Podcasts about Pardee

Artist Alex Pardee (The Used, Aesop Rock) joins Dave to discuss Dream Bleeder, his new gallery show at Harman Projects in New York City. Pardee discusses his creative process, finding inspiration in anxiety and his Disneyland meets natural history museum approach to building immersive worlds. The two discuss Sam Kieth's mentorship, Curry Barker's Obsession, elevated horror movies, how YouTube is quietly making Hollywood obsolete, and Alex's prophetic dream about Crystal Pepsi.Thumbnail Photo by Birdmanhttps://www.alexpardee.com/https://www.harmanprojects.com/exhibitions/101-alex-pardee-dream-bleeder/directeditionpodcast.comhttps://www.patreon.com/davengersdirectedition

If you're a woman navigating midlife and feel like your body is changing faster than you can keep up with, this episode is exactly what you need to hear. We sat down with Dr. Mary Pardee, naturopathic doctor, Menopause Society Certified Practitioner, and founder of ModrnMed, for one of the most honest, information-packed conversations we've had on The Body Pod.Dr. Pardee pulls back the curtain on why so many women are being dismissed or under-treated by their doctors., from being told they're too young for hormone therapy, handed a prescription with no real explanation, or simply rushed through a 15-minute appointment that barely scratches the surface. She breaks down exactly how estrogen and progesterone affect your gut, why IBS flares are so common during perimenopause, and what the gut-brain axis actually means for your everyday symptoms like bloating, cramping, constipation, and diarrhea.We also get into the real numbers behind menopause hormone therapy (MHT), including breast cancer risks, cardiovascular benefits, and how long you can safely stay on it — so you can walk into your next doctor's appointment informed and empowered. Dr. Pardee explains why she recommends DEXA scans for women well before the standard age of 65, what early bone density testing can catch, and why waiting too long could mean missing a critical window to protect your skeletal health.Beyond hormones and gut health, Dr. Pardee shares her approach to preventative and performance medicine. We talk advanced lipid panels and ApoB testing to VO2 max, strength testing, and cognitive assessments. She's not just treating symptoms; she's helping women build a body that feels just as strong and vital in their 80s and 90s as it does today.If you've been curious about concierge medicine, cognitive behavioral therapy for IBS, diaphragmatic breathing, or simply want a doctor who will actually sit down and talk with you instead of at you — this episode covers it all. Dr. Pardee also shares how to find the right specialist for your specific needs and what questions to ask to make sure you're getting the individualized care you deserve.

Resurrection Sunday service

Good Friday service

This one's personal. Jamie Pardee — Jamie The Cleaner — isn't just the Towel Wizard and co-owner of The House of Rags. He's a father, a former semi-pro wrestler, a man who's been through the fire and still chooses to show up with a smile and a helping hand. Tonight we're not here to talk products or polish counts. We're here to talk about the guy who quietly ships hope — every box, every towel, every donation — because he knows what it's like to need it. We'll laugh about his wrestling days, get real about fatherhood, and dig into why Pay It Forward isn't just a campaign to Jamie… it's a way of life. This episode kicks off our Pay It Forward Champions season — celebrating the people who make “Help Us Ship Hope” more than words. Want to nominate someone who lives this mission? Someone who gives when no one's watching? Email us → Media@phoenixeod.com Every donation, every box, every share keeps the ripple going. Help Us Ship Hope → https://gofund.me/f85a4d25 If you or someone you know is struggling: Call or Text 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) Text HOME to 741741 (Crisis Text Line) I see you. I hear you. I love you. #CurmudgeonsCorner #JamieTheCleaner #PayItForward #HelpUsShipHope #PhoenixEOD #HouseOfRags #MentalHealthAwareness #CommunityOverCompetition It's So Easy, Even A Curmudgeon Can Do It!

Seek Reach Build sermon series

Seek Reach Build Sermon series

Sermon series: Seek Reach Build

Sermon Series: Seek  Reach  Build

This one's personal. Jamie Pardee — Jamie The Cleaner — isn't just the Towel Wizard and co-owner of The House of Rags. He's a father, a former semi-pro wrestler, a man who's been through the fire and still chooses to show up with a smile and a helping hand. Tonight we're not here to talk products or polish counts. We're here to talk about the guy who quietly ships hope — every box, every towel, every donation — because he knows what it's like to need it. We'll laugh about his wrestling days, get real about fatherhood, and dig into why Pay It Forward isn't just a campaign to Jamie… it's a way of life. This episode kicks off our Pay It Forward Champions season — celebrating the people who make “Help Us Ship Hope” more than words. Want to nominate someone who lives this mission? Someone who gives when no one's watching? Email us → Media@phoenixeod.com Every donation, every box, every share keeps the ripple going. Help Us Ship Hope → https://gofund.me/f85a4d25 If you or someone you know is struggling: Call or Text 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) Text HOME to 741741 (Crisis Text Line) I see you. I hear you. I love you. #CurmudgeonsCorner #JamieTheCleaner #PayItForward #HelpUsShipHope #PhoenixEOD #HouseOfRags #MentalHealthAwareness #CommunityOverCompetition It's So Easy, Even A Curmudgeon Can Do It!

This one's personal. Jamie Pardee — Jamie The Cleaner — isn't just the Towel Wizard and co-owner of The House of Rags. He's a father, a former semi-pro wrestler, a man who's been through the fire and still chooses to show up with a smile and a helping hand. Tonight we're not here to talk products or polish counts. We're here to talk about the guy who quietly ships hope — every box, every towel, every donation — because he knows what it's like to need it. We'll laugh about his wrestling days, get real about fatherhood, and dig into why Pay It Forward isn't just a campaign to Jamie… it's a way of life. This episode kicks off our Pay It Forward Champions season — celebrating the people who make “Help Us Ship Hope” more than words. Want to nominate someone who lives this mission? Someone who gives when no one's watching? Email us → Media@phoenixeod.com Every donation, every box, every share keeps the ripple going. Help Us Ship Hope → https://gofund.me/f85a4d25 If you or someone you know is struggling: Call or Text 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) Text HOME to 741741 (Crisis Text Line) I see you. I hear you. I love you. #CurmudgeonsCorner #JamieTheCleaner #PayItForward #HelpUsShipHope #PhoenixEOD #HouseOfRags #MentalHealthAwareness #CommunityOverCompetition It's So Easy, Even A Curmudgeon Can Do It!

In this episode of the Commune Podcast, Jeff Krasno welcomes back Dr. Mary Pardee to take a hard look at one of the most polarizing debates in nutrition: seed oils. Are they the villains behind inflammation and heart disease—or have we been misled by oversimplified health claims? Dr. Pardee breaks down what the data actually show, from omega-6 fatty acids and inflammation to the real story behind trans fats and oil processing. She and Jeff also discuss the pitfalls of viral nutrition trends, how to interpret studies without getting lost in headlines, and why critical thinking is essential in an age of health misinformation. This show is supported by: LMNT: Get a free sample pack with any purchase at DrinkLMNT.com/COMMUNE Tia: Join Tia today at AskTia.com and enter promo code COMMUNE25 and get the first 3  months of your annual membership FREE. Mimio: Get 25% off with code COMMUNE25 at Mimiohealth.com Vivobarefoot: Go to Vivobarefoot.com/commune where you'll receive 25% off Igniton: Visit igniton.com and use code Commune75 for $75 off your order of two bottles or more.

Send us a textExercise is not just about looking good. It is medicine.Dr. Mary Pardee is back with us to talk about why movement is one of the most powerful and most overlooked prescriptions we have. We get into muscle as “money in the bank” for aging, how to think about strength training if you hate weights, and why consistency beats motivation every single time.Speaking about resilience and muscle, Dr. Pardee put it this way: “Yeah, it's like a retirement account, right? Where you have something to fall back on if times get tough.”We also cover sarcopenia, brain health, mitochondria, and the kind of “dose” of exercise that really changes your future. This one is packed with practical stuff you can use today.Find Dr. Mary here: Instagram: @dr.marypardee Website: modrnmed.com

⚡️The House of Rags Returns to Curmudgeon's Corner | Episode 57⚡️ They're back — and this time, it's personal... again. Join us for a thunderous reunion on Curmudgeon's Corner Ep. 57 as we welcome Jamie Pardee and Eddie Colon, the unstoppable forces behind The House of Rags (THOR). These two detailing legends have been on the show before — individually, together, and everywhere in between — but this time? We're pulling no punches and diving deep into the latest madness from the rag gods themselves.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Jim Garrity talks about a tactic of some examining lawyers that should, but often doesn't, draw objections that their questions are “argumentative.” So, what is an improper, argumentative question or examination? Here, we're not talking about the questioner's tone or demeanor, i.e., arguing in the classic sense of yelling and bickering with the deponent. We're talking about questions where lawyers aren't really asking a question designed to elicit facts but are instead injecting their own commentary or viewpoint, or injecting insults, taunts, wisecracks, or similar language. "Argumentative" objections are objections to the form, and must be timely made or are waived.SHOW NOTESPeople v. Pawar, No. G037097, 2007 WL 477949, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2007) (“[W]ere they lying” queries are improper if they are merely argumentative. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 381, 384.) In Chatman, the prosecutor asked the defendant how the safe at a store was opened. (Id. at p. 379.) The defendant replied “he could not say; he never touched the safe,” eliciting the prosecutor's query, “ ‘Well, is the safe lying about you?' “ (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held the question of whether an inanimate object was “lying” was argumentative , defining argumentative inquiry as “speech to the jury masquerading as a question” which “does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Id. at p. 384.))Faile v. Zarich, No. HHDX04CV5015994S, 2008 WL 2967045, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 10, 2008) (Webster's. . . in the closest relevant definition, defines “argumentative” as “consisting of or characterized by argument: containing a process of reasoning: controversial”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) (Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice Series: Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence § 611 cmt. 12 (2012); see United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir.N.Y.2005) (defining argumentative as “summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence”); accord Eddlemon v. State, 591 S.W.2d 847, 851 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (trial court did not abuse discretion in finding the question, “You don't believe your own offense report?” argumentative). In other words, an argumentative objection concerns whether counsel is attempting to “argue” the case, not whether the counsel is “arguing” with the witness”)United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (“During the presentation of evidence one of the most commonly sustained objections is that a particular question is argumentative, Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) advisory committee's note to Subdivision (a) to 1972 Proposed Rules, and any summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence are improper and subject as a routine matter to being stricken, Mauet & Wolfson, supra, at 30”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) ("Many common law objections—including the objection of “argumentative”—are incorporated in the Texas Rules of Evidence. The common law argumentative objection is now governed by Tex.R. Evid. 611 which concerns the mode of interrogation and presentation. The argumentative objection is an objection commonly used, but not commonly understood. Pardee argues the objection should have been sustained because the State was “arguing” with the defendant. Argumentative, though, does not concern counsel's demeanor or tone. Professors Wellborn, Goode, and Sharlot explain the argumentative objection as follows: Counsel may not, in the guise of asking a question, make a jury argument or attempt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the evidence. In addition, questions that ask a witness to testify as to his own credibility are improper.")People v. Chatman, 38 Cal. 4th 344, 384, 133 P.3d 534, 563 (2006) The prosecutor's question about whether the safe was “lying” requires a different analysis. The question was argumentative. An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. The prosecutor's question whether “the safe [was] lying” is an example. An inanimate object cannot “lie.” Professor Wigmore has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (5 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne rev. ed.1974) § 1367, p. 32.) The engine should be allowed to run, but it cannot be allowed to run amok. An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all. Defendant had already explained he had no explanation for the safe being open. Asking whether the safe was “lying” could add nothing to this testimony”)People v. Imbach, No. E040190, 2008 WL 510482, at *7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) ("The prosecutor asked, “You found that to be inappropriate but not your other son's addiction to child pornography?” When defendant objected that the question was argumentative, the trial court overruled that objection. Defendant asserted the second “argumentative” objection when defendant's mother said she did not know how to answer that question and the prosecutor asked, “Is that because you didn't want to know?” The trial court sustained the defendant's objection to this second question. Both questions are argumentative, because they both are speeches by the prosecutor masquerading as questions. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 384.) The trial court should have sustained both objections. However, we cannot say that by asking those two questions the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.")People v. Peoples, 62 Cal. 4th 718, 793–94, 365 P.3d 230, 288 (2016) (“Defendant observes that the prosecutor asked numerous argumentative questions when cross-examining defense witnesses. To list a few examples, the prosecutor asked defense expert Dr. Lisak, “how many hours are you into them for?” He said to defense expert Dr. Buchsbaum, “Let's quit guessing for awhile and look at the facts.” He said to defense expert Dr. Wu, “It's a pain in the butt to get these test scores.” And he asked prosecution expert Dr. Mayberg, “Did you have a heart attack last night when you looked at the raw data?”)People v. Burns, No. D081051, 2024 WL 2144151, at *15–17 (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2024), review denied (July 17, 2024) (excessive repetition of a question simply to make a point can cross line into improper argument”; “Burns makes a strong argument that the prosecutor's repetitive questioning regarding the drunk tank incident became argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.) “An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Ibid.) Instead, it may be aimed at agitating or belittling the witness (People v. Lund (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1148), or designed to engage the witness in an argument (People v. Johnson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1236)”)People v. Mazen, No. B300193, 2021 WL 164356, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021) The court overruled defendant's argumentative objection to the following question: “Would [accidentally placing the car in neutral] been important information to tell [Morales]?” The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection. The question sought to elicit relevant testimony regarding defendant's theory that Mario was hit by accident (CALCRIM No. 510). (See People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384 [“[a]n argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question” and does not seek to elicit relevant testimony].)”People v. Singh, No. H042511, 2018 WL 1046260, at *28 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2018) (“Each question anticipated an answer and was answerable; none was “a speech to the jury masquerading as a question”)People v. Basler, No. D068047, 2015 WL 9437926, at *23 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015) ("Fung appears to identify three categories of objectionable questioning during his cross-examination by the prosecutor. The first category involves apparent sarcasm by the prosecutor. For example, after Fung provided additional details about his fight with another inmate while incarcerated, the prosecutor said, “Okay. You left that part out a couple of minutes ago; right?” Referencing the same fight, the prosecutor made light of Fung's claim of self-defense: “Did you have to defend yourself against him, too?” As another example, when Fung was discussing the extent of his injuries following the fight, the prosecutor said, “So, that's about how badly you were hurt? It looked like something you get by falling off a skateboard?” The court sustained objections to each of these questions, and a number of others, as argumentative." Also from Basler: "As we have noted, Fung contends the first two categories of questions were impermissibly argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even want an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.... An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (People v. Chatman (2006)”)People v. Nanez, No. F064574, 2014 WL 1928307, at *14–15 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2014) (citing examples of argumentative examination by prosecutor including (a) the prosecutor's remark “Convenient” when a witness said they did not remember a particular fact, and (b) when prosecutor commented on witnesses testimony by saying “So that's the lie you're going with?”, and (c) when prosecutor asked witness “You wouldn't tell us if you're lying, of course, right?” and when witness said he would, prosecutor replied “There's another lie,” causing court to strike prosecutor's comment from the record)People v. Strebe, No. D057947, 2011 WL 2555653, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2011) (trial courses sustained objection to question as argumentative where prosecutor asked witness “Do you remember anything about that evening that might be detrimental to your case?” In essence arguing to jury that witness was lying and only selectively remembered favorable facts)People v. Higgins, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 873–74 (Ct. App. 2011), as modified (Jan. 21, 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 4, 2011) (guilty verdict reversed in part due to argumentative questions; among other jabs; in case where defendant explained his conduct as motived by depression due to death of his daughter's friend, prosecutor asked, “You'd agree with me that it's pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17–year–old kid as an excuse in this trial, wouldn't you? Would you agree with me? Is that the legacy that you want [the dead teen] to have?”; other examples of prosecutor's argumentative questions included “Oh, the door was unlocked,” and “Isn't that convenient that all of a sudden, right after you've committed the crimes, that that's when you come to?”; further held, “The rule is well established that the prosecuting attorney may not interrogate witnesses solely ‘for the purpose of getting before the jury the facts inferred therein, together with the insinuations and suggestions they inevitably contained, rather than for the answers”)People v. Dixon, No. D047342, 2007 WL 2745207, at *10 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2007)  Dixon asked Hernandez who had taken the photographs near the time of the injury. Hernandez testified that the audio-visual person at his school had taken photographs of his injury. Dixon then asked, “Is it computer enhancement? Those could be computer enhanced-.” The prosecutor interrupted, “That's argumentative.” The court sustained the prosecutor's objection")United States v. Browne, No. SACR 16-00139-CJC, 2017 WL 1496912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (For each witness, the Court did not end Defense counsel's cross-examination until it became excessively cumulative and argumentative, at which time the Court was well within its authority to restrain the questioning pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a).”)Beving v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 3:18-CV-00040, 2020 WL 6051598, at *12 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 8, 2020) (Defendant may object to prejudicial or argumentative references to counsel at trial as permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. Rs. Evid. 403, 611(a)(3).)FRE 403: Argumentative questions may be viewed as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or wasting time.FRE 611(a)(3), Witnesses and Presenting Evidence ((a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.FRCP 30, Depositions, (d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit. (3) Motion to Terminate or Limit, (A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party.