophy about how you ought to go about running your agency. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I think it’s a really good topic because you know, there’s the book called Built to Sell, which I think probably most of us have read, which the idea is that you’re building process and procedure to be able to sell your business someday. But what does that look like if you don’t sell or that’s not part of your goal, or you’ve built a lifestyle business, or you’re in the middle of it, and you’re like, Ugh, how much longer do I have to do this? Right? And so changing your mindset to be around built to own is, I think a really good one. Chip Griffin: Yeah. And look, I mean, I, I think that there is, like everybody else I have read Built to Sell, I think it is a great book. There’s a lot of good advice in there. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: I think, you know, my issue with it is that a lot of people don’t read all of the advice. And so instead they think about the title of the book. Right. And so it’s, it is very much, a build to sell is, or Build to Own rather, is a definite counterpoint to built to sell because it does two things. First of all, instead of looking in the rear view mirror as built to sell does with the word built instead of build. And also it helps you to understand that you need to think about what’s going on with your business today. Gini Dietrich: Right? Right. Chip Griffin: Yes. Maybe someday you’ll sell, but if you focus just on the maybe someday. You may have a miserable existence until then. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. Yeah. Chip Griffin: And too many people read Built to Sell and they dwell on the last couple of pages of the book. Yep. Where it makes it seem like the owner has driven off into the sunset and is sitting on some beach in Tahiti sinking drinking mai tais for the rest of their lives. That is an unlikely scenario. Yes. For most agency owners. We’ve talked about that before. So fundamentally the same things that you want to do in order to be appealing to a buyer, typically, you’re gonna make it more appealing to own as well. But it’s changing your mindset to think about first and foremost, what you want from the business. And, and starting from there, instead of saying, what might somebody else want? Why should I, you know, I wanna get into this particular sector because that’s a hot sector that someone wants to buy, or I wanna focus on growing revenue because if I grow it by, you know, 50% a year, someone’s gonna be excited about it. But what does it mean for you today? Gini Dietrich: Right. Yeah, I think it’s a really good question to ask yourself and, and I think we’ve also talked about this too, that it changes, right? It may not, it may not be the same that it is right now. I mean, in 2012, I remember looking ahead to 2020 and thinking like 2020, the year 2020, like perfect vision, here’s the things that I want to have accomplished. And we all know what happened in 2020, right? Just the, right? So things change. Things… you know, the world happens, the economy happens. Sectors change. Your needs change, your desires change, all of those things. And I think it’s really important to say, what is it that I want to build right now? And be okay with the fact that it may evolve in three years. It may evolve in five years, and that’s okay. Yes. But what is it that we’re trying to build right now and, and how can I be satisfied with that? And I think you raised some really good points in your article, which I will not steal your thunder on, but there’s some really good points in there about how to think through that and figure out what it is that you want right now. Chip Griffin: Yeah, and I think as you say it, it can change regularly. So you ought to be reviewing this regularly. You shouldn’t assume that whatever you decided two years ago is still the right direction because your life changes, the world changes, you learn more. All of those kinds of things. And, so what I typically encourage people to do is, is to think about tomorrow. And I spell that of course, in the, the weird texter way of TMRW because you know, I am, I am that hip and, and that’s, you know, typically how I, I text people too. Sure. At least whenever I can figure out how to even type something into my, my phone because I, I’m terrible at that. But it’s it. So it’s focusing on four things. It’s focusing on time, meaning, rewards, and work. So in other words, you need to think about how much time do you want to spend in the business? What kind of flexibility do you want in that time? What kind of things do you want to carve out additional time for. You need to think about meaning what, you know, how are you gonna get satisfaction from the business? Is it the kind of clients you’re working with, the people that you’re working with? Is it building something that people are proud of and say, wow, this guy did a great thing. What is it that gives you meaning out of it? Rewards pretty self-explanatory, but you know, it’s the financial aspect of it. Are you getting what you want from it? Is it setting you up for your future that you’re trying to have? Whether that’s paying for your kids’ education or funding your retirement or what have you. And you should focus on the business today doing that, not some magical, mystical, possible sale somewhere down the road that may or may not happen. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: And then finally, you need to think about the work that you’re doing because ultimately, if you wanted to do work that you were miserable about, you could go work for somebody else. At least for a while, you probably make some more money than what you would make off of your own business. So you need to make sure that you’re crafting a job, a role that you actually like. So if you think about those things in terms of how you want to build something that you’re happy to own, that’s a good way to start by thinking about the TMRW mindset. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I think it’s really important to do that. You know, it’ll be two years in August that I decided I was retiring from speaking. And, not because of any reason other than it makes me super anxious. It, I get really, really, I get super, super nervous. I get really anxious leading up to it. It’s fine once I’m on stage and it’s fine after, but leading up to it is way too much for me. And I discovered through data that I actually make more money when I don’t leave my desk that often. Right. So while it does help with awareness and all those kinds of things. I’m significantly more productive when I sit at my desk. So I said to myself, from a rewards perspective, what is it that I want to do with the business and with my life? And one of those things was giving up speaking. And you know, to this day, people ask me to speak and I, it’s, it’s hard for me to say no, but I do, because I’ve said to myself, in myself inside my head. You’re retired from speaking. Now I’ll do it virtually and you know, all those things. But getting me up on stage, I’m just not gonna do it anymore. Yeah. And that was a reward for me that I wanted to have, and that, you know, it’s been almost two years. It still remains today. So that may change. I may change my mind, you know, later and want to get back out there again and do it again. Maybe. Maybe not, but, to your point, that’s one of the things that I think about is, you know, how is, how is my life structured right now and what do I want to change so that I’m happier doing it every day? Chip Griffin: Well, and that’s a perfect example of the Build to Own approach because it really allows you to craft something that makes sense for you, even though it violates almost every quote unquote rule that experts would tell you, right? Yes. I mean, most expert advisors, yes, will tell you, you know, as a business owner, as an agency owner, you need to be out there speaking and yes, raising the profile for the business and all of these things. And look, that works for some people. But if you don’t like it, if you don’t want to do it. You shouldn’t. You should think of other ways that you can grow the business. Yep. Same thing with, you know that you will read, including in Built to Sell and elsewhere, that you should get yourself outta day to day client work. Okay. I mean. If that’s what you want, great. If it’s not what you want, figure out how to structure the business so that, that you can do that client service work ’cause that’s what fulfills you. I mean, really, and I know I say this a lot, but what’s the point of taking on all the risk and stress of owning the business if you’re not getting what you want from it? Right. I mean that’s just, yes. It makes no sense. Yes. ’cause at that point you are working for the business you own. Yep. Rather than putting the business to work for you. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s such a good way to look at it, because if you think about it from the perspective of let’s just set aside that you will, let’s just say pretend you’ll never sell. You’ll never sell the business. You know, we don’t know what’s gonna happen to it in the future, but that’s off the table. What do you want right now? Is it the ability to do client work? Is it the ability to work on innovative projects? Is it the ability to sort of think about the future and what that might look like for your business? Is it to make a crap ton of money? What is it that you want? Write those things down and be really honest with yourself, and then build the business around that. And I promise you that if you do those things, you’re gonna be much more attractive to a buyer later than you are if you’re trying to build a business to sell it. Chip Griffin: Exactly. I mean if, if you’re able to build a business that throws off enough cash that you’re able to fund all of your current needs, to fund your retirement and all of those things, that’s the kind of business that a lot more people are going to want to buy. Yeah. If you’re counting on that maybe someday sale to be your payday that allows you to actually retire or those kinds of things. And I see a lot of owners who are in this position. You probably have built something that you’re not gonna get that much of a premium on. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: And so you actually are helping your future sale by collecting more money from the business today. You’re not actually holding back your opportunities, you’re creating more of them. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, I think it’s really important to remember that. And you know, I have had several situations with friends who own agencies who have come to me and said, Hey, I’m thinking about putting the business up for sale. I need to be out in the next year. And you’re like, you can’t…. This… what? And have done no preparation for that other than that’s like, I want to retire and that’s the end goal is to sell the business. And there’s no profitability in the business. They haven’t paid themself a fair wage. Like there’s no preparation for it. You know, one of the biggest lessons I learned is I sit on several boards and in 2019, I sat on a board that sold right before the pandemic. And leading up to that five years before he put the business up for sell, he knew he was gonna put the business on the market in five years. He started to look for, first of all, he started to look for ways to take himself out of the business, so it was no longer founder led, and he put key personnel in place. Three years out of selling the business, he hired a president who was building the culture and that the team relied on so that that person would be sold with the business. And he did all of these things to create process and procedure so that when he put the business up for sale, it was not about him as the founder, it was about the business. And he got… I think he ended up with like 18 times multiple because of it. But he spent five years doing that, right? And he built a team and he built key personnel and he ensured that those people had the right contracts in place and the right salaries in place that they would then go with the business when he sold it. And he, of course, he had a little bit of an earnout, but it wasn’t as significant as if he were the, as if it were founder led. So there were all these things he did that he did to prepare for that for five years. So my team and I look at every 90 days, we do a 90 day sprint and we look at what process is broken right now and how can we fix that. But at the same time, I’m not doing anything that I don’t enjoy. I’m focused on the things I want to do and I’m building the business around it. Will we put the business up for sale someday? Maybe. I dunno, we’ll see. But right now we’re building a business that I enjoy owning. We’re having a blast. Chip Griffin: Right. Well look, I mean, you know, as I say over and over again, because I, the biggest objection I hear when I talk about Build to Own is, geez, you know, I, but, but I wanna sell someday. I, I, you know, I don’t wanna do this forever. Okay. Build to Own in no way precludes it. Gini Dietrich: Right? Right. Chip Griffin: And it, all I’m saying to you is that instead of making selling your focus, you should focus on the ownership piece because you know that you own the business. You know that you will own the business. You’re not sure if you’re going to sell. If you are, you certainly do want to take the steps to prepare that your friend did. And, and the more, time that you have to prepare and think about and structure the business, the more likely you are to have success. But it’s still not a sure thing, right? You may not get right the kind of offer that you’re looking for, you may not get the terms that you’re looking for. Yep. And so you should always, even if you’re thinking about selling one day and you want to generally position for that, you should always ask yourself the question, would I still be happy with this decision if I didn’t sell? Gini Dietrich: Right. Chip Griffin: Because that is the, that is candidly the more likely scenario for most people listening to this show. Gini Dietrich: Yeah, and I think it’s reality. Your, your advice to focus on things as a business owner, which are funding your retirement. Making a livable salary. Making a salary that, you know, if the business were bought, you would, they have to see that you’re making a salary that would compete with, like if you went to get a job, would you make $80,000 a year? Would you make $30,000 a year? No, you would probably make mid to high six figures. You have to be able to pay yourself at that level. You have to have profitability. Like those things are the things that you should be focused on. And if you do that and you never sell your business, you’re still okay. Correct. Because you’ve funded your retirement and you’ve paid for the things that are going to support your lifestyle. Chip Griffin: Correct. And you weren’t miserable in the process. I mean, you know, look, it’s often said that life is short. You don’t know what the future holds. And so, you know, are you happy to spend five or 10 years being miserable because you think right, that maybe someday, maybe someday you’ll be able to sell for some big number. Gini Dietrich: No. No. Chip Griffin: Why would you do that? No, and and I’m not, I’m not some woo woo, Oh, you know, you, you have to be happy and everything, and Gini Dietrich: You’re definitely not. Chip Griffin: It’s all sunshine and unicorns and all of that. I mean, no, no. I mean, even if you follow my, my Build to Own approach, you’re still gonna have some. Really miserable days as a business owner. Gini Dietrich: Yep, yep. Chip Griffin: It’s not all going to be fun. Mm-hmm. You have to do a lot of things you do not want to do. You do not enjoy. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: However, those should be in the minority and they certainly shouldn’t be because you’re doing something with the sole objective of maybe someday selling. Gini Dietrich: Right. Yeah, that’s absolutely true. It’s funny you say that because I had a miserable Friday last week and today is Monday when we’re recording this and I feel much better. But yeah, I mean, you’re not, I, I love my job. I love what we do. I love what we’re building, but it’s not all rainbows and unicorns. That’s life. Chip Griffin: That’s life. It’s entrepreneurship. It’s, it’s the risk and the stress that I talk about. It’s, it’s all of those things. But you can still structure it in a way. Yes. That gets you more of what you want. Gini Dietrich: Yes. Chip Griffin: And is not following someone else’s formula for success. Right. Or what someone else might be interested in potentially buying. Yes. Is figuring out what works for you? What gives you what you need and want from the business? And I think if you’re, if you spend your time looking at those and evaluating all of the decisions you make in your business, whether that’s, you know, what kinds of clients you’re pursuing, what sectors you’re working in, the service mix that you provide, the people that you hire to be around you, how you compensate yourself, all of these decisions should be looked at through that frankly rather selfish lens. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: Of what you want as an owner. Gini Dietrich: Absolutely. Chip Griffin: Because it, it will not only make you happier, it will likely make you have a better business. Because if you’re just implementing someone else’s plan, you’re not gonna be as committed to it as something where you can understand, I’m doing this for me, I’m doing this for my family. I’m doing this to get what I want from my business. Gini Dietrich: And if you’re implementing somebody else’s plan, just go work for somebody else, Chip Griffin: right? Gini Dietrich: There’s no reason to have all the risk and flood and sweat and tears, like just go work for someone else. Chip Griffin: Yeah. I mean, it’s, it is really, if you’re going to be an owner, you have to have an owner’s mindset. Yeah. You can’t have an employee’s mindset as an owner because that you, you’ll just, you’ll fail and you will feel miserable at the same time. Gini Dietrich: Yeah. Chip Griffin: That’s not a good combination. Gini Dietrich: I, I think, I mean, I’m sure Jen will include the link to your article in the show notes. It was, it’s really well done. I read it and I was like, we need to talk about this because it’s, it really helps you change that mindset from building a business to sell it and versus building a business to own it. And I think you still can absolutely, to your point, still sell it someday, but you’ll be much happier if you’re building a business to own it right now. Chip Griffin: Imagine if the, if the sale is the gravy, right? Imagine if you’ve already stockpiled your nest egg and you know, I don’t have to sell. I mean, first of all, that takes the pressure off you. You can negotiate a much better deal if you’re not forced into doing it. Gini Dietrich: Yep. Chip Griffin: And we all know this, right? I mean Yep. Anytime you can walk away from a deal, you’re likely to get better terms. Gini Dietrich: Absolutely. Chip Griffin: So, so if you can say, look, I’m confident. Now take it or leave it, buddy. This is, this is what you’re gonna have to pay me for this business. This is what you’re gonna have to give me in terms of an earnout and an employment agreement and all of those kinds of things. And if you don’t, that’s fine. Yeah, I’m still good. I can walk away. Good. Right. Imagine how much more powerful that is. And imagine now you’re thinking about your sale as something that allows you to do something maybe extra special with your retirement as opposed to just having a comfortable one. Gini Dietrich: Right. Chip Griffin: I mean, I’ll take that any day of the week. Gini Dietrich: Absolutely. Yes. Yes. Chip Griffin: With that, I hope, hope you had a good day of the week by listening to us. That was kind of a tortured wrap up, but you know, it is what it is. We constructed some good ideas for you today. I dunno, we just, we, Gini Dietrich: no terrible. No, no. Chip Griffin: We’re just gonna let this go here. So with that, we’ll wrap up this episode. I’m Chip Griffin. Gini Dietrich: I’m Gini Dietrich Chip Griffin: and it depends.

15.6.25 - Never-Never Land by New Life Prestwick, Scotland.

When you're in a relationship with a covert narcissist, it can feel like living in Never Never Land—a place where no one grows up, nothing ever gets resolved, and you're left carrying all the weight. At first, their charm feels like magic. They're playful, adventurous, fun. But when real life shows up—accountability, conflict, emotional depth—they shut down, lash out, or retreat into blame. In this episode, we explore the Peter Pan World of covert narcissists, those who refuse to grow up and keep their partners stuck in emotional childhood right alongside them. Whether it's Peter Pan or Paula Pan, and whether you are playing the role of Wendy or William, the result is the same: you're cast into the role of caretaker, carrying the emotional, practical, and relational weight while your needs are silenced. We'll unpack: The traits of a covert narcissist who avoids responsibility at all costs.  The emotional toll of being cast as Wendy—or William—in the relationship.  Why truth, repair, and closure vanish into “Never Never Land.”  How to recognize the cycle and start writing a new story outside of their fantasy world.  If you've ever felt like you're living in Never Never Land, an emotional purgatory with someone who refuses to grow up, this episode will help you name it—and remind you that you don't have to stay there. DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY RENEE SWANSON, COVERT NARCISSISM PODCAST, AND CNG LIFE COACHING IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DIAGNOSIS PURPOSES AND NOT INTENDED TO BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL CARE. PLEASE CONSULT A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER FOR GUIDANCE SPECIFIC TO YOUR CASE. THIS MATERIAL DISCUSSES NARCISSISM IN GENERAL. RENEE SHARES STORIES FROM HER PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AS WELL AS FROM THOSE SHE HAS TALKED WITH FOR SEVERAL YEARS. HER MATERIAL DOES NOT CLAIM THAT ANY SPECIFIC PERSON HAS NARCISSISM AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TO REFER TO ANY SPECIFIC PERSON AS HAVING NARCISSISM. PERMISSION IS NOT GRANTED TO LINK TO OR REPOST THIS MATERIAL TO SUPPORT AN ALLEGATION OR SUPPORT A CLAIM THAT ANY SPECIFIC PERSON IS A NARCISSIST. THAT WOULD BE AN UNAUTHORIZED MISUSE OF THE MATERIAL AND INFORMATION PROVIDED.

The Teardrop Phase Friendly Fire 5:34 Deviator 2025 The Teardrop Phase Æther 1:58 Deviator 2025 The Teardrop Phase Burning Man 5:25 Deviator 2025 The Teardrop Phase Skin Job 4:59 Deviator 2024 Mahalia Jackson Trouble of The World 2:08 Imitation of Life 1959 UNKLE Inside 7:13 Never Never Land 2004 Genesis Entangled 6:25 A Trick Of […]

Stream / Buy: fanlink.tv/GR381 ADRIANNA makes her new milestone with the debut on Sisko's Gain Records! Sargam EP begins with a blend of tradition and super peak time techno in collaboration with Reaktive. All Night follows, crafted for the late hours. Chase the Sun is inspired by the first light on the horizon. Including also a solid remix by the label boss Sisko ! This EP is a journey from darkness to dawn. ADRIANNA has firmly established herself as a force in the techno scene, pushing her sound into darker, more hypnotic territory while maintaining the high-energy presence that made her a festival favourite. With a string of hard-hitting releases and an increasingly stacked tour schedule, 2025 sees her refining her vision and stepping into a new phase of her career. Her latest singles, Hallucinations and Never Never Land, mark a shift towards stripped-back, club-focused aesthetics, blending precision and raw intensity. Hallucinations—a skeletal, driving cut built on tight percussion and haunting synth motifs—made its live debut during her main stage set at Creamfields, where its relentless energy connected instantly with the crowd. Never Never Land, released via her own label Temple Music, taps into peak-time power, balancing hypnotic tension with explosive drops, and reinforcing ADRIANNA's reputation for producing tracks that hit hard and linger long after the night ends. 2025 is set to be a defining year for ADRIANNA. Her upcoming EP on Marie Vaunt's Kurai Records (Back to You, Lie to Me) is one of her most anticipated projects to date, while her ongoing relationship with Alan Fitzpatrick's We Are The Brave sees her locked in for releases in both May and September. Beyond the studio, she continues to dominate festival stages across the UK and Europe, with major bookings in Barcelona (Sonar) and Amsterdam (ADE) highlighting her expanding global presence. Her label, Temple Music, is also scaling up, hosting Ascension, a series of large-scale events in Edinburgh in May and September, setting the tone for 2025. Temple's output has become a go-to for fans of uncompromising, club-ready techno, solidifying ADRIANNA's role as both a producer and tastemaker. Beyond the dancefloor, her track To Life was featured in the film Bloodline, marking another milestone in her growing reach beyond club culture. With her sound evolving, her profile rising, and her label breaking new ground, ADRIANNA is set to make 2025 her biggest year yet. Expect nothing less than pure, unrelenting energy. --- Mertcan Özke, widely known by his stage name Reaktive, is a multi-genre music producer hailing from Turkey. With a distinct focus on innovative sound design and an unparalleled ability to blend various genres seamlessly, Reaktive has captivated audiences worldwide with his genre-mashing style. As one of the founders of Turkey's first Bass music collective, Reaktive has played a pivotal role in shaping the electronic music scene in his country. Known for his versatility, Reaktive effortlessly navigates through different genres, blending elements of bass music, electronic, and beyond. His music resonates with audiences on a profound level, fusing infectious beats, intricate melodies, and atmospheric textures into a captivating sonic experience. His tracks have garnered significant recognition over 20 million streams, Reaktive's music has resonated with listeners worldwide. Fuelled by an unwavering passion for music, Reaktive continuously strives to push the boundaries of his artistry. ©️ 2025 Gain Records | Gain Plus www.gainrecords.com #SuperTechno #WeAreWhatWePlay #Dreamtechno

Stream / Buy: fanlink.tv/GR381 ADRIANNA makes her new milestone with the debut on Sisko's Gain Records! Sargam EP begins with a blend of tradition and super peak time techno in collaboration with Reaktive. All Night follows, crafted for the late hours. Chase the Sun is inspired by the first light on the horizon. Including also a solid remix by the label boss Sisko ! This EP is a journey from darkness to dawn. ADRIANNA has firmly established herself as a force in the techno scene, pushing her sound into darker, more hypnotic territory while maintaining the high-energy presence that made her a festival favourite. With a string of hard-hitting releases and an increasingly stacked tour schedule, 2025 sees her refining her vision and stepping into a new phase of her career. Her latest singles, Hallucinations and Never Never Land, mark a shift towards stripped-back, club-focused aesthetics, blending precision and raw intensity. Hallucinations—a skeletal, driving cut built on tight percussion and haunting synth motifs—made its live debut during her main stage set at Creamfields, where its relentless energy connected instantly with the crowd. Never Never Land, released via her own label Temple Music, taps into peak-time power, balancing hypnotic tension with explosive drops, and reinforcing ADRIANNA's reputation for producing tracks that hit hard and linger long after the night ends. 2025 is set to be a defining year for ADRIANNA. Her upcoming EP on Marie Vaunt's Kurai Records (Back to You, Lie to Me) is one of her most anticipated projects to date, while her ongoing relationship with Alan Fitzpatrick's We Are The Brave sees her locked in for releases in both May and September. Beyond the studio, she continues to dominate festival stages across the UK and Europe, with major bookings in Barcelona (Sonar) and Amsterdam (ADE) highlighting her expanding global presence. Her label, Temple Music, is also scaling up, hosting Ascension, a series of large-scale events in Edinburgh in May and September, setting the tone for 2025. Temple's output has become a go-to for fans of uncompromising, club-ready techno, solidifying ADRIANNA's role as both a producer and tastemaker. Beyond the dancefloor, her track To Life was featured in the film Bloodline, marking another milestone in her growing reach beyond club culture. With her sound evolving, her profile rising, and her label breaking new ground, ADRIANNA is set to make 2025 her biggest year yet. Expect nothing less than pure, unrelenting energy. --- Mertcan Özke, widely known by his stage name Reaktive, is a multi-genre music producer hailing from Turkey. With a distinct focus on innovative sound design and an unparalleled ability to blend various genres seamlessly, Reaktive has captivated audiences worldwide with his genre-mashing style. As one of the founders of Turkey's first Bass music collective, Reaktive has played a pivotal role in shaping the electronic music scene in his country. Known for his versatility, Reaktive effortlessly navigates through different genres, blending elements of bass music, electronic, and beyond. His music resonates with audiences on a profound level, fusing infectious beats, intricate melodies, and atmospheric textures into a captivating sonic experience. His tracks have garnered significant recognition over 20 million streams, Reaktive's music has resonated with listeners worldwide. Fuelled by an unwavering passion for music, Reaktive continuously strives to push the boundaries of his artistry. ©️ 2025 Gain Records | Gain Plus www.gainrecords.com #SuperTechno #WeAreWhatWePlay #Dreamtechno

Stream / Buy: fanlink.tv/GR381 ADRIANNA makes her new milestone with the debut on Sisko's Gain Records! Sargam EP begins with a blend of tradition and super peak time techno in collaboration with Reaktive. All Night follows, crafted for the late hours. Chase the Sun is inspired by the first light on the horizon. Including also a solid remix by the label boss Sisko ! This EP is a journey from darkness to dawn. ADRIANNA has firmly established herself as a force in the techno scene, pushing her sound into darker, more hypnotic territory while maintaining the high-energy presence that made her a festival favourite. With a string of hard-hitting releases and an increasingly stacked tour schedule, 2025 sees her refining her vision and stepping into a new phase of her career. Her latest singles, Hallucinations and Never Never Land, mark a shift towards stripped-back, club-focused aesthetics, blending precision and raw intensity. Hallucinations—a skeletal, driving cut built on tight percussion and haunting synth motifs—made its live debut during her main stage set at Creamfields, where its relentless energy connected instantly with the crowd. Never Never Land, released via her own label Temple Music, taps into peak-time power, balancing hypnotic tension with explosive drops, and reinforcing ADRIANNA's reputation for producing tracks that hit hard and linger long after the night ends. 2025 is set to be a defining year for ADRIANNA. Her upcoming EP on Marie Vaunt's Kurai Records (Back to You, Lie to Me) is one of her most anticipated projects to date, while her ongoing relationship with Alan Fitzpatrick's We Are The Brave sees her locked in for releases in both May and September. Beyond the studio, she continues to dominate festival stages across the UK and Europe, with major bookings in Barcelona (Sonar) and Amsterdam (ADE) highlighting her expanding global presence. Her label, Temple Music, is also scaling up, hosting Ascension, a series of large-scale events in Edinburgh in May and September, setting the tone for 2025. Temple's output has become a go-to for fans of uncompromising, club-ready techno, solidifying ADRIANNA's role as both a producer and tastemaker. Beyond the dancefloor, her track To Life was featured in the film Bloodline, marking another milestone in her growing reach beyond club culture. With her sound evolving, her profile rising, and her label breaking new ground, ADRIANNA is set to make 2025 her biggest year yet. Expect nothing less than pure, unrelenting energy. --- Mertcan Özke, widely known by his stage name Reaktive, is a multi-genre music producer hailing from Turkey. With a distinct focus on innovative sound design and an unparalleled ability to blend various genres seamlessly, Reaktive has captivated audiences worldwide with his genre-mashing style. As one of the founders of Turkey's first Bass music collective, Reaktive has played a pivotal role in shaping the electronic music scene in his country. Known for his versatility, Reaktive effortlessly navigates through different genres, blending elements of bass music, electronic, and beyond. His music resonates with audiences on a profound level, fusing infectious beats, intricate melodies, and atmospheric textures into a captivating sonic experience. His tracks have garnered significant recognition over 20 million streams, Reaktive's music has resonated with listeners worldwide. Fuelled by an unwavering passion for music, Reaktive continuously strives to push the boundaries of his artistry. ©️ 2025 Gain Records | Gain Plus www.gainrecords.com #SuperTechno #WeAreWhatWePlay #Dreamtechno

Stream / Buy: fanlink.tv/GR381 ADRIANNA makes her new milestone with the debut on Sisko's Gain Records! Sargam EP begins with a blend of tradition and super peak time techno in collaboration with Reaktive. All Night follows, crafted for the late hours. Chase the Sun is inspired by the first light on the horizon. Including also a solid remix by the label boss Sisko ! This EP is a journey from darkness to dawn. ADRIANNA has firmly established herself as a force in the techno scene, pushing her sound into darker, more hypnotic territory while maintaining the high-energy presence that made her a festival favourite. With a string of hard-hitting releases and an increasingly stacked tour schedule, 2025 sees her refining her vision and stepping into a new phase of her career. Her latest singles, Hallucinations and Never Never Land, mark a shift towards stripped-back, club-focused aesthetics, blending precision and raw intensity. Hallucinations—a skeletal, driving cut built on tight percussion and haunting synth motifs—made its live debut during her main stage set at Creamfields, where its relentless energy connected instantly with the crowd. Never Never Land, released via her own label Temple Music, taps into peak-time power, balancing hypnotic tension with explosive drops, and reinforcing ADRIANNA's reputation for producing tracks that hit hard and linger long after the night ends. 2025 is set to be a defining year for ADRIANNA. Her upcoming EP on Marie Vaunt's Kurai Records (Back to You, Lie to Me) is one of her most anticipated projects to date, while her ongoing relationship with Alan Fitzpatrick's We Are The Brave sees her locked in for releases in both May and September. Beyond the studio, she continues to dominate festival stages across the UK and Europe, with major bookings in Barcelona (Sonar) and Amsterdam (ADE) highlighting her expanding global presence. Her label, Temple Music, is also scaling up, hosting Ascension, a series of large-scale events in Edinburgh in May and September, setting the tone for 2025. Temple's output has become a go-to for fans of uncompromising, club-ready techno, solidifying ADRIANNA's role as both a producer and tastemaker. Beyond the dancefloor, her track To Life was featured in the film Bloodline, marking another milestone in her growing reach beyond club culture. With her sound evolving, her profile rising, and her label breaking new ground, ADRIANNA is set to make 2025 her biggest year yet. Expect nothing less than pure, unrelenting energy. --- Mertcan Özke, widely known by his stage name Reaktive, is a multi-genre music producer hailing from Turkey. With a distinct focus on innovative sound design and an unparalleled ability to blend various genres seamlessly, Reaktive has captivated audiences worldwide with his genre-mashing style. As one of the founders of Turkey's first Bass music collective, Reaktive has played a pivotal role in shaping the electronic music scene in his country. Known for his versatility, Reaktive effortlessly navigates through different genres, blending elements of bass music, electronic, and beyond. His music resonates with audiences on a profound level, fusing infectious beats, intricate melodies, and atmospheric textures into a captivating sonic experience. His tracks have garnered significant recognition over 20 million streams, Reaktive's music has resonated with listeners worldwide. Fuelled by an unwavering passion for music, Reaktive continuously strives to push the boundaries of his artistry. ©️ 2025 Gain Records | Gain Plus www.gainrecords.com #SuperTechno #WeAreWhatWePlay #Dreamtechno

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 Join our Premium Sleep for Women Channel on Apple Podcasts and get ALL 5 of our Sleep podcasts completely ad-free! Join Premium now on Apple here --> https://bit.ly/sleepforwomen  Hey, I'm so glad you're taking the time to be with us today. My team and I are dedicated to making sure you have all the meditations you need throughout all the seasons of your life.  If there's a meditation you desire, but can't find, email us at Katie Krimitsos to make a request. We'd love to create what you want!  Namaste, Beautiful,

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.

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).

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

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

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/

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

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.

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,