Podcasts about parentheses

In this episode you will discover: Math IS Language - It's in Our Wheelhouse Math has syntax (order of operations), semantics (number meanings), and involves memory and executive function - all areas SLPs already assess and treat. If you can help with language, you have transferable skills for math therapy. Start Simple with What You Have You don't need special materials or extensive math training. Use a deck of cards, dice, and real-life examples like restaurant receipts. Make numbers "friendly" (round $18.72 to $20) and let clients show you multiple ways to solve problems. Address Your Own Math Anxiety First Most SLPs feel uncomfortable with math, but clients need this support for life participation (paying bills, calculating tips, telling time). Acknowledge your discomfort, start with basics you DO know, and remember - if you avoid it, you can't help your clients who want to work on it. If you've ever felt your palms get sweaty when a client asks for help with numbers, this conversation is for you. Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Katie Strong, a faculty member at Central Michigan University where I lead the Strong Story Lab. I'm today's host for an episode that might just change how you think about math anxiety - both your own and your clients'. We're featuring Tami Brancamp and Dave Brancamp, who are doing pioneering work at the intersection of aphasia and mathematics. Before you hit pause because you're having flashbacks to algebra class, stay with me! This research shows us that the language of math is exactly that - language - which puts it squarely in our wheelhouse as SLPs. We'll explore how to support our clients with aphasia who are struggling with everyday math tasks like counting change, telling time, or balancing a checkbook. And yes, we'll tackle the elephant in the room: addressing our own math insecurities so we can show up confidently for our clients. Let me tell you about our guests. Tami Brancamp is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine and founder of the Aphasia Center of Nevada. Her research focuses on identity in aphasia and rehabilitating everyday math skills. Dave Brancamp spent over 15 years as a junior high math teacher and later became Director of Standards at the Nevada Department of Education. Together, they co-founded Aphasia + Math, where they're exploring how language and mathematics intersect for people with aphasia. Okay now let's get this Aphasia + Math conversation started! Katie Strong: Tami and Dave, welcome to the podcast. I'm so excited for you to be here today.   Dave Brancamp: Thank you.   Tami Brancamp: We are both super excited to have a chance to talk about things that are different, right?   Katie Strong: Right. I do have to say, I don't know if it was a rash, but I did get a little bit nervous coming into the conversation, because I think I may be one of those SLPs that feel a little bit uncomfortable with math.   Tami Brancamp: Well, this SLP also is uncomfortable with math, so we can be uncomfortable together. And we'll let the math dude guide us through some of the things.   Dave Brancamp: And it will be fun. By the time you're done, I want to see that smile that you have on your face.   Katie Strong: Well, let's jump in and have you share a little bit about how you came to researching aphasia and math.   Tami Brancamp: Well, I have loved working with people who have aphasia since the beginning of my graduate studies. And then probably, like most of us, there's a few clients who've really hit your heart. One of them, I don't recall her name, and that's okay, but she had a stroke, had aphasia. She had had great recover physically, and her language was quite good, some anomia. But she's a banker, and she could not process numbers, and she was angry. I'm a newbie, I didn't understand the emotional piece of stroke survivor, aphasia. can't do my job well. But she was angry, and I felt so helpless. I didn't know what to do to help her. You know, I could pull a workbook off the shelf or something, but it didn't feel right. You know, she could do calculations, but couldn't do her job. And I always felt so very, very helpless over the years.   And the other part that came to start looking at this was teaching in a speech pathology program, undergrad and grad. And in class, maybe we're doing an averaging or something to get a score. I'm not sure if we start talking math, and I would see these students, and their eyes would just like, pop up, like, “Oh my gosh, she's asking me to do math.” And like, deer in the headlights. So I'm like, “What is this?” Every semester, I would do kind of an informal survey when we would do a little bit of math, and I say, “Okay, so how many of you don't do math? Raise your hand or are afraid of math?” And it would be at least two thirds to three quarters of the class every single semester, and I'm like, “Okay, there's something here.” Like, if I'm afraid of math, how am I going to help my clients remediate that in an efficient way? Right? I'm going to avoid it. If I can, I'll go do other things that are important.   So those were, like, the two big things, and then happened to be married to a math dude. And I wondered why are we not combining our skill sets? Because I would come home and I would share with Dave. I'm like “Dave, the majority of my students are afraid to do math or uncomfortable doing math.” And it's not complicated math. We're not talking quadratic equations or things I don't even know what they mean anymore. And we would talk about it a little bit, and we talk about math attitudes and perceptions and how we develop our math skills. And I'm like, “There's something here.”But I was never taught, how do you remediate number processing? Calculations? right? But yet, I would have multiple clients say, “Hey, Tammy, I can't do numbers.” “Yeah, how do I do this?” And there really wasn't anything the literature that told me how to do it. So, I would talk to Dave, and then, just over the years, I'm like, “Okay, we need to do something with this. We really do.” And I don't know what that means, because I'm not most comfortable with math, it is not my passion. We're very opposite. I think I shared like, Dave has math and fun in the same language, and then in the same sentence, I'm like, “they don't go together in my brain.” So we're very, very opposite. But you know, you can speak for yourself how you grew up and you had to learn how to embrace math, and having good teachers helped when we were younger, and having poor teachers or teachers with different attitudes also left a lasting impression. But when you think about it, whether it's, you know, cooking, driving, banking, living, going to grocery store, restaurants, everything we do all the time, it all involves numbers to some impact, you know, to some effect. And our folks with aphasia, again, not everybody, but the majority of them, will still have an impact with acalculia, difficulty processing numbers and calculating and transcoding, you know, saying, saying the numbers. So, we started to look at it.   I did have a had a gift of time with Audrey Holland. So that was my beautiful, like, for many of us, a mentor, you know, she had her three-pronged stool, like the different parts of aphasia. And Dave and I started dividing it up, like, what were the parts we thought involve, you know, aphasia and numbers. And we did think about the math and language math skills, making it fun, but also those influencing elements, like attitudes and perceptions. So, we started just like, “How do we look at this?” Because it's really overwhelming just from the beginning, you know, and just pulling that workbook off the shelf didn't do it for me. You're allowed to speak on that. (Laughter)   Dave Brancamp That's one of my passions, obviously, the whole math side. But pulling a workbook is an unfortunate because if someone starts to practice something wrong, they'll repeat that practice, and now it's very difficult to get them to correct a habit, basically that you've formed. And sometimes it's like that nails on a chalkboard? That's what it feels like to me when I hear it. I'm like, “Oh, don't do that.” Because if they're doing it wrong, like, 20 times, 10 times, even then it performs a habit that's real hard for them to go, “Well, but I thought I got them all right.”   Katie Strong: Yeah.   Dave Brancamp: Because I think we can all go back to math and you come up unless it was something really, really difficult in at least in our early years of math. We all came up with an answer. And that's how it feels on a worksheet that might have like just adding single digit numbers, if you make an error, you won't know until someone either corrects it or asks you, “How did you get there?” And to me, that's where it became more important. And then I had to learn how to do what do you call it? aphasia friendly language, you know? So, math folks usually speak in short sentences, so that helps. But we'll run a whole bunch of sentences together. If I give you the best example. I know we're going to talk a little bit about that math perception quiz, the difference between us on that question, I think it says “I would prefer to do an assignment in math rather than write an essay.” I'm the person to give me that math assignment. 100%. Tammy is like, give me the essay!   Katie Strong: And I have to say I'm right there with Tammy.   Tami Brancamp I think so, as speech pathologists, we learned about the pedagogy of language and language development. We can analyze it. We can treat it. We can assess it. And then I talked to Dave, and he goes, “Well, there's this whole math I know there's a math pedagogy, and there's this whole developmental progression of how we learn math.” But “Really, okay, well, I've never learned that, right?” “No, you learn this before you learn that.” We lived it, we just weren't overtly taught it. Or how you know, if there's an error in a calculation, that means that there's some challenges in this part of your developmental math abilities. Like, “Huh, okay, well, that kind of sounds like language to me, a little bit.” They do go together.   Katie Strong: Yeah, yeah. So, I love to maybe ask a little bit about this. As we've pretty clearly stated, many SLPs feel uncomfortable with math and their own math skills.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah.   Katie Strong: And we, probably many of us, have avoided it in our own education.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah.   Katie Strong: So I love this idea that there's the language of math, and I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that and why it should fit right within our scope of practice as SLPs.   Tami Brancamp: A long time ago, I remember how many years ago I came across an article by Seron 2001 in Aphasiology. And he or she, I actually don't know, stated that math should be part of the SLPs practice. I started looking at 20 years later, and it still wasn't (a part of our practice). So, something's really amiss. What are we missing? When we talk about the language, there is a syntax in math. Dave calls it order of operations. And I don't even know what the PEMDAS.   Dave Brancamp: PEMDAS.   Tami Brancamp: PEMDAS, right?   Dave Brancamp: You what scares most people about that? Parentheses, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. The left to right. I mean, that's the part people left off.   Tami Brancamp: But, ah, yeah, that kind of sounds familiar, doesn't it?   Katie Strong It does. It's ringing a very faint bell.   Dave Brancamp: It's like, oh no, we're not going to do that.   Tami Brancamp So there is a syntax. There's an order of operations, how we put mathematical equations together. Just like how we put sentences together. There's semantics, right? There's word meaning. We have a little sign for you. It won't translate audio, but we'll talk about it. So, in math, and you use the word or the number, the orthographic representation 2, right? Yes. And then we spell it TWO. We also spell it TO and TOO. And then, if you say, “Okay, we also have a two in the number 12, right?” They have to be able to transcode that and a two in the number 20, the two zero. The two in all those locations has different meaning, right? So, it does have semantics.   The other parts, I think, were important, was memory and executive function. Executive function permeates mathematics in so many ways. So, when we think about our stroke survivors, those are areas that are and can be impacted. Information processing. How much can they hold in memory of being presented with language, and in this case, language and numbers.   So, I think for me, it just, it really is integrated. I also thought, too, when we were looking, I was looking at the neuroscience of it, and there's some shared neuro space that works for math and language. They're not fully disassociated, so I found that really fascinating as well.   Katie Strong Yeah, it really is, as I've been thinking about our conversation and just looking into things a little bit, it really makes sense. And even just thinking about just thinking about a word problem in math, certainly, there's that language component that may be a little less intimidating for SLP clinicians that aren't typically working in practice. But I so appreciate you both bringing this conversation out into the light and doing this work, because I can think of a significant number of clients that I've worked with that have also expressed challenges in all sorts of different ways of math. And sometimes I've been able to maybe support it a little bit, and other times I haven't. And I, you know, whether it's me just avoiding it and saying, “Oh, we could work on all of these other things or we can work on this math thing”  or, you know, it's just frustrating, I think, to not have really the tools to be able to know how to support it.   Our podcast, really focuses on the Life Participation Approach to Aphasia, which really emphasizes a person-centered approach. Like I'm the client I want to choose what I want in my life and what I want to work on. And so, I'm just wondering if you might be able to talk through a little bit about how math skills fit into LPAA framework.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah, we were talking about that, and there's one particular client who has multiple PhDs before his stroke. He has family, adult children. And he's like, “Tammy.” And we were Dave and I were piloting some work together. And he's like, “Guys, I want to take my family to dinner. I want to pay the bill and the tip.” I'm like, “Okay, dude, I got an app for that.” And he's like, “No, I want to do it myself.” So that, to me, is life participation. If a person is fine with an app, let's make it so and work on something else.   Katie Strong: Yeah. Tami Brancamp: But his case, it was so important to him. I'm like, “Okay, here we go.” How do we how do we work on figuring out the tip? Now, does it have to be an exact percent? No, Dave likes to teach it more like there's some more strategies to get to the tip.   Another client I wanted to share, and sometimes too, when we think about assumptions. So, the data on how many people with aphasia also have math difficulties, numeracy difficulties is wide ranging. It's so big. So you can't even really say what percent. But I also had an assumption. I have a gentleman who I've worked with off and on for a very long time. He's nonfluent aphasia and also has apraxia of speech, and so we're working a lot on his language and his speech. And I said, “So how's your math?” “It's fine. You know, I own my own business and I have somebody help, but it's fine.” I'm like, in my head, hmm, I don't think so. I wonder, because the severity of his aphasia and his ability to transcode so like, see a number and then say the name or say the numbers he wants to say, was really impacted. So, we were doing a pilot study during the pandemic online, and so Dave and I were working with this one gentleman. And I think you why don't you do the story because I don't remember you gave him homework or something. A home program.   Dave Brancamp: There's a math game called Krypto.   Tami Brancamp: Oh, Krypto.   Dave Brancamp: So you put five cards down. And each one has its value, you know. And so your listeners just so they know, like when the Jack would fall, that would be 11, and so the Ace automatically took a one, the Queen would be, you know, 12, and the King 13. So five cards different values, or they could be the same value didn't matter, and then one more card became like a target. You had to figure out an equation. So, some big, nice math term there to that you'd add, subtract, multiply, divide to equal this last card.   Now they could do with just two cards, three cards, four cards or five would be ideal. So, they had some room for success. And this gentleman, we had some hard numbers that were there. And, you know, he had done a couple, and was rolling right through. And I kept looking over at Tami and I am like, "He's got his math. His math is really good.”   Tami Brancamp: His ability to calculate.   Dave Brancamp: And then we hit one that was really hard, and we're both looking (each other). And the next thing, you know, this gentleman, not to scare anybody, but makes a complex fraction, making a fraction over another fraction to solve. And you can see right now, right Tammy. Tammy is like, “What are you doing?” I'm like, “Yeah, yeah, no, let's go for it. Let's go for it.” And next thing you know, we were able to solve it by doing two complex fraction with another number. And he solved the problem. And I looked at Tammy said, “This man has no math problems.” Tami Brancamp:  And I said, “Boys, I'm out. I'm out. You all just continue playing with your numbers. Have a good time.” That's not a comfort zone for me. It's also not the focus we're doing with aphasia in math. But it was something he was capable to do, and I also could see within him, he was super excited that he could do this.   Katie Strong: Yeah   Dave Brancamp: And he wanted to show his wife. He wanted to show other people, he was like, “Look at this. Look at this.” You know, I was like, “Yeah, there's a lot happening.”   Tami Brancamp: But he could not read the equation. Okay, so there's the aphasia language issue.   Katie Strong: Right.   Tami Brancamp: Transcoding. He could do the calculations without difficulty.   Katie Strong: Amazing.   Tami Brancamp: But those are the those are really fascinating. And while we were piloting, we had a group of, I don't know, five or six people with aphasia, and each one had their own. They're all on the non-fluent side, but everybody had their own combination of language difficulty and number processing difficulty. We did notice what one client we worked with who had more cognitive impairment along with language and hers, her processing was much more different than pure aphasia and the acalculia issues. So, it's really interesting to see. It's definitely not cookie cutter, right? Just like aphasia therapy.   Katie Strong: Right.   Tami Brancamp: Every person's got their unique strengths and challenges. And I'm going to say similarly, I think with the math. Where in the brain was the injury? What is their background? What are their interests and passions? All of that plays in just like in aphasia.   Katie Strong: I love bringing up though their prior experience with math too is so important. We think about that from a language standpoint, but we really don't consider that. Or I will speak for myself, I don't typically consider that when I'm learning about somebody and their strengths.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah.   Dave Brancamp: You think like to go back to your language, like the word “sum” S-U-M, is what we'd use in math for adding, but it has the same sounding as “some” S-O-M-E and so right there, there's some language difficulty that could come out. So often we will have flash cards with the plus symbol so that they and can associate words and just so that you feel better on it, too.   Most of us, when we'd heard subtraction probably used an unfortunate phrase of what's called “takeaway”.  Well, that's not what happens from a mathematical point. So, us in the math side, cringe and are like, “Oh well, the numbers don't get taken away. They're still there.” They got, you know, replaced is what we would call them. And so the word of difference, you know, where you live in a different town than we do, so that's what we associate but difference is how we do subtraction. So those little, simple nuances that I had to also remember too because I taught junior high, which most of them were fairly comfortable with their, you know, at least their basic skills. And I'd heard those terms where suddenly, you know, Tammy would bring up to me, “You're gonna have to help us out with that” because that it's easy for you to say that it's causing a problem and that makes us then, you know, have those moments of pause that you're like, “Oh yeah, you're right. I've got to do that.”   Tami Brancamp: Just a little aside on that with we just finished a pilot study with two groups of people doing online intervention. So that background of knowledge, you know, say you got 10 people in a group, and you could see the people who go, “Oh yeah, I remember that. I remember that math language.” You're getting, the nodding like, “Oh yeah, that's right.” And then there's others who have like, “I don't understand what he's saying.” The look. So, it's really fascinating to make sure that we pay as much attention to that background as we do in language.   Katie Strong: Yeah. Interesting, interesting.   Dave Brancamp: I don't know if you want to go down that path, but like when we hit time, you know, which is an element that folks aphasia really want to work with, right? And yet, it's a whole different concept mathematically, because we are used to in almost all the countries we work with of things from, you know, basically what we call base 10 or zero to 100 zero to 10, we can play time is in elements of 12. And so, like you might say it's a quarter past, you know, like one, that's not a 25 it's written as 1:15. And you know, what does that mean? And, oh, I don't know. I don't know how I'm supposed to be at the bus stop or the doctor appointment or whatever they may be going to.   Katie Strong: Right, right.   Dave Brancamp: And a lot of our groups found that to be a huge help, you know. And as much as we all laugh, you probably at least most of us remember when we were in elementary school having little clocks that we might play with.   Katie Strong: Right   Dave Brancamp:  We call them our Judy clocks from when we were as teachers. But it's like, as simple as those are, those are what you need to bring back and go, “Let's take a look at what you know, because it's a quarter of the circle, and that's where it got its name from.”   Tami Brancamp: But it's one over four, like 1/4 one quarter.   Dave Brancamp: But that's not how we'd write it in time. It's actually whatever the hour is and the 15, and you're like, “Where'd that come from?” So, it was very fascinating to watch, and especially when we did some work with some of the clinicians, are just like, “Oh, you're kidding. I didn't even think about that.” It's because we knew it. we transition it naturally and not thinking, “Oh my gosh, my brain now has to re-picture this”. So.   Katie Strong: It is fascinating.   Tami Brancamp: And that you can see how much language is involved.   Tami Brancamp: Huge. Huge.   Katie Strong: Yeah, well, I'm excited to talk about the projects and research that you've been doing. You gave us kind of a teaser about these online groups. Should we start there?   Tami Brancamp: Maybe, we aren't there. We haven't analyzed all the data…   Katie Strong: I'm curious.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah, that'll be a teaser. We are working with our partner, Carolyn Newton. She's in London, and she is at University College London. She's done some work in mathematics and aphasia, and also her doc students, so we're working with them. They did all the assessment with my students. And then Dave and I did intervention. We had two groups. We had, like, a Level 1 and a Level 2. Everybody had aphasia. And we did group intervention primarily because Dave and I have been working with Lingraphica and Aphasia Recovery Connections Virtual Connections.   Katie Strong: Yep.   Tami Brancamp: Since March of 22, we've been doing it every single month.   Katie Strong: Amazing.   Tami Brancamp: We had some time off. Yeah, but you know, what's so crazy is that we average about 38 people who come on to do the session.   Katie Strong: Wow!   Tami Brancamp: Oh, I know, with a range like 19 to 50 people.   Katie Strong: That is amazing, but such a testament that people are interested in this topic.   Tami Brancamp: That's what made us keep pushing forward. Because if that many people show up, there's an interest and there's a need.   Katie Strong: Right.   Tami Brancamp: You know? But how do we how do we help is the challenge. We are in the process of analyzing, did we could that group in the way that we did it, like twice a month over three months? Would that impact change? They could hold it at the end of the treatment. And then we also did 30 days later, so we'll see. And then we also did some we did the math, attitudes and perceptions.   Katie Strong: I took it so maybe give people a little bit of background on what this is.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah. So this is a we looked at a lot of different tools, and this one is called, what is it called Attitudes Toward Mathematics Inventory. And it was designed for adults, college age, students and adults. There's a lot for children. But this is like, really, you know, what do you think about math in terms of you like it, you don't like it. Is it important? Not important. And so there is a lower number means that you are less confident, less familiar.   Dave Brancamp: You might not like it. You might not like it as much.   Katie Strong: And it might give you a rash.   Tami Brancamp: (Laughs) It might give you a rash!   Dave Brancamp: I'm sorry.   Tami Brancamp:  Right, all the things that it does. It's up to a point of 200 Do you want to share what your score was?   Katie Strong: Well, I didn't calculate it. I just did the ABCDE, but I'm gonna guess it's in the lower like 25th. Tami Brancamp: Yeah.   Dave Brancamp: So let me ask you, what was your last math class?   Katie Strong: It was a statistics class in my PhD program.   Dave Brancamp: And how did that class make you feel? Were you like, “Oh, I'm so excited to go!” or like, “Oh my gosh, I just got to get this done.”   Katie Strong: I wanted to get out of there as quickly as I could. I tried hard, and I just kept, I think I kept telling myself it was hard and I couldn't do it, and it just and it was.   Dave Brancamp: So, if you think about that, for us as adults, right? Or anybody, even kids. Take our kids. Whatever your last class is, it sits with us. It's a memory we carry. And then math has its unique way of, kind of building on itself. And then it can bridge to a couple different areas and what have you, but it builds. And if your last class wasn't the most pleasant. You didn't score well, or you didn't have a teacher that you could relate with, or whatever it was, you probably don't have a real fun feeling of math. So that leads to our perceptions, right? And it's and you know, using this we've done this with some of your students as they go through soon to be clinicians, and as soon as they took it and then had us talk, they you almost want to say, “Let's take it again”, because our feeling is of that last class. But when you find out, what we'll probably do is adding, subtracting, multiplying, maybe division, not likely. But what we call basic life skills, it may change how you took the test or take the inventory, because, you know, like for me, it's still, it will never change the fact of giving a math problem over an essay. I'll give you guys the essay. I'll take the math problem. But it's just, you know, is it important your everyday life? Well, how often do you do your statistics on an everyday life? That was your last class right? Not a lot, maybe some. But it's, you know, it's becomes an interesting whatever sitting with us probably has a feeling. If we come in with a bad attitude toward what we're going to teach or share with you, no matter whether they have aphasia or if it's just us in a general setting, they're going to know you don't like this, then why should I spend time with it so we that's the My purpose is make it so that they enjoy even if it's difficult, we're going to enjoy it so that otherwise, you know, I'm already behind because you don't like it. So why should I like it?   Katie Strong: And I love that because, I mean, I know that, like hard work can be fun. I mean, in a therapy situation, hard work can be fun, but thinking about this from a math standpoint really is kind of a game changer for me.   Tami Brancamp:  One of the things, and I think we'll come back to the research a little bit. But Dave likes gamification. I don't really like to play games, right?   Dave Brancamp: You're getting better! Tami Brancamp: But you have to, you know.   Dave Brancamp: I will pick up like dice. We try to do things that we figure our folks could find rather easily. You know whether you have dice from a Yahtzee game where you can go pick them up and a deck of cards. Almost everything I do with them are one of those two. It might take a little more looking, but I'll we often use what are called foam dice so they don't make all that noise, because sometimes too much noise can be very bothersome. And then using, like, the whiteboard or something to write with helps so they can see, because sometimes you'll be playing a game and they'll have no idea of the math that's involved and why there might have been, like, a strategy or so on.   Tami Brancamp: When we do work with people using cards and dice to generate the numbers, we have activities we do and we make it aphasia friendly, but we'll also discuss, maybe after the fact, “All right, so how did you do? Where was it difficult? I want you to recognize that you were working on executive function here. You were giving it strategies and thinking and multiple steps ahead.” So that they can recognize it isn't a kid game.   Katie Strong: Yeah, just a game.” Yeah.   Tami Brancamp: It's not just a game. It's making it fun and a little bit more lighthearted. If we can lighten it, but still make it skilled intervention, I'm not in there to play games and win. But having a give and take, a little competition, some laughter, some humor, while we're doing the intervention. To me, that's a lovely session.   Dave Brancamp: One of the things Katie, we found, too, is there's not a lot of good tests out there for math to diagnose the problem. You can find out by taking the different tests, and you and Tammy know the exact names, but they'll say, “Well, Dave has a problem doing math.” But now where do I start? Is a whole different game, because they build, as we said earlier, and if I don't start at the right spot the building block, I get a sense of failure immediately, because I can't do it, whereas you need to just keep backing up, just like you do in language, you keep backing up till you find my starting point. And that's one of the areas we'll maybe talk about later, is those things we're trying to figure do we work on finding a better way to assess the math, to truly know what's Dave or your client or whoever, whatever they're doing, because sometimes it could be simply the language, like we had with the one gentleman who has great math skills.   Katie Strong: Right.   Dave Brancamp: And others could be I can't even tell the difference between these two numbers, which is larger or smaller. And so now we have to start back at what we call basic number sense. It can be anywhere in that game, and it's like, well, they can't add. Well, do we know they can't add? Or do they just not recognize that six is smaller than eight.   Tami Brancamp:  Or how did you let them tell you the answer. If you only get a verbal response versus writing response, or, you know, selecting from four choices, you know. All of those give us different information when you're when you're having to blend a language disorder and a numeracy disorder.   Dave Brancamp: Because that one gentleman, he struggles immensely with anything with a two in it, so 20s, just…so you could easily say, “Wow, there's no way this man has math skills.” I mean he's doing complex fractions. He just couldn't tell you it's one over two. It was be like, I don't know what that is called.   Katie Strong: Fascinating.   Dave Brancamp: We enjoy the game part. And one of the pieces in this last research we did that was a new thing, right? We didn't even think of it prior was what we call a home program. Taking the game we did, putting it in friend aphasia friendly language with pictures so they could practice them.   Katie Strong: Okay.   Dave Brancamp:  Because we would not see them for like a two they was every two weeks. So, some could practice. I would say our Level 1 -  our folks working on foundational sets practiced more than are more advanced. Which was very fascinating.   Tami Brancamp: What we were doing in this research, the most recent one, we would encourage people to, you know, take a photo, take a screenshot of the work we're doing. But we also did it too, and then we put it into a page with an explanation, and then we would send it so that they could, ideally practice with a family member or a friend, or by themselves. You know, that's also a variable for people, right?   Dave Brancamp: And what we found in it, they needed more pictures. In our first attempt, we didn't put as many. So we would ask them, “since you wanted this, did that help?” “Not really.” They're honest.   Katie Strong: Yeah.   Dave Brancamp: We appreciate that. And they're like, Well, what? Why didn't it like, well, it, even though we tried to make it as aphasia friendly language, it was just too much word   Tami Brancamp:  Too many words.   Dave Brancamp: Too many words. So then we started asking, “well would more pictures help?” “Yes.” So we did that. So they helped us. It was amazing to watch.   Tami Brancamp: So that research project will we can get to down the road once we figure out what was going on. What we did share with you was the survey that we did with speech language pathologists from the United States and the United Kingdom. So we thought, well, Carolyn's there, and we kind of look at math a little bit similarly. So we had 60 participants who completed the study. We want to know, like, do you treat people with aphasia who also have math difficulties? If so, what are you doing? Dave and I still wanted to look at the attitudes and perception, because I still believe that's an influencing factor. But we also wanted to get a good sense, like when you are working with people with aphasia, who have number difficulties, what difficulties are you seeing? And then what are you doing? What do you use to assess?  And what are some of the barriers? So it gave us a nice overview, and that one's out for review currently. Anywhere from like, how many of you work on numeracy difficulties? About 35% responded with rarely, and 40% responded with occasionally, and 17 said frequently. And also, there was no difference between the countries.   Katie Strong: Oh, interesting.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah, I thought so too.   Katie Strong: But I also think too, you know, I mean, there really isn't a lot out there instructing SLPs on how to do this work in an evidence-based manner. So that makes a little bit of sense.   Tami Brancamp: It did, because I still felt the same way for myself, like, “Where do I go to learn how to do this?” Okay. I'm married to a math teacher, so I'm learning right? It's a lot of give and take. And Carolyn, our partner, she's very good about when we're talking about this she's like, “But not everybody has a Dave on their shoulder.” Like, “No, they do not.” Because even today, I'm still a little cautious, like if I had to go do all this solo, I have some holes that I want, and those are the things I want to help us create for future training opportunities and education continuing ed that would help clinicians who really want to do this and they have a client who wants to work with it, right?   Katie Strong: I hope that's a large number of people, because I think, you know, I think that this is really a significant challenge that I hear so often from support group members or people that I work with who have aphasia.   Tami Brancamp: I really think that's why we keep going, because we hear it from our we hear it from our clients.   Katie Strong: Yeah.   Tami Brancamp: We're not hitting it as much in acute care, for sure, rehab, you might get a little sample that is going on, but it's usually that outpatient. And then the longer term, like the they have some of the big needs met. And then we've got time to maybe look at math. But for some people, math should have been math and language together could have been hit earlier. But who's to say, you know?   Dave Brancamp: Well, you would know it best because I've asked when we first started this there would be like one, Tammy would give me one of her classes, and I would talk to them about math and absolutely deer in the headlight looks, “Oh my gosh, what are you going to do?” to by the end realizing “We're going to make this as fun as we can. We're going to use dice and cards, and we're going to do pretty much what we call foundational adding subtracting skills that they were welcome”, but you already have so much in your course to do that we just don't even have time. So that becomes this very interesting, because, you know, one of the big questions Tammy always asked me is, “Well, how can I know this pedagogical, or the reason behind?” I know they'll be able to hear but, I mean, I've done this now for 30 plus years, so there's a lot in my head that I have to figure out, how do we do this? So I can see this is the problem by how they addressed it without them having to take a whole other set of courses.   Tami Brancamp: Yeah, we can't. There is surely not room for whole courses. So it's got to be embedded in existing coursework, or continuing ed opportunities after training.   Katie Strong: Or both, right?   Tami Brancamp: Yeah, I think both. Some of those barriers that we found people saying was, you know, there's not training on it, which I agree.   Dave Brancamp: There's not the resources.   Tami Brancamp: Yes, there's not the resources. And are the tests that people use. They have some sampling of math. But my question always is, “Okay, so I give this little bit of math in my aphasia test or something else like and now, what? Well, I know what they can't do, but what does that mean? And how might I support them for relearning?” I found it more helpful to look at it from a developmental perspective. I'm going to learn a, b, c, d, and I'm going to learn x, y, z, and then it helps me understand, like, “Where might I start?” Because I don't have to go down to counting dots, right? That number sense larger, less than visually. If that's not where the client needs to be. But learning where they need to be, we need better assessments for that. I don't know if that's something we're going to be able to tackle or not. I mean, Dave spent quite a big part of his professional career, developing assessments. So, it would be logical. But there's so many pieces to do.   Katie Strong: Right? It's a big it's a big undertaking. Dave Brancamp: Well, there's so much that you gain by finding out from the client how you did the problem. It could be four plus six is what? and they write two. Well, I need to know why you think it's two. So did you think that was subtraction? Because they just didn't see the plus symbol. Well, you know? Well, then they have some good math. There's some good math there. They did the math correctly if they subtracted it. It's not the answer I'm looking for. And so could they say, you know, when you asked it if you were a person and he's like, “Katie, so if I gave you six things and gave you four more, how many your total?” Do you know what that even meant to do? These things that just gives us clues to where your math might be and for unfortunately, for a lot of us, which makes it hard for me, I feel bad that they didn't have the experience is ones and zeros have some very powerful meanings in math that unfortunately, scare a lot of folks.   Katie Strong: Yeah, right.   Tami Brancamp: I never learned the fun stuff of math, you know. There's some tricks and some knowledge and some skills that I, you know, good math teachers will teach you, and I just didn't really learn those. So, Dave's teaching me just because I were doing this together? I don't know. I kind of was thinking like what we talked a little bit about, what does the intervention look like?   Katie Strong: Yeah.   Tami Brancamp: Gamification, making it fun, not using workbooks. We're hoping that we could utilize some of the home programs that we've created, and share those as part of the teaching.   Dave Brancamp: And like the game. I think I told you that we did with that one gentleman with Krypto. It could simply be like a target number or something of that nature, but it's fun to have when we did with our both groups with Virtual Connections, or our research groups, other people could find out, like, you could solve it one way, Katie. Tammy could do it a different way, and I could do it a completely different way. And it was fascinating to watch the groups, like, I had no idea you could do it there. And that's what we need to hear So that people go, “Oh, you don't have to do it just one way.” Because I, unfortunately, and some are my colleagues, they forced, “I need you to do it x way.” It's like, “Well, okay, maybe to start. But now let's open the door to all these other ways you can, like, add a number or whatever.” And because it always fascinates me when we do, is it multiplication or subtraction? Now I forget, but one way Tammy is, like, “I never learned it that way. I always…” and, you know, it was just how she grew up. It was what you were taught.   Tami Brancamp: Well, like multiplication. When I'm multiplying multiple numbers, it's like, I'm kind of just adding multiples of things. So, how I get to the answer is very different than how Dave does, yeah, and we've had experiences with care partners, who we were doing some of the pilot work, who felt very strong that their way was the only way. Is this some generational differences? I suspect there's some of that, but it's also just, it's personality. This is how I know how to do it, and this is how it should be done. Well, not necessarily.   Katie Strong: It really mind blowing for me to be thinking about. I mean, I know that, like, you can teach things in different ways, but I just didn't really think about it from a math standpoint, because, probably because I know how to do things one way. If I know how to do it, it's probably one way, versus having more versatility in “If this doesn't work, try something else.”   Dave Brancamp: But like on a deck of cards at least the ones we use, they'll have, like a seven of diamonds. There's seven little diamonds on that card. Well, nothing else. Put your finger to them. There's nothing wrong with counting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Now, when you move over to the three, go 8 9 10, and there's your answer. They're like, “I can do that?” “I'm like, sure you can!” I can use my fingers? You know, it's, it's those, it's those little things that, unfortunately, probably for a lot of us and a lot of our clients, went through, at least in my experience, in math as we went through school, we took away those, what we call manipulatives in math, that you learn it right, bringing them back now, so that they're like, “Oh, I can do this”” So they can see it, or they can write it in a different way, or, you know, whatever it takes to help them. That's one of the pieces that's so amazing.   Tami Brancamp: We definitely support a multi modal approach. Not just one way.   Katie Strong: Which, I think the clinicians who are listening to this conversation will feel like, “Oh, I do a multi modal approach in all of the other things that I do in my interventions.” And so, you know, that makes sense.   Dave Brancamp: And that's where we saw that piece of saying that we're trying to unite math and language. The two of those do play together. You know, it's like because you just said you spend weeks and weeks with all your future clinicians training them on all these skills and language, so many of those will play out just as well in math, except to do it in a different way.   Katie Strong: Mmm. So we've talked about what the intervention might look like, and we'll be excited to see what comes out from your projects that you're in the process of analyzing but looking ahead, what excites you most about where this field could go?   Dave Brancamp: Oh my, that's the question!   Tami Brancamp: There's a lot of work to be done. It actually is…it's fun. We are wondering, you know, how might it be if it's on a one on one, a more traditional model, right for our outpatient settings, versus small groups. Katie Strong: I'll say this. I should have said it earlier, but for those of you listening, I'll put in a link to Virtual Connections and if you're interested in seeing Tammy and Dave's math Aphasia + Math.   Dave Brancamp: Yeah, it's aphasia plus math. It would be Level 1 or 2. They can come watch the whole thing. It's fascinating to watch them how they work.   Tami Brancamp: They are best teachers, yep, without a doubt.   Dave Brancamp: To your last question, “So that's with the clients?” But you know, there's been and we've talked on and we've touched on, like, “how do we help our clinicians?” And then the unfortunate side of that stool that sometimes gets forgotten is, what could we do for our caregivers? Does this help? Because we've all been taught differently. so sometimes you might look at one of the gamifications we did and went, “Oh, I can't do that. That's not how I add.” We have a very set format, or do they understand the language? Do we make it clear enough. So, you know, we're I think that's a great question, because then we get torn to just time in the day to say, “But I want to still work with my clients, but we need to help clinicians so they can help us, and don't forget the caregiver in there.” I know it's not an easy answer. It's not the it's nothing nice and smooth, but it's kind of the one that we've been really what is to what are we doing.   Katie Strong: And probably also why it this hasn't, there aren't tons of resources already developed, right? That it is complex.   Dave Brancamp: Well, and I will tie back to our attitudes. What we found, we were fortunate enough to do….     Tami Brancamp: IARC. The International Aphasia Rehab Conference. we presented there.   Dave Brancamp: So some of our beginning there's an awful lot of interest out of Australia and Europe. But Australia and Europe, and I'm not trying to sound bad or negative, but they take look at math very differently than like England and the United States for sure does. That's a natural like thought, we don't accept the term. “I don't do math well.” They don't like to say that. There's an increased interest, at least in those two areas of the world, to when we but we gotta strengthen this, this is important. So, we've found that very fascinating, that some of our folks who've drawn an interest and set out of this come out of the main countries of Europe, or from Australia, because they don't mind talking about a subject that we often go, “I'm good at this, right? Let Dave solve it.” And it's like, well, but I don't have the skill set that all of you SLPs have.   Tami Brancamp: In our earlier conversations, we touch on the fact that United States, it's okay for me to say, you know, “I don't do math, right?” It's okay, and it's sort of accepted in some cases, it's kind of a badge of honor in some ways. But if I were to say, “Oh, I can't read” you know, that's we one. We want to help if somebody admits it. But there's a personal sense of shame attached. So, in our country, I believe the perceptions are different. You have the person who's had the stroke, has survived the stroke, has the aphasia, and now also has the math difficulties. That's a lot to navigate, and I respect in our in our world, as a clinician, I can't address all of it. So following that Life Participation Approach, we're going to let our clients be our guide. Support, train, and look at where their priorities are. And it's never enough. There's never enough therapy, never enough opportunity to be in a group environment, because not everybody has access to that, you know, but I think, “Where can I make a difference?” Like, that's probably my question. Like, I can't fix the world, so let me keep backing it down, backing it down, backing it down. And if I can make a difference with 5, 10, 15, 20, people, Hey, and then let those ripples go as they go out and make a difference and learn. I think that, in itself, is powerful.   Katie Strong: Beautiful, and certainly is conjuring up Audrey here. Well, I've got one last question for you as we wrap it up. But you know, what would you say to an SLP, who's listening right now and thinking, I want to help my clients with math, but I don't know where to start.   Tami Brancamp:  So one of, I think one thing for me is you do know basic math. You know everyday math. You do know how to do this.  So one just start. You can get a little assessment. You can use the existing ones that are out there with our aphasia batteries or the Numerical Activities for Daily Living.   Dave Brancamp: I would say, a deck of cards are not hard, you know, hopefully they have or some dice, yeah, and use those to generate the numbers. Or bring in, like, when they want to do tips, we would often just bring in receipts of anything and just say, “Let's say something cost $18.72. Round it up to 20 and make it a friendly number.” So it's around 20, So it's a little bit easier for them to grab onto and hold, and it's okay to say, because we've done it in our own sets going through, “Oh, wait a minute, six plus six is not 13. Look at what I did here. I let me, let's check this and add it.” Because sometimes you'll hear just even, you know, like when any of us are doing something, you look and go, oops, I made a mistake.   Tami Brancamp: Okay, right?   Dave Brancamp: It's all right, hey, to make mistakes and say, that's what we all do. And then, you know, but I mean to me, it's if we can get, like, if you want to use one or two problems off a worksheet, use it as a driver to start discussion and say, “So what can we do?” And see if they can do anything. Because sometimes it's amazing what we'll find out is just knowing that 16 is a bigger number than just 12 is let them and then what's the difference between right there, you could figure out subtraction if they know it or not. And we often will in if they have a chance to look on the website or any of this stuff, we'll take out, like all the face cards, we'll take out the 10. Keep moving it down to numbers that they're comfortable with, like dice will only be the numbers one to six, yeah, but if I use two dice, I could make some interesting two digit numbers, right, that are in that range. So it's just things that make it so they can grab on. And then you can start adding and changing rules and some of the math games they may have seen, they just adjust them so that they have access points. The true rules of Krypto is, you must use all five cards in order to get a point. Well, we just change it usually is two, right?   Tami Brancamp: Like we do for everything we can modify.   Katie Strong: I love this. And I mean, I'm thinking, most clinics have a deck of cards and dice.   Tami Brancamp: In most households in general, not but in general, you're going to have access to those tools. We didn't want people to have to go buy crazy stuff. I think there's one challenge I do want to think about and put out there. So, our new clinicians who are graduating, let's say they're in their mid-20s, and I know there's a range they are doing online banking. How are they going to support an older adult?   Katie Strong: Oh, right.   Tami Brancamp: Very structured and rigid in their checking account. I think we have to think about some again, different ways. None of the students that I teach today, and even our own son, they don't have a checkbook. Yeah, they don't write checks. So that's gonna introduce another variable down the road, but in the meantime, cards, dice, numbers, gamification, simplifying, watching language, thinking about executive function, number of steps, how we how we speak, the instructions. Give the directions. It's language.   Dave Brancamp: And ask the client what they think or what they might have heard, because it's interesting what they would have, what we've learned from them as well.   Katie Strong: Thank you so much for being a part of our conversation today, and for the listeners, I'll have some links in the show notes for you to check out for some info on Aphasia + Math. Thank you.   Tami Brancamp: Thanks for having us.   Dave Brancamp: And thanks for playing with us too. Thank you. Katie Strong: On behalf of Aphasia Access, thank you for listening. For references and resources mentioned in today's show please see our show notes. They're available on our website, www.aphasiaaccess.org.There you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at info@aphasiaaccess.org. For Aphasia Access Conversations, here at Central Michigan University in the Strong Story Lab, I'm Katie Strong.   Resources Aphasia + Math focuses on strategies for the rehabilitation of everyday mathematics in people with aphasia. Tami and Dave focus on four pillars to support this work: Influencing Elements (math literacy, learning environment, aphasia severity); Math and Language (receptive & expressive language, cognition including executive function and  memory); Foundational Math Skills (use of linguistic and numerical symbols, lexicon, syntax, semantics); and Aphasia Friendly Math Activities (gamification in learning,  understanding math language, opportunities for communication). Their goal is to unite math and language. Contact Tami tbrancamp@med.unr.edu   Join the Aphasia + Math Facebook Community Join an Aphasia + Math session on Virtual Connections   Brancamp, T. & Brancamp, D. (2022). Exploring Aphasia + Math. Aphasia Access 24-Hour Virtual Teach-In. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mGSOJzmBJI   Girelli, L. & Seron, X. (2001). ) Rehabilitation of number processing and calculation skills. Aphasiology, 15(7), 695-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687040143000131 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888331_Rehabilitation_of_number_processing_and_calculation_skills#fullTextFileContent   Tapia, M. (1996). Attitudes toward mathematics inventory. https://www.academia.edu/29981919/ATTITUDES_TOWARD_MATHEMATICS_INVENTORY  

Eric kicks things off by confusing parentheses with quotation marks (and maybe third-grade grammar in general), leading to an episode full of playful roasts, nostalgic rabbit holes, and philosophical debates about legacy candy storage. Todd stands by with clarifications and calm judgment.Parentheses Panic: Eric discovers that the keyboard characters he's called quotes might be, in fact, parentheses. Todd gently breaks the news.Grammar and Concussions: Chair shots and DDTs may or may not be blamed for punctuation confusion.Dear Live Journal: Eric reads his latest Civil War-inspired Facebook diary, which somehow includes scorpions, Disney budgeting, and a 2006 Wendy's fry box with emotional value.Toy Talk & Turbo Nostalgia: From Fry Boxes to Battle Trolls, and mystery thermal-chested animals, the duo explores the sentimental value of random childhood stuff.Marketing via Microblog: Eric shares his new social media strategy—disguising work plugs inside daily anecdotes about snowfish, fry boxes, and scheduling crises.Candy in the Trunk: Eric debates whether a child's Power Wheels is a proper candy storage system. (Spoiler: It is.)If you've ever struggled with punctuation, nostalgia, or storing leftover Halloween candy, this episode has something for you. Just don't store your syntax in a fry box.

Kicking off the Wonder series, Ryan Haskell shares his approach to teaching Elm, his gap year adventures, and his current work at Brilliant. He gives insights into creating accessible learning materials, building games, and finding inspiration outside the Elm ecosystem.Thanks to our sponsor, Logistically. Email: elmtown@logisticallyinc.com.Music by Jesse Moore.Edited by Toni Cañete.Recording date: 2024.11.27GuestRyan HaskellShow notes[00:00:21] Sponsored by Logistically[00:00:43] Introductionryan.townWelcome to Elm! YouTube seriesElm Town 62 – The Map to Elm LandElm Landryan-haskell/date-format[00:01:34] Gap Year[00:03:31] Building a game in GodotTurbo Champ[00:11:01] Welcome to Elm YouTube SeriesRichard Feldman's "Teaching Elm to Beginners" (elm-conf 2017)[00:17:06] Teaching style"Parentheses are like hugs" - from Section 1.5 Advanced Functions[00:24:52] From Wolfgang: Finding inspirationInspiration for Vendr's elm-gql from watching Ben Awad's videos[00:29:07] Remaking Ryan's website[00:32:41] Working at BrilliantBrilliantElm Town 57 – Brilliant ways to use Elm with Aaron StrickRed Blob Games[00:39:15] PicksRyan's picksDracula by Bram StokerThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeVite 6.0The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)Horizon Zero DawnSatisfactoryJared's picksSatisfactory Night Fever by Dan BullRichard Feldman's "Teaching Elm to Beginners" (elm-conf 2017)Frontend Masters Elm courses by Richard FeldmanIntroduction to Elm, v2Advanced ElmElm in Action by Richard Feldman (Manning)Welcome to Elm! YouTube series

Have You Ever Used a Boolean Search on LinkedIn?

Hosts Tawny and Lisa discuss their new non-alcoholic beverage brand, Parentheses, and their recently published sobriety deck. They delve into the importance of setting boundaries with social media, detailing their personal experiences of 'quiet quitting' platforms like Instagram and Twitter. The conversation highlights the dangers of algorithm-driven content and its impact on mental health. It suggests practices for more mindful tech use, such as focusing on offline activities like listening to vinyl records and reading printed materials. They emphasize being intentional about online engagement and urge listeners to reflect on their social media habits. The episode concludes with insights into how music and analog hobbies can help create a more balanced and fulfilling life. Tawny Lara Email:   tawny.lara@gmail.com    Website: www.tawnylara.com Instagram: www.instagram.com/tawnymlara Linkedin:  www.linkedin.com/in/tawny-lara Book_ Dry Humping_  https://a.co/d/iHJ6OkL       IG_instagram.com/tawnymlara/ FB_.facebook.com/tawnymlara/ Podcast_ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/recovery-rocks/id1437414525 Only One In The Room: Email: cathcartrobbins@gmail.com Website: http://www.theonlyonepod.com/  Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2P3sYOA  iTunes: https://apple.co/2UUZ04Y   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheOnlyOneintheRoomPodcast  Instagram: instagram.com/theonlyoneintheroom   X: https://x.com/TheOnlyOnePodc1  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheOnlyOneInTheRoomPodcast/  TikTok: tiktok.com/@theonlyoneintheroom Patreon: patreon.com/theonlyonepodcast  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

⁠⁠⁠⁠This week, your two favorite Matts discuss Beyoncé & Ariana Grande supporting Kamala Harris, Britney Spears rumored to be working on new music, Sunset Blvd. opening on Broadway, and more! ⁠Get tickets to our holiday live show on 11/23!⁠ ⁠Become a part of our newly revamped Patreon!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out Matt Palmer's new single "Hurricane"!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our new merch store!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch Matt Steele's movie DIVOS!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch us on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow @itsmattsteele⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow @mattpalmermusic⁠

In this episode, Vee and Elle chat all things sober sex with Tawny Lara! She is the author of Dry Humping: A Guide to Dating, Relating, and Hooking Up Without the Booze and co-author of The Sobriety Deck, co-host of the Recovery Rocks podcast, and co-founder of the NA botanical spirit, (parentheses).***You don't need to be sober or even sober-curious to get something out of this conversation! Have you ever had a situation when you couldn't drink and felt a little weird or  uncomfortable? The girls chat about how to deal with that discomfort, where it's coming from, and how to turn to intrinsic courage rather than liquid courage to have better sex and better dates.***Can we still go out without drinking? Or does not being able to drink make us too uncomfortable to socialize? Life Circumstances that force us not to drink. (00:38)Sober Curious: Does less alcohol lead to more creativity? Get curious about your relationship with alcohol. (4:49)Dating Yourself: The importance of working on the self in any relationship. (11:05)The Physiology Behind Alcohol in the Body: you can't selectively numb. If you're numbing anxiety, you're also numbing the pleasure centers! (20:00)Sober-Friendly Date Ideas: DO something! Experiential dates over sit-and-talk-over-a-drink dates. (30:28) Parentheses: all about Tawny's slow-sipping, small batch spirits with a vinegar base, and the health benefits of vinegar! (34:51)Rituals to Get Sexy: figure out what your goal is in different circumstances which you drink - is it to loosen up? To feel sexy? etc. …and what can we do instead? (42:48)Sexuality Post-Sobriety: Getting honest about what you really want when you're not numbing. Living in evolution.  (49:23)“Coming Out” as Sober: What are the best ways to disclose that you don't drink or at least aren't drinking tonight? Should you put it on your dating profile? Should you tell them at the date? Before? (52:25) The Sobriety Deck: an easy, digestible self-help tool to use when you need support in not using liquid courage. (56:31)Final Nuggets of Wisdom! (58:26)Where to find us, and how you can support us:Instagram: @girlsgonedeeppod Merch: girlsgonedeep.com/shopContact: girlsgonedeep@gmail.comWHOREible Life: Get 10% off your deck with code GONEDEEP at whoreiblelife.com Instagram: @wlthegameWoo More Play Affiliate Link: Support us while you shop!

Last week, we welcomed to the pod Evan Friss, author of The Bookshop: A History of the American Bookstore. This week, we visit with his wife, Amanda Friss, owner of Parentheses Books in Harrisonburg, Virginia.Books We Talk About: The works of Kevin Brockmeier, West Heart Kill by Dann McDorman and Once More Upon a Time by Roshani Chokshi

Laughers, today we dive into the charming world of independent bookstores with our special guest, Amanda Friss, owner of Parentheses Books in Harrisonburg. Join us as we explore the unique role of indie bookstores like Parentheses Books in fostering community connections, cultural enrichment, and a cozy, memorable customer experience. In this episode, Amanda shares her journey from working in a New York City bookstore to successfully crowdfunding over $50,000 on Kickstarter to open her own store in Harrisonburg, with the support of her community and family. We'll discuss the importance of supporting local businesses, the aesthetic and atmosphere of her bookstore, and the challenges of balancing work and motherhood. We'll also touch on exciting events at Parentheses Books, such as upcoming book launches and book club meetings, and explore digital platforms like Libro FM that support indie bookstores. Tune in for a heartfelt conversation about the passion and perseverance behind running an independent bookstore, the joys of connecting with fellow book lovers, and the significance of creating spaces that feel like home. So grab your favorite beverage, sit back, and let's laugh together as we celebrate the magic of books and community! Cheers! Parentheses: parenthesesbooks.com Address:  76 W Gay St, Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Instagram: @parentheses.books, link in bio to subscribe to their Substack email newsletter Laughers, to order & follow PrePOPsterous Gourmet Popcorn:  Physical Location: 400 N Main St, Bridgewater, VA 22812 Website: www.prepopsterous.com Use Discount Promo Code: LAUGH15 and receive 15% Off Facebook: PrePOPsterous Instagram: @eatprepopseterous To learn more about FWAF Show & Buy Tickets visit: thefunnywomacks.com Facebook & Instagram: @thefunnywomacks

When we read the Bible, we need to ask question and be cautious that what we are reading is accurate.

Sunday Morning Worship with co-pastors Russ and Amy Jacks Dean. Park Road Baptist is located Charlotte, NC. For my information, please visit our website at ParkRoadBaptist.org Find us on Social Media: @ParkRoadChurch

Great game or GREATEST GAME?+ TV talk!

In this episode I have a fantastic chat with top sober sis, sober sexpert Tawny Lara, author of Dry Humping - a guide to dating, relating and hooking up without the booze. And basically, we talk about all of that.  Tawny Lara is an NYC-based journalist and public speaker with 8+ years of reporting on the sober (curious) space, focusing on the role liquid courage plays in interpersonal relationships. She is a podcaster, host of Recovery Rocks and has her own AF drinks brand Parentheses. You can find all of these here Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tawnymlara/ Substack https://substack.com/@tawnymlara Grab a cuppa or a cool drink - it's getting hot in here! Kate x 

As I mentioned in one of the prior segments of UnMind: In zazen, as well as in Zen writ large, we embrace a directive from the first great Ch'an poem by Master Kanchi Sosan: To move in the One WayDo not reject even the world of senses and ideasIndeed embracing them fully is identical with true enlightenment This is the most direct testament I have come across to refute the charge that Zen is somehow anti-intellectual. Those of us who take up the Zen way do, however, recognize the limitations of the discriminating mind in dealing with nonduality, but we do not dismiss intellectualization outright. Our ability to analyze, dissect, and reconstruct information is one of the most powerful tools we have in confronting the various confounding issues we face in life. But it cannot solve the mystery of existence alone. Something else – call it intuition? — has to come into play on a level beyond thought. As Matsuoka Roshi would often say, “Zen goes deeper.” In this segment, I will attempt to address a subject suggested by one of our members, considering the distinctions I have found in my experience teaching Zen over the years, versus my professional background in design, formally beginning with my BS and MS training at the Institute of Design, Illinois Tech in Chicago — acronym ID+IIT if you want to look it up — followed by my tenure teaching at the U of I, Chicago Circle Campus, and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Another complementary influence was my training in end-user research, primarily for new product development, with a Chicago-based firm. It was one of my main sources of income while in university, and the firm with which I moved to Atlanta in 1970. The integration of end-user research with each stage of creative development, from raw concept through refined concept, form, features, and styling, and so on, became the subject of my Master's thesis, and is now the gold standard in the industry, the most obvious example being the end-user-participation approach to debugging initial releases of software apps. As a starting point, one notable difference in design and Zen training may be that those who teach design on a professional level, and those who pursue it for advanced degrees, tend to refer to the overall method and approach as “design thinking,” which stresses analytical training to apply design as a generalist endeavor, rather than as a specialty. The premise is that the method employed in defining and solving any given problem of the applied design profession is thought to be basically applicable to any other problem-solving activity, in general terms. In research circles, the term “methodology” is often used to refer to the method followed in conducting the study; it actually means the study of method itself. Which is one area of intense focus in design itself, one of its more well-known proponents being Victor Papanek. For example, the method employed in designing and building a chair is basically the same as that utilized in writing a book, both of which I have personally done. Of course, since the materials required, and the functions of the end product differ; the details of the process differ accordingly. But the overarching steps in the process are similar in nature, as in all problem-solving initiatives. The steps usually taken are roughly parallel to those for solving quadratic equations, acronym PEMDAS. Indulge my stretching the analogy a bit, but the recommended sequence for doing the mathematical operations is to solve the Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and finally the Subtraction, and in that order; otherwise the answer is not likely to be correct. Metaphorically, solving the “parentheses” and “exponents” of the equation first, I take as roughly equivalent to defining the purpose and function of the end product: Who is the audience for this book, again? What is the point in designing yet another chair? What is the implicit thrust, or “root” of the problem, in other words? Once the project's underlying charge and challenge is clarified, then the ideation can begin; brainstorming and mind-mapping: consideration of all the possible materials available, such as hardwoods and furniture fasteners, in the case of the chair. Or the arc of the narrative of the book: What is in the first chapter; how do we end the last chapter; how many pages or words? Both of which I think we can regard as a kind of “multiplication” process. It may expand into future phases, with issues around getting the book, or the chair, published or manufactured, respectively. Once everything that may prove to be pertinent to the design and production of the new thing has been teased out through free association — and documented so as not to be lost — the exercise shifts to dividing the formless mosaic of the mind-map into relatively distinct groupings, much like Buddhism's five aggregates of sentient awareness. This I take as a form of “division.” Dividing the holistic concept into digestible bites in order to further develop the finer details. What options are there for furniture feet, finishes, and fabrics, if the chair is to be upholstered? What is the most logical sequence of chapters for the table of contents; how detailed do we need to make the footnotes or endnotes? Prioritizing the categories to take them one at a time, we then examine each set individually as to their completeness, and flesh them out, including elements we may not have thought of in the first go-round. This is the role of “addition,” kicking in once we have neatly divided the whole into discrete parts, each of which benefits from individual embellishment. For the chair, this may include line extensions such as choices in fabric, variable sizes and features such as adjustability of an ergonomic model. For the book, it may include illustrations, graphic inserts and, these days, links to online content. Finally, we get to the “subtraction,” the last in the sequence. For the book, this would comprise the familiar editing process, in the form of major block edits, detailed line edits, and excising text that may not earn the space it occupies in terms of contribution to the story line. For a chair, as a one-off and especially for mass production, it might entail identifying and eliminating unnecessary secondary operations in manufacturing, which prove unnecessary to the quality of the finished product. In all creative processes, whether in a group or individual endeavor, these steps flow from first considering, defining, and redefining, the initial problem; then mapping out all the various aspects, dimensions, and components of the problem; sorting elements into relatively discrete groupings; then adding any overlooked components to flesh out the various categories; and, finally, editing: prioritizing, setting aside and/or eliminating any and all areas and items of concern that may be safely postponed for later consideration, focusing on those that are most central to a solution, and demanding immediate attention, before moving on to more peripheral issues. This cycle is not a one-and-done, of course; the evolution of the book or chair often requires recycling through the earlier steps repeatedly, until the final design has moved from concept to execution. Such methods, like everything else these days, have now become ubiquitous online, where we find such apps as “Google docs” listed in 3,400,000,000 search results for “online group methods.” To conclude this segment, let me add that I feel that my training in the Bauhaus method of design thinking at ID+IIT combined with training in research methodology uniquely positioned me to take on the propagation of Zen as an identified problem, and to focus on the definition of that problem, as it evolved over nearly 50 years to date. The research model enabled me to apply group process to the administrative side, studying the requirements of establishing a 501c3 not-for-profit corporation in compliance with the rules and regs of the IRS, and to manage the many dysfunctional aspects of board of directors' governance. That the ASZC has been in virtually continuous operation is, I think, testament to the validity of this approach. In the next segment, we will segue into consideration of these same approaches to the teaching of the unteachable, Zen. Stay tuned and keep practicing.* * * Elliston Roshi is guiding teacher of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center and abbot of the Silent Thunder Order. He is also a gallery-represented fine artist expressing his Zen through visual poetry, or “music to the eyes.”UnMind is a production of the Atlanta Soto Zen Center in Atlanta, Georgia and the Silent Thunder Order. You can support these teachings by PayPal to donate@STorder.org. Gassho.Producer: Shinjin Larry Little

Parentheses added for emphasis are mine To many Greco-Romans readers, both Jews and gentiles, the promise of star-like (Starchild X2M.111-144) seed (Double Helix X2M.91-110) would have naturally been understood to imply that Abraham's seed would share in the indestructible life (PH11 Indestructible Element) of celestial beings. One could call this astralization or angelification or even deification, although Paul never does. For Paul, then, the gift of the pneuma brings about four significant and substantive changes that remedy the gentile problem. First, the gift of the pneuma, precisely because it is the pneuma of Abraham's seed, Christ, brings gentiles into a genealogical relationship with Abraham himself. Gentiles have now become real, material seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29). Second, this material, pneumatic connection between Abraham and gentiles-in-Christ is also the pneuma of the son of God (Gal 4:6), which Paul elsewhere describes as the pneuma of God, the pneuma of Christ, and the pneuma of the one (God) who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:9-11). Thus, those in Christ become sons of God themselves. As a consequence, gentiles have been freed from the malevolent powers-the stoicheia—that rule the world. Third, this freedom from the powers of this evil age produces an inner transformation that brings about the solution to the gentile moral problem that Paul caricatures in Rom 1:18-32. The gift of the pneuma now results in the moral capacity and ability for self-mastery. Gentiles now can effectively combat the works of the flesh, which keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God (Gal 5:16-21), and produce the fruit of the pneuma (5:23-24). Fourth, and finally, through the reception of the pneuma, gentiles become seed of Abraham, a virtuous people who have been given the deposit (appaßúr) on all the promises of God (2 Cor 1:20; cf. Eph 1:13-14), promises that will result in their mortality being swallowed up by life 2 Cor 5:5) so that they can partake in the indestructible life (PH11 Indestructible Element) of the eschaton and rule the kosmos. (PH12 Extending the Galactic Crown) Thiessen Matthew. 2016. Paul and the Gentile Problem. New York: Oxford University Press, 160.

Mimicking rules for integer operations does not help students become doers of Real Math, and frankly doesn't often stick in their long term memory. In this episode Pam and Kim walk through a Problem String that helps students develop an intuitive understanding of integer addition!Talking Points:Exploring the beach as a contextEquations and number lines in contextCarefully chosen numbers to avoid distracting cognitive load Subtraction symbol or adding a negative? Parentheses or not? Let students grapple, then support and help make sense of ambiguityCheck out our social mediaTwitter: @PWHarrisInstagram: Pam Harris_mathFacebook: Pam Harris, author, mathematics educationLinkedin: Pam Harris Consulting LLC

We continue our work on the why and how of the Tabernacle

We continue our work on the why and how of the Tabernacle

We continue our work on the why and how of the Tabernacle

We continue our work on the why and how of the Tabernacle

We continue our discussion about the why and how of the Tabernacle.

We continue our discussion about the why and how of the Tabernacle.

We continue our discussion about the why and how of the Tabernacle.

We consider the why and the how of the Tabernacle

We consider the why and the how of the Tabernacle

We consider the why and the how of the Tabernacle

We consider the why and how for the tabernacle.

We consider the why and the how of the Tabernacle

We continue our discussion about the why and how of the Tabernacle.

We consider the why and how for the tabernacle.

We consider the why and how for the tabernacle.

We consider the why and how for the tabernacle.

The Common Good podcast is a conversation about the significance of place, eliminating economic isolation and structures of belonging.   For this episode, Devin Bustin and I speak with Mary Pierce Brosmer. Mary founded Women Writing for a Change and for over 30 years WWf(a)C has provided a safe and non-competitive environment for individuals to develop their writing skills, cultivate their creativity and strengthen their voices. We speak to Mary about her poetry, how she holds space, her life as a teacher and what led her to develop the organization.You can find copies of Mary's recited poems here.The next Abundant Community conversation is on September 14 with David Brooks. You can register here.This episode was produced by Joey Taylor and the music is from Jeff Gorman. You can find more information about the Common Good Collective here. Common Good Podcast is a production of Bespoken Live & Common Change - Eliminating Personal Economic Isolation. 

As we look at Ephesians 3:1-13, we look at a big 'ol parenthetical paragraph! Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Be sure to check us out at our website, adoptedbelievers.com. You can find out more about us, articles, and access to all our podcast content and links to various podcast platforms.

While our brain is the best piece of machinery on the planet, most of us have no idea that we have over 60,000 thoughts a day and that those thoughts are running our lives. Not only are we not aware of most of those thoughts, and that our brains make us believe those thoughts are factual, but we're also not aware of the "add-ons" that our brains create. In other words, we often have thoughts after our thoughts that we also believe are factual, but they're not that obvious. We have thoughts in parentheses after our thoughts. This week on the podcast we're going to discuss the concept of thought parentheses and how to identify them. You can read the full show notes HERE

This week we are mourning our beloved X-Files office being burnt down while we discuss “The End”! We're talking the excessive cymbals on the soundtrack, how Spender and Krycek are two sides of the same dorky coin, how Mulder has been saving up his older brother energy and he's ready to bully Spender, the Cigarette Smoking Man going full Gone Girl, how we are not going to stand for this Quiet Willy slander, and we roll our eyes a lot at the Jealous Scully storyline. We spend a lot of time hating on the dumbass jealousy plotline, get pre-sad about the end of the Vancouver seasons, get worried about these old men hanging out under a bridge, cheer at a Classic Mulder Yell™, and acknowledge how hard it is to be intimidating while rolling a window down. Also, Scully's greatest line: “Mulder, he was goofing on you!” Yes, he was.Send us an email at scullynationpod@gmail.com or follow us on Twitter and Instagram!

Hidden in the shadows, the serratus posterior superior and inferior are, what I like to call, our anatomical parentheses. Subtle, nuanced, and often ignored, finding where they are and what they feel like is crucial to the work we do. In this episode of The Rebel MT, I underscore pushing our awareness beyond what we've been taught and to see what anatomy is trying to tell us.     Host:                   Contact Allison Denney: rebelmt@abmp.com             Allison's website: www.rebelmassage.com                      Allison Denney is a certified massage therapist and certified YouTuber. You can find her massage tutorials at YouTube.com/RebelMassage. She is also passionate about creating products that are kind, simple, and productive for therapists to use in their practices. Her products, along with access to her blog and CE opportunities, can be found at rebelmassage.com.               Allison's column in Massage & Bodywork magazine:     “The QL and the Psoas: The Epitome of Codependency” by Allison Denney, Massage & Bodywork magazine, January/February 2022, page 24.    “The Hand: A User's Guide,” by Allison Denney, Massage & Bodywork magazine. November/December 2021, page 81.   “Feelization: Connect with Clients on a Deeper Level,” by Allison Denney, Massage & Bodywork magazine, September/October 2021, page 85.   This podcast sponsored by:     Rebel Massage Therapist: http://www.rebelmassage.com   Rebel Massage Therapist: My name is Allison. And I am not your typical massage therapist. After 20 years of experience and thousands of clients, I have learned that massage therapy is SO MUCH more than a relaxing experience at a spa. I see soft tissue as more than merely a physical element but a deeply complex, neurologically driven part of who you are. I use this knowledge to work WITH you—not ON you—to create change that works. This is the basis of my approach. As a massage therapist, I have worked in almost every capacity, including massage clinics, physical therapy clinics, chiropractor offices, spas, private practice, and teaching. I have learned incredible techniques and strategies from each of my experiences. In my 20 years as a massage therapist, I have never stopped growing. I currently have a private practice based out of Long Beach, California, where I also teach continuing education classes and occasionally work on my kids. If they're good.   website: www.rebelmassage.com     FB: facebook.com/RebelMassage     IG: instagram.com/rebelmassagetherapist     YouTube: youtube.com/c/RebelMassage     email: rebelmassagetherapist@gmail.com    

Parentheses (vs 1-6) Exponents (vs 7) Division / Multiplication (vs 8-14) Subtraction / Addition (vs 15-22) Interactive Sermon Notes: https://churchlinkfeeds.blob.core.windows.net/notes/42055/note-172191.html

Subscribe to Quotomania on Simplecast or search for Quotomania on your favorite podcast app!Yannis Ritsos (1909-1990), born in Monemvasia, lost his mother and an older brother to tuberculosis at an early age, then contracted the disease himself and spent years in and out of sanatoriums. His first poems, published in the 1930s, were hailed with enthusiasm by Kostis Palamas. He fought in the Greek Resistance during the Axis occupation of Greece, sided with the Communists in the Greek Civil War, and subsequently spent years in prison and in detention camps. He was imprisoned again during the dictatorship of 1967-1974. One of the most prolific Greek poets, Ritsos wrote over a hundred volumes of poetry, was broadly translated, and was nominated seven times for the Nobel Prize. He was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in 1976 and the Order of the October Revolution in 1977.From The Greek Poets: Homer to the Present.For more information about Yannis Ritsos:The Greek Poets: https://www.amazon.com/Greek-Poets-Homer-Present/dp/0393060837Yannis Ritsos: Repetitions, Testimonies, Parentheses: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691019086/yannis-ritsos“Yannis Ritsos”: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/yannis-ritsos“Yannis Ritsos, a Greek Poet, 81; Wrote Verse Inspired by Politics”: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/14/obituaries/yannis-ritsos-a-greek-poet-81-wrote-verse-inspired-by-politics.html“Interview with Edmund Keeley”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkW9OuyjarI

As you'll soon tell, this message serves more as a post-camp follow-up lesson than it does an add-on to our Revelation series. Here we look at two interesting parts of the Seals & Trumpets and see how these doctrinally deep points have a very devotional application to our lives today.

John and Craig host a round of the Three Page Challenge where they look at listener pages and offer feedback on what's working and how to avoid common pitfalls. This week we look at time jumps, reveals, and ticker-tape dialogue. We follow up on confusing credits, then answer listener questions on narrative geography, professional development and when it's okay to take your pitch somewhere else. In our bonus segment for premium members, the guys share the secret to social media. Links: Ryan's Elvis Question on Twitter Follow along with our Three Page Challenge Selections: Tag – You're It by Suw Charman-Anderson, Halloween Party by Lucas Abreu & Zachary Arthur & Kyle Copier, Belly Up by Emme Harris Blockbuster, the Party Game The Hanger Reflex Sara Schaefer Silence Video Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt! Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription! Craig Mazin on Twitter John August on Twitter John on Instagram Outro by Nico Mansy (send us yours!) Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Email us at ask@johnaugust.com You can download the episode here.

In this week's episode, we discuss Elon Musk buying Twitter and the potential implications of the recent transaction. We also discuss whether Elon Musk is attempting to save the freedom of speech, or if he is actually just attempting to purchase mass amounts of human data for his plan to implant your brain. Megan Fox comes out and tells us that she and Machine Gun Kelly drink each other's blood, and the VA decides it is more important to send our doctors to take care of illegal immigrants than our own veterans. All of that and more on this week's episode! The Patreon begins at only $5 and includes weekly bonus topics, full video episodes, and more! Sign up now at: https://Patreon.com/redpillrevolt ----more---- For all the articles, videos, and documents discussed on this week's podcast join our substack!  Podcast Companion Substack: https://redpillrevolution.substack.com ----more---- Please consider leaving a donation for all of the hard work that goes into this ad-free podcast. I love doing what I do and can only continue through your generosity and support!  Donate https://givesendgo.com/redpillrevolution  ----more----   Full Transcription: Welcome to Red Pill Revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Red pill revolution started out with me realizing everything that I knew, everything that I believed, everything I interpret about my life is through the lens of the information I was spoonfed as a child, religion, politics, history, conspiracies, Hollywood medicine, money, food, all of it, everything we know was tactfully written to influence your decisions and your view on reality by those in power. Now I'm on a mission to retrain and reeducate myself to find the true reality of what is behind that curtain. And I'm taking your ass with me. Welcome to the rebel. Hello, and welcome to red pill revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Thank you so much for listening today. I'm very glad you are here. This is episode number 26 of the red pill revolution podcast, and we have had some really interesting things go on in the last week. So we're just going to jump right into it. I really don't know what else to do here, but just really just jump into these really interesting topics. So the things that we're going to discuss today are as follows. We're going to go into a conversation about the blood the blood lost of Megan Fox and machine gun Kelly. If you haven't seen that clip yet, it's very ominous, very creepy of Megan Fox discussing the way that her and machine gun Kelly S basically drink each other's blood. Oh no, that's a conspiracy. We don't talk about those things. They're not real. You can't say that, but I can because she did. So we're going to talk about that. The next thing we're going to discuss is going to beam the veteran's administration sending medical staff from the VA down to the Southern border. Now that the Act has been, or is being repealed. And we're going to have this flood of migrants coming into our country. They're now sending the help that is normally for our soldiers down to the border. So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to discuss the sheer hypocrisy that has been involved in the Twitter takeover of sir Elon Musk. I think that's his new name, sir? Elon Musk. So we're going to talk about that in the last podcast last week that we discussed, we didn't know yet that this had happened. It had not happened yet. So Elon Musk, if you did not know, has taken over Twitter, he is now the largest shareholder and will effectively be running the company, which is incredible from a freedom of speech standpoint, but also quite weird from the standpoint of somebody who questions, everything and has a few questions about Elon Musk. At this point. Now I've been in the Elon Musk fan. Until this point. And I had some of you guys, some of the commenters raise some questions here regarding the trustworthiness of Elon Musk from last week's clip, where I talked about Elon Musk being the iron man of the real world or of this reality because somewhere in a different reality, there might actually be an Ironman, but of this world, it's about the closest thing we get is Elon Musk. And I discussed that in a lot of people chimed in and said, maybe he's not the hero that I think he is. And in fact, even worse, maybe Elon Musk. Is the villain. So we're going to discuss that today and some of the comments from people, some of the conversations and some of the weirder things that have gone on in Elon Musk's history. So we're going to discuss that. We're also going to look at the white house looking at repealing section two 30 in section two 30 is basically a way for them to now that they're so scared about Elon Musk, having Twitter for them to essentially bypass it and take it to the government level where they can control speech now from the backend. Now that Elon Musk has come out and said that, he's going to follow the legality of it, not the whims of the extreme left. So we're going to discuss those things. We also have a few other topics we're going to discuss, including Google launching a new woke writing function, which is. Inclusive language, basically, they're going to re they're going to put a notification in front of you if you're not using the right pronouns, you're in your middle school speech or your middle-school document that you're writing for school. They're now going to push their woke ideology through words, through, through a word document, literally your thoughts and they're trying to shape them. So a lot of things on the horizon today, those are just some of them. And then the last one is going to be the DHS basically testifying that it's creating a disinformation governance board on the backs of the department of Homeland security, putting out a statement surrounding calling people terrorists, who disagree or so descent in the government. They're now coming up with a disinformation governance board, specifically on the backs of Elon Musk, securing Twitter. Wow. That's going to be a lot. We'll see you. This might take all day, but we'll get it all in there. We'll discuss it all. And some of it, you might catch on the Patreon. So the first thing I need you to do before we discuss some of these topics is go ahead and click that subscribe button. I know you want to it's right there. I know you might've heard this and you might already be subscribed. And if you are, I appreciate you more than you could ever know, but if you are listening to this and you're not subscribed, go ahead right now. It's good for you. It's good for me. It's good for the universe. It's good for spreading the truth now that we actually have places to do go ahead and click that subscribe button, leave a five-star review. I know there's some of you who are subscribed and I appreciate it more than you. But the next step that you can take for me, you're just leaving a five-star review and maybe write in a nice little comment in there about, whatever it is that you appreciate about this podcast. It would mean the world to me, and it would be a good karma for you and all it takes us two seconds, two seconds, a little tippity tap, go ahead and do it. Next thing is the substack. Go ahead and subscribe. stacked.com. Redpillrevolution.substacked.com actually. And you'll get the podcast companion, which we're back on track with following this week. So excited to get that back that out. Get that back out to you guys. A red pill revolution dot  dot com and then the Patreon $5. Get you. Bonus content gets you access to this court server gives you the entire video podcast and you can get that at patreon.com/red pill revolt. That's all I got. Let's go head and jump into the very first clip that I have for you today, which is going to be around Megan Fox, basically just outwardly discussing. I don't know if she got the memo that you're not supposed to do this, but Megan Fox came out and said that her machine gun. Drink each other's blood. Could you imagine a celebrity in Hollywood, nonetheless drinking the blood of another human individual for pleasure. Now we're not allowed to do that. And if you do, you definitely can't talk about it. But here, Megan Fox is talking about the fact that her machine gun Kelly drink each other's blood, which is in the conspiracy world. Not something you're able to discuss on these mainstream media is, but apparently if you are Megan Fox, you can do so here it is Megan Fox discussing this it's a, just a few drops, but yes, we do consume each other's blood on occasion for ritual purposes. Only it is used for a reason. And it is controlled where it's let's shed a few drops of blood and each drink it he's much more haphazard and hectic and chaotic where he's willing to just cut his chest open with broken glass and be like, take my Sol. It doesn't not happen. Let me tell you maybe not exactly like that, but it, a version of that has happened many times a version of that has happened many times as Sheila. The version of that, where he takes broken glass cuts, open his chest, and then like a demon. If you see that video and you saw the way that she just went about that, she looked like a demon. He goes, let me drink VR. Like she was really weird there. So yeah, apparently that just happens very often. According to Megan Fox that she's drinking the blood of Megan, not Megan Kelly machine, gun Kelly, but apparently they're on the train here of Adam to the list of celebrities that we actually know 100% are drinking the blood of other humans. And this time maybe we can even discuss this without getting, thrown into a shadowy box of the worst things you could possibly say, and then being shadow banned into oblivion. But if you do get you out of band, apparently just go to Twitter now and that's going to be the way to go. But at this point it's really interesting, right? The adrenochrome conversation. I think that's one that is very. Been a hot topic in the depths of the conspiracy world for a while. And it really hasn't had too many mainstream conversations like this one that bring it up. Now it doesn't seem to me, is this seems more of a satanic ritualistic which not to say that the adrenochrome situation isn't involved in that, but th this seems like a weird I don't know, it's it doesn't seem like that to me, it doesn't seem like you're drinking the blood of your spouse. For the adrenochrome, because then you would, the whole idea, if you haven't heard of the adrenochrome conspiracy, here's how it goes. The idea is basically that if you go back long enough in history, you'll see that there's a bunch of our ancestors. And especially the specifically ones in power who along the lines have had dropped seeds, basically that they drink the blood of individuals who are in extreme amounts of stress. Because when your body's in an extreme amount of stress, it produces this chemical adrenaline and subsequently this also a chemical called adrenochrome, which flows through your bloodstream and then celebrities and the elite, and the famous people of the world. Basically drink that to get. And if you look back far enough, if you look back towards the Royal bloodline and if you're deep into the conspiracy world, you already know a little bit about that. But the idea is that if you go back into the Royal bloodline, the blood bloodline of the British elite, they're the Royal family, and you look far back enough, you'll see that there's somebody called Vlad, the Impaler and Vlad. The Impaler is a unique individual and unique individual because he feasts off of the blood of his enemies and he doesn't just do it for the taste. He does. He does it in a way that he puts them in the most extreme amounts of pain possible in, and he used to have people that would sit around a long there's actual paintings during the time where Vlad, the Impaler was sitting at a table around all of these dead bodies in consuming the blood of his enemies in front of his own, and his own, higher up military individuals and there's stories and poems about this that we know from back during that time. And so we know factually historically, there are people who have drank the blood of other individuals and put them into stressful situations to get high. And we know that has started through the Royal bloodline is where there's the more, most consistent historical accounts of this, obviously, because those are where the conversations stick around for awhile. But we know that historically it's Vlad, the Impaler was a very famous individual, a part of the Royal bloodline who then passed his ways down is where the conspiracy goes that this came from even before him. But the Royal family ever since who is tied into this, we know this from prince Harry. Who are not prince Harry Prince Andrew, I'm sorry. Who came out and said that he specifically was related to bled the Impaler once they did a DNA check. So we know historically and factually that there is parts of the Royal blood line, the Royal family that has historically and factually drank the blood of people and incited the most horrific events towards these people before they drink the blood specifically to get this adrenochrome okay. So they're in, that's passed down through generations and turned into this whole, blackmail situation where people are doing it and they don't talk about it in Hollywood. And this is where the whole underground child trafficking. And this is a real thing. If you go on the dark web right now, you can search adrenochrome and you can find this product being sold online right now. And the idea where children come into play with that as it's the most purest blood that you can get in this whole dark crazy. I'm sorry that we went there so early into this podcast, maybe I should have put Megan Fox a little bit lower on the agenda here. Cause we got deep really fast anyways. So there is a little bit about the adrenochrome conspiracy now where this comes into play and where I think this is interesting is I don't think this is that this isn't them drinking, just the way that she talked about it didn't seem like that because if this was that they wouldn't be talking about it. So frivolously, it would be a far darker, deeper conversation. And she definitely wouldn't be coming out and speaking about it in an interview. So this seems to be some weird, hype devil. Craziness now, obviously it's tied into that in some way, shape or form, but I don't think it has to do with adrenochrome but this one is a weird conversation to see somebody just outwardly, just like the way she just talked about it to me was. I guess exactly how you would expect somebody to talk about it. If they're actually drinking their spouse's blood for fun or whatever for ritual. So anyways, let's move on to some lighter geopolitical topics, not even geopolitical but more state side on this one that the topic that we're going to be discussing next is the VA doctors are being sent down to the Southern border on the backs of the law being repealed. That basically stopped a lot of the immigrants who were coming in from just flooding our gates. And now we know that they are literally flooding our gates. We've seen videos upon videos and on the border, hundreds of thousands of people have crossed the border. I don't know if that's a factual number, but it sounds good, but I'm pretty sure I'm fairly positive. It's pretty close to that. And so what's happening here is the VA is sending doctors down to the border that would normally be responsible for our veterans that would normally be responsible for purple hearts with legs missing or people with PTSD or whatever. So many individuals who are military veterans who lack care. And I know this because I am one of them. I have VA coverage and it is atrocious. It's atrocious when we're not sending a large amount of our doctors to the border to handle people who shouldn't even be coming over here, let alone getting free healthcare in lieu of the veterans who are needing it. So let's watch this video. It discusses a little bit. There's a, I believe a Senator or a Congresswoman who speaks up on this and grows one of the individuals here. So let's watch that and see what they have to say about it. Yes or no answer is that the department of Homeland security planning to reallocate resources, doctors and nurses from our VA system intended to care for our veterans to help care for illegal immigrants at our Southern border Congresswoman let me be clear because an inter-agency effort is precisely what the challenge of migration requires, and it's not specific to 2022, nor 2021 north 2020, where the years proceeding.   But I'm just  asking you a yes or no question. Are you planning on taking resources away from our veterans to help deal with the surge at our Southern border? That's a yes or no question actually, Congresswoman the resources that the medical personnel from the veterans administration would allocate to this. Is under the judgment of the secretary of veterans affairs, who prioritizes the interest of veterans above all others for very noble, incorrect reasons. Do  you know if  you've, have you had any conversations about reallocating those resources? I have not personally, but of course our teams, our personnel have, and I'd be very pleased to to follow up with you. Yeah. Our veterans need to know that the care that they've earned is going to be provided to them and not to those at our Southern border. The other thing, so that's what it is. Just what I already talked about with you. She's arguing with him saying the fact that you guys are going to send physicians who are specifically allocated by our tax dollars, by the money that we spend from our hardworking citizens to go help illegal immigrants crossing the border because you made shitty policy decision. What how is that acceptable? How are we just gonna, like the fact that our politicians just do, they think things through, do they even realize how this looks like when you're taking doctors specifically who were supposed to be taking care of what, how many doctors are out there that you could have paid money to go do this, but you have them on a shitty salary. That's why the VA care is so bad. The VA care is so bad because they pay the doctors who are just getting out of school. They pay their way through school, so that, and then they put them on a contract. So they have to come work for the VA after they get out of school. And they only get through school through the VA's money. So they get all of the shittiest doctors who went to the shittiest schools. No offense. If you're a VA doctor, I think what you're doing is great that you're helping veterans. But it doesn't change the fact that a lot of times the care is subpar and the care is subpar because the pay is sub-par and when you pay people less money, you generally get lower quality candidates. And so they have these people on a really low salary, one that's already contractually obligated to be fulfilled on their end. And they're in there manipulating the asset here of the doctors to send them directly to the border, to bypass our veterans who are in need. How many veterans are going to have extremely long? I remember when I was calling the VA to get a pretty serious. Look at, I had I don't even remember exactly what it was, but it was a heart like a SVT was what it's called. And then basically what it is like you're we were trying to figure out what it was and but it was like 36 weeks or 36 days out, two months out, whenever I called it was like the most ridiculous times. And then they came up with this thing called the veteran's choice program, where if you were 30 days or more out from the time that you could get an appointment with the physician or a specialist that you were looking for, that they would allow you to schedule an appointment at a local doctor's office. And as soon as I pulled that card with them, what's so funny is so I would call them up and say, Hey, I need an appointment to see a cardiologist. And they would say, okay, it's about a 42 days out. We'll go ahead and schedule the appointment with you right now. I said, okay, that's not going to work. I need it to be sooner than that. And they would say I'm sorry, sir. We can't do any sooner than that. I would say. If it's 42 days, that's outside of the 30 days and I'd like to elect the veterans choice program and go see a local doctor and what they would do is they go, oh I just found on in 29 and a half days from now, just, I just found this random appointment sitting here on my calendar. And you can get seen 29 and a half days from now. And so they would find a way to basically push people off as far as they could, until they elected the choice program. And then they were directed specifically to find an appointment for you within the 30 day timeframe so that you wouldn't be able to elect choice. So all in that to say that what they're doing here is wrong because the waiting times are already crazy at the VA. They're already ridiculous, like 30, 40 days out. If you have something that you believe was a heart attack, that's very concerning and I'm a young, healthy individual, right? Nothing wrong with. As far as I'm concerned than according to the VA, because they never saw anything or took care of it. So to me, it's if that's happening to me, how concerned would I be? If I was 72 years old, 78 years old with these issues from world war two, or, from Vietnam, would you be, wouldn't be 70 if you were in world war two. But if you were in Vietnam and then you're a war veteran and you have all of these issues and now you get pushed out 15, 20, 30, more days because they're sending your doctor who you fought for their country for. They're sending your doctor now to the border to take care of people who don't even have United States citizenship let alone, who should be the most respected individuals in the United States is combat veterans, especially disabled combat veterans who have the scars of our nations war decisions on their backs. And to take that in and give those allocated assets, those doctors help to somebody who is not even a part of our country. How does that make any sense? How does that make any sense? It's got to, it's so frustrating to me to know that the way that there it's literally just virtue signaling. And I don't even know if this is virtue signaling. I don't know what to call this, but to me it just, it makes no sense. It's frustrating. From a veteran's perspective, it's frustrating from a United States citizen perspective to know that they're just, bypassing the people who deserve the care the most to give it to people who are not even a part of our country, it makes no sense at all. So speaking about weird governmental hypocrisy, let's go ahead and watch this video. So if you didn't know, Ilan mosque bought Twitter. Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. And now Twitter, the left, the mainstream media are all freaking the fuck out about it. They have no idea what to do. They're so scared of people being able to say things that they don't like, and they are freaking out about it to the point where they're so blinded by their hate, that they don't even see their own hypocrisy, which we'll see here, which is a news anchor from MSNBC discussing what he believes to be Elon Musk's the downfall of our society based on the information that Elon Musk, being able to censor people at his will like a dictator according to this man. So let's see how ridiculous this is. Cause if you haven't seen this clip yet, it's. If you have to be so blinded to not really it almost seems like satire. It almost seems like a joke that this man can not even see himself in the mirror saying these things and realize how, just how ridiculous it really is. So let's go ahead and we'll watch that. No, the point is people who work with this stuff, they understand how important this is. I'm not telling you, you need a Twitter account. I'm not telling you. You have to jump in the ocean to study whether the ocean levels are rising. I'm just telling you this thing matters a ton. Do you? World's richest person who is very good at accumulating wealth and power thinks this is worth spending tens of billions of dollars on because frankly he thinks it's that valuable. And he thinks it may help him. Trump, by the way, today is claiming he won't even return to Twitter. If the ban were lifted, but few take what Donald Trump says seriously on that score. So what is happening? This is far bigger than Trump or Elon Musk. They are symptoms of the world we're living in where technology has outpaced any of our ability to deal with it. That's true. Whether you're a parent trying to figure out what you can and can't let your kids do at various ages. It's true. If you are a democracy like the United States that used to regulate media ownership and say, Rupert Murdoch can't have too many local TV stations and newspapers in one town. They have laws for that, that are still on the books, but the Congress hasn't gotten around to limiting whether someone can own all of Twitter. And as we discussed in one of our special reports, just last week, if you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don't have to explain yourself. You don't even have to be transparent. You could secretly ban one party's candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else. And the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election. Elon Musk says, this is all to help people because he is just a free speech. Philosophically clear open-minded helper, a world helper, if you will, is that true? Should you take him at his word? Should you care about this? Whether you have a Twitter account or not, this is important. This is important stuff. This is important stuff to know if it's just so funny. Cause if you would've played that four months ago, three months, two weeks ago, it would have sounded like a Tucker Carlson bit. Like it would have, it would've sounded like a alt right media silence, talking, conspiracy, talking points like this man is a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist forever. Even taking the idea that Elon Musk or the leader of Twitter or any social media company for that matter, whatever alter the outcome of an election. Oh, this man needs to be banned. This man needs to be silenced. He can't be allowed to go around saying these things. We should take away any platform that he has completely get him away from the ears of the peasants, who might be able to hear these small fringe minority of ideas. You literally, you can't listen to that and just go this man here himself, does this guy really not see what he's doing? Like you literally just outlined every problem you outlined, the entire reason that he spent this money, you just really gave us the whole talking point of the right of the conservative of the free speech app. Solutionists like Elon Musk refers to himself, which he was about to call them, but it sounded too positive. So he said philosophical, whatever. It's so funny to me that this man had zero, zero self-awareness to know that he was literally describing the entire reason that Musk bought Twitter to begin with. You can turn the knob in silence. People who disagree with you, you can eliminate people of the entire party. Like the sitting fucking president of the United States that got his Twitter platform taken from him, the sitting president of the United States was eliminated from a social media platform. And this dumb ass has the balls to sit in front of us and contemplate the potential idea that somebody else could do the same to him on his side. I don't have words for the stupidity of this, man. I can't even imagine it's sitting in a room with this guy. He's saying these things and now just like busting out laughing and just be like, do you fucking hear yourself, man? Do you hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Because you're literally describing every problem that everybody on the entire side of the political spectrum that you disagree with has outlined for years literally have been the victims of this have been silenced, literally sitting here in front of you right now. I have no platform with 50,000 legitimate, organically built followers stripped away from me because I posted a Senate, hearing a Senate hearing that they didn't like that didn't follow their narrative about the Biolabs literally right here. And this man's gonna try and to have hypothetical's about the potential of his side to being affected by this. Maybe you shouldn't have implemented this on your side to begin with. Maybe if you weren't stopping the sitting president from speaking out on the social media platform during his presidency all, while you let the leader of Al-Qaeda on there all, while you let the boogeyman Putin himself still have a Twitter today with the Kremlin, all the, while you eliminated our sitting president from having a voice, I'm one of the biggest social platforms in the world. And now you're scared of the repercussions. That's what it is. You got your way for so long, all those right. Wingers, all those conspiracy theorists that you got silenced in the name of your truth. Nah. Wow. It's coming for you. Now you have to worry about being silenced and you're scared. You're scared because the monster that you built, that you built a, you built this entire platform on a tower of lies on, on on the silencing of any dissent on the banning of anybody who disagrees with you. And you now are going to see the repercussions of that. And you're scared of it. That's what he's saying here. Cause he knows this is how it's been. He's done. He's sitting in front of us speaking on the TV. He can't be dumb. Yeah. He might be for sure, but he knows he's scared because. This is the problem. When you silence speech, this is the problem, especially when you have a democracy, is that every four years, the democracy changes every four years. There's a new leader. Every four years, something is going to shift. And if you silence enough people on the other side of the pendulum always swings back and eventually it's going to come for you. And he's scared. And they should be because there should be that thought in the back of his mind, all these extreme left wing ideologies, right? And there are literally very extreme left wing ideologies, far worse than the, what are the white right wing ideologies that are scary. What freedom of speech freedom to right to bear arms don't talk to my children. Sex in kindergarten, maybe some things like that. Those are some really radical conservative ideas. They're scared and they don't know what to do. And so they're running around with their their, like a chicken with their heads cut off because it, because they have no idea the repercussions of what they have built, the silencing machine will come for you to eventually, because you always have to agree. You always have to agree with whatever individual is at the helm, and you might not agree on everything. And the second you don't agree on one thing, the second you deviate from that line just a little bit. Now you're the one being silenced. Now you're the one losing your platform. So now we know the. They're scared and they should be scared now that they have project Veritas nice and close up on that ass, finding out the truth. So we had a whistleblower from within Twitter, sending an audio file to project Veritas of their all hands on deck meeting, which was a meeting where the CEO and some board members and the CMO and a few other people that don't matter. Not that any of those people matter anyways, basically getting together and all whining and bitching and moaning together about the fact that they have to deal with Elon Musk buying out their company. I really wish the second thing that went through that deal went through. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in Twitter. It must've just been like how many green haired they Z Sobbing It just must've been like every liberal, libs of tick-tock video combined in a single room. And it just would have been the most brilliant comedy to be able to watch this meltdown play out. It's I hope we get more of these videos, but here is the all hands on deck meeting. And this is specifically the CMO, the chief marketing officer of Twitter speaking out on this topic specifically. So I actually have the full transcript. I pulled the video, wrote up the transcript for it. I'm going to include that as a separate sub stack this week for you guys. So go ahead and sign up right now. Red pill revolution that substack.com. You'll also get the sub stat companion, which will have all the articles, all the videos in that full transcript for you guys right down there. It'll also include the audio podcast. It'll also include the video podcast so you can get it all right to your email. Every single. And not have to worry about going into apps and finding stuff and all that whole deal. You can just get it right to your email inbox. So pretty awesome. Go ahead and sign up right now. Red pill revolution that sub stack.com for the podcast, companion, as well as the full transcript of this Twitter meltdown meeting, which I seem to enjoy reading a little bit more than I do listening to these things because the audio is not great as you'll see here. But I hope you can, it's not terrible, but you can still make everything out. But I think the transcript, you can just get through it a lot faster and it's a 45 minute meeting of them bitching and moaning. So maybe you don't want to hear that, but you can skim it and get the gist probably a little bit easier. So let's go ahead and start this video. And how did the board and Mr. Musk plan on dealing with a mass Exodus considering the acquisition is by a person with questionable. The question of attrition as product stated, one of the themes of today is continuity and ensuring that Prague and this leadership team continues to operate the business successfully on behalf of our users on behalf of our customers. And that has obviously been a big topic of discussion at the board. And as I mentioned in an area that is important to Elon Musk as well, because the important of Twitter as a service with no board in place who will keep Ilan accountable and how you don't want me to clear in public that a large part of the reason he bought the platform was because of our moderation policies and disagreements in how we deal with health is puts Twitter service and trust and safety, as well as anybody who cares about how on the platform in a very difficult position, greater service, the corner for policies and the capabilities we've built around content model. I find a mental to keeping quitter safe and growing. I believe that there is a lot of work we have to do to continue making that better. Sometimes that means more thoughtful moderation. Sometimes that means making things simpler. Sometimes that means changing product incentives to be able to solve problems to products sometimes instead of policies during the last all hands, you said that you trust Elon Musk, the correct quote was we trust him. So who is we and talking to Elon, what made you trust him? And based on the conversation I had with him, when we were excited to have him join our board, that was because at the major shelters. And an opinionated user we've wanted that Weiss in our boardroom so that we could learn. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? The question behind the question here, which is where my us product goal as a private company in the future, once this deal closes to best gain perspective on this, as I said earlier, we'll find ways to bring it on for Q and a, with all of you to understand better what his vision for the future of cricket might look like. Did you just hear that last question she asked? What does freedom of speech like w let me go back. Cause I think that's, probably the single most important part of that entire video while I, rubbed some, there we go, got a little bit of substance on my Desk here. All right. So now that's taken care of the part of that video, to me, that was the most concerning was the very last question there. And obviously she started that by saying that the, her new boss has questionable ethics, which is probably, could you imagine being like joining a company and immediately making a statement to every single individual within the entire company that the new owner of your company has questionable ethics? Like not even just saying he's bad at business, not saying that, he's a liar, just that he's his moral character entirely as a question here by this chief marketing officer. Okay. Now the more pressing issue here, I think was that last question, which was let's go ahead and run that. She says, is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? What do you realize? Free speech is a ver okay. Free means unhindered UN UN kept free. You don't know what the word free means. Lady. You're the executive on Twitter and you don't know what free speech means. Freedom of speech. Is there an updated understanding on what free speech means? Maybe what the law goes by is free speech and everything else is a hindrance. And isn't an opinion. And can literally be changed at the whim of whoever is in power. Is there an updated understand? No, it's the same understanding that we had when our country was established in 1776 and the constitution was written the same understanding of the freedom of speech. The same idea of free speech back then applies today, which means don't tell people what they can say, unless they're violently threatening somebody and have the intention of following through, or if they yell fire in a crowded movie theater, as people like to point out, okay, that's about it. And maybe even doxing, let's throw that one in there, even though it's not a specific law. It has to do with harassment. So it's in there somewhere. We've talked about that before, but freedom of speech means unhindered speech. That is exactly what Ulama said, which means that if we're going to put these policies in place, they should, if there is anything that is done to hinder freedom of speech, it should piss off the most radical 10% of the left equally, as much as it pisses off the most radical 10% of the right. And if you do that is equal opportunity and in an equal way for this platform to thrive and still hold the idea of freedom of speech, because then it's not an opinion, it's an opinion based, but when you see people like Milo Yiannopoulos, whatever his name is, Alex Jones, Donald Trump literally point me to a liberal who's been kicked off of the platform for speaking out on liberal talking points. You can't right. So for you to ask, what is the updated understanding of free speech is just the most ridiculous, disgusting, exact reason that Elon Musk bought the platform to begin with is because you can't even define the freedom of speech. You idiot anyways, all the more reason to be happy about this, all the more reason to be excited. Now we are going to see the government, sorry about that. The government, the white house is looking to see what they can do as we'll see on what's on your radar, Bobby or Robbie, or pretty sure it's Robbie. I don't know whatever this guy's name is. Oh, whereabouts to see it. The white house is now considering ways that they can step in for Twitter and start silencing your speech anyways, on these platforms and see if they can implement totalitarianism from their end, since the way that they've been doing it from the backend through Twitter and lobbying and quid pro quos and Saudi Arabian government ties and all of these crazy things. Now they're looking at re basically putting a new laws into place so that they can do it from the government standpoint, which is going to be much more difficult to accomplish because there's a constitution between them and accomplishing this goal. And there wasn't that with Twitter, maybe when there should have been. So let's go ahead and see you. Is that it has on his radar today. All right, Robbie,  what's on your radar. Yesterday in my radar, I explained why so many members of the mainstream media are losing their minds over Elon Musk, acquisition of Twitter. They're afraid that if must makes the platforms, rules more favorable for free speech, their power to control the conversation and brand all dissenting views as disinformation and harassment, that power will come to an end. So it should come as no surprise that the Biden administration is expressing similar. I'll be more cautious concerns about must Twitter takeover as well. Here was white house, press secretary, Jen, Saki, reacting the other. And just a quick one on  the breaking news, Twitter, agreeing to let Elon Musk purchase and make this purchase. Do you have a response to that? And does the white house have any concern that this new agreement might have president Trump back on the platform? I'm not going to comment on a specific transaction. What I can tell you as a general matter, no matter who owns or runs Twitter the president has long been concerned about the power of large social media platforms. What they have that power they have over our everyday lives has long argued that tech platforms must be held accountable for the harms they cause. He has been a strong supporter of fundamental reforms to achieve that goal, including reforms to section two 30. And  so that wasn't the only time Saki mentioned section two 30, either he or she is responding to a question, which I believe is from our dear friend Philippine. And we would support taking including reforming section two 30, enacting antitrust reforms requiring more transparency. And the president is encouraged by the bipartisan support for or engagement in those efforts.  So why the sudden interest in reforming section two 30 now that Elon Musk is set to take control of Twitter. Now, in fairness, the interest is actually not sudden, Biden has long held that section two 30 should be eliminated. He previously said, quote, section two 30. It should be revoked immediately, should be revoked. Number one for Zuckerberg and for other platforms. So confusingly Democrats have managed to bring many Republicans on board with this idea of changing or getting rid of section two 30, no less than authority than former president. Donald Trump has railed against two 30 at a Georgia rally a year ago. He said that we have to get rid of section two 30, or we won't have a country. And in fact, Republicans who support getting rid of section 2 38. They're getting played by Biden, Saki, et cetera, because without section two 30, social media would become even more hostile to conservative speech. And many viewers are probably asking right now, okay. What even is section two 30. So allow me to explain section two 30 is a federal statute that protects internet platforms from some speech related liability. For instance, if I say something defamatory in this video, I can be sued just like anyone else, but YouTube cannot be sued because section two 30 treats me rather than YouTube as the speeding. So the reasons for having this law are I think fairly obvious if YouTube, Twitter or Facebook, we're legally responsible for all speech on the platform. Then they would have to moderate way more aggressively. Maybe only people with blue check marks would get to post. It will maybe you'd have to fill out an application and prove that you wouldn't post content that could get the platform in trouble. Something like that. Section 2 38 creates the legal regime that permits the internet to exist as it does right now, without gatekeepers reviewing posts or videos before they appear on the platforms. Now, of course I disagree with many of the individual content moderation decisions that the platforms make, people are not wrong to complain that the moderation has been to. So that's interesting. It seems he's pointing out that it's almost like a double-edged sword here is if you do so I guess, as he just explained to section two 30, basically says that Facebook can not be held liable. If you say some stupid shit on their platform and get in trouble for it, it's not like you are writing it. I don't know. What's a good example of that. It's not it's not like they're going to ever be held liable for a situation where you did something wrong. They're a, they're just a platform for you to do your work on it's if you wrote S Hit-list on Google docs. Like Google is not going to be sued for that hit list. It seems like a pretty ridiculous idea. But when you start to break it down, there is some valid points to this where it says basically the idea is that they're trying, they're going to hold Twitter, liable, hold Elan, Musk liable. If they allow certain voices to be raised and to say certain things that they deem inflammatory, maybe that don't violate the law, but they deem inflammatory. So then that would cause a chain reaction from the social media companies, where they would have to come in and begin heavily moderation for fear of backlash from the government or legal ramifications for things that their users are saying. In which case they would have. Incentive to begin mass bannings to begin silencing of people. Like he said, almost make people verify who they are and this whole deal, which is interesting, because that is something that Elon Musk has said he wants to do with. Which has caused all people to have to verify their identity, to get a blue check mark, or to even be on the platform he's hinting towards. It seems so which a lot of people have problems with. The idea is that it's supposed to be eliminating these Saudi Arabian, swarm bots, and it's supposed to be eliminating all of these trolls that are out there under the bridge talking about Q spirochetes and it's supposed to eliminate all of that. And so that's something that Elon Musk has come out with, which is basically having to identify yourself on the internet with some sort of like driver's license. W which you don't even need to vote now, but you need it to sign up for Twitter. So there's a problem with that. For some people where the heat, there's becoming a more loss or more use tracking of identity and the things that you are in specifically saying and outcomes for those things. If it's maybe not something they like, so that's one problem that comes up with that. So we'll watch another minute or so of this clip and then we'll move on. Cause I think this, the section two 30 conversation, this is an interesting one though, because it is, if that's their next move, if they see Elan buying Twitter for 44 billion, especially with the elections coming up maybe they're starting to scramble. So they move their Rook to, Five. So they're trying to figure out what, what plays do we have as a response to this? Because this is not good for, this is not something we expected is the idea, right? Because if all of the information that's on the surface level of this, imagine what is actually going on behind the scenes, because Elan, isn't just frivolously doing this for some overarching bold idea of freedom right there. There's probably even if that is the reason he in his intellect is going to break that down to a far more complex reasoning underneath that as to why it's not just going to be for freedom of speech, right? Because he must have a very deeper perspective on the ramifications of that, not being the way that things are that I would be interested to hear, not just the, general tweet that it's for the greater good of humanity. If it is, I would love to hear. A longer form conversation as to why, because if that is the case, great, good on you. I really appreciate it. And I think that if nothing else is and that there's the was something we'll get into next is the hero or villain conversation. But even if he is, somebody, the question and then there's questionable ties and family histories, and some things like that this still points the needle back in our direction, right? In the direction of freedom of speech and the direction away from liberal extremism and in ideologies about stifling free speech platforms it is still for the greater good, no matter what his intentions are, which could be, scraping the intellectual data of billions and billions of human thoughts that are all in a singular place at one time for the last 10 plus years. To then download into a chip that he is able to create AI with and then put into your brain that takes over the world. Even if it's just for that, it's still good for now. It's still good. In the short-term that we get to actually have a platform that's freedom of speech based, even if the outcome is destruction and death, which it always does anyways. So I know I digress. So section two 30, let's watch another minute or two of this, and then we'll move on.  He handed, we have countless examples of that, but getting rid of section two 30, wouldn't fix that problem. In fact, it would make it much, much worse because there would have to be much more approving of what posts are appearing now, political figures like Biden and. I think they realize that, which is why they do want to see the law abolished without section two 30 companies like Facebook and Twitter, they'd have to carefully screen content. They purged problematic posts, which of course means purging more of the kind of posts that they already pursue aggressively, which is exactly what the Biden administration wants. They want more purging of content that they don't agree that relates to COVID. And other things of that nature, there's no doubt they want it even more desperately. Now that Elon Musk is taking over Twitter and we'll possibly have a different regime and allow more, more free speech kind of content. So there'll be no better way to throttle this new Twitter that Musk is creating than to subject it to endless frivolous lawsuits that are currently kept at bay by section two 30 as Steve Del Bianco of net choice, a tech trade association, put it the biggest threat to Elon Musk. Vision of a less moderate Twitter is section two 30 reform, which is why it's not surprised at all to hear Jen Psaki mentioning it repeatedly the other day. All right. So I get that. I think we get to just to that, to me, it's just something that, it's a card that they're trying to wave that they have. I think they're trying to show that they're not being one-upped by a single man, which they are at least that's the mainstream question here. So beyond that let's dive a little bit further into this Elon Musk conversation. Cause it's a really interesting discussion. Once you get a little bit deeper into it and you start to dive into some of the concerns of people, like the thing that I just mentioned there, which is the idea that you know, Elon Musk. So he had a few tweets here about the the purchase and about the competition that he is currently seeing between his platform and truth social. So he points out here that truth, social, which he says in parentheses is a terrible name. And so again, Elon Musk says that truth, social. Parentheses is a terrible name that exists because Twitter censored free speech. And that is the reason alone, according to Elon Musk. And then he goes on to show in the tweet before that truth social is beating Twitter in downloads and is the most highest ranked app on the app store right now for free app. Now it's funny to me that Elon Musk is still not saying it in a negative way, true social really. Isn't a great name. I saw another person comment on there. Something about how retreat thing, which is like a thing where you can do. And I am on true social as of like yesterday or today. So red pill revolt on truth, social. If you're on there at red pill, revolt, go give me a follow. I'll be posting all my stuff on there, excited about that. I will probably have a Twitter too, and just link the two. But but I do think there's a use case for both. And so yeah, Elan must speaking out saying how Twitter is being beat out by true social right now, which according to Elon Musk is a terrible name, which he said should have been changed to a trumpet instead, which would have been an awesome name. I think a trumpet instead of true social was definitely the move, but they, unfortunately Donald Trump, wasn't able to consult Elon Musk's marketing team on this one. But definitely a great name trumpet. Maybe he should change it to it. Just to jump on the craziness train here. That'd be hilarious if we woke up tomorrow and it was called trumpet, but anyways, so there is a weirdness to this. And then I guess the weirdness to me is the fact that truth, social and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. So truth, social opening up to the general public and Elon Musk purchasing Twitter basically essentially happened on the same exact day. What are the odds of that? Two of the two singular. Opportunities or shifts within the social media history in the last decade or two, right? Like what has happened in the last two decades that are in the last decade? That has been a bigger shift than true social coming out with the president of the United States, coming out with his own social media app. That was, is huge. There's millions of people on it right now, and a bunch more joining it as we speak as it's the number one app on the app store. What are the odds that, that opening up and a billionaire iron man, like figure within our society purchasing Twitter on the same exact day, what are the odds of that? And so there's a whole idea surrounding this and some I'm sure we'll see better, and better thoughts come out surrounding this process and why these things are happening. But what I got for you right now is that it's a, some people are saying it's an effort. So Trump basically came out and said that he was not going to have a Twitter account. He said, I am sticking with truth, which is weird because he's not actually even using it. And if you know how much Trump loves Twitter, it's weird that he's not jumping on the opportunity here. So the idea is that there's something going on here and that this is all it just seems like a big play, right? It seems like these things that the coincidence is too ridiculous. It makes no sense to me that both of the two biggest things to happen in the social media world literally happened on the same day. No chance at all. Cause this should have been horrible for true social. Which is almost maybe speaks to the idea that it's. The people are probably more fed up with this shit than they are willing to go crawling back to Twitter because daddy Ilan bought it. There. They're more like, fuck you. I'm going to this one because it's even more like they, they believe in truth, social and Trump than more than they do in the Elon Musk at this point. And I think that's shows where we're at as a society and how divisive we've gotten to it, to where it's we don't want your life raft. We want an entirely different country to take the boat from. We don't even want anything to do with you guys anymore. We're going to go over here. We're going to, we're going to go to where we don't have to deal with, th to have to deal with the opportunity of somebody having even the access to do because true social is an open platform. All of the coding is available. You can look through it so you can see anytime there's changes, it's open. So if they change anything and you can see in the algorithms that they're starting to shadow banned people, you can see these changes. So the idea is that prevents them from doing things that would make you fucking hate them. It seems fairly straightforward. So the true social app is open source Twitter, as it speaks right now is not Eli. My sassy lady wants to take it there. How many of these things will be able to implement? It will be, there'll be interesting to see, but he has taking it private so he can do a lot of these things without having to worry about board members or shareholders in the FBI or the FEC, federal exchange commission, FEC F CC. I don't know, whichever one came out and said that they were not going to step in because some, some organization called crew came out and spoken and asked the FEC. To basically block Elon Musk from purchasing Twitter. And they said, what bitch, we're not doing that. That's not our job. That's not what we're supposed to be doing. That has nothing to do with us. This is what the, what, this is financial outcomes. This is how this works. So now the next interesting part of that is, is that to me, it's there's, so there's a few little things that I've seen floating out there around conspiracies as to why this happens. A decent amount of people are saying that the. Not for the betterment of humanity that Elon Musk's coming out and saying, these things is an all a show because he's a billionaire elite and his mom had ties to, I don't know some type of like Saudi Arabian deals. I don't know if I've seen people speak up on his mom's ties to the deeper, darker, deep state. And then the fact that Elon Musk took billions in or millions in grants to start as companies from the government that he just so happened to get. And then there was things about Elon Musk saying that he believed in a he believed in the idea of a universal, basic income. And so there was a an image that I had that basically pointed out all of the things that pointed Elon Musk to having similar belief systems as the world economic forum. And that's a scary thought, right? Like he, I have not seen any pointing to him in his association with the world economic forum. However, there is ideas that his mom was tied in with the, the deep state or whatever. But I don't know. I'm an Elon Musk fan boy I think he's, he's I think he might be sent back from the future and the fact that Wernher Von Braun the NASA. And I said Nassi because he's a Nazi, a literal Nazi who was tried during Nuremberg trials, who is brought over to the United States under operation paperclip wrote a fiction book about a man who took and colonized the, or colonized Mars. And his name was Elon Musk. Without the mosque, it was just Ilan. It would've been way crazier if it was Elon Musk, but he wrote ever Wernher Von Braun, the Nazis scientists that we brought over under operation paperclip. I wrote a fiction book like during the fifties about a man who took the human race to colonize Mars. And that's exactly what Ulan must does. So there's just some weird put on your tinfoil hat, things that are going on here. That makes me question, what is actually happening with the Elon Musk situation. And should we be questioning him more than we are currently, should we be asking more questions about his history and should we not just be wholeheartedly diving into the idea that he's the white Knight coming in to save the day? I don't know. I it's very easy to just, fan boy about Elon Musk. He's a very smart man. Obviously he's built many companies. He has a very much more career very much more charisma, so much more charisma. He has a lot more charisma than then the other billionaire that I've seen and going on Joe Rogan, his long conversations that he's had, the whole smoking weed thing during the Joe Rogan podcast and on his stock tumbling, and then going up better than, but like, how do you not be a fan of this man? And when you get to this point in society where everything is questionable, right? Everything deserves a question first before you take it in wholeheartedly, it makes you want to still question him. And sometimes I think you just, you can't be too quick to eat your own, right? Because if this is it's just, it's hard to differentiate what is truth and what is a setup? And who's manipulating what, and but I think in this case, like I said, last time, $44 billion to purchase something as is a fair buy in of my trust. Especially if you say, if it's for the freedom of speech now, where it gets squirrely is what I mentioned before is that he also so happens to run a program called neuro link. And he also happens to believe that's going to lead to AI symbiosis with humankind. And if you want it to do that, and you want it to build that AI, you would probably want the single largest data points of human consciousness than anywhere else in the world. And that might help you along a little bit. And you could do that by buying Twitter and buying every single data point. Now I'm sure you could ask. Get the data off of Twitter, at least majority of it without paying $44 billion. Like I'm sure some type of coding genius could like back it up into a hard drive and steal everything for less than that. So maybe there's that because it's more about having to steer the ship, I guess that makes a little bit more sense to me. The idea is that he's taking it to scrape the data to turn it into AI. That is then going to turn us into the slaves of a bunch of, circulating Dyson vacuums with knives. And we're just going to, clean their floors instead of their them cleaning ours. The idea is that eventually they're going to take over the world, and it's going to be Elon Musk fault because he bought Twitter. Now that seems pretty farfetched. And I think that the explanation that I had earlier, which is the fact that he has a. He, he has a 10 step idea about where this goes from here if left uncorrected. And I think that he may be trying to correct those things before they happen. But time will tell, is he the hero? Is he the villain? I don't know, but I do know that he admitted to believing that socialism was a good way. He also admitted to wanting a universal, basic income. He also said that he wanted, he believed that AI would eventually, basically take over human lives and that we would basically morph into a human AI symbiotic relationship with the world. This all this craziest than this too. So I don't know, but it seems to me. Like I'm still in Ilan fanboy. So I don't know what your opinion is, but feel free to let me know at red pill revolt on Instagram would love to hear from ya. All right. So let's go ahead and check out the next thing here, which is going to be the last topic. And that is about the mayor. Cause I don't know what that is, but this is off of Fox news and it discusses somebody testifying that the department of Homeland security is creating a disinformation governance board. And that's what we were talking about before where she actually, I guess that's the video that we watched, which is them discussing the idea that they're going to so I'll read this article to you. It says re Lauren Underwood cited reports on how minority communities are being targeted and then misinformation campaigns and asked mayor coz what DHS will do to. Mayor Casa disinformation, a disinformation governance board had recently been created and would be led by under secretary for policy Rob Silver's co-chair with principal, deputy general counsel Jennifer Gaskell. It says in quotes, the goal is to bring the resources of the department of Homeland security together to address this threat. Adding that the department is focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities. And Fox news has reached out to the DHS seeking more information on the disinformation governance board hours later. Political reported that Nina Janka wicks, who previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson center will head the board as executive director. Then it shows a tweet. It says cat's out of the bag. Here's what I've been up to the past two months and I've been quiet. GENCO it's tweeted honor to be serving in the Biden administration at DHS gov and helping shape our counter, this information efforts. They literally made a ministry of truth. They just did it. They came up with the department of Homeland security, came out with a counter disinformation campaign or a counter disinformation. It, what in the world where have we gotten a governance board of the truth? The ministry of truth is here folks, a disinformation governance board under the Biden administration. How is this, like I read at the beginning of the pandemic, I read 1984. And maybe I'm the reason for all of this. How many times is I if I would have never read that book with these things not be happening because it seems like we're getting so close, like how is a governing body? Are you able to dictate and determine what is truthful and what is not truthful? What is fact and what is fiction? What is the right opinion to hold on a topic? And what is disinformation? What is harmful, right? What is harmful disinformation now in the, in that, in line with the With the terrorism advisory bulletin that we discussed, like three, four or five episodes ago that they dropped basically stating if you so dissent within the government or make people have a difficulty agreeing with the government if you're like somebody who speaks out against them, that they can label you a terrorist, which is allows them to do all sorts of things under the Patriot act. Disgusting. So to me, I don't know where this is going. I want to see the best in this situation and just be happy with the fact that we have somewhere to go. We not only one place, but two places. And I think we're seeing the public choosing right now with the fact that truth,

In Today's Episode... Greasing up with snow is a carnal pleasure. Mr. and Mrs. Claus explore the possibilities of an open relationship.

Priyanka Sacheti speaks to managing editor Emily Everett about her essay “Oman is Mars: An Alien All Along,” which appears in a portfolio of writing from the Arabian Gulf, in The Common's fall issue. In this conversation, Priyanka talks about her feeling of not belonging anywhere—born in Australia to an Indian family, but growing up in Oman as a third culture kid. She also discusses her work as a poet and an artist, and her experience being stranded between countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Priyanka Sacheti is a writer and poet based in Bangalore, India. She grew up in Oman and was educated at the Universities of Warwick and Oxford in the UK. She has been published in many publications with a special focus on art, gender, diaspora, and identity. Her literary work has appeared in many literary journals, such as Barren, Parentheses, Jaggery Lit, and The Lunch Ticket, as well as various past and forthcoming anthologies. She's currently working on a poetry and short story collection. Read her essay in The Common at thecommononline.org/oman-is-mars-an-alien-all-along. Follow Priyanka on Twitter at @priyankasacheti. The Common is a print and online literary magazine publishing stories, essays, and poems that deepen our collective sense of place. On our podcast and in our pages, The Common features established and emerging writers from around the world. Read more and subscribe to the magazine at thecommononline.org, and follow us on Twitter @CommonMag. Emily Everett is managing editor of the magazine and host of the podcast. Her stories appear in the Kenyon Review, Electric Literature, Tin House Online, and Mississippi Review. She holds an MA in literature from Queen Mary University of London, and a BA from Smith College. Say hello on Twitter @Public_Emily. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Cliquecast, a twenty one pilots podcast! Here's part two of our breakdown of Regional at Best! Clique art soap boxes, Remus raps Kitchen Sink, we have alot of feelings about Trees to match the alot of feelings about Car Radio in part one and by the end we can barely form words. It's basically us being unhinged for an hour straight. It's fine, we're fine, everything is fine. To hear our thoughts on Ruby check out Annah's podcast! The Ruby episode comes out this Sunday but you should also just listen to all of her episodes because she's amazing. Twenty One Pilots lyrics often include themes of suicide, depression, anxiety and other aspects of struggling with mental health. While we love your support, always remember to take care of yourself first. If you or someone you know needs help, please don't hesitate to reach out to a helpline. Suicide hotline: 1-800-273-8255 LGBTQIA+ hotline: 1-800-246-7743 Trans Lifeline: 1-877-656-8860 Find us on twitter @clique_cast on Instagram @clique_cast on Patreon.com/cliquecast or YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXsDn3OpkwbRT49vL9swplQ . To be a part of livestreams of episodes, join the Ride tier of our Patreon! To be a guest or submit your tøp story DM us on twitter or instagram or email us at cliquecast2021@gmail.com --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

In this episode, Dr. Lee Wall answers all of your filler questions. If you've ever wondered how dermatologists treat deeper wrinkles, such as the "parentheses" next to your nose aka the nasolabial folds, this episode goes into detail on the use of fillers, along with potential benefits as well as potential risks.

You've never heard of an iterrobang?! Then what do *YOU* think is the best punctuation? And what makes the comma so versatile? You bet we find out in this (all new) episode! [Inserts airpods.] Including, but not limited to: try hard curly brackets; arrogant semi-colons; Tulane commas*; etc… #Hashtag Featuring Ryan/Dobosh, David_Swidler, Jeff @ Schell, and special guest star Jonathan "Taylor" Thomas. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Please rate and review us on iTunes and Spotify. If you don't, the terrorists have a 10 point lead going into the 4th quarter. For a complete library of past episodes of The Habit Comedy Podcast, visit www.TheHabitComedy.com. * Not a real thing.

Welcome to FIRST EPISODE of The Really Bitchee Podcast with your really Bitchee host, Christina Marie! In this episode I am joined by the "awesome" musician himself, Dylan Rockoff! We kick off the show by giving the really BITCHEE recap of the week, followed by talking about Dylan's new album, Semicolon & Parentheses. We shit talk about Tik Tok and the impact it has on the music industry, give some shitty life advice about saving your money, and wrap it all up by talking about the highlight of the week, The Grammy Awards. I hope you enjoy this episode and make sure to follow @BitcheePodcast on Twitter & Instagram for updates on the show. Beat/Music by @MarkGenerous. See you in the next episode, BITCHEES.