Podcasts about pepperdine university school

The Heritage Foundation's B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, National Review Institute, and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are pleased to announce that Dr. Elizabeth Edwards Spalding will deliver the second annual Lee Edwards Lecture in Conservative Leadership.In addition to being the daughter of Lee Edwards, Dr. Spalding is the Chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and Founding Director of the Victims of Communism Museum. She is a Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and a Visiting Fellow at the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College. Dr. Spalding is also the author of The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment, and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism and the co-author of A Brief History of the Cold War.The Heritage Foundation established the annual Lee Edwards Lecture in recognition of Dr. Edwards's long service as a Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at The Heritage Foundation, during which he wrote most of his 25 books about the leading individuals and institutions of the modern conservative movement. In addition to biographies of President Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley Jr. and Edwin Meese III, Dr. Edwards wrote histories of The Heritage Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and the conservative movement. His books have been translated into Chinese, Japanese, Swedish, and Polish. He taught politics at the Catholic University of America for more than 30 years and was named a Distinguished Lecturer by the University. Dr. Edwards was also a co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.We are pleased that this year's lecture coincides with recognition of William F. Buckley Jr.'s Centennial and is part of a series of programs to honor his legacy hosted by National Review Institute.

Our guest this time, Bill Eddy, is a family mediator, lawyer and therapist, and the Chief Innovation Officer of the High Conflict Institute based in San Diego, California. He received his bachelor's degree in Psychology, but didn't stop there. As you will read, he went on to learn and work in the therapy space for a number of years, but his longing to deal with some other issues caused him to study law and after receiving his Juris Prudence degree he worked in the law as a mediator. While doing this he also felt it relevant and appropriate to begin working on ways to address conflicts between persons. He realized that conflict often meant that someone was bullying another person.   Bill and I spend much time discussing bullying, where it comes from, how and why people become bullies and how to deal with bullying kinds of behavior. Our discussions are fascinating and I quite believe important for everyone to hear.   Just last month Bill's latest book, “Our New World of Adult Bullies” was released. Bill discusses his book and why we are encountering more bullying behavior today than we have experienced in the past.   Enough from me. I hope you find my conversation with Bill Eddy relevant, useful and, of course, entertaining.       About the Guest:   Bill Eddy is a family mediator, lawyer and therapist, and the Chief Innovation Office of the High Conflict Institute based in San Diego, California. He has provided training to mediators, lawyers, judges, mental health professionals and others on the subject of managing high-conflict personalities in over 35 states, 9 provinces in Canada, and twelve other countries.   As a lawyer, Mr. Eddy was a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS) in California for 15 years, where he represented clients in family court. Prior to that, he provided psychotherapy for 12 years to children and families in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics as a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW). Throughout his forty-year career he has provided divorce mediation services, including the past 15 years as the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego, California. Mr. Eddy is the author of several books, including: · Mediating High Conflict Disputes · High Conflict People in Legal Disputes · Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder · Calming Upset People with EAR · BIFF: Quick Responses to High Conflict People · BIFF for CoParent Communication · BIFF at Work · BIFF for Lawyers and Law Offices · So, What's Your Proposal: Shifting High Conflict People From Blaming to Problem-Solving in 30 Seconds · Don't Alienate the Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High-Conflict Divorce   He has a continuing education course for Mental Health professionals titled “It's All Your Fault!”: Working with High Conflict Personalities. He has a Psychology Today blog about high conflict personality disorders with over 6 million views. He has a podcast titled “It's All Your Fault” which he does weekly with Megan Hunter.   He taught Negotiation and Mediation at the University of San Diego School of Law for six years. He has served on the part-time faculty of the National Judicial College in the United States and has provided several trainings for judges in Canada for the National Judicial Institute. He is currently on the part-time faculty at the Straus Institute of Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law teaching Psychology of Conflict Communication each year. He teaches once a year on Advanced Communication Skills as Conjoint Associate Professor at Newcastle Law School in Newcastle, Australia.   He is the developer of the New Ways for Families® method for potentially high-conflict families, which is being implemented in several family court systems in the United States and Canada, as well as an online co-parenting course (Parenting Without Conflict by New Ways for Families). He is also the developer of the New Ways for Mediation® method, which emphasizes more structure by the mediator and simple negotiation skills for the parties. He obtained his JD law degree in 1992 from the University of San Diego, a Master of Social Work degree in 1981 from San Diego State University, and a Bachelors degree in Psychology in 1970 from Case Western Reserve University. His website is: www.HighConflictInstitute.com.   Ways to connect with Bill:   www.HighConflictInstitute.com.   About the Host:   Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog.   Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards.   https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/   accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/   https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/       Thanks for listening!   Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below!   Subscribe to the podcast   If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset .   Leave us an Apple Podcasts review   Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts.       Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson ** 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us.   Michael Hingson ** 01:21 And welcome to another episode of unstoppable mindset where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Today, we get to deal mostly with the unexpected, because inclusion is what it is, diversity is what it is, and those we put in the order that we do, because in the typical sense of the word diversity, doesn't intend to include disabilities or any discussion of disabilities. And people say, well, disability means lack of ability when they're talking about any of that anyway. And the reality is that's not true. Disability should not mean a lack of ability. And people say, Well, it does, because it starts with dis Well, what about disciple? Yeah, what about disciple? What about discern? What about, you know, so many other kinds of things. The reality is that everyone has a disability, and we could talk about that, but that's not what we're here to do today. We're here to talk to Bill Eddy, who has written a number of books. He's got a degree in psychology, he's got degrees in law, and I'm not going to go and give all that away, because I'd rather he do it. But we also get to be excited by the fact that he has a new book, and we'll talk about it a bunch. It's called our new world of adult bullies. Um, that's what I say about my cat all the time, because she does run the house and, you know, and we can mention that name, Bill, it's stitch. Now, she's a great kitty, but she she does have her mindset on what she wants, so she's trained us well. Well, welcome to unstoppable mindset. Bill, how are you?   Bill Eddy ** 02:57 I'm good, and thanks so much for having me on. Michael, glad to be with you.   Michael Hingson ** 03:01 Well, we're glad you're here and looking forward to it. Why don't we start, as I love to do so often, why don't you tell us about kind of the early build, growing up, or any of those kinds of things to lead us into where we go?   Bill Eddy ** 03:14 Well, I was one of four kids, and as I mentioned in the introduction of the book in third grade, I had my own personal bully. He decided I was the guy he wanted to pick on and fight. And I think he figured that out because my parents didn't allow us kids to fight, so we weren't allowed to fight back. And you know, my parents said, you know, if takes two to make a fight, so if a fight starting, just walk away. And I said, what if the other person won't let you walk away? So we'll find a way to walk away. So for most of third grade, he harassed me and would catch me after school and hit me and kick me in the the foot of the stairway. We had a basement classroom, and there was a stairway out from there so no one could see and it wasn't easy to get away from but mostly I figured out how to avoid him, and also how to how to help the older kids with their homework, so they'd be more of a protector for me. So that's early childhood, but I think it influenced my my choice as an adult, you know, a psychology major, and then I got a master's in social work to do child and family counseling. Did that 12 years, but I liked resolving conflicts, and decided to go to law school and all of that primarily so I could practice mediation to help people solve conflicts. But many of the conflicts I've dealt with had bullies in them, so I started studying these personalities, and that kind of brings me up to today.   Michael Hingson ** 04:58 Wow. Well, you have certainly written, also a number of books. I was reading your list of books, and you have one on divorce, and clearly there are bullies there, and a lot of places, I'm sure, and you have just a number of books, and I can see where the whole concept of having bullies can be in all of those and at the same time, most of us haven't learned how to deal with bullies. We haven't learned how to address the issue of avoidance, which is what you talked about, but it makes perfect sense. I don't particularly like bullies. I've not been bullied a lot, I think I was a couple of times in grammar school, and a kid hit me a couple of times, and I can only assume that it was sort of a bullish oriented thing, but I don't really recall that anything ever happened other than that. It only happened like once or twice, and then I was left alone. But still, there is so much of it, and there's been bullying to a degree for well, as long as we've had people, I guess, right, and this whole idea of avoiding it is obviously what we need to do, although I guess the other part about it that comes to mind is, how do you get the bully to change their mindset and recognize that that's not the best productive use of their time? Well,   Bill Eddy ** 06:30 what's interesting is childhood bullies mostly do figure that out. And I'd say probably 90% of childhood bullies don't become adult bullies that, you know, somebody punches them in the nose, or nobody wants to be their friend, or they get in trouble at home or at school, and they learn that that doesn't work, but maybe 10% get away with it. Maybe they're encouraged, you know, maybe their parents laugh when they bully other people, and that's that's the ones that become the adult bullies. But what I find, and the Institute I work with, high conflict Institute, we do a lot of training, a lot of coaching, and we we teach people like for workplace coaching to to try to give bullies some conflict resolution skills so that they won't be bullies, so they can solve problems others other ways, and we find maybe half of the bullies can improve their behavior enough to keep the job, and About half quit or are told they need to leave. So I'd say about half of bullies can learn to stop that behavior or rein it in, and about half can't. That's just a real rough estimate from my personal observation.   Michael Hingson ** 07:55 The ones that can't or don't, is it that they get so much satisfaction from bullying and they get away with it that just they just don't see the value of it. Or is it different than that? Well, I   Bill Eddy ** 08:08 think it's not as logical as that. I think it has a lot to do with personality patterns, and the ones that are adult bullies usually have personality patterns that border on personality disorders, especially the Cluster B personality disorders, which are narcissistic, anti social, borderline and histrionic. So it's part of who they are. They're not really even thinking about it. This is just how they operate in the world. And so if they're not stopped, they just automatically do this. If they are stopped or told they're going to lose their job, maybe half of them can rein in their behavior, and maybe the other calf can't, even if they want to, they just can't stop themselves. But mostly it's more or less automatic. Is what I see. They really lack self reflection, and therefore, generally don't change. And one of the definitions of personality disorders is an enduring pattern of behavior, so it's not, not likely to change because they had an insight. Because if they were going to have an insight like that, they would have had it before they became adults.   Michael Hingson ** 09:29 Yeah, and it, and it just doesn't seem to happen. And it is, it is so unfortunate that we even have to talk about this kind of a subject. But it's also very important that we understand it, because I think those of us who aren't bullied or who aren't bullies, still need to understand it's like anything else, still need to understand it in order to learn how to deal with it. I would think,   Bill Eddy ** 09:55 yeah, and I think part of why this. Is coming up now is traditionally in our society. And I know my whole lifetime, adult bullies were pretty much kept on the fringe, and so families said, Hey, you can't do that in our family and communities and schools and and workplaces said that. But what's interesting now is, I'd say, the last 20 years or so, is bullies are getting center stage because all of our media competition, especially the screens we have, are trying to show us the worst behavior so that we'll pay attention to them. So social media, cable 24/7, news, movies, TV shows are all showing bad behavior to grab our attention, but the result of this is that they're teaching bad behavior and tolerating it and giving permission to bullies to act out when they might have kind of restrained themselves in the past.   Michael Hingson ** 11:07 How do we get media, television and so on to change that? I've I've kind of felt that way for a while. I actually took a course in college, um, it was called Why police, which is a fascinating course. It was taught by not a deputy sheriff, but he was a volunteer deputy sheriff in Orange County. He was an engineering professor at UC Irvine, where I went to school, and he and he taught this course, and I made the observation once in class, that a lot of the negativity that we see really comes from what we experience on television. And he said, no, that's just not true, but it certainly is true. Well,   Bill Eddy ** 11:49 especially nowadays, especially nowadays, yeah, yeah. Maybe that wasn't true 30 years ago, but it seems very much true now. Yeah, and you mentioned a study in the beginning of, I think it's chapter two of the book that about it was a workplace study, and if I can quote it, I think this is helpful for this discussion. He says they said there's a 2021, workplace bullying Institute survey. So in the second year of the pandemic, he says 58% of the respondents on the survey agreed that quotes the display of bullying, disrespect and intolerance of the opinions of others by politicians and public figures affected workplaces because they encouraged aggression and granted permission to ignore the rules. And I think it's very direct that the media does impact family life, workplace community and online, for sure.   Michael Hingson ** 13:00 Yeah, yeah, I, I would agree. And, you know, today, and we're not going to talk about specific individuals, but at the same time today, I dare say, there are a number of people who step back and contemplate this whole concept of bullies and so on, who would agree that in the political world there? Well, there are a number, but there's one especially, who tends to be more of a bully. But I would say that there are a number of people in the political world who just want to force their own way, and tend to bully a lot.   Bill Eddy ** 13:34 And I totally agree with you. Even have a chapter on what I call the high emotion media, because it's the emotions, the disrespect, the insulting statements, the personal attacks, you know, I don't like the way you look, or I think you're crazy or you're an idiot, and that kind of message, and If you have that going back and forth between politicians. It's very exciting to watch, but it's not the way you want to live, like you wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that, no, and so. So the media image promotes that because it gets attention. It really grabs attention. And I would I would suggest that it's been over the last 30 years approximately, that politics has become more about entertainment than about government. And the values of entertainment are extreme behavior and disrespect and fighting and chaos and crisis and fear, whereas government is when it's running well is boring, is focused on details, focused on people getting along, having their share of responsibility, all of that kind of stuff. So we've turned the. Values of politics upside down, and we think now that's the way. That's what politics is. And it's unfortunate, because government will unravel if we use the entertainment values to govern the country. Of course,   Michael Hingson ** 15:16 there are a number of people, especially in the media, who would say, but all of this sells, newspapers, all of this sells, and that's why we do it. I I submit that that's not necessarily so. But how do you show people that? Yeah, this sells, but don't you think there are other kinds of things that would sell even more   Bill Eddy ** 15:42 well, it's tricky, but one of my goals in writing the book is to teach people self help skills, to monitor their absorption of high emotion media and to be able to set limits on it. Like I don't like to get more than half an hour of news from a screen. I like reading the papers and reading different points of view. And if you watch more than half an hour and you get this coming in your ears and your eyes and all of that, it just takes over your thinking. And actually, the more repetition there is, the more things feel true that are clearly not true, but the way our brains work, repetition tells us what's really true and what's really important. And TV, even radio, can bombard us with false information that starts to feel true because we get so much of it.   Michael Hingson ** 16:40 Yeah, it's it is someone, yes, I hear you, and it's so unfortunate that more people don't tend to be analytical, reflecting introspective. You know, we talked earlier about the book that I'm writing, live like a guide dog, that will be published in August of this year. And one of the things that I point out in the book, for people who want to start to learn to control fear, rather than letting it, as I say, blind you or overwhelm you, or whatever word you want to use, is you need to become more introspective and look at well, why am I afraid of this? Why am I reacting to this? How do I deal with it? And it doesn't take a lot of time every day to do it, but if you do it for a little bit of time every day, the Mind Muscle develops, and you get beyond a lot of that.   Bill Eddy ** 17:34 I think that's a very important point, as we can train ourselves to what to pay attention to, what to ignore, and we can train our self talk like you're saying. That's excellent,   Michael Hingson ** 17:46 yeah, and I think it's it's all about analyzing ourselves. And something that I learned, and I've talked about it a few times on this podcast, one of the things that I did when I was a program director at the campus radio station at UC Irvine, Zot, K, U, C, I was that I would ask people to listen to their shows. So when I was the program director, we would actually record people talking, and I insisted that they take the cassettes home. Remember cassettes? Boy, is that a long time ago,   Bill Eddy ** 18:19 two, wow, back aways, yeah, even   Michael Hingson ** 18:23 pre eight track, but take the cassettes home. Listen to them, because it's something that I did and and as I grew older and became a public speaker, after September 11, I recorded my talk so that I could listen to them. And I said, I do that because I'm my own worst critic. I'm going to be more hard on me than anyone will. And it took until even after the pandemic started, that I finally learned wrong way to look at it. I'm not my own worst critic. I'm my own best teacher. By analyzing and thinking about it and recognizing that I'm my own best teacher, because no one can really teach me anything. They can present me with the information, but I have to teach myself to learn it. So I realize that, and I'm my own best teacher, and I think that works out really well, and it's a lot more positive anyway,   Bill Eddy ** 19:18 right? Great. And that's that's that promotes lifelong learning. I just reading an article about how a lot of people, you know, after a certain amount of time, they feel okay. I got my career, I've done my skills, and now I'm going to kick back. But Lifetime Learning is where it's at. I think it's exciting. It   Michael Hingson ** 19:39 is. I consider life an adventure. I consider the internet a treasure trove of information. And yeah, there's a dark web and and all that. And now, of course, we have AI, and some people want to be negative about that, but if we use it right, and if we develop our own inner structure and. And recognize the value and how to use it. It is, and all of those are characteristics and features that can do nothing but help us.   Bill Eddy ** 20:10 Yeah, they're tools. I like the idea of tools, not rules, so we'll see what we can do with them. But as long as humans are in charge, I think we may be okay. Well,   Michael Hingson ** 20:25 I hope so. Um, Mark Twain once said, I wonder if God had been a man because he was disappointed in the monkeys. But who knows.   Bill Eddy ** 20:35 He wasn't. He was a brilliant guy. He was   Michael Hingson ** 20:39 one of my two favorite people, Mark Twain and Will Rogers, boy. They were very clever. And analysts, you had it figured out. They did, if only we would listen. Well, why did you write the book?   Bill Eddy ** 20:53 Well, I wrote it. I started writing it. The end of 2020, when the pandemic was going strong, and a lot of people, and we were all kind of holed up at home. I had more time to think, because I couldn't travel and teach and do the work I do. But I also, you know, on TV, there was, you know, the the arguments in bullying, frankly, about masks, about vaccines, about the George Floyd murder, about protests against the George Floyd murder, that that it seemed like the country was kind of in a 5050, state of bullying each other, but it wasn't. The number of bullies is actually quite small, but they're getting a high profile, and I wanted to explain that bullies at all levels have the same patterns of behavior, and few people have eye into the workings of families like I've had as a family therapist, as a family mediator and as a Family Lawyer, and few people have had, you know, awareness of workplace bullying like I have training human resources and employee assistance personnel. Likewise, neighbor disputes, because I'd be consulting on a lot of neighbor disputes, and certainly online disputes. So bullying seemed to be happening in all these different places, but most people didn't realize the extent of it, because people kept it private. And I was like, Well, I can see it's the same patterns. And then, you know, Putin invades Ukraine, and I'm going, this guy is like a domestic violence perpetrator. He has the same lack of self awareness and the same blaming personality and so I included on up to politicians and international relations to show I can tell you what the patterns are to look for. So look out for bullies. Don't let them into your life. Spot them and stop them. And I wanted, I wanted the book to really open people's eyes, so to speak to what's going on in the world today that they really haven't been aware of by and large,   Michael Hingson ** 23:13 right? What makes us, especially as adults, susceptible to being bullied?   Bill Eddy ** 23:23 Well, we're not prepared for them, and that's a lot of what I hope to do with the book is help people be prepared so they don't overreact or under react. But I'd say most people are just kind of shocked. Suddenly there's a bully in the office and they're yelling at somebody, and it's like, oh my goodness, I'm, I'm I'm freezing because, you know, I don't know what to do. They're yelling at somebody else, thank goodness, but I'm scared too, or they're yelling at me, and I freeze because I don't know what to do. So I think what happens is people are just really unprepared. On the other hand, most people are nice people. Let's say 80% of people are nice people. They don't like to interrupt people, even when they're masking saying nasty comments. They don't like to just walk away from a conversation, even if the conversation is really hurtful and abusive, and so people aren't used to being assertive against a bully, because they're used to everybody being reasonable, and so that's why they catch us by surprise and And we're not ready for them.   Michael Hingson ** 24:39 I subscribe to a service out here called next door, which is also in San Diego, and it's a way to really keep up with what's going on in the community. And I've seen a number of posts where something happened and people suddenly say. I'm surprised that never happens in this area, and that just isn't true anymore,   Bill Eddy ** 25:08 right, anywhere, anywhere,   Michael Hingson ** 25:13 and it's so unfortunate that we don't learn to look out for all of this. I think, yeah, go   Bill Eddy ** 25:23 ahead. I just gonna say, I think that's that's what has to change, is we do have to be aware, not paranoid about it around every corner, but aware that this is going to come your way. I like to say, I think everyone's going to have a bully in their life sooner rather than later, but if you're prepared and you manage it well, they're not going to get very deep into your life and will probably move on. So I do think that's coming. Sorry. I interrupted. No,   Michael Hingson ** 25:54 no, no, no, no, you did No, you were right. Tell me what are some of the warning signs that you're dealing with a bully?   Bill Eddy ** 26:00 Well, first of all that the person goes beyond the normal social boundaries and keep going like they don't stop themselves. So an unrestrained pattern of behavior. When you start thinking to yourself, Well, I'm sure he'll come to his senses soon, or I'm sure she'll realize how destructive she's being. The problem is the answer that is not necessarily, probably not. Another way that's really quite simple is when a bully starts, when a person starts criticizing your intelligence, your morals, your sanity, your appearance, your existence. When they make it personal is a real sign they've crossed the line, and now you're dealing with a bully. Because bullies make it personal. They want a one down relationship. They want you to they want to dominate you. And so that's one of the easiest ways to recognize, is the way they talk to you, talking down to you like that. And they may say that you're you're being obnoxious and you have a problem. And they might even say, Stop bullying me. Stop bullying me, Bill, and I'm not bullying them. I'm saying they need to stop what they're doing with me, and they'll say, You're the bully. So playing the victim is another way projecting what they're doing onto the other person, like, stop bullying me. Bill, I'm not bullying you. I'm setting limits on your bullying of me. Well, I would never bully you, Bill. And then they keep projecting what they're doing onto me, and they may point to other people around us and say, See how Bill's treating me, you know, and they play the victim. And next thing you know, the whole people around think that I'm being a bad guy, and they get away with it that way because they're really good at projection and good at playing the victim. So these are some of the patterns. How do   Michael Hingson ** 28:10 you deal with that, though? Well, you   Bill Eddy ** 28:14 first of all need to be taken assertive approach, so don't become aggressive and start yelling at them. No, you really are bullying me. You're a real jerk. Instead, you say that's not true. And if other people are around, you say, just, everybody know it's not true. I'm trying to set limits on his behavior towards me, because he's really harassing me. And so explain what's happening. Be assertive, so you stick up for yourself, but don't be aggressive, because now it looks like you are being the bully. And some some people asked me on one of the interviews I had, the guy said, at what point do you punch the bully in the nose? And I said, Well, you're going to have that thought, but don't act on it, because when you do that, now you look like the bully. So you don't want to be aggressive, but you don't want to be passive and let them just pick on you and run you into the ground. You want to say, Hey, that's not okay, or I'm going to end this conversation. So you assert yourself to protect yourself without trying to harm the other person, and that's what assertive is. So I really recommend the assertive approach.   Michael Hingson ** 29:33 And again, it gets back to you have to learn to understand and assess yourself and develop the tools that will allow you to do that   Bill Eddy ** 29:46 exactly and and strengthen yourself where you're not experienced or not skilled, and learn the skills to protect yourself. I think it's you know, all of us. Most of us grew up maintaining ourselves, not being too extreme, and yet sticking up for ourselves and being self managed. But bullies aren't self managed, so we're going to have to manage them for them. And so that's the new age we're in. The new world we're in is we need skills to manage bullies, and we can develop those, and that's part of what I talk about at the end of the book. The last chapter is a lot of skills that people can learn to manage bullies and protect themselves.   Michael Hingson ** 30:38 Well, how did you you've talked about a little bit, but I'd love to to learn a little bit more about how did you really end up deciding that this was a calling that you had to deal with and that you've devoted so much time to? I think it really   Bill Eddy ** 30:54 got started as a as a workplace endeavor when I went from being a therapist to being a lawyer, so I wanted to do mediation and conflict resolution, and went to law school, and when I started practicing law after 12 years as a therapist, including in psychiatric hospitals, I started seeing the same behavior in family court. You know there be mom and dad are fighting over custody of their child, and the judge is listening to their arguments and looking frustrated. And I'm going, Well, the problem here is one of the parents probably has a personality disorder, and so they're not really being that sensitive to the child and and the other parent seems to be pretty reasonable, but you don't know, sometimes people that look reasonable might be like anti social under the surface. And so I started noticing and paying attention to these behavior patterns and how they showed up as high conflict families, and that's the term that the courts were using high conflict families. So I started saying, You shouldn't talk about high conflict families. Should talk about high conflict personalities, because not everybody in the family necessarily has that. Maybe it's Mom, maybe it's dad, like, say, a domestic violence case, dad might have a borderline personality or an anti social personality, and that's driving his violent behavior, and yet he's conning the court by saying, look at her, she's a mess, and everything I'm doing is just fine. I'm the reasonable person here, but they're not behind the scenes, and so there'd be these patterns of behavior, and I said, courts got to figure this stuff out, otherwise you're punishing the victim of a domestic violence perpetrator unfairly and unhelpfully, and you're teaching the child that this behavior is acceptable. So I had all this information that I knew from having been, you know, a therapist, a licensed clinical social worker, and I found myself applying it to family court cases, and wanting to educate other lawyers, judges, mediators and therapists about these dynamics in family court. And that's when I started writing about high conflict personalities and eventually talking more about bullies who are the most high conflict personalities. So that's kind of how that evolved. That was 1993 is when I became I started practicing family law after 12 years as a therapist. And so that's when this stuff really opened my eyes, to wait a minute, people don't realize what they're dealing with, and they're not going to solve this with a child support order. They're going to have to, you know, get somebody some treatment or understand that there's these personalities driving behavior, rather than legal issues   Michael Hingson ** 34:20 you have developed, I think, or have begun creating, something called the new ways for families. Method, Yes, uh huh. Tell me about that. I read that in your bio, and that sounded pretty fascinating, yeah,   Bill Eddy ** 34:35 and I'm pretty proud of it. So we started high conflict Institute in 2008 myself and a colleague, Megan Hunter, and we wanted to educate family law professionals, but we also wanted to help parents in high conflict, divorces and custody disputes. And so I developed a counseling method. A specific to divorcing parents with disputes over their children. And I, I was speaking at a conference of judges, and they said, What kind of counseling order should we make for these high conflict families to get them out of court and settling down, and they said, Well, you can't do the traditional counseling where you say talk about your feelings, because people with high conflict personalities will talk about their feelings forever without changing anything. So you want them to learn new ways of doing things. And so we decided we're going to call the method new ways for families and six counseling sessions focused on learning four big skills, flexible thinking, managed emotions, moderate behavior and checking yourself rather than being busy checking everybody else. And so we we got that the judges to start ordering that, and we said, order both parents to learn these skills so you don't picking a bad guy. It's going to help both parents, whoever's you know, maybe it's a domestic violence case, they get domestic violence treatment, but also learn these skills so they can work together. Cases where a child resists being with the other parent because of one parent bad mathing the other parent interfering, what they call alienation, or parental alienation. So all of these could be benefited by this counseling approach. Short term, six individual sessions, three parent child sessions for each parent, and we started seeing cases stay out of court that used to keep coming back. We saw people calming down. The judges really liked that. We created an online class to teach those same skills in 12 sessions. Then we developed coaching, three coaching sessions with the online class to make to give a chance to practice, but keep the cost down, because just three sessions, and so that's that's been evolving since 2009 so for the last 15 years, and we estimate about eight or 9000 parents have gone through learning these skills, some better than others, but enough that the judges think they're worthwhile, and they keep ordering this. But this is it depends on where there's trained counselors or coaches to get the more intensive approach. But the online class is available anywhere worldwide, so judges sometimes just order that from, you know, maybe they're in Utah or something. And there's no counselors that we've trained there yet. They can always order the online class. And I think they actually are, because I spoke in Utah a month ago about this. So that's that's the method, and I feel pretty proud of it. Well,   Michael Hingson ** 38:18 it it's understandable, and I can appreciate why you're why you're excited about doing it, and that it's that it's clearly working. What are some really good examples of how successful the whole method and the whole process has been? You have some good stories about it.   Bill Eddy ** 38:40 Yeah. So one of my favorite examples, it's a case where a 15 year old girl refused to see her father after the divorce, and it seemed like a case where mom had been saying enough negative things, the girl absorbed that and then said, I don't want to see dad, and mom tolerated that, but of course, dad didn't. So took mom to court and told the judge, Mom's doing something to make the girl not come. So rather than deciding that mom's all bad, the judge said, well, then I want to order new ways for families, and that's six individual counseling sessions and three parent child sessions, so judge orders that and each of the parents goes through six counseling sessions with a workbook, so it focuses them on learning particular skills, to manage their emotions, To keep their thinking flexible, to moderate their behavior, like we teach them how to write emails so that they're reasonable instead of escalating conflict. And so they both went through that individual then it's time for the parent child sessions, and since Mom was the favorite parent. Parent, we had the parent child counselor meet with mom and the child first, and Mom taught the girl about flexible thinking, managed emotions, moderate behavior and checking yourself, and then prepared the girl with the counselor for the next week when she's going to meet with dad and so who she hasn't seen for a year and says she hates him, but there's no real, clear reason for that, and that's why it might be alienation. It might be the bad mouthing that got absorbed by the girl. So the next week, mom brings the girl to the counseling center, and girl agrees to go in and meets dad and the counselor and sits down, and the girl tells dad that he's a horrible person. He's ruined her life. He's done everything wrong and just this whole list of awfuls. And because he's been through the counseling method, he listens quietly and attentively, and then he says, Thank you. And she says, What do you mean? Thank you. I just said, you're a terrible person. And he says, I said, Thank you. Because I'm glad that we're talking. I think this is good. This is good for us to be talking. Is there more that you want to tell me, and I guess there was some more. And then basically they reconciled and agreed that they would have dinner together once a week. Now it wasn't a 5050, parenting plan like he would have preferred, but, and I don't know where it went from there, but he did have regular dinners with her, and they communicated. So it reconnected their relationship, and so it gave a structure for that to happen in, and that's what new ways for families does not every case where someone a child resists a parent has worked with new ways for families that, you know, one parent has found a way to sabotage it and block it, but by and large, we've had, had some, some good success with moderate cases like that.   Michael Hingson ** 42:16 Yeah, well, one of the questions that comes to mind, as you've talked about, excuse me, high conflict personalities. Is that something that can actually be fixed? Can people get over having to always be in conflict like that? It   Bill Eddy ** 42:36 really depends, I think, a lot, on which of the personalities. So I think I mentioned Cluster B personality disorders, borderline, narcissistic, anti social, histrionic. So borderline personality disorder, people are hearing more about that, where they have wide mood swings, sudden, intense anger, fear of abandonment, all of that. And this used to be thought of as primarily women, but it's now seen as probably about half and half. And men who are physically abusive often have this personality style, and they strike out because they're afraid they're losing their partner, which of course, makes their partner want to leave a little bit more, but that's one of the more treatable personalities. And there's a method called DBT dialectical behavior therapy, which is having some good success at treating people with borderline personality disorder. So there's that at the other extreme is anti social personality disorder, which is the hardest one to treat, and I don't know of a consistently successful method that treats and that's like maybe 40% of prisoners have that personality, they get out of prison and they commit another crime, been back back in prison, they have a pattern of behavior, which is what a personality disorder is, is it's a stuck pattern of behavior, just enduring and repeating and all of that. So I would say people with that personality is extremely unlikely they're going to change. But people with borderline, there is hope for and many people outgrow the diagnosis after going through DBT. So that's the most hopeful and the least hopeful range. Narcissists and histrionics are somewhere in the middle of that? Yeah,   Michael Hingson ** 44:44 well, something that comes to mind, I kind of think I know the answer, but it's still a question worth asking. Colleges and universities are made up of lots of people who are studying supposed to be pretty intelligent and so on, but we have bullies there. Why? You.   Bill Eddy ** 44:59 I think because we have them everywhere. So if, say 10% five to 10% of people are bullies, I think you're going to see them in colleges. Has nothing to do with intelligence. They may be brilliant bullies and very not smart bullies. So the whole range of severity exists. I think that college and other organizations like so, higher education, health care, churches, synagogues, mosques, that these are welcoming communities. These are helping communities. And so bullies get away with more in these kinds of communities because everybody's trying to be nice and bending over backwards to give them another chance. And so not to say they shouldn't get another chance, but they shouldn't get another chance and another chance and another chance and another chance. That's the thing I preach against. You give somebody a chance. If it the same problem comes up twice, what is it? Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me. I got to do something if it's happening again, because that means it's a pattern, and especially if there was consequences for the first time and they still did it again, that's a sign this may be behavior that's going to be resistant to change   Michael Hingson ** 46:37 well, and that makes perfect sense. It's kind of where I thought you'd probably go with it, but it does make perfect sense. And there, as you've said, there are bullies everywhere. And the reality is we're, we're going to find that there are just some people who are going to be bullies.   Bill Eddy ** 46:58 I think that's the answer that it's kind of sad to come to that conclusion, but it's also enlightening, because then, you know, you can't just change them. This pattern is so stuck, so persistent, they have to have a different approach. You can't talk them out of it. Yeah,   Michael Hingson ** 47:20 and there's something to be said for love, but at the same time, you need to learn to control you and your situations. And   Bill Eddy ** 47:31 yeah, it's kind of the tough love concept.   Michael Hingson ** 47:37 What do you do if your supervisor is a bully? We talked a little bit about bullies in the office and so on. But what if it's your boss who is the bully?   Bill Eddy ** 47:46 I think that you know, to some extent, if you can be assertive and say, you know, boss, you just gave me three assignments that are all due on Friday, and realistically, I can only get one of them done. Which one is the priority that you kind of assert yourself without trying to dominate your boss or alienate your boss. So you say something like, you know, can you give me some guidance here with these three projects, I can only get one done. Maybe someone else could help with another. So speaking up, presenting options, and say, you know that's one possibility. Another is you could give me overtime, and I'm willing to stay late if there's overtime. What? Whatever you may be able to speak up to some extent. But what we get a lot of our consultations are people that it's way beyond that the boss is just really out to get them, maybe trying to push them out of the team. And so we talk about who else you can go to, and it may be HR, it may be another department head. One of the things I say is make sure you start talking to somebody, maybe a friend, family member, so you're not just stewing in the fact that you're being bullied because people's self esteem just really goes down if they don't feel safe to talk to anybody. You talk to somebody and they say, oh, yeah, that happened to me once. That's terrible. You know, you shouldn't have to go through that. Let's talk about what you can do well that helps people feel a whole lot better, that there isn't something about them that makes them be the target of a bully. A lot of people think, you know, what did I do to cause this? And you didn't do anything. Bullies pick on everybody, but they keep picking on the people that let them,   Michael Hingson ** 49:52 and that's the real key, isn't it? It's all about you let them do it. You don't find ways to deal with. The issue, and the result is they're going to continue to do it, because they can   Bill Eddy ** 50:04 Right exactly. And people get depressed. They get stomach aches, headaches, they can't sleep, they avoid coming into work, they get disciplined, they get in trouble themselves. And that's a lot of why I wrote the book to help people know, you know, no one deserves to be bullied. This is wrong. This shouldn't be happening to you. Now look at what your choices are, what your options are.   Michael Hingson ** 50:32 We have an ever increasing number of startup companies in in the world, and more entrepreneurs or starting their own companies and so on. And so why is it that a lot of startups have a high powered innovator, or someone at the top like that, who is a bully?   Bill Eddy ** 50:54 It seems to be that the personality of entrepreneurs that go getter startup includes a lot of the ingredients of personalities, of bullies. So first of all, believing that your ideas are superior, that no matter what other people think you should keep going, that you're smarter than all of them. Don't stop because the first two people said this was a dumb idea, and so they kind of have some insulation against that, that they're willing to persist, you know, I know this is a good idea, but they can also be aggressive. So they're out there approaching, you know, venture capitalists and and people to endorse them, people to do what they say, people to give them a lot of money so they have. They're skilled at presenting their ideas aggressively and probably an exaggerated belief in themselves. But that seems to work in the startup business, people are persuaded by charm and intelligence and go, Oh, this guy just seems really brilliant. Well, that's because he told you he's brilliant. He's actually a bully. And there are stories like that, like what we saw, and I talk about it in my book with Theranos, the blood draw sis and it really wasn't what it was made out to be. It was a brilliant idea, but they couldn't implement it, but they pretended that they could, and so they got lots of money, lots of respect, write ups in the big magazines. Elizabeth Holmes was seen as the next Steve Jobs. She lowered her voice. She was a con artist. She may have believed in her product, but she was willing to bend so many rules that she ended up going to prison. But entrepreneurs have that drive and that persuasion and persistence and aggressiveness, and that works with getting a startup going, but it often doesn't work with maintaining a company and an organization. And I spoke to investors for startups, mostly healthcare startups and and they said, we've got a lot of bullies here. What? What do we do? We gave them some tools and tips for how to manage, you know, soothe their ego by setting limits on them and and to spot them sooner and decide, can should we invest with this person, or are they over the top? So it's a it's a particular field where having having an almost bully personality is successful, but having a bully personality eventually blows up. So   Michael Hingson ** 53:57 since you mentioned him, just out of curiosity was Steve Jobs a bully.   Bill Eddy ** 54:01 I think he was, and I think he was successful because of his management team, because they did, in fact, learn how to set limits on him and rein in his worst behaviors. Because, like, There's one story, and I think I have it in the book, where he was going to fire a division of 200 people because the project wasn't coming along fast enough. And so he's like, I'm going to fire them. They're useless, they're idiots, they're terrible. And someone on the management team says, Hey, Steve, let's go for a walk. Let's go for a walk, because he liked to go for walks and talks. So they go for a walk, and an hour later, they come back, and he's not going to fire anybody. He's just going to give them some more specific instructions. And so he. His worst behaviors were restrained by his management team. And I think that's that's a work but at any given time, things were on the verge of blowing up. And he did get fired as the head of Apple right 1990s but they helped him enough, he was reigned in enough that he was successful in the 2000s hugely, six. I mean, I don't know if they're the biggest value company right now, but I think when he died, they were probably the most valuable company. So, yeah, this can happen. But the key is that he was restrained by his management team, and unrestrained bully is going to cause   Michael Hingson ** 55:49 damage. I wonder though, if, as he matured, if he did, I'm assuming that he did actually, if some of the bullying tendencies really did go away, and then he changed a little bit at least, of of how he functioned. I mean, clearly he was a strong personality, right? And clearly he was the innovator of so many products. And so I can see where personality might get in the way, because he wants it done now. He wants it done this way. But I wonder if over time, he became a little bit less of of a bully, and maybe it was just the management restraint, or maybe that was a part of it, but it's I think you're right. Probably was a little bit better as time went on. I think you're   Bill Eddy ** 56:38 right, because when he came back to Apple after he was fired and tried some other projects, I think that he learned to focus more and to be a little less disrespectful. And I remember I read his biography, I think of Walter Isaacson, and my conclusion was that he was definitely narcissistic, but I don't think he had a narcissistic personality disorder, which is an enduring pattern of self defeating behavior. I think he had traits and that he learned to manage those traits primarily because his management team, people around him taught him he needs to restrain those so he's an example of where you can have someone with a bullying personality and rein them in and have them be quite successful. So I think that's what happened there,   Michael Hingson ** 57:39 and he would see that, in fact, it worked to change how you're operating a little bit. And maybe it was, maybe it was always underneath. But at the same time, he learned that, hey, working the way I've been isn't really as effective as what I'm seeing happen when I operate this way. Yeah,   Bill Eddy ** 58:01 what's interesting about him is he was particularly collaborative. So he liked working with other people. He liked he liked people with pushback, people that would disagree, present another point of view. So they could, they could go back and forth, although if other people had a really brilliant idea, he started thinking it was his idea. Yeah, but he he really had had an ability to work with other people that a lot of bullies don't have. And I think that may be why you're quite right, that he did mature some he did restrain himself a little more and became able to be brilliant. Imagine how many other brilliant people might really contribute if they had that balance of a really good management team to rein them in, but some of our most narcissistic individuals don't pay attention and often ruin, ruin their own creations. I think of like Enron, as our company that was brilliant, but probably had two people with personality disorders on top, one anti social and one narcissistic, and they reinforced each other's bad traits. And I think that's why that went off the rails. Yeah,   Michael Hingson ** 59:29 well, and the, the other thing that comes to mind is, then you have another very successful person, Bill Gates, yeah, and I don't, I don't know. Do you think that he was a bully?   Bill Eddy ** 59:43 I think that he certainly engaged in bullying behavior when he was the head of Microsoft. And I remember hearing about, I don't know if it was a recording or a transcript in a book, but he was at a meeting, and he was just very distant. Painful to the thinking of other people in the meeting, like, like, almost ready to, like, drive them out of the room. And you know, what are you doing here? You're an idiot and stuff like that. And I must say, I read Paul Allen's book, which was idea, man, I think, is what it was called, and and he, he had enough examples in there that I think Bill Gates was also a bully. But I think that again, there was enough of a management team to keep him from destroying what he was building. And I must say, one of his most brilliant decisions was marrying Melinda French, and she turned him into a philanthropist. And he's donated, you know, billions of dollars, but he's also created things to help poor people. He's He's fought malaria, I think, and trying to get toilets where you don't have electricity, but you can have self managed toilets. And he's in, he's put energy into these projects. So I would say, somehow the edge, the bullying edge, was taken off, so he actually could work with other people and and have some empathy for them. So again, he might be someone who didn't have a personality disorder, but may have had some traits, but somehow the balance worked out, and the more people realize that you may have brilliant people around you, if you can rein them in enough, we may have a better society because of some of these difficult people.   Michael Hingson ** 1:01:53 Well, clearly, Bill Gates had a very strong personality and and that's fine, but I do agree, I don't think that he really was a bully as such, in the way that we view it, for a lot of people as we've been discussing it, it doesn't mean that he didn't ever have any bullying kinds of behavior, but overall, he was successful, and is successful. And as you said, marrying Melinda has certainly made a significant difference in his outlook, and he's doing such great work, and you can't argue with that.   Bill Eddy ** 1:02:28 Yeah, and the fact that he's now divorced from Belinda, and I think that might have been more her idea than his, he still seems to be continuing on with his uh, philanthropy and doing works to help health health care, especially for people in really poor countries. So I think, and she changed his personality maybe a teeny little bit, and   Michael Hingson ** 1:02:54 climate change and climate   Bill Eddy ** 1:02:56 change for sure. Yeah, he's a big picture guy. He's one of our most deepest thinkers in the big picture, and we need people like that. So my goal isn't to eliminate bullies, it's to restrain them enough so they don't harm other people, but ideally, contribute to society   Michael Hingson ** 1:03:19 and they can. And it's a process. Well, this has been fun. I want to thank you for being here and talking about all this is, How do other people deal with it when they see somebody being bullied?   Bill Eddy ** 1:03:34 Well, bystanders need to speak up more and be assertive as well, and that's part of the cover of my book. Is a bully fish chasing a little fish who's about to grab and eat but gets distracted by a whole school of little fish chasing behind him who look bigger than him. And that's the bystanders. And bystanders need to speak up and say, hey, that's enough, Joe, or hey, that's enough, Jane. Or cut it out. Leave her alone. That when people do that, bullies often stop because they think they're getting away with something, or they're not even thinking they're just automatically bullying somebody. And when that happens, they realize, uh oh, my public may not be happy with me, and I don't want to alienate my public so you can have an influence as a bystander, and are encouraged to be assertive and not intimidated. And the more bystanders support each other, that much easier it is to stop bullies.   Michael Hingson ** 1:04:43 Good advice and so cool. Well, again, I want to thank you for being here. This has been great. I hope all of you listening out there have found a lot of good tools that you can take away and use. Lot of good life lessons here by any standard you. I really so I really appreciate you taking the time to be with Bill and me today on unstoppable mindset. Love to get your thoughts, so please feel free to email me. Michael h i at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S, I, B, e.com, or go to our podcast page, www, dot Michael hingson.com/podcast, and Michael Hinkson is spelled M, I, C, H, A, E, L, H, I N, G, s, O, N, Michael hingson.com/podcast, and wherever you are, give us a five star rating. We love those ratings on the podcast. We appreciate that, and would greatly value you you doing that. And again, your thoughts and for all of you, including Bill, if you know of anyone else who ought to be a guest on unstoppable mindset, we'd love to hear from you. We don't really tend to discriminate and say, Oh, that's a bad idea just just saying bill, but so we'd love to really hear about more people you think ought to be, whoever you are on the podcast, and we will talk with them and make a plan to go forward with them. So don't ever hesitate to point out someone who you think ought to come on and again. Bill, I want to thank you one last time for being here. This has been a lot of fun, and we appreciate your time today. Well,   Bill Eddy ** 1:06:21 thanks so much, Michael. I've really enjoyed it too. We got into some stuff deeper than I have in some of my other interviews. So we really covered the covered the gamut. And I think, I think people will find that this is a topic that becomes more and more relevant every year. So thanks for getting the word out there   Michael Hingson ** 1:06:41 well, and I hope that people will buy your book and and all that too. Yeah, we have to get the book sales out there, right.   Bill Eddy ** 1:06:49 That's right. Thank you for that.   Michael Hingson ** 1:06:57 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com . AccessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for Listening. Please come back and visit us again next week.

Raymond Paul Johnson is an attorney, author, aviator, aerospace engineer and combat veteran who holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Meritorious Service Medal, and five Air Medals, among other awards. Ray has been a trial attorney for over 35 years, concentrating in product liability and aviation law, selected as a Super Lawyer by Los Angeles Magazine every year since 2006, and an adjunct instructor at the University of Southern California since 2021. He is also certified as a Mediator by Pepperdine University School of Law/Strauss Institute for Dispute Resolution. While in the U.S. Air Force, Ray flew as a fighter pilot, jet instructor and functional test pilot. He also received a master-of-science degree in astronautics from the Air Force Institute of Technology and co-chaired the DOD/NASA working groups on Space Shuttle design and integration. Ray graduated from New York University (BS Aerospace Engineering) and the School of Law at the College of William and Mary. He is principal co-author of the legal treatise Defective Product: Evidence to Verdict, Juris Publishing/New York (Supp 2003) and has written more than 50 articles published in law journals and nationally circulated periodicals. Ray has also served as a legal consultant to the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and USA Today, and has been interviewed by CNN, NBC News and other televised programs. Listen to this informative Sharkpreneur episode with Raymond Paul Johnson about the inspiration behind his book Conspiracy Ignited. Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: - How writing without a strict outline allows the characters to guide the story. - Why it's important to write what you know and draw on your real life experiences. - How writing a book of fiction is much different than writing non-fiction for law publications. - Why attracting literary agents and publishers is a difficult endeavor. - How Conspiracy Ignited is being considered for a movie adaptation. Connect with Raymond: Guest Contact Info X: @RPJohnsonBooks Instagram: @raymondpauljohnson_author Facebook: facebook.com/RaymondPaulJohnsonThrillerWriter Links Mentioned: https://raymondpauljohnson.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Ben and Rahul for a conversation with Spencer Lucas, Partner at Panish Shea Ravipudi, in which Spencer talks about his recent $135 million verdict on behalf of two victims of sexual assault by a teacher at a public school, and his work on the leadership trial teams representing sexual assault victims in claims against the Los Angeles Catholic Diocese and Boy Scouts of America.  Spencer talks about how he found a passion for championing the rights of victims of sexual assault and how he has navigated the complexities of proving that the school district and Catholic Diocese had prior notice that the teacher and priest were harming children and failed to act upon that information to protect his clients.   About Spencer Lucas https://www.panish.law/Spencer Lucas is a trial lawyer and partner at Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP specializing in litigating complex catastrophic personal injury, products liability, wrongful death, and sexual abuse cases. A member of the firm since 2007, he has extensive experience in cases involving traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, amputations and has successfully recovered over $600 million for his clients. Mr. Lucas prides himself on not only helping survivors of trauma and their families recover from tragic situations but by implementing institutional safeguards for the community.Ranked among the Top 100 Southern California Super Lawyers in 2022, Mr. Lucas is recognized as a leading trial lawyer in California trying cases in venues across the state resulting in eight-figure verdicts. He has been the recipient of numerous awards for his work in the courtroom including nominations as Consumer Attorney of the Year by Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC) and Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA).  Mr. Lucas is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) with an elevated rank of Associate due to the number of lengthy trials to verdict he has completed and is annually recognized as a Best Lawyer in America® .Mr. Lucas has obtained numerous eight-figure verdicts and settlements in cases throughout California, including the following:$135 million verdict for two men who were sexually abused as students by a teacher in the Moreno Valley Unified School District.$48,500,000 settlement at the beginning of trial involving a 26-year-old man who was struck by a corporate vehicle and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.$30,000,000 settlementat the beginning of trial involving a 33-year-old man who was struck by a tractor-trailer and suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.$19,466,000 verdict In Zastawnik v. Asplundh Construction, for his client who suffered severe ankle fractures and resulting pain disorder after being struck by a construction truck while riding a motorcycle.$17,120,672 verdict In Huayanca v. Southland Transit District, for his 83 year old client who sustained a below the knee amputation after being struck by a bus in a crosswalk.$13,000,000 verdict in Doe v. EōS Fitness,  in Riverside County Superior Court for a young girl who was sexually molested while in the care of EōS Fitness' Kid's Club in Palm Springs, California. This verdict is believed to be one of the largest of its kind in America.$15,313,703 verdict in Francisco v. AC Transit, for a client who suffered a back injury while riding on a city bus.$15,000,000 verdict in Tilton v. Southern California Gas Company, for a teenager who sustained a closed head injury after his vehicle was struck by a Southern California Gas Company utility truck.$14,500,000 verdict in Barber v. Mossy Ford , in a complex tire failure case arising from a accident in which the parents of three young boys were killed.  Along with settlements reached with other defendants, the total award was in excess of $22 million.$14,000,000 verdict in Curiel v. SSA Marine, for a man who suffered serious spinal cord injuries after a crane operator dropped a 25,000 lb. container onto the cab of his truck.$21,000,000 verdict in Nelsen v. Hillyard Inc., for an Iraq war veteran who suffered a brain injury after being rear-ended by a commercial vehicle at high speed.$20,000,000 verdict in Rivas v. J.B. Hunt , for a woman who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being involved in a collision with a tractor-trailer.$10,500,000 in Nichols v. Alameda-Contra Costa County Transit, on behalf of a woman who suffered serious orthopedic injuries when she was struck by an AC Transit bus while crossing the street.  The case settled for $10.5 million.$8,652,580 award in the matter of of Haskell v. Farmers Insurance, on behalf of his client who suffered pelvic injuries. The settlement offer in this case prior to the award was $300,000.Outside the courtroom, Mr. Lucas is a frequent speaker on various issues, including traumatic brain, spinal cord injuries, and sexual abuse, and actively publishes articles in trade publications on a wide range of legal topics. He also spends much of his time dedicated to assisting his clients recovering from trauma obtain the best medical treatment available.In addition to his work as a trial lawyer, Mr. Lucas is a member of the Pepperdine School of Law Dean's Council and serves on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers' Charities (LATLC) which funds many local charity groups focusing on education, survivors of abuse, children, and the homeless.Originally from Seattle, Washington Mr. Lucas graduated from the University of Washington with a degree in Business Administration.  During his undergraduate work, he completed an International Business program with honors from the University of Sevilla in 1999. He graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law in 2004, where he was the co-founder of the Pepperdine International Human Rights Program.Fluent in Spanish, Mr. Lucas works with many of the firm's Spanish-speaking clients and is frequently asked to give legal commentary on national Spanish television and radio programs.  He has lived in Havana, Cuba, and throughout Mexico, where he spent his summers in college building homes for the homeless in Ciudad Juarez.Mr. Lucas is a member of the State Bar of California, the District of Columbia Bar and the Washington State Bar Association. He is an active member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, Consumer Attorneys of California, and Los Angeles County Bar Association, and regularly volunteers his time providing pro-bono legal services to foster children and children facing immigration deportation proceedings.

When you transform your relationship with alcohol, you can rediscover your true self. Join host Anna Donaghey and guest Christy Osborne, as they share their journeys with motherhood, spirituality, and sobriety. Christy shares her raw and challenging experiences during the early stages of raising her children, the societal pressures that led her to drink, and the pivotal moment that prompted her transformation. Anna and Christy discuss the profound impact of alcohol on emotional growth, the societal pressure of "mummy wine culture," and the empowering clarity that comes with sobriety. This episode not only explores the intricate link between spirituality and personal growth but also provides invaluable insights for anyone considering stepping away from alcohol to embrace a more fulfilling life. Tune in for an enriching conversation that emphasises self-discovery, emotional resilience, and the journey towards deeper, authentic connection. Don't miss Anna's heartfelt reflections and Christy's inspirational story of overcoming the chaos to find peace and purpose.Here are the highlights:05:00 Rediscovered faith and peace through Christianity again.08:24 Spirituality: A deeply personal quest for self-discovery.11:29 Realising life's bigger purpose post-children.13:52 A glamorous life felt empty; alcohol was reassessed.19:04 Struggles with emotions, motherhood, and drinking habits.21:10 Ignoring and numbing emotions instead of honouring them.25:28 Trust yourself; alcohol impairs self-awareness.28:31 Embrace emotions, process trauma, find meaningful light.35:34 Realising needs are within reach, not elsewhere.37:57 The younger generation drink less, and possibly ‘discover' themselves earlier.41:23 Connection central to spirituality and personal growth.If you're loving the podcast and would like to give Anna a warm, fuzzy feeling of appreciation, then you can buy her a coffee:https://buymeacoffee.com/bigdrinkrethinkAbout the host Anna:Anna is a certified Alcohol Mindset Coach, trained by Annie Grace of This Naked Mind. Drawing on her own journey out of alcohol addiction, she now helps others explore and control their drinking. With a career spanning 25 years as a Strategist in the Advertising industry, she combines her own lived experiences, with great insight into what makes us tick and what influences us to behave the way we do. Connect with Anna:Website: thebeliefscoach.comLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/annadonagheyFacebook: facebook.com/thebeliefscoachInstagram: instagram.com/bigdrinkrethinkProduced by winteraudio.co.ukAbout Christy Osborne:Christy Osborne, born and raised in Los Angeles, graduated from the University of Southern California and the Pepperdine University School of Law. After passing the California bar exam, she relocated to London and assumed various roles in law, public relations, and business development. These included working for the UK Parliament and founding a popular website for American expat women. Christy discovered her true calling when she chose

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them)In this thought-provoking episode of Faithful Politics, hosts Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram tackle the timely and contentious intersections of religious liberty and government regulation. Joining them is Rachel Morrison, an attorney and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, whose expertise sheds light on how recent federal policies and Supreme Court decisions are impacting religious freedoms in healthcare, employment, and beyond.This episode dives into questions that resonate deeply in today's polarized environment: What protections do healthcare professionals have if they object to certain procedures on moral or religious grounds? How does the recent Supreme Court Loper-Bright decision shift the power dynamics between government agencies and individuals? And, perhaps most importantly, what do these issues mean for the future of faith-based decision-making in a rapidly changing legal landscape?Morrison breaks down the implications of the Loper-Bright decision, explaining how it puts religious liberty on more stable footing by limiting the power of federal agencies to interpret laws in ways that might disregard religious or moral objections. The hosts and Morrison then explore real-world scenarios—such as COVID-19 mandates and the rise of gender-identity policies under the current administration—that illustrate how these legal shifts could play out in healthcare and workplace settings.Guest Bio:Rachel N. Morrison is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, leading EPPC's HHS Accountability Project. An attorney specializing in religious liberty, healthcare conscience rights, life issues, and civil rights, she previously served as an Attorney Advisor at the EEOC, focusing on religious discrimination, and held roles at Americans United for Life and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Ms. Morrison's work has appeared in prominent law reviews and media outlets. She earned her J.D., magna cum laude, from Pepperdine University School of Law and her B.A., summa cum laude, from Whitworth University. She is a member of the D.C. and Washington State bars. "The Faith Roundtable" is a captivating spinoff from the Faithful Politics podcast, dedicated to exploring the crucial issues facing the church in America today. Hosted by Josh Burtram, this podcast brings together faith leaders, theologians, and scholars for deep, respectful discussions on topics at the heart of American Christianity. From the intersection of faith and public life to urgent matters such as social justice and community engagement, each episode offers insightful conversations Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

In this episode, my guest is Bill Eddy, a lawyer, licensed therapist, professional mediator, and faculty member at the Pepperdine University School of Law. He specializes in identifying, reducing friction with, and disentangling from high-conflict individuals. We explain how high-conflict personalities differ from personality disorders and examine the cycles of blame and drama that cause persistent conflict in their relationships. We discuss how to quickly recognize high-conflict individuals based on specific criteria and behaviors, helping listeners learn to spot their less obvious tactics. You'll also learn how to disengage from them with minimal friction and understand the methods they use to draw people back in or keep conflict alive. Additionally, we cover effective communication strategies for mediating situations involving high-conflict individuals, emphasizing empathy and problem-solving approaches. This episode equips listeners with tools to navigate conflict in various contexts, promoting resolutions that benefit all parties involved. Access the full show notes for this episode at hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman Maui Nui Venison: https://mauinuivenison.com/huberman ExpressVPN: https://expressvpn.com/huberman Function: https://functionhealth.com/huberman David Protein: https://davidprotein.com/huberman Timestamps 00:00:00 Bill Eddy 00:02:58 Sponsors: Maui Nui & ExpressVPN 00:06:41 High-Conflict Families, High-Conflict Individuals & Patterns 00:10:48 Personality Disorders, Prevalence & Overlap 00:18:28 High-Conflict Personality vs. Personality Disorders, Blame 00:24:33 High-Conflict Individuals, Tool: First-Year Rule & Commitment 00:30:53 Sponsor: AG1 00:32:05 Relationship Stability, Tool: Vetting Potential Partners 00:38:54 Heightened Emotions, Negative Advocates, Divorce 00:47:50 Brain, Plasticity & Fear; Bullies, Polarization 00:54:51 Sponsors: Function & David 00:58:00 Emotions, Media, Politics 01:04:57 Tool: WEB Method, Identify High-Conflict Individuals 01:12:20 Body Cues, Identify High-Conflict Individuals 01:18:40 Tool: Don't Label & Empathy; Adapting Your Behavior 01:23:12 High Conflict Personalities & Occupations 01:28:18 Big Personalities: Evidence vs Assumptions 01:37:27 Tool: Leaving a Combative High-Conflict Individual, Blame, Gradual Exit 01:45:41 Exiting a High Conflict Relationship & Timing 01:49:27 Tool: Disentangling from a Victim High-Conflict Individual, “Hoovering” 01:52:32 High Conflict Divorce, Small Families & Parental Estrangement 01:57:01 Tool: Managing Emotions & Relationships, EAR Statements 01:59:52 Large Families & Conflict Resolution 02:04:11 Bullies & Online Social Groups 02:09:18 Personality Disorders, Causes, Culture 02:13:09 Tool: 4 “Fuhgeddaboudits”, Topics to Avoid in High Conflict Resolution 02:19:50 Tool: CARS Method, Connecting & EAR Statements, Analyzing 02:27:03 Tool: CARS Method, Responding & BIFF Response, Setting Limits & SLIC 02:36:40 Zero-Cost Support, YouTube, Spotify & Apple Follow & Reviews, Sponsors, YouTube Feedback, Protocols Book, Social Media, Neural Network Newsletter Disclaimer & Disclosures

It's the home stretch of the presidential campaign with just eight days to go until Election Day. Former President Trump and Vice President Harris have been making appearances across swing states and are also stumping for Senate candidates with the balance of power on the line. Republicans are looking to pick up seats that could give them the majority in the Senate, with tight races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) joins the Rundown to discuss the key races that will decide the balance of power, how confident he feels that Republicans could take the majority, and what fundraising has gone into the races across the nation. According to the New York City Mayor's office, over 200 thousand migrants have come to the city since 2022, and over sixty thousand are in its care. Many of these individuals struggle to receive work permits and visas, making it extremely difficult to find legal jobs. Co-host of Good Day New York, Rosanna Scotto, joins the Rundown to share what she has discovered about the NYC migrant crisis in her new FOX Nation special, The Underground Economy. Plus, commentary from senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, Andy Puzder. (Images Via AP) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's the home stretch of the presidential campaign with just eight days to go until Election Day. Former President Trump and Vice President Harris have been making appearances across swing states and are also stumping for Senate candidates with the balance of power on the line. Republicans are looking to pick up seats that could give them the majority in the Senate, with tight races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) joins the Rundown to discuss the key races that will decide the balance of power, how confident he feels that Republicans could take the majority, and what fundraising has gone into the races across the nation. According to the New York City Mayor's office, over 200 thousand migrants have come to the city since 2022, and over sixty thousand are in its care. Many of these individuals struggle to receive work permits and visas, making it extremely difficult to find legal jobs. Co-host of Good Day New York, Rosanna Scotto, joins the Rundown to share what she has discovered about the NYC migrant crisis in her new FOX Nation special, The Underground Economy. Plus, commentary from senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, Andy Puzder. (Images Via AP) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's the home stretch of the presidential campaign with just eight days to go until Election Day. Former President Trump and Vice President Harris have been making appearances across swing states and are also stumping for Senate candidates with the balance of power on the line. Republicans are looking to pick up seats that could give them the majority in the Senate, with tight races in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. Chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) joins the Rundown to discuss the key races that will decide the balance of power, how confident he feels that Republicans could take the majority, and what fundraising has gone into the races across the nation. According to the New York City Mayor's office, over 200 thousand migrants have come to the city since 2022, and over sixty thousand are in its care. Many of these individuals struggle to receive work permits and visas, making it extremely difficult to find legal jobs. Co-host of Good Day New York, Rosanna Scotto, joins the Rundown to share what she has discovered about the NYC migrant crisis in her new FOX Nation special, The Underground Economy. Plus, commentary from senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute and the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, Andy Puzder. (Images Via AP) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Our New World of ADULT BULLIES: How to Spot The, How to Stop Them, author Bill Eddy - lawyer, therapist, educator, and Co-Counder of High Conflict Institute - writes with authority that comes from 40+ years of working with bullies and other high conflict personality individuals. Bullies may always have been a feature of human society. Eddy suggests that between 5 and 10% of people have personalities that do not allow them to put the reins on the abusive behaviors of bullies. Rich with examples the Eddy tells us how to spot bullying behavior/s as well as techniques to contain, channel and stop the abuse that bullies visit on their victims.     Eddy's work - in his book and his conversation - avoids a simplistic understanding: bullies are bad. Rather he speaks about how bullying behavior can, when channeled, can push us to be better, push society into new frontiers that may not otherwise be accessible. Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist, mediator and the Co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer of the High Conflict Institute. He is the author of over 20 books and manuals about managing relationships and situations with high conflict people and bullies. He trains lawyers, judges, mediators, and therapists worldwide in managing high conflict situations. Now he is writing books for everyone including his latest: Our New World of Adult Bullies: How to Spot Them - How to Stop Them.Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. is the co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer. While pioneering High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP), he was the National Conflict Resolution Center's Senior Family Mediator for 15 years, a Certified Family Law Specialist for 15 years, and a licensed clinical social worker therapist for over 12 years.Bill serves on the faculty of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the Pepperdine University School of Law and is a Conjoint Associate Professor with the University of Newcastle Law School in Australia. He has been a speaker and trainer in over 35 U.S. states and 13 countries.The author or co-author of over 20 books, manuals, and workbooks, he also has a popular blog on the Psychology Today website with millions of views. He co-hosts the podcast, It's All Your Fault! with HCI co-founder, Megan Hunterhttps://highconflictinstitute.com/

A Voice for Freedom: Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, '67 Dr. Elizabeth Edwards Spalding is Chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) and Founding Director of the Victims of Communism Museum. A lifelong educator and frequent public speaker, the 1988 graduate is Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and Visiting Fellow at the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College. She is the 2024 recipient of the College's Elizebeth Smith Friedman Freedom Award. ------ Informative. Inspirational. Uplifting. Those are the goals of the White and Blue podcast. We are here to tell the interesting stories of Hillsdale College alumni, who number more than 15,000 strong. Our guests will share about their time and experiences while on campus, and also the impact they have had on the world since graduating. What makes the Hillsdale College graduate unique? We will explore that question and more, including how alumni have impacted the past, present, and future of the College. Won't you join us?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

When you think bullies, you may think about school aged children, but what happens when you are an adult dealing with adult bullies? This week Michelle Dempsey-Multack welcomes back Bill Eddy to discuss managing bullies as an adult. Bill Eddy is an expert in dealing with high-conflict individuals and is sure to leave you feeling empowered after this episode. Together Michelle and Bill will cover: Learning to talk about how you are feeling when being bullied Leading with empathy to understand the other person's behavior Reminding yourself that many bullies are unaware of what they are doing Setting limits and imposing consequences AND MUCH MORE Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. is High Conflict Institute's co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer. He pioneered the High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP) and has become an expert on managing disputes involving people with high conflict personalities. He was the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center for 15 years, a Certified Family Law Specialist lawyer representing clients in family court for 15 years, and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker therapist with twelve years' experience. He serves on the faculty of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the Pepperdine University School of Law in California and is a Conjoint Associate Professor with the University of Newcastle Law School in Australia. He has been a keynote speaker and trainer in over 30 U.S. states and 10 countries. In addition to authoring over twenty books, he writes a popular blog on PsychologyToday.com with over five million views. Check out his amazing books, here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Susan welcomes back the world's leading expert on managing high-conflict behaviors, Bill Eddy!  Bill shares insights from his newest book, Our New World of Adult Bullies: How to Spot Them ― How to Stop Them. In this episode, Susan and Bill explore the different forms of bullying, the underlying causes, practical strategies for dealing with bullies, and the role of empathy and communication in resolving these challenging situations. Bullying is happening in almost every area of our lives - whether you have a friend or family member experiencing bullying or have witnessed it in the workplace, this conversation (and Bill's new book) is essential in helping you shut down these troubling behaviors. Featured topics and Golden Nuggets: Why is adult bullying so prevalent today? Some of the characteristics of bullying behavior Bill answers, “Are there different types of bullies?” “When you see polarization, look for a bully.”  Strategies to manage and protect yourself from adult bullies The real-world consequences of being an adult bull **************************************** About this week's special guest: Bill Eddy Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. is the co-founder and Chief Innovation Officer. While pioneering High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP), he was the National Conflict Resolution Center's Senior Family Mediator for 15 years, a Certified Family Law Specialist for 15 years, and a licensed clinical social worker therapist for over 12 years. Bill serves on the faculty of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the Pepperdine University School of Law and is a Conjoint Associate Professor with the University of Newcastle Law School in Australia. He has been a speaker and trainer in over 35 U.S. states and 13 countries.  The author or co-author of over 20 books, manuals, and workbooks, he also has a popular blog on the Psychology Today website with over 6 million views. Our New World of Adult Bullies: How to Spot Them ― How to Stop Them The High Conflict Institute  It's All Your Fault! Podcast **************************************** THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS:  HEADSPACE Hello, Divorce & Beyond family! We've teamed up with Headspace to guide you towards better mental health. With Headspace's meditation, mindfulness tools, and mental health support, you're set for a happier, healthier you. Sign up through our exclusive link for free two weeks of Headspace membership. Don't miss out on this opportunity to embrace well-being. ========================= HELLO DIVORCE Over one million people get divorced in the United States every year. However, divorce can be a complex and expensive process, especially if you have to hire a lawyer. That's where Hello Divorce comes in. Hello Divorce is an online divorce platform that makes it easy and affordable to get a divorce yourself. With Hello Divorce, you can complete the entire divorce process online, in your own home, and at your own pace. Hello Divorce offers a variety of features to help you get through your divorce, including: Easy-to-use online forms and guides A step-by-step walkthrough of the divorce process Access to experienced divorce professionals for help and support  And more! If you're considering getting a divorce, please check out Hello Divorce. It's the best way to get a divorce without breaking the bank. The founder of Hello Divorce, Erin Levine, is a friend of mine, and I admire her and what she has created with Hello Divorce so much – this platform is the change we need in the divorce industry.  You can hear Erin explain more in her episode on the podcast entitled “The FYI on DIY Divorce.”  Get more information, resources, and support at hellodivorce.com/beyond and receive $100 off your service with the code BEYOND!  Visit hellodivorce.com/beyond for $100 OFF! ********************************************************************* SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE!  https://divorcebeyond.com/Sponsorship-Info ******************************************************************* MEET OUR CREATOR AND HOST: SUSAN GUTHRIE®, ESQ., the creator and host of The Divorce and Beyond® Podcast, is nationally recognized as one of the top family law and divorce mediation attorneys in the country.  Susan is the Vice Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution and is a sought-after keynote speaker, business and practice consultant, coach and trainer. You can find out more about Susan and her services here:  https://neon.page/susanguthrie Internationally renowned as one of the leading experts in online mediation, Susan created her Learn to Mediate Online® program and has trained more than 25,000 professionals in how to transition their practice online.  Susan recently partnered with legal and mediation legend, Forrest "Woody" Mosten to create the Mosten Guthrie Academy which provides gold-standard, fully online training for mediation and collaborative professionals at all stages of their careers.   Follow Susan Guthrie and THE DIVORCE AND BEYOND PODCAST on social media for updates and inside tips and information: Susan on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/susaneguthrie/ Susan on Instagram @susanguthrieesq ********************************************************************* We'd really appreciate it if you would give us a 5 Star Rating and tell us what you like about the show in a review - your feedback really matters to us!  You can get in touch with Susan at divorceandbeyondpod@gmail.com.  Don't forget to visit the webpage www.divorceandbeyondpod.com and sign up for the free NEWSLETTER to receive a special welcome video from Susan and more!! ********************************************************************* DISCLAIMER:  THE COMMENTARY AND OPINIONS AVAILABLE ON THIS PODCAST ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE.  YOU SHOULD CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IN YOUR STATE TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE OR PROBLEM. ======================================  

Today is May Day, but also the Victims of Communism Memorial Day, and as such today is the prefect days for this classic-hybrid format podcast, featuring Steve Hayward in a conversation with Elizabeth Spalding, chair of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. (Elizabeth is also Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy […]

Today is May Day, but also the Victims of Communism Memorial Day, and as such today is the prefect days for this classic-hybrid format podcast, featuring Steve Hayward in a conversation with Elizabeth Spalding, chair of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. (Elizabeth is also Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and Visiting Fellow at the Van Andel Graduate... Source

Today is May Day, but also the Victims of Communism Memorial Day, and as such today is the prefect days for this classic-hybrid format podcast, featuring Steve Hayward in a conversation with Elizabeth Spalding, chair of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. (Elizabeth is also Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and Visiting Fellow at the Van Andel Graduate School of Government at Hillsdale College.)The Foundation has opened the Victims of Communism Museum in downtown Washington DC, and you should put it on your itinerary for your next visit to the nation's capital. We call this a "hybrid" format because it comes in two parts. Following the conversation with Elizabeth, this episode offers Steve's recent speech at the Victims of Communism Museum about Reagan and Churchill on the Cold War, a major part of Steve's book about the two great statesmen. 

Season Three. Episode Two. In this episode, hosts Dirk and Brooke talk with F. LaGard Smith about his extensive work as an author and The Daily Bible, an essential resource for EEM.  F. LaGard Smith was born in 1944 in Houston, Texas, thereafter living in Shawnee and Tulsa, Oklahoma, Lancaster, Texas, and Birmingham, Alabama, before heading off to college at Florida College, graduating from Willamette University with both an undergraduate and law degree. Smith was a District Attorney for Malheur County, Oregon for three years, served as an administrator for the Oregon State Bar in Portland for a year, then spent 27 years teaching at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California, focusing on Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Trial Practice, and Law and Morality. For five years, Smith was Scholar in Residence for Christian Studies at Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee, then taught for two years at Liberty University School of Law and for four years at Faulkner University's Jones School of Law in Montgomery, Alabama, before retiring to write full time. Smith has written some 35 books--legal, social, doctrinal, and devotional. He is most widely known as the compiler and narrator of "The Daily Bible" (the NIV and NLT in chronological order). He and his wife Ruth live in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and, for several months a year, at their cottage in the English Cotswolds, where he does much of his writing. Every story is a living example of Isaiah 55:11.  To learn how you can partner with us to provide God's Word, go to: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠EEM.ORG⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on: ⁠⁠⁠⁠PRAY.COM

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The first book in the storied career of one of the most influential conservative legal scholars and philosophers of our day is the focus of an upcoming conference in Washington, DC. Making Men Moral (1993) is the book and Robert P. George is the man behind it—Princeton professor of jurisprudence, bioethicist and pro-life and civil liberties champion. Scheduled speakers include some of the most important thinkers on social conservatism and legal thought of the generations he has molded, plus many of his peers and George himself. This conference is our focus for today. As the founder and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University since 2000, George has provided a model for a slew of similar programs, centers and institutes throughout American academia and abroad. He is also a noted public speaker, often in partnership with his good friend the African-American scholar, Cornel West. Because of George's outsized role in public discussion of moral issues and his unique position as a stalwart Christian voice and admired scholar in the heavily secular academe of our time, rather than interview the author of a book today I will be chatting with one of the organizers of Making Men Moral: 30th Anniversary Conference. This event is co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Ethics & Public Policy Center, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at Catholic University. And luckily for those unable to attend in person the event at AEI in Washington, DC Thursday, November 30, 2023 | 12:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET and Friday, December 1, 2023 | 9:00 AM to 5:15 PM ET, they can register to follow the proceedings live online for free. This is a welcome opportunity to learn about one of the most important books in the fields of moral philosophy, the philosophy of law, and natural law of the last 30 years. For decades, George's Making Men Moral: Civil Liberties and Public Morality has been the go-to text for legal scholars, political theorists, philosophers and educated readers who want to grasp what types of human vice and folly can be legitimately regulated, what the relationship is between morals legislation and freedom, what is owed by the individual to the ordering of society, and what falls under the protection of privacy or basic civil liberties legal regimes. The conference features leading lights in the conservative legal firmament such as our guest today--J. Joel Alicea an associate professor at the Columbus School of Law of the Catholic University of America, Sherif Girgis, Melissa Moschella and Professor George himself. It will also feature scholars in the fields of theology and religious learning such as Andrew T. Walker; bioethicists and legal scholars such as O. Carter Snead; luminaries in the field of natural law like Hadley Arkes; journalists such as Timothy P. Carney and Alexandra DeSanctis and notable social scientists such as Mark Regnerus and W. Bradford Wilcox. The first day of the two-day conference will feature an interview of George by his fellow public intellectual and former student, Ryan T. Anderson. Our guest today, Professor Alicea, will not only open the conference but will participate in a panel discussion entitled, “Making Men Moral and Constitutional Interpretation,” the title of which nicely encapsulates two of the many roles Robert P. George serves in the public sphere: George is both a powerful moral voice and a skillful, much loved professor at Princeton where he teaches a famous course on Constitutional Interpretation (the lectures of which were recorded and are available free online). Let's hear from Professor Alicea. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jason and Brett talk to Jedediah Jenkins (Mother, Nature) about topics ranging from starter words on Wordle to the best time to eat donuts,  about complicated parent relationships, the nuances of LTRs, and everything in between. Jedidiah Jenkins is the New York Times bestselling author of To Shake the Sleeping Self and Like Streams to the Ocean. A graduate of USC and Pepperdine University School of Law, Jenkins began his professional career with the nonprofit Invisible Children, where he helped orchestrate multinational campaigns to end the use of child soldiers in central Africa. His parents, Peter and Barbara Jenkins, are the authors of the bestselling A Walk Across America series. He is the executive editor of Wilderness magazine. Jenkins's work has appeared in The Paris Review and Playboy, and he has been covered by National Geographic.**BOOKS!** Check out the list of books discussed on each episode on our Bookshop page:https://bookshop.org/shop/gaysreading | By purchasing books through this Bookshop link, you can support both Gays Reading and an independent bookstore of your choice!Join our Patreon for exclusive bonus content! Purchase your Gays Reading podcast Merch! Follow us on Instagram @gaysreading | @bretts.book.stack | @jasonblitmanWhat are you reading? Send us an email or a voice memo at gaysreading@gmail.com

This week, SurfingNASH offers an episode comprising two seperate interviews which focus on stories around career trajectories, transitions and entrepreneurship. Host Roger Green talks with Rachel Zayas (AGED Diagnostics) and Michelle Long (Novo Nordisk) about their unique stories and creating new opportunities amidst a field with broadening but sometimes opaque horizons. These discussions will be very informative for those who may be wondering about what's on the other side, whether it be commercial medicine or academia. Surf on to learn more as Rachel and Michelle expand on bridging these gaps, managing challenges and their excitement for new ways forward.This conversation with Rachel returns to focus on fundraising and what it takes to win a new venture competition. She expands on the idea that fundraising is a two-way exploration to see whether the investor and investee company can function as partners in the development process. She also goes on to describe how competitions work and what transpired in the recent Pepperdine University School of Business competition that AGED Diagnostics won. Lastly, Rachel shares her thoughts on how and why ventures benefit from doing well in competitions even if there is no prize per se beyond the recognition of winning.If you have questions or comments around these interviews or any of the topics discussed in this episode, we kindly ask that you submit reviews wherever you download the discourse. Alternatively, you can write to us directly at questions@SurfingNASH.com.Stay Safe and Surf On!

Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. developed the high conflict personality theory to explain the driving forces behind people who present the most challenging behaviors. He is an expert on managing disputes involving high-conflict situations and 5 high conflict personality types, including a subset of those with narcissistic, borderline, antisocial, histrionic, and paranoid personality disorders. He has trained over 200,000 professionals in 10 countries on understanding and managing high-conflict disputes, including lawyers, judges, mediators, managers, human resource professionals, businesspersons, healthcare administrators, college administrators, law enforcement, therapists, and others. As an attorney, Bill was a Certified Family Law Specialist in California and the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. Before becoming an attorney in 1992, he was a Licensed Clinical Social worker with twelve years of experience providing therapy to children, adults, couples, and families in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics. He serves on the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution faculty at the Pepperdine University School of Law. He is an Associate Professor at the University of Newcastle Law School in Australia. In 2021, Bill received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Professional Family Mediators.Bill has a popular blog on the Psychology Today website with over 3.5 million views and is the author and co-author of twenty books on high-conflict personalities, including two award winners (see all books here):A Quote From this Episode"About 10% of people have these extreme behaviors, and they don't stop themselves and they are dysfunctional."Resources Mentioned in This EpisodeBook: Calming Upset People with EARBook: 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your LifeBook: It's All YOUR Fault! 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for EverythingBook: The Sociopath Next Door by StoutSeries - The StaircaseAbout The International Leadership Association (ILA)The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in studying, practicing, and teaching leadership. Plan for ILA's 25th Global Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, October 12-15, 2023.About The Boler College of Business at John Carroll UniversityBoler offers four MBA programs – 1 Year Flexible, Hybrid, Online, and Professional. Each MBA track offers flexible timelines and various class structure options (online, in-person, hybrid, asynchronous). Boler's tech core and international study tour opportunities set these MBA programs apart. Rankings highlighted in the intro are taken from CEO Magazine.About  Scott J. AllenWebsiteMy Approach to HostingThe views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are views to consider, and I hope they help you clarify your perspective. Nothing can replace your reflection, research, and exploration of the topic.

Mr. Phil Little is not the first guest on TRP Podcast who's been shot at by terrorists, but it's a fairly small group of guests that "enjoy" that distinction. Our guest today is the long-time chief of West Coast Detectives, originally an LA-based private investigative and counter-terrorism agency with offices in several foreign countries that is several decades old. Mr. Little was a special guest speaker in Dr. Mather's Pepperdine University School of Business course "Business Ethics and Public Policy", Fall 2009 in Malibu, California. He's also the father of one of Dr. Mather's Logic-in-Practice students at Pierce College (Woodland Hills in the Valley, LA) in Fall 2009. Mr. Little is the author of "Hostile Intent: Protecting Yourself From Terrorism," about his life as an investigator and head of a growing, private intelligence gathering firm working with public entities on counter-terrorism since the 1970s. Enjoy ! Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Today, we're thrilled to have Peggy Klaus, President & Founder of Klaus & Associates, as our special guest. From Hollywood beginnings to championing women in leadership, Peggy's inspiring journey led her to author two game-changing books, "The Hard Truth About Soft Skills" and "Brag! The Art of Tooting Your Own Horn Without Blowing It." These books have become invaluable resources for those seeking to improve their soft skills and self-promotion techniques. Peggy has also developed an empowering program called "Unstoppable," which addresses key issues critical for women's success, including confidence,fearlessness, and purpose. Today, Peggy shares with us priceless tips for self-promotion, including tackling the issue of avoiding the "bitch" label in the workplace. Peggy reminds us of the importance of taking risks, embracing failure, and ultimately being proud of ourselves. For Peggy, self-promotion and "bragging" are about finding the sweet spot between humble and obnoxious and celebrating our accomplishments with confidence. Join us for this engaging and inspiring conversation with Peggy Klaus, and discover how to master the art of self-promotion and be proud of your achievements! Visit https://www.gobeyondbarriers.com where you will find show notes and links to all the resources in this episode, including the best way to get in touch with Peggy. Highlights: [01:11] How Peggy got to where she is professionally [05:00] Soft skills that are difficult to women [10:05] Strategies for making risks [14:08] How to self-promote [20:09] Overcoming feelings of humility [22:59] The soft skill you should work on [25:47] Taking inventory of your strengths and weaknesses [27:22] Lightning round questions Quotes: “The hardest skills are the soft skills.” – Peggy Klaus “You've got to fail to succeed.” – Peggy Klaus “Humility is lovely but not when it makes one ineffectually humble.” – Peggy Klaus Lightning Round Questions: What book has greatly influenced you? - “The 1619 Project” by Nikole Hannah-Jones What is your favorite inspiring quote or saying? - I don't know what someone else's journey is. What is one word or moniker you would use to describe yourself? - Energizer bunny What is one change you've implanted that made your life better? - I changed my marital status and moved to Santa Fe What power song would you want playing as you walk out onto a stage? - “Here Comes the Sun” by Richie Havens or The Beatles About  Peggy Klaus: You may have seen Peggy Klaus on Nightline, 20/20, and The Today Show, or have read her advice in the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine, Harvard Business Review, and O Magazine. She is the author of two best-selling books, BRAG! The Art of Tooting Your Own Horn Without Blowing It and The Hard Truth About Soft Skills: Workplace Lessons Smart People Wish They'd Learned Sooner. As a communication and leadership expert, Peggy has spent more than two decades helping thousands of professionals from Fortune 500's, mid-size companies, and start-ups succeed in their jobs. She has also dedicated much of her career to empowering women of all ages. And, once again, Peggy brings this work into the spotlight with the launch of “Unstoppable!” — her new, cutting-edge program designed to address the key issues critical for women's success: confidence, fearlessness, and purpose, among others. Taking her message from the boardroom to the classroom, she has lectured to both students and faculty at universities across the country including Harvard University's School of Public Health, Wharton's Executive MBA Program, U.C. Berkeley's Haas School of Business, Boalt School of Law, and the School of Public Health & Sciences, the University of Virginia, Pepperdine University School of Law, and the Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University. Peggy began her career as an actor and classical singer, earning advanced degrees in drama, speech and theatre from the London-based Royal Academy of Music and The Drama Studio. From England she moved to Hollywood, working as a producer, director, and talent coach for actors, comedians, musicians and broadcasters in production for Paramount Studios, Warner Brothers, ABC, CBS, and NBC. When not training individuals and groups or speaking to audiences around the world, Peggy coaches political candidates to effectively communicate their values and vision with authenticity and candor. When not working, she can be found enjoying the incredible beauty of Santa Fe, New Mexico where she lives. Links: Website: https://peggyklaus.com/ Books: https://peggyklaus.com/books/ LinkedIn URL: https://www.linkedin.com/in/peggy-klaus-705730/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/pegklaus Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peggy.klaus.311

0:00 - CDP under investigation for possibly ignoring an assault on Wabash Ave last Saturday.  Good Samaritan, Lenora Dennis says several cop cars just drove by and did not help the couple. That  is the reason why she took matters into her own hand   13:14 - Dan & Amy take reaction to the CPD investigation and the "riot" from last Saturday. Callers include some of our retired CPD listeners   32:42 - Dan & Amy react to Don Lemon's interview with Vivek Ramaswamy   52:41 - Dan & Amy respond to the TN 3 getting an invite to the White House but not Covenant School families   01:11:19 - Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School, William Jacobson, weighs in on the Dominion v FOX settlement also Hunter Biden and the IRS whistleblower. Professor Jacobson is also founder of LeagalInsurection.com and president of the Legal Insurrection Foundation   01:28:22 - John Stossel, host and creator of Stossel TV: The Media and Politicians Keep Trying To Censor Things That Turn Out To Be True. John releases a new video every Tuesday available at JohnStossel.com   01:44:20 - Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute, Jordan McGillis, asks Can Chicago Survive Brandon Johnson? and the forthcoming Urban Doom Loop   02:00:25 - Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and former chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, Andy Puzder, has a plan for The Biden Economy and How It Could Be Fixed Andy is also the author of  Getting America Back to Work and It's Time to Let America Work See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Elizabeth Edwards Spalding is the founding director of the Victims of Communism Museum and chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Elizabeth is a visiting fellow at Hillsdale College's Van Andel Graduate School of Government and a senior fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. She has devoted her career to researching and educating generations about the history and horrors of communism. She is the author of "The First Cold Warrior: Harry Truman, Containment and the Remaking of Liberal Internationalism" and "A Brief History of the Cold War," which she co-authored with her father, Lee Edwards. Elizabeth is an alumna of the 1986 TFAS Journalism and Communications program. She earned a bachelor's in politics from Hillsdale College, and both a Ph.D. and a master's in international politics and political theory from the University of Virginia.In this week's Liberty + Leadership Podcast, Roger and Elizabeth discuss her childhood growing up in Washington, D.C., how falling in love with learning turned her into a lifelong student, how studying Truman is critical to understanding the Cold War, her work at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and the personal power of the Witness Project at the Victims of Communism Museum.The Liberty + Leadership Podcast is hosted by TFAS President Roger Ream and produced by kglobal. If you have a comment or question for the show, please drop us an email at podcast@TFAS.org.Support the show

IntroductionWhile the Passover Seder is a celebration of the freedom of our Jewish ancestors from Egyptian slavery and becoming a nation, it is hard to picture this in terms of what the experience of being in the Holocaust, as it was very much not an experience of freedom. Moreover, a cornerstone of the Passover Seder experience is drinking a minimum of four cups as part of the expression of our freedom. However, what was possible to do while in the ghettos of the Nazis? Based on his "Jewish Law From out of the Depths: Tragic Choices in the Holocaust", The Jewish Drinking Show's first Holocaust episode welcomes Professor Samuel J. Levine to discuss this matter on the 131st episode of the show.Biography of GuestProfessor Levine joined the Touro Law Center faculty in 2010 as Professor of Law and Director of the Jewish Law Institute. He previously served as Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law, and he has served as the Beznos Distinguished Professor at Michigan State University College of Law. His scholarship has been cited in more than 600 articles and books by scholars in 30 countries. He is the author of Jewish Law and American Law: A Comparative Study (Two Volumes) and Was Yosef on the Spectrum? Understanding Joseph Through Torah, Midrash, and Classical Jewish Sources.Support the showThank you for listening!If you have any questions, suggestions, or more, feel free to reach out at Drew@JewishDrinking.coml'chaim!

Qualified Opportunity Zones (QOZ) offer significant benefits to investors and entrepreneurs and can often be overlooked. With this webinar, we are joined by Kirk Walton of GPWM Funds who specializes in QOZ's and maximizing cashflow, tax savings and profit. You will learn how to take advantage of the tax incentives and other benefits available from investing in a QOZ. you'll discover how to make the most of this lucrative investment strategy.Kirk illustrates the benefits of QOZ's by breaking down actual deals he has worked on, and explains how cost segregation studies and accelerated depreciation can generate passive losses which offset future income from assets or W-2 earnings. He also discusses the differences between a 1031 exchange and investing in an opportunity zone fund, such as getting new basis in assets for depreciation deductions and having more time to identify investments.We also discuss how the Opportunity Zone legislation provides a unique window in time for wealthy individuals to change communities and set up their family and children for long term, tax free growth of real estate. He explains that his fund focuses on rehab projects which provide additional tax savings such as deductions from donating old furniture and fixtures, deductions from qualified improvement property, cost segregation studies, and more. Kurt emphasizes the importance of looking at the totality of an individual's situation when considering investing in an Opportunity Zone Fund.About Kirk:Since the late 1990s, Kirk's combination of expertise in taxation, estate planning, law, personal finance, and investments has helped him become an elite comprehensive wealth manager, catering to the needs of high net worth individuals and families, including many prominent entrepreneurs, top level executives and venture capitalists in the technology sector. Prior to founding GPWM, Kirk started Eagle Financial Advisors, a fee-only registered investment advisor, in 2002. Prior to founding his own firm, Kirk was a partner with the Ayco Company (now a Goldman Sachs Company) and is an active member of the Idaho and California state bars. Kirk graduated in 1994 from Brigham Young University, majoring in Classical Studies, and earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Pepperdine University School of Law.To learn more go to: https://gpwmfunds.com/about-gpwm-2

Michael Eisenbaum is the Managing Partner of Gray•Duffy, LLP and has a diversified practice which includes extensive litigation experience. He has successfully represented hundreds of individuals and businesses in the areas of premises liability, contract liability and enforcement, construction defect, product liability, professional liability, personal injury and property damage litigation. Mr. Eisenbaum's expertise includes handling a variety of civil lawsuits from inception through trial and appeal, dealing with the duties of landowners, business owners, heavy equipment operators, and private security companies. He also litigates cases involving various forms of property damage arising out of soil movement, fire, and other causes. In addition, he represents insurance brokers with respect to errors and omissions claims. Mr. Eisenbaum obtained his Juris Doctorate in 1990 from Pepperdine University School of Law, where he was a member of the Pepperdine Law Review. He received his Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Colorado State University in 1987. He grew up in Denver, Colorado. He was admitted to the California Bar in 1990, and is also admitted to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Linkedin: linkedin.com/in/michaeleisenbaum Gray•Duffy, LLP : grayduffylaw.com/ Learn more about EmotionTrac and our AI-driven Emotional Intelligence Platform: https://emotiontrac.com/calendly/

Chris Li, director of research of the Asia-Pacific Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, leads the conversation on U.S. strategy in East Asia. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR.  Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.  We're delighted to have Chris Li with us to discuss U.S. strategy in East Asia. Mr. Li is director of research of the Asia-Pacific Initiative, and a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, where he focuses on U.S.-China relations, Asia-Pacific security, and technology competition. Previously, he was research assistant to Graham Allison in the Avoiding Great Power War Project, and coordinator of the China Working Group, where he contributed to the China Cyber Policy Initiative and the Technology and Public Purpose Project, led by former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.  Chris, thanks very much for being with us today. I thought we could begin with you giving us your insights and analysis of the Biden administration's foreign policy strategy in East Asia, specifically vis-à-vis China.  LI: Great. Well, first of all, thanks, Irina, for the invitation. I'm really looking forward to the conversation and also to all the questions from members of the audience and, in particular, all the students on this seminar. So I thought I'd start very briefly with just an overview of how the Biden administration's strategy in the Indo-Pacific has shaped up over the last two years, two and a half years. What are the key pillars? And essentially, now that we're about halfway through the first term—or, you know, if there is a second term—but President Biden's first term, where things are going to go moving forward?  So as many you are probably familiar, Secretary of State Tony Blinken laid out essentially the core tenets of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, of which China, of course, is a focal centerpiece. And he did so in his speech last summer at the Asia Society, where he essentially described the relationship between the U.S. and China as competitive where it should be, cooperative where it can be, and adversarial where it must be. So sort of three different pillars: competition, cooperation, a sort of balance between the two. And in terms of the actual tenets of the strategy, the framing was three pillars—invest, align, and complete.  And so briefly, just what that meant according to Secretary Blinken was really investing in sources of American strength at home. Renewing, for example, investment in technology, investment in STEM education, infrastructure, and many of the policies that actually became known as Build Back Better, a lot of the domestic spending packages that President Biden proposed, and some of which has been passed. So that first pillar was invest sort of in order to o compete with China, we need to first renew our sources of American strength and compete from a position of strength.  The second element was “align.” And in this—in this pillar, I think this is where the Biden administration has really distinguished itself from the Trump administration. Many folks say, well, the Biden administration's China policy or its Asia policy is really just Trump 2.0 but with a little bit—you know, with essentially a nicer tone to it. But I think there is a difference here. And I think the Biden administration's approach has really focused on aligning with both traditional security partners—our allies, our alliances with countries like the Republic of Korea, Japan, the Philippines—but also invigorating those nontraditional partnerships, with India, for example.   I think another part of this strategy, another part of this dimension, has also been reinvigorating U.S. presence and U.S. leadership, really, in multilateral organizations. Not only, for example, taking the Quad and reestablishing some of the leader-level summits, the ministerials, proposing, for example, a COVID cooperation regime among new members of the Quad, but also establishing newer frameworks. So, for example, as many of you have read about, I'm sure, AUKUS, this trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. when it comes to sharing of nuclear submarine technology. That's been a new proposed policy. And I think we're about to see an update from the administration in the next couple of weeks.  And even with elements of the region that have been unappreciated and perhaps under-focused on. For example, the Solomon Islands was the focal point of some attention last year, and you've seen the administration propose the Partners in the Blue Pacific Initiative, which seeks to establish greater cooperation among some of the Pacific Island nations. And there was actually a summit hosted by President Biden last fall with leaders of the Pacific Island countries. So that alignment piece I think has really been significant as a cornerstone of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy.  The third element, of course, competition, I think is the most evident. And we've seen this from some of the executive orders on semiconductors, the restrictions on advanced chips, to elements of trade, to even sort of advocacy for human rights and greater promotion of democracy. You saw the Summit for Democracy, which has been a pillar of the administration's foreign policy agenda. So that's basically what they've done in the last two and a half years.  Now, in terms of where that's actually brought us, I think I'll make four observations. The first is that, unlike the Biden—unlike the Trump administration, where most of the policy pronouncements about the People's Republic of China had some tinge of inducing change in China—that was the phrase that Secretary Pompeo used in a speech on China policy—I think the Biden administration largely has said: The assumption and the premise of all of our policy toward China is based on the idea that the U.S. government does not seek fundamentally to change the Chinese government, the Chinese regime, the leadership, the administration, the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.  So that is both a markedly important difference, but it's also a part of the strategy that I believe remains ambiguous. And here, the problem is, you know, invest, align, and compete, competitive coexistence, where does that all actually take us? And I think this is where analysts in the strategic community and think tank world have said, well, it's great to invest, of course. You know, there's bipartisan support. Alignment with partners and allies is, of course, a pretty uncontroversial, for the most part, approach. And competition is, I think, largely a consensus view in Washington, D.C. But where does this actually take us?  You know, for all of its criticisms, the Trump administration did propose a specific end state or an end objective. And I think the Biden administration has just sort of said, well, it's about coexisting. It's about just assuming to manage the relationship. I think there are, of course, valid merits to that approach. And on an intellectual level, the idea is that because this is not necessarily a Cold War 2.0, in the words of the Biden administration, we're not going to have an end state that is ala the Cold War—in essence a sort of victory or demise, you know, the triumph of capitalism over communism, et cetera. In fact, it's going to be a persistent and sustained rivalry and competition. And in order to harness a strategy, we essentially need to manage that competition.   So I think that's—it's an intellectually coherent idea, but I think one of the ambiguities surrounding and one of the criticisms that has been proposed is that there is no clear end state. So we compete, we invest, we align, but to what end? Do we just keep—does the administration continue to tighten up and enhance alliances with partners and allies, and then to what end? What happens next? And sort of where does this lead us—leave us in ten years from now? So I think that's the first comment I'll make about the approach to the Indo-Pacific.  The second is that one of the tenets, of course, as I describe, is this compartmentalization of compete, cooperate. In essence, you know, we will compete—we, being the United States—with China on issues of technology, issues of economics, but we will also cooperate on areas of shared concern—climate change, nonproliferation. I think what you've seen is that while the Biden administration has proposed this idea, we can split—we can cooperate on one hand and also compete on the other—the People's Republic of China, the Chinese government, has largely rejected that approach.   Where you've seen statements from senior officials in China that have said, essentially, we will not cooperate with you, the United States, until you first cease all of the behavior, all of the negative policies that we don't like. In essence, if you will continue to sell arms to Taiwan, if you continue, the United States, to restrict semiconductors, to crackdown on espionage, to conduct military exercises in the region, then forget about any potential cooperation on climate, or forget about any cooperation on global health, et cetera.   So in essence, being able to tie the two compartments together has prevented a lot of what the Biden administration has sought to achieve. And we've seen that very clearly with Special Envoy John Kerry and his relentless efforts to conduct climate diplomacy. And I think largely—for example, last summer in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, you saw a lot of those collaborative efforts essentially derailed. That's the second comment I'll make, which is while this approach, again, logically to most Americans would seem sound, it's actually met a lot of resistance because the Chinese reaction to it is not necessarily the same.  The third is I think we've seen increasingly, even though there has been an increased alignment since the Trump administration with allies and partners, there's still a degree of hedging among countries in the region. And that makes sense because from the perspectives of many of those leaders of countries in the region, the United States is a democratic country. We have an election coming up in 2024. And there's no guarantee that the next president, if President Biden is no longer the president in 2024 or even in 2028, will continue this policy.   And I think all of you, as observers of American politics, know the degree to which American politics has become largely one that is dysfunctional, is almost schizophrenic in a way. And so one would imagine that if you are a leader of a country in the Asian-Pacific region, to support the Biden administration's engagement, but also to maintain a degree of strategic autonomy, as this is often called. And so what I think we'll continue to see and what will be interesting to watch is how middle powers, how other countries resident in the region approach the United States in terms of—(inaudible). I think India will be key to watch, for example. Its defense relationship with the United States has increased over the years, but yet it still has close interests with respect to China.  The final comment I'll make is that on the military dimension I think this is another area of concern, where the Biden administration has said that one of its priorities is creating guardrails, constructing guardrails to manage the potential escalation in the event of an accident, or a miscommunication, miscalculation that could quickly spiral into a crisis. And we needn't—we need not look farther than the 2001 Hainan incident to think of an example, which was a collision between a(n) EP-3 aircraft and a Chinese intelligence plane. And that led to a diplomatic standoff.  And so I think the United States government is very keen on creating dialogue between militaries, risk reduction mechanisms, crisis management mechanisms. But I think they've encountered resistance, again, from the People's Republic of China, because the perspective there is that much of the U.S. behavior in the region militarily is invalid, is illegitimate. You know, the Chinese government opposes, for example, U.S. transits through the Taiwan Strait. So the idea therefore that they would engage and essentially deconflict and manage risk is sort of legitimizing American presence there militarily. And so we've encountered that obstacle as well.  So I think going forward on all four elements, we're going to continue to see adjustment. And I think, as students, as researchers, I think these are four areas where there's fertile room for discussion, for debate, for analysis, for looking at history. And I look forward to a conversation. Hopefully, many of you have ideas as well because there's no monopoly on wisdom and there are many creative proposals to be discussed. So I look forward to questions. I'll stop there.  FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you, Chris. That was great. Now we're going to go to all of you.  (Gives queuing instructions.)  Our first written question comes from Grace Wheeler. I believe a graduate student at the University of West Florida. Kissinger proposed the future of China-U.S. relations be one of coevolution instead of confrontation. Is it still realistically possible for the future of China-U.S. relations to be one of cooperation instead of confrontation?  LI: So terrific question. Thank you for the question. It's a very interesting idea. And I think Henry Kissinger, who I know has long been involved with the Council on Foreign Relations, has produced through his many decades,strategic frameworks and new ways of thinking about cardinal challenges to geopolitics. I have not yet actually understood or at least examined specifically what the concrete pillars of coevolution entail. My understanding on a general level is that it means, essentially, the United States and the People's Republic of China adjust and sort of mutually change their policies to accommodate each other. So a sort of mutual accommodation over time to adjust interests in a way that prevent conflict.  I think on the face—of course, that sounds—that sounds very alluring. That sounds like a terrific idea. I think the problem has always been what would actually this look like in implementation? So for example, on the issue of Taiwan, this is an issue where the Chinese government has said: There is no room for compromise. You know, the refrain that they repeat is: Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory. It is part of sovereignty. And there is no room for compromise. This is a red line. So if that's the case, there's not really, in my view, much room for evolution on this issue, for example. And it's an intractable problem.  And so I don't necessarily know how to apply the Kissinger framework to specific examples. And, but, you know, I do think it's something worth considering. And, you know, I would encourage you and others on this call to think about, for example, how that framework might actually be adapted. So I think it's an interesting idea, but I would—I think the devil's in the details. And essentially, to think about how this would be applied to specific issues—South China Sea, human rights, trade—would be the key to unpacking this concept.  I think the second part of your question was, is cooperation possible? And again, I think, as I stated in my remarks, the Biden administration publicly says—publicly asserts that they do seek to maintain a space for cooperation in climate, in nonproliferation, in global health security. I think, again, what we've encountered is that the Chinese government's view is that unless the United States ceases behavior that it deems detrimental to its own interests, it will not pursue any discussion of cooperation.   And so I think that's the problem we're facing. And so I think there are going to be discussions going forward on, well, given that, how do we then balance the need for cooperation on climate, in pandemics, with, for example, also concerns about security, concerns about military activity, concerns about Taiwan, et cetera? And I think this is the daily stuff of, of course, the conversations among the Biden administration and senior leadership. So personally, my view, is I hope cooperation is possible, of course. I think there are shared issues, shared vital interests, between the two countries and, frankly, among the global community, that require the U.S. and China to be able to work out issues. But I'm personally not optimistic that under this current framework, this paradigm, there will be a significant space open for cooperation.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. Going next to Hamza Siddiqui, a raised hand.   Q: Thank you. Hi. I'm Hamza Siddiqui, a student from Minnesota State University, Mankato.   And I actually had two questions. The first was: What kind of role does the U.S. envision Southeast Asian states—especially like the Philippines and Vietnam—playing in their U.S. strategy when it comes to Asia-Pacific security issues, specifically? And the second is that for the last few years there's been some discussion about Japan and South Korea being formally invited to join the Five Eyes alliance. And I wanted to get your take on that. What do you think are the chances that a formal invitation would be extended to them? Thank you.  LI: Great. Thank you for the question. Two terrific questions.  So, first, on the role of countries in Southeast Asia, I think that under the Biden administration they have continued to play an increasing degree of importance. So you've seen, for example, even in the Philippines, which you cited, I think just last month Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made a visit there. And in the aftermath of the visit, he announced a new basing agreement. I haven't reviewed the details specifically, and I'm not a Philippines expert, but in short my understanding is that there is going to be renewed American presence—expanded American presence, actually, in the region.   And the Philippines, just based on their geostrategic location, is incredibly important in the Indo-Pacific region. So I think that the administration is very active in enhancing cooperation on the defense element, but also on the political and economic side as well. So with the Quad, for example, in India, you've seen cooperation on elements of economics as well, and technology. I think there's an initiative about digital cooperation too. So I think the answer is increasingly an important role.   On Japan and Korea, there have, of course, been discussions over the years about expanding the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to other countries in Asia as well. My assessment is that that's probably unlikely to occur in a formal way in the near term. But I could be wrong. And that assessment is primarily based on the fact that the countries that currently are part of the Five Eyes agreement share certain elements of linguistic convergence. They all speak English. There are certain longstanding historical ties that those countries have. And I think that to necessarily expand—or, to expand that existing framework would probably require a degree of bureaucratic sort of rearrangement that might be quite difficult, or quite challenging, or present obstacles.  I think what you will see, though, is enhanced security cooperation, for sure. And we've seen that even with Japan, for example, announcing changes to its military, its self-defense force, and increased defense spending as well in the region. So I think that is a trend that will continue.  FASKIANOS: Next question I'm taking from Sarah Godek, who is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.   What do guardrails look like, from a Chinese perspective? Thinking how China's foreign ministry has consistently put out lists of demands for the U.S. side, I'm wondering how guardrails are formulated by Wang Yi and others.  LI: Great. Thanks for the question.  So I guess I'll step back first and talk about what guardrails, in my view, actually entail. So I think the idea here is that in the event of a crisis—and, most of the time, crises are not planned. (Laughs.) Most of the time, crises, you know, occur as a result of an accident. For example, like the 2001 incident. But an accidental collision in the South China Sea between two vessels, the collision accidentally of two planes operating in close proximity. And as Chinese and American forces operate in closer proximity and increasing frequency, we do have that risk.   So I think, again, the idea of a guardrail that essentially, in the military domain, which is what I'm speaking about, entails a mechanism in place such that in the event of an accident or a crisis, there are ways based on that mechanism to diffuse that crisis, or at least sort of stabilize things before the political leadership can work out a solution. In essence, to prevent escalation because of a lack of dialogue. And I think for those of you who've studied history, you know that many wars, many conflicts have occurred not because one power, one state decides to launch a war. That has occurred. But oftentimes, because there is an accident, an accidental collision. And I think many wars have occurred this way.  So the idea of a guardrail therefore, in the military domain, is to create, for example, channels of communication that could be used in the event of a conflict. I think the easiest parallel to imagine is the U.S. and the Soviet Union, where there were hotlines, for example, between Moscow and between Washington, D.C. during that era, where the seniormost national security aides of the presidents could directly reach out to each other in the event of a crisis.   In the China context, what has been difficult is some of those channels exist. For example, the National Security Council Coordinator for Asia Kurt Campbell has said publicly: We have hotlines. The problem is that when the Americans pick up the phone and call, no one picks up on the other side. And in short, you know, having just the structure, the infrastructure, is insufficient if those infrastructure are not being used by the other side.   I think with respect to the U.S.-China context, probably, again, as I mentioned earlier, the largest obstacle is the fact that guardrails help the United States—or, in the Chinese perspective—from the Chinese perspective, any of these guardrails would essentially allow the U.S. to operate with greater confidence that, in the event of an accident, we will be able to control escalation. And from the Chinese perspective, they argue that because the United States fundamentally shouldn't be operating in the Taiwan Strait anyway, therefore by constructing that guardrail, by, for example, having dialogue to manage that risk, it would be legitimizing an illegitimate presence in the first place.   So that's always been perennially the problem. And I think the argument that the United States has made is that, well, sure, that may be your position. But it is in your interest as well not to have an accident spiral into a conflict. And so I think we've seen not a lot of progress on this front. I think, for example, in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi's visit, there—you know, a lot of the defense cooperation ties were suspended.   But the last comment I'll make is that that doesn't necessarily mean that all dialogue has been stayed. There are still active channels between the United States and China. We have embassies in each other's countries. From public remarks, it seems like during moments of enhanced tension there are still ways for both governments to communicate with each other. So I think the good news is that it's not completely like the two countries aren't speaking to each other, but I think that there are not as many channels for reducing risk, managing potential crises, in the military sphere that exist today, that probably should exist.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Michael Long. Let's see. You need to unmute yourself.  LI: It looks like he's dropped off.  FASKIANOS: It looks like he put down his hand. OK. So let's go next to Conor O'Hara.  Q: Hi. My name is Conor O'Hara. And I'm a graduate student at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.  In one of my classes, titled America's Role in the World, we often talk about how America really does not have a comprehensive understanding of China. Not only China's military and state department, but really China as a society. How can Americans change that? And where does America need to focus its efforts in understanding China? And then also, one other thing I think of, is, you know, where does that understanding begin? You know, how early in someone's education or really within, say, the United States State Department do we need to focus our efforts on building an understanding? Thank you.  LI: Great. Well, thanks for the question. It's a great question. Very hard challenge as well.  I think that's absolutely true. I think the degree of understanding of China—of actually most countries—(laughs)—around the world—among senior U.S. foreign policy practitioners, I think, is insufficient. I think particularly with respect to China, and also Asia broadly, much of the diplomatic corps, the military establishment, intelligence officers, many of those people have essentially cut their teeth over the last twenty-five years focusing on the Middle East and counterterrorism. And that makes sense because the United States was engaged in two wars in that region.  But going back farther, many of the national security professionals before that generation were focused on the Soviet Union, obviously because of the Cold War. And so really, you're absolutely correct that the number of people in the United States government who have deep China expertise academically or even professionally on the ground, or even have the linguistic ability to, you know, speak Mandarin, or other countries—or, languages of other countries in East Asia, I think is absolutely limited. I think the State Department, of course, has—as well as the intelligence community, as well as the Department of Defense—has tried to over the last few years reorient and rebalance priorities and resources there. But I think it's still—my understanding, today it's still limited. And I think there's a lot of work to be done.  I think your question on how do you understand China as a society, I think with any country, number one, of course, is history. You know, every country's politics, its policy, its government is informed by its history of, you know, modern history but also history going back farther. And I think China is no exception. In fact, Chinese society, and even the Communist Party of China, is deeply, I think, entrenched in a historical understanding of its role in the world, of how it interacts compared with its people, its citizens, its foreign conflicts. And so I think, number one is to understand the history of modern China. And I think anyone who seeks to be involved in discussions and research and debate on China does need to understand that history.  I think the second point is linguistics is actually quite important. Being able to speak the language, read the language, understand the language is important. Because so much of what is written—so much of our knowledge as, you know, American think tank researchers, is based on publicly available information in China. And a lot of that primarily is in Mandarin. So most speeches that the senior leadership of China deliver are actually in Mandarin. And some of them are translated, but not all of them. A lot of the documents that they issue, a lot of academics who write about—academics in China who write about foreign policy and international relations, write in Mandarin.  And so I think that an ability to be able to read in the original text is quite important. And in fact, you know, a lot of the nuances, and specifically in the Communist Party's ideology, how it sees itself, its role in the world, a lot of that really is best captured and best understood in its original language. Some of the—you know, the ideology, the campaigns of propaganda, et cetera.  And I think the last part of your question was how early. I am not an education scholar. (Laughs.) I don't study education or developmental psychology. But, you know, I imagine, you know, as with anything, linguistics, language, is best learned—or, most easily learned early on. But I think that does not mean that, you know, someone who's in college or graduate school can't begin to learn in a different language. So I'd answer your question like that.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question from Lucksika Udomsrisumran, a graduate student at New York University.  What is the implication of the Biden administration's three pillars of the Indo-Pacific strategy on the Mekong and the South China Sea? Which pillars do you see these two issues in, from the Biden administration's point of view?  LI: OK. I think, if I'm understanding the question correctly about South China Sea, you know, I think in general the South China Sea probably would most easily fall into the competition category. There are obviously not only the United States and China, but other countries in the region, including the Philippines, for example, are claimants to the South China Sea. And so I think there's always been some disagreement and some tensions in that region.  I think that that has largely been—the U.S. response or U.S. policy in South China Sea is just essentially, from the military perspective, has been to—you know, the slogan is, or the line is, to fly, sail, operate, et cetera—I'm not quoting that correctly—(laughs)—but essentially to operate wherever international law permits. And so that means Freedom of Navigation Operations, et cetera, in the South China Sea. I think that, of course, raises objections from other governments, mainly China, in the region.   So I would say that probably belongs in the competition category. And we spoke about earlier the idea of managing some of the risk that occurs or that emerges when the PLA Navy and the United States Navy operate in close proximity in that region. So from that perspective, if you're talking about risk reduction and crisis management, that actually could fall into collaboration or cooperation. But I think primarily it's competition.   FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Joan Kaufman. And, Joan, I know you wrote your question, but if you could ask it that would be great.  Q: Yes, will. Yes, certainly. Hi, Chris. Really great to see you here during this talk.  LI: Yeah, likewise.  Q: A proud Schwarzman Scholar.  I wanted to ask you a question about Ukraine and China's, you know, kind of difficult position in the middle almost, you know, as sort of seemingly allied with Russia, or certainly not criticizing Russia. And then just putting forth this twelve-point peace plan last week for—and offering to broker peace negotiations and a ceasefire for Ukraine. You know, there's no love lost in Washington for China on, you know, how it has positioned itself on this issue. And, you know, frankly, given China's own kind of preoccupation with sovereignty over the years, how do you see the whole thing? And what comments might you make on that?  LI: Right. Well, first of all, thanks so much, Joan, for joining. And very grateful for all of—all that you've done for the Schwarzman Scholars Program over the past. I appreciate your time very much.  The Ukraine problem is an incredibly important one. And I think absolutely China is involved. And it's a very complicated position that it's trying to occupy here, with both supporting its security partner, Russia, but also not directly being involved in the conflict because of U.S. opposition and opposition from NATO. So I think it's—obviously, China is playing a very delicate balancing role here.  I think a couple points. So the first is that I think my view is that, for the Chinese leadership, Ukraine—or, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a deeply uncomfortable geopolitical situation, where there is essentially not a—there's no good outcome, really, because, as you mentioned, Ukraine is a country with which China has diplomatic recognition. It recognizes it. It has an embassy there. And the Chinese foreign ministry, Chinese foreign policy, has long very much supported the concept of sovereignty, and being able to determine your own future as a country. And I think, in fact, that's been one of the pillars and one of the objections to many American actions in the past. So on one hand, it says: We support sovereignty of every country, of which Ukraine is a country that is recognized by China.  And on the other hand, though, Russia, of course, which has had long complaints and issues with NATO expansion, is a partner of China. And so it's obviously supporting Russia. It has alignment of interests between Russia and China in many ways, in many dimensions, including objections to, for example, U.S. presence in Europe, U.S. presence in Asia. So it's a delicate balancing act. And I think from what we've seen, there hasn't been sort of a clear one-sided answer, where you've seen both statements, you know, proposing peace and saying that, you know, all sides should deescalate. But on the other hand, the U.S. government, the Biden administration, is now publicly stating that they are concerned about China potentially lending support to Russia.  So, you know, in short, I think it's very difficult to really understand what exactly is going on in the minds of the Chinese leadership. But I think that we'll continue to see sort of this awkward back and forth and trying—this purported balancing act between both sides. But I think, you know, largely—my assessment is that it's not going to go very clearly in one direction or the other.  I think the other comment I would make is that I think, from Beijing's perspective, the clear analogy here is one for Taiwan. Because—and this has been something that has been discussed in the think tank community very extensively. But the expectation I think among many in Washington was that Ukraine would not be able to put up much resistance. In short, this would be a very, very easy victory for Putin. And I think that was a—you know, not a universal consensus, but many people believed that, in short, Russia with all of its military might, would have no issues subjugating Ukraine very quickly.  I think people have largely found that to be, you know, a strategic failure on Russia's part. And so today, you know, one year after the invasion, Ukraine is still sovereign, is still standing, is still strong. And so I think—from that perspective, I think this—the war in Ukraine must give many of the leaders in China pause when it comes to thinking about a Taiwan continency, especially using force against Taiwan. Because, again, I think the degree of support, both militarily, politically, economically, for the resistance that Ukraine has shown against Russia among NATO members, among other Western countries, I think has been deeply surprising to many observers how robust that support has been. And I think that if you're sitting in Beijing and thinking about what a potential response to a Taiwan contingency might be, that would absolutely inform your calculus.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Lindsey McCormack, a graduate student at Baruch College.  How is the Biden administration's compete, cooperate, limited adversarial approach playing out with climate policy? What are you seeing right now in terms of the Chinese government's approach to energy security and climate?  LI: Yeah. It's a great question. Thanks for the question.  You know, we mentioned earlier, you know, I think the Biden administration's approach has been, you know, despite all of the disagreements between the United States and the Chinese government, there should be room for cooperation on climate because, as the Biden administration says, the climate is an existential risk to all of humanity. It's an issue of shared concern. So it's one that is not defined by any given country or constrained to one set of borders. I think it's largely not been very successful, in short, because China has not seemed to display much interest in cooperating on climate with the United States. And, again, China has largely coupled cooperation, linked cooperation in climate—or, on climate to other issues.  And so, you know, I think it's been reported that at several of the meetings between Secretary Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese officials had essentially given the American officials a list saying: Here are the twenty-something things that we object to. Why don't you stop all of these, correct all of your mistakes—so to speak—and then we'll talk about what we can do next. And so I think, again, that—you know, that, to me, indicates that this framework of compartmentalizing cooperation and competition has some flaws, because the idea that you can simply compartmentalize and say: We're going to cooperate at full capacity on climate, but we're not going to—you know, but we'll compete on technology, it just—it actually doesn't work in this situation.  I think the other comment I'll make is that what the Biden administration has done is—which I think has been effective—is reframed the notion of cooperation. Where, in the past, cooperation was sort of viewed as a favor that the Chinese government did to the Americans, to the American government. That if we—if the United States, you know, offered certain inducements or there were strong elements of the relationship, then China would cooperate and that would be a favor.   And I think the Biden administration has reframed that approach, where cooperation is now presented not as a favor that any country does to another, but rather sort of is shared here. And that this is something of concern to China, to the United States, to other countries, and so all major countries need to play their part, and step up their game, to take on. I think, unfortunately, it hasn't been extremely successful. But I think that there—I hope that there will be future progress made in this area.  FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Jeremiah Ostriker, who has raised—a raised hand, and also written your question. But you can ask it yourself. And you have to accept the unmute prompt. Is that happening? All right. I think I might have to read it.  Q: Am I unmuted now?  FASKIANOS: Oh, you are. Fantastic.  Q: OK. First, I'll say who I am. I am a retired professor from Princeton University and Columbia University and was an administrative provost at Princeton.  And our China policies have puzzled me. I have visited China many times. And I have wondered—I'll quote my questions now—I have wondered why we are as negative towards China as we have been. So specifically, does the U.S. foreign policy establishment need enemies to justify its existence? Is it looking around the world for enemies? And why should we care if other countries choose to govern themselves in ways which are antithetical to the way that we choose to govern ourselves? And, finally, why not cooperate with all countries on projects of common interest, regardless of other issues?  LI: Great. Well, first of all, thank you for the question—or, three questions, which are all extremely important. I'll do my best to answer, but these are very difficult questions, and I think they touch on a more philosophical understanding of what is American foreign policy for, what is the purpose of America's role in the world, et cetera. But I'll try to do my best.  I think on the first part, does the United States need enemies, is it looking to make enemies? I think if you asked any—and these are, of course, my own assessments. I think if you asked any administration official, whether in this current administration or in previous administrations—Republican or Democrat—I don't think anyone would answer “yes.” I think the argument that has been made across administrations in a bipartisan fashion is that foreign policy is fundamentally about defending American interests and American values. In essence, being able to support the American way of life, which obviously is not necessarily one clearly defined entity. (Laughs.)  But I think, therefore, all of our policy toward China is sort of geared at maintaining, or securing, defending U.S. interests in the region. And where the argument about your question comes into play is that I think a lot of—the Biden administration, the Trump administration, the Obama administration would argue that many of the concerns that the United States has with China are not fundamentally only about internal issues, where this is a question of how they govern themselves. But they touch upon issues of shared concern. They touch upon issues that actually affect U.S. interests.   And so, for example, the South China Sea is, again—is a space that is—contains much trade. There are many different countries in the region that access the South China Sea. So it's not necessarily just an issue—and, again, this is Secretary Blinken's position that he made clear—it's not just an issue specific to China. It does touch upon global trade, global economics, global rules, and global order. And I think this is the term that has been often used, sort of this liberal international rules-based order.   And while that's sort of an amorphous concept, in essence what I think the term implies is the idea that there are certain standards and rules by which different countries operate that allow for the orderly and for the peaceful and the secure exchange of goods, of ideas, of people, of—so that each country is secure. And I think this—again, this broader concept is why I think successive U.S. administrations have focused on China policy, because I think some of, in their view, China's behaviors impinge on U.S. interests in the region.   I think the second question is why should we care about how other countries govern themselves? I think in a way, the answer the Biden administration—this current administration has given to that question is: The U.S. government under President Biden is not trying to fundamentally change the Chinese system of governance. And I think you've seen Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken say that publicly, that they are not seeking the collapse or the fundamental change in the Communist Party's rule of China. So I think in that sense, they have made that—they have made that response. I think, again, where there are issues—there are tensions, is when actions that the Chinese government take then touch upon U.S. interests. And I think we see that in Taiwan. We see that with economics. We see that with trade, et cetera.   And then finally, why not cooperate with every country in the world? I think obviously in an ideal world, that would be the case. All countries would be able to only cooperate, and all concerns shared among different nations would be addressed. I think unfortunately one of the problems that we're seeing now is that large major powers, like China and Russia, have very different worldviews. They see a world that is very different in its structure, and its architecture, and its organization, than the one that the U.S. sees. And I think that's what's led to a lot of tension.  FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Julius Haferkorn, a student at California State University and Tübingen University, in Germany.  Ever since the escalation of the Ukraine war, there are discussions about the risk that, should Russia be successful with its invasion, China might use this as a template in regards to Taiwan. In your opinion, is this a realistic scenario?  LI: Great. Thanks for the question.  I think there are definitely analogies to be drawn between Ukraine and Taiwan, but I think there are also significant differences. The first is the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is one of two sovereign nations that the United States and international community recognizes. I think with Taiwan, what has—going back to our history question—Taiwan is a very complicated issue, even with regard to U.S. policies. The United States does not recognize Taiwan formally as an independent country. The United States actually does not take a position on the status of Taiwan. Briefly, the One China Policy, as articulated in the three communiques, the three joint communiques, essentially says that the United States government acknowledges the Chinese position that there is one China, and Taiwan is part of China, et cetera, et cetera.  And that word “acknowledge” is pretty key, because in essential its strategic ambiguity. It's saying, we acknowledge that the PRC government says this. We don't challenge that position. But we don't necessarily recognize or completely accept. And, obviously, the Mandarin version of the text is slightly different. It uses a term that is closer to “recognize.” But that ambiguity, in a way, permitted normalization and led to the democratization of Taiwan, China's economic growth and miracle, its anti-poverty campaign. So in essence, it's worked—this model has worked for the last forty-something years.  But I think that does mean that the situation across the Taiwan Strait is very different, because here the United States does not recognize two countries on both sides of the strait. Rather, it has this ambiguity, this policy of ambiguity. And in short, the only U.S. criterion for resolution of issues across the Taiwan Strait is peace. So all of the documents that the U.S. has articulated over successive administrations essentially boil down to: As long as the resolution of issues between Taiwan and the PRC and mainland China are peaceful, then the United States is not involved. That the only thing that the United States opposes is a forceful resolution—use of military force, use of coercion. And that's what is problematic.  I think what you've seen increasingly over the last few years is a sort of—it's not a formal shift away from that policy, but definitely slowly edging away from that policy. Now, any administration official will always deny that there are any changes to our One China Policy. And I think that's always been the refrain: Our One China Policy has not changed. But you've actually seen within that One China Policy framework adjustments, accommodations—or, not accommodations—but adjustments, recalibrations. And the way that the successive U.S. administrations defend that or justify it, is because it is our—it is the American One China Policy. Therefore, we can define what that One China Policy actually means.  But you have seen, in essence, greater increased relations and exchanges between officials in Taiwan, officials in the United States. I think it was publicly reported just a couple weeks ago that some of the senior national security officials in Taipei visited the United States. Secretary Pompeo at the end of his tenure as secretary of state changed some of the previous restrictions on—that were self-imposed restrictions—on interactions between the government in Taiwan and the government in the United States. So we're seeing some changes here. And I think that has led to—or, that is one element that has led to some of the tensions across the Taiwan Strait.   Obviously, from Beijing's perspective, it sees that as the U.S. sliding away from its commitments. Now, on the other hand, Beijing, of course, has also started to change its policy, despite claiming that its policy is exactly the same. You've seen greater military incursions in Taiwan's air defense identification zone, with planes, fighter jets, that are essentially flying around the island. You've seen greater geoeconomic coercion targeted at Taiwan in terms of sanctions. So you've seen essentially changes on all sides.  And so the final point I'll leave here—I'll leave with you is that the refrain that the United States government articulates of opposing any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side, to me, is actually quite ambiguous. Because there's never been a status quo that has truly existed. It's always been a dynamic equilibrium between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington, D.C. Where Beijing is seeking to move Taiwan toward unification. Taiwan, at least under its current leadership, under Tsai Ing-wen, is obviously seeking, in a way, to move from at least—at least to move toward de facto or maintain de facto independence. Whether it's moving toward de jure is a topic of debate. And then the United States, of course, is enhancing its relationship with Taiwan.  So there's never been a static status quo between the three sides. It's always been a dynamic, evolving and changing equilibrium. Which is why the concept of opposing unilateral changes to the status quo, in my view, is almost paradoxical, because there has never been a status quo in the first place.  FASKIANOS: There has been some talk that Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, is planning a trip to Taiwan. Given what happened with Speaker Pelosi, is that a—what do you think of that musing, to go to Taiwan, to actually do that?  LI: Mhm, yes. I think that's obviously been reported on. I think it's an area of close attention from everyone watching this space. I haven't seen any reports. All I can say is based on what I've seen reported in the media. And it seems like, based on—because of domestic preoccupations, that trip, whether it happens or not, is right now, at the moment, on the back burner. But I think that if he were to go, I think it would certainly precipitate a quite significant response from China. And I think whether that would be larger or smaller than what happened after Speaker Pelosi's visit, I think is something that is uncertain now.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. We'll go next to Autumn Hauge.  Q: Hi. I'm Autumn Hauge. I'm a student at Minnesota State University, Mankato.  So my question is, since a focus of the Biden administration's foreign policy is the relationship between the United States and China, and another focus is to invest and grow a presence in the Indo-Pacific region, specifically looking at the relationship between the United States and the Micronesian country of the Republic of Palau, whose government has openly shared their support for Taiwan, do you think that the United States' long history with the Republic of Palau, and their connection to their support—the Republic of Palau's support to Taiwan, halters the ability for the U.S. to grow a positive relation with China? Thank you.  LI: Great. Thanks for the question. It's a great question.  I am not an expert on Palau or its politics. I do know that Palau has enhanced its exchanges, it relationship with Taipei, over the last few years. I think we saw Palau's president, I think, visit Taipei. I think the U.S. ambassador to Palau actually visited Taipei. And there have been increasing—during COVID, there was a discussion of a travel bubble between Taiwan and Palau. So there's definitely been increasing exchange.  I think in general this has always been a key obstacle to U.S.-China relations, which is any country that still recognizes the Republic of China—that is the formal name of the government currently in Taiwan—I think presents a significant issue. Because for the PRC, recognition of the One China—what they call the One China Principle, the idea that there is one China, Taiwan is part of that China, and the legitimate government of China is the People's Republic of China, is a precondition for any diplomatic normalization with Beijing. And so I think certainly, you know, there are a small handful of countries that still recognize the ROC, but I think that they—you know, for those countries and their relationships with the PRC, of course, that's a significant hindrance.  In what you've seen in the U.S. government in the past few years is that for countries that derecognize Taipei and sort of switch recognition to Beijing, the PRC, there's been discussion—I think, there have been several bills introduced, in essence, to punish those countries. I don't necessarily think that those bills have ended up becoming law, but I think there is, given the current political dynamics, the sort of views on China in Washington, D.C., there is this sense that the U.S. needs to support countries that still recognize Taiwan, the ROC, and be able to provide support so that they don't feel pressured to switch their recognition.  My personal view is that I think that that is, on the whole, relatively insignificant. I won't say that it's completely not significant, but I think that in general issues around the Taiwan Strait, cross-strait relations, I think military issues, I think political issues related to exchanges between Taiwan and Beijing, I think those issues are much more important and much more critical to driving changes in the relationship across the Taiwan Strait.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to try and sneak in one last question from Wim Wiewel, who's a student at Portland State University.   Given your pessimism about cooperation combined with competition, what do you think is the long-term future for U.S.-China relations?  LI: OK. Well, thanks for the question. I'm not sure that I can provide a satisfying answer. And, in fact, I don't have the answer. You know, I think if anyone had the answer, then they should immediately tell the Biden administration that they've solved the problem.  Even though I am pessimistic about this current framework, just because of its demonstrated effects, I still think that in general the likelihood of a real war, which I think people have floated now—you know, Professor Graham Allison, who I used to work for, wrote a book called Destined for War? I still believe that the probability of all-out great-power conflict in a kinetic way, a military way, is still relatively low. I think that there are significant differences today compared to the era during World War I and World War II era.   I think that the degree of economic interdependence between China and not only the United States but the rest of the world, I think is a significant gamechanger in how countries position themselves vis-à-vis China. I think Europe is the great example here of how there are many countries that invest, have business relationships, have trade with China. And so therefore, their policy on China has been a little bit more calibrated than what the United States has been doing.   And so on the whole, I think most people still recognize that any great-power war between the United States and China would be utterly catastrophic. And I think that despite all the tensions that exist today, I think that that recognition, that consensus is pretty universally held, that a great-power war between the U.S. and China would be extremely bad. I think that is—that is probably something that is understood by Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, folks in Beijing, folks around the world, in the region. And so I think that, hopefully, that idea, that despite disagreements, despite political tensions, the need to prevent all-out global conflict is quite important, is a vital interest, I think, hopefully, to me, provides some optimism. And hopefully we'll be able to continue to carry our relationship with China through.  And I'm hopeful especially that all of you students, researchers, who hope to study, and write about, and even perhaps participate in American foreign policy, will continue to think. Because so much of the future of the U.S.-China relationship and U.S. foreign policy is going to be determined by your generation. So with that, I guess this would be a perfect place to stop. And I thank you for the question.   FASKIANOS: Absolutely. Well, Chris, this has been fantastic. I apologize to all of you. We had many more—many questions in the written part and raised hands. And I'm sorry that we could not get to all of them. We'll just have to have you back and continue to cover this issue. So we really appreciate your insights, Chris Li. So thank you again.  The next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, March 22, at 1:00 p.m. (EDT). Brian Winter, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly will lead a conversation on U.S. relations with South America. And in the meantime, please do learn more about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_academic, and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. And I'm sure you can also go to the Belfer Center for additional analysis by Chris Li. So I encourage you to go there as well.  Thank you all, again, for being with us, and we look forward to continuing the conversation on March 22. So thank you, all. Thanks, Chris.  LI: Thank you.  (END) 

In this episode of the Strategic Multifamily Investing Podcast, I speak with David Blatt about Distressed Real Estate in 2023. David Blatt is the CEO of CapStack Partners, an investment firm specializing in real estate debt investments. He has hosted the real estate investment YouTube and podcast, "Make the Deal: Real Estate Investing with David Blatt" and has been a regular contributor to New York's top commercial real estate trade publication, Commercial Observer. He is a frequent public speaker on entrepreneurship, innovation and capital & investment trends in real estate and has spoken at top real estate conferences such as: IMN, ISS World Expo, Real Estate Finance & Investment Institutional Investor Forum and GlobeSt.com's RealShare Annual Conference, among others. Blatt has been frequently sourced by national business and real estate trade outlets, including the Financial Times, LA Times, GlobeSt, Commercial Observer and The Real Deal for his expert opinions on how to make good investment decisions, how to effectively negotiate and structure deals and where to invest in the real estate industry. He has also been a guest on such YouTube shows as Grant Cardone, Jake and Gino, CEO Money, as well as podcasts such as Embracing Uncertainty. Prior to CapStack, Blatt was a founding Principal at DBP Capital in New York where he ran a special situations fund for over a decade that acquired and repositioned distressed real estate assets. Since 2001, Blatt has been involved in the negotiating and structuring of countless acquisitions and brings an expert level understanding to successfully capitalizing and closing a deal. Blatt is a member of the Bloomberg Breakaway CEO network, an influential circle of international leaders, investors, technologists and policymakers, and has participated at the prestigious World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He is also a former NYU professor of Negotiation. Blatt earned a Bachelor's of Science in Business Management from Yeshiva University, JD from Cardozo School of Law, Executive MBA from Baruch College, and Master's in Negotiation & Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine University School of Law. He is a Registered Investment Advisor, is admitted to practice law in New York, New Jersey and California., and is a real estate broker in New York and Florida. For more information on David Blatt or CapStack Partners, please visit ww.CapStackPartners.com or https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidblatt-capstackceo/ === Podcast: http://anchor.fm/smip Website: http://www.RedBootLLC.com. Email: marketing@redbootllc.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/red-boot-llc #ApartmentInvesting, #RealEstateTnvesting, #Multi-familyProperties, Cash flow, Passive income, Property management, Market analysis, Financing options, Rehabilitation and renovation, Tax benefits of apartment investing, Strategic Multifamily Investing Podcast, Jonathan Mickles

This series is sponsored by Ari and Danielle Schwartz in memory of Danielle's grandfather, Mr. Baruch Mappa, Baruch Ben Asher Zelig HaLevi.In this episode of the 18Forty Podcast, we speak to Michael A. Helfand, a Pepperdine Law professor specializing in religious liberty, about the meaning of the First Amendment as it relates to the funding of religious schools.With education so deeply essential to the modern Jewish community, we are confronted with the high cost of private schooling. In America, is the government able to step in and help? Should it? Why doesn't the government fully fund religious schools?What is the “Lemon test”?Does “separation of the church and state” mean the government cannot support any religious institution, or only that it must support all religious institutions equally?Tune in to hear a conversation about the history and status of religious schools in American law.Interview begins at 9:58.Professor Michael Helfand is an expert on religious law and religious liberty. A frequent author and lecturer, his work considers how U.S. law treats religious law, custom and practice, focusing on the intersection of private law and religion in contexts such as religious arbitration, religious contracts and religious torts. He is currently an associate professor at Pepperdine University School of Law and co-director of Pepperdine University's Diane and Guilford Glazer Institute for Jewish Studies. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School and his Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University. Professor Helfand is an executive board member of the Beth Din of America, where he serves as a consultant on the enforceability of rabbinical arbitration agreements and awards in U.S. courts.References:The New American Judaism by Jack Wertheimer“Remembering Rabbi Norman Lamm” by Michael A. HelfandTo Build a Wall by Gregg IversReligion and State in the American Jewish Experience by Jonathan D. Sarna and David G. Dalin

By Jared Samuelson Dr. Robert Anderson joins the program to discuss his paper, “The Sea Corporation,” on maritime organizational law. Dr. Anderson is a Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law. Download Sea Control 405 – The Sea Corporation with Dr. Robert Anderson Links 1. “The Sea Corporation,” by Robert Anderson, SSRN, … Continue reading Sea Control 405 – The Sea Corporation with Dr. Robert Anderson →

This week on the show, I have the legendary Bill Eddy joining me. Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist, mediator, and co-founder of the High Conflict Institute. He pioneered the High Conflict Personality Theory (HCP) and is the world's leading expert on methods for managing disputes involving people with high-conflict personalities. He provides training on this subject to lawyers, judges, mediators, managers, human resource professionals, businesspersons, healthcare administrators, college administrators, homeowners' association managers, ombudspersons, law enforcement, therapists, and others. He has worked as the senior family mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center, a certified family law specialist representing clients in family court, and a licensed clinical social worker therapist. In 2021, he received the Lifetime Achievement award from the Academy of Professional Mediators. Bill serves on the faculty of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the Pepperdine University School of Law, and is a conjoint associate professor with the University of Newcastle Law School in Australia. He has delivered talks and training to lawyers, judges, and mediators in over 30 U.S. states and 13 countries, and has authored or co-authored 20 books. His popular blog on the Psychology Today website has more than 5 million views. He regularly consults on issues of alienation, family violence, and false allegations in family court cases. In addition, Bill is the developer of the New Ways for Families® method of managing potentially high-conflict families in and out of family court.  In this episode we talk about: What a high-conflict person is. The four characteristics of a high-conflict person. Why trying to change a high-conflict person doesn't work and what to do instead. The difference between high-conflict people and personality disorders. The characteristics of people with a personality disorder. What NOT to do when engaging with high-conflict people. Narcissistic personality disorders as one of the most common types of high-conflict personality. Some of the books he wrote relevant to single mums, in particular, are – 5 Types of People Who Can Ruin Your Life SPLITTING: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder (co-author Randi Kreger) BIFF for CoParent Communication: Your Guide to Difficult Texts, Emails, and Social Media Posts BIFF: Quick Responses to High Conflict People, Their Personal Attacks, Hostile Email, and Social Media Meltdowns Don't Alienate the Kids!: Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High-Conflict Divorce Bill's New Ways for Families method to help manage high-conflict families in and out of family court.  Links mentioned in the episode:  You can connect with Bill on his Website, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, or his YouTube channel. You can also check out his Podcast, It's All Your Fault HERE. Join the Thrive Tribe waitlist HERE.  Download the E-book – Thirteen single mothers share their struggles, top tips, and their favourite things about being a single mother – HERE. To contact Julia, email: julia@singlemothersurvivalguide.com. Visit us at Single Mother Survival Guide. And join the email list there too. Or connect with Single Mother Survival Guide on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or Pinterest.

Isai Cortez is a Tax Attorney and owner of Bismark Tax, Inc in Los Angeles, CA. He's also the founder of SynkBooks and an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University School of Law.Isai shares his story, which goes all the way back to age 4 when his family was in a situation that made him want to be an advocate and help people understand their taxes. This episode is full of of great stories and advice that spans entrepreneurship, finances, and life. https://www.linkedin.com/in/isai-bismark-cortez-01048143/https://app.synkbooks.com/team/https://bismarktax.com/isai-bismark-cortez-esq/https://twitter.com/IsaiBCortez

On this podcast episode, Maxwell Goss interviews celebrity divorce lawyer Christopher Melcher. Chris has been quoted and featured in media outlets including ABC News, CNN, Fox News, USA Today, and Entertainment Tonight. Chris gives his take on the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial and the custody battles between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. He also provides insights for all lawyers on how to handle cases involving explosive personal allegations.-----“Gone are the days of being quiet . . . Social media is dominant.Anyone can create a social media post, and if it's about something interesting enough, it can just take off. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting and saying, ‘let's think about this for three weeks.'”-Christopher Melcher-----00:18 – Introduction01:12 – About Christopher Melcher02:55 – How Chris got into celebrity divorce law05:08 – Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard13:58 – The "Me Too" movement and the Depp/Heard trial18:39 – Likeability and credibility24:15 – The verdict and its implications26:11 – The Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie saga33:40 – Advice to attorneys handling bad facts36:36 – The pros and cons of going public39:08 – Where to find Chris Melcher online-----Christopher Melcher represents A-list celebrities, business owners, and trust beneficiaries in high-stakes divorces. With deep experience in complex family law litigation and premarital agreements, Chris provides tactical representation in the most challenging family law disputes. Chris has presented about 200 continuing legal education programs on complex family law issues, and wrote the only treatise on California premarital agreement law. Chris is also an adjunct professor of family law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu.-----About Chris MelcherChris Melcher on the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard Trial on ABCChris Melcher on the Brangelina Split on Good Morning Britain-----The Litigation War Room is hosted by litigation lawyer Maxwell Goss. Max represents clients in intellectual property and business cases throughout Michigan and around the country, bringing forceful advocacy and creative solutions to every case he handles.----------Show WebsiteTwitterLinkedInFacebook

Women's empowerment is near and dear to my heart (I used to teach women's studies and feminist theory), and I can't think of a better person to discuss this with than my friend, Patricia V. Hayes.We talk about the importance of asking lots of questions, calling out what seems unfair, and getting what you deserve in your life and career. If you struggle with imposter syndrome and self-advocacy (yes, Pilates teachers, I'm looking at you), this episode is for you!Patricia V. Hayes, J.D., is a licensed attorney who serves as an executive advisor, career empowerment coach and authentic networking strategist. She guides professionals and entrepreneurs to take empowered action to build sustainable authentic networks and professional relationships as they up level their careers and achieve their professional goals.   She is the owner of PVH Consulting Group, LLC, a strategy consulting and leadership development firm. Previously, she has served in senior leadership roles at the local, regional and state levels, including being a senior advisor to a State Senator, Lieutenant Governor, Commissioner of Education and University System Chancellor. She served as the first African American and female Vice Chancellor at the Texas State University System. A passionate advocate and community leader, Patricia is committed to issues affecting education, child abuse awareness/prevention, workforce development and women's empowerment. She has served on numerous community boards and committees. In January 2022, she was elected President of Launch Pad Job Club of Austin, a networking, support, and job lead sharing organization that aids and supports professionals in their job search. She continues to serve in the community as a Board member of the Catholic Charities of Central Texas, Austin Artists Project, on the Impact Austin Strategic Advisory Council and the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee of the Girl Scouts of Central Texas.She is a graduate of Pepperdine University School of Law and the University of Texas at Austin. She is married and proud mom of two.Connect with Patricia:Website - https://patriciavhayes.comFB - https://www.facebook.com/pvhayes/IG - https://www.instagram.com/pvalhay/LI - https://www.linkedin.com/in/patriciavhayes/YT - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0tofQDJJJiIw-aMEStmXfgOffers - https://linktr.ee/pvalhayMusic by Nerd SaladLove the podcast? Please review on Apple and help support my work on Ko-Fi.Thank you!

We speak today with Samuel D. Green, President & General Counsel of Reason for Life. Reason for Life encourages, equips, and educates Christian leaders who are hesitant to address abortion, helping them see that sharing the truth about this subject is both essential and loving. Before founding Reason for Life, Samuel spent five years at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), where he engaged in litigation to defend the sanctity of life, freedom of speech, and religious liberty. Samuel has also worked as a litigation associate at a large law firm (Jenner & Block), as a member of a presidential campaign's legal team, and as a law clerk to the Honorable Raymond W. Gruender of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Samuel finished first in his class at Pepperdine University School of Law, where he earned a Juris Doctor degree in 2011. He also studied political science at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), where he graduated, summa cum laude, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 2008. Samuel has provided legislative testimony, preached sermons about the sanctity of life, and given presentations across the country to various groups or their chapters (including Students for Life of America, 40 Days for Life, Summit Ministries, Teen Pact Leadership Schools, the Federalist Society, and the St. Thomas More Society). Samuel has also participated in media interviews and published articles with various outlets, including Newsweek, The Seattle Times, The Hill, Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and The Daily Signal. Additionally, Samuel authored a legal brief in the historic Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade. Reason for Life: Changing Hearts, Saving Lives https://reasonforlife.org

Welcome to Syndication Made Easy with Vinney Chopra! Today we have a good friend Nick McGrue back with us on our weekly show.   He is a multifamily investor, broker, and consultant and specializes in market analysis, received his Juris Doctorate degree from Pepperdine University School of Law at Pepperdine. He studies business entrepreneurship and real estate and took classes from the world-renowned Stratus Institute of Dispute Resolution as well as Jeffrey a Palmer Center. The owner and founder of Polymathlegal, where he handles transactional matters in the areas of real estate and business. He holds active Bar licenses in both California and Washington State, and he holds a California Real Estate Broker License.   Podcast Highlights: ✔️ Accredited Investor Breakthroughs in SEC Regulation ✔️ Investor Should Invest in Small Portion ✔️ Investor management ✔️ Raising capital ✔️ Pitfalls in Private Placement Memorandum (PPM), Operating Agreement, and Subscription Agreement   If you're an active, experienced syndicator, or a sponsor or passive investor looking for qualified syndications you must listen to this podcast. Never forget to share this podcast, leave comments, and give 5 Star reviews! Thank you so much!  ------------------------------------------------ About Vinney (Smile) Chopra: Vinney is a real estate investor, syndicator, International best-selling author, host of 4 podcasts, multifamily educator, mentor, dedicated husband of over 40 years and father of 2 children-Neil and Monica, residing in Danville, California (near San Francisco) for 40+ years. Vinney came to this country with only $7 in his pocket and a dream. Vinney has now built a portfolio of over 6,500 units amounting to over $650 Million in the multifamily, senior assisted living and hospitality arenas. He is passionate about helping others achieve financial freedom and giving back to our seniors who have given us so much. Learn more about Vinney: https://vinneychopra.com/ Learn more about investing with Vinney: https://vinneychopra.com/invest/ Apply for Mentorship: https://vinneychopra.com/mentorship/ Vinney's Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/VinneyChopra/videos Vinney's Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vinney-smile-chopra/ Vinney's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vinneychopra/ Vinney's Free Book: https://vinneychopra.com/freebook/ ------------------------------------------------

The Ronald Reagan Institute Shultz Lecture Series was originally conceived to honor Secretary Shultz on the anniversary of his 100th birthday; to celebrate and introduce more people to his incredible achievements and leadership in service to the United States and the world. This inaugural Shultz Lecture brings together three leading scholars to discuss the legacy of Secretary George P. Shultz: the man, the statesman, and a cherished friend and mentor to many. The George P. Shultz Lecture Series is a collaboration spearheaded by Taube Philanthropies in partnership with the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute. Two lectures will be held in 2022, with the West Coast lecture taking place at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in June, and the East Coast lecture being held at the Ronald Reagan Institute in Washington, D.C. , later this year.  NOTES The George P. Shultz Lecture Series is generously underwritten by Taube Philanthropies. Presented by The Commonwealth Club in partnership with the Ronald Reagan Institute SPEAKERS Welcome by Dr. Gloria Duffy President and CEO, The Commonwealth Club of California Dr. Condoleezza Rice 66th U.S. Secretary of State; The Tad and Dianne Taube Director of the Hoover Institution (Participating via video) Frances Tilney Burke George P. Shultz Fellow, The Ronald Reagan Institute Kiron K. Skinner Incoming Taube Professor for International Relations and Politics, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy Philip Taubman Lecturer, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University; Former New York Times Washington and Moscow Bureau Chief Roger Zakheim Director, The Ronald Reagan Institute—Moderator In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we are currently hosting all of our live programming via YouTube live stream. This program was recorded via video conference on June 15th, 2022 by the Commonwealth Club of California. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

**This month, May 2022, How I Lawyer is teaming up with the Personal Jurisdiction Podcast (https://www.personaljxpod.com/) to feature five interviews on the important topic of mental health in the legal profession. This is episode #4 in this collaboration. Learn more here.** In today's episode, Personal Jurisdiction hosts Hallie Ritzu and Allison Freedman speak with Dr. Diana Uchiyama who is a lawyer & psychologist helping people struggling with mental health and substance use issues as the the Executive Director of the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program. Dr. Diana was previously the Administrator of Psychological Services for DuPage County and worked for the Kane County Diagnostic Center, as both a Staff Psychologist and Juvenile Drug Court Coordinator. She also has an extensive background doing court ordered psychological, sanity, fitness, and sex offender evaluations and therapy. She has implemented numerous changes to court ordered programs both in Kane and DuPage County and is a certified trauma informed care trainer. Prior to obtaining her masters and doctorate in Clinical Psychology, Dr. Uchiyama was an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County. She obtained her law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Stay tuned next week for my interview with another truly inspirational lawyer turned psychotherapist, the Lawyer Therapist Doron Gold. The How I Lawyer Podcast is sponsored by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys. Personal Jurisdiction is edited by Scott Donnell at Run and Drum Media.

This month, May 2022, the Personal Jurisdiction and the How I Lawyer Podcasts are teaming up to feature five interviews on the important topic of mental health in the legal profession. In the fourth episode in the series, Hallie and Allison chat with Dr. Diana Uchiyama, the Executive Director of the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program, about the mental health struggles she has identified among those in the legal profession and what we can all do to build healthy habits to support our own mental health journeys. Dr. Diana is the Executive Director of the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program, a not-for-profit organization that helps Illinois lawyers, judges, law students, and their families concerned about alcohol or substance use or dependency, mental health issues including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking, or stress-related issues such as compassion fatigue and burnout. The Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program offers many different resources for law students, lawyers, and judges, including group meetings, virtual CLEs, and free and confidential consultations. Learn more here. Prior to joining LAP, Dr. Diana was the Administrator of Psychological Services for DuPage County. Dr. Diana was an Assistant Public Defender in Cook County for over a decade. Dr. Diana earned her B.A. from the University of Illinois, her JD from Pepperdine University School of Law, her MS in Clinical Psychology from Benedictine University and her Doctor of Clinical Psychology from Midwestern University. Connect with Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program on Twitter and on LinkedInConnect with Dr. Diana on LinkedIn. Learn more about the work of the Illinois Lawyers' Assistance Program here. Find out more about Jonah Perlin and the #HowILawyer podcast here. And follow Jonah on Twitter here. Find Personal Jurisdiction online at https://www.personaljxpod.comOn Twitter @PersonalJxPodAnd on Instagram @PersonalJxPodcastPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. Personal Jurisdiction's logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.

Our guest today is Brett Stroud. Brett is the President of Providence Classical Academy in Bakersfield, California. He is a graduate of the Torrey Honors Institute, a great books program at Biola University, and of the Pepperdine University School of Law. The mission of Providence Classical Academy is “To provide the children entrusted to its care with a liberal education grounded in the Christian scriptures and the Western tradition, with the goal of forming godly, virtuous, self-governing men and women.” Today's episode is something of an intervention. It looked like Abby was going to abandon politics altogether and so, naturally, Brandy got a lawyer and came to the rescue. You will love not just that is worked … but HOW it worked! *** Are you ready for this year's Spring Training? We are SO excited to invite you to join us LIVE for the Excellent Marxmanship Spring Training. This year's coach is the one and only Dr. Carl Trueman, professor of biblical and religious studies from Grove City College. Dr. Trueman is the author of the remarkable book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. We need to understand the times so we can prepare our children, yes, but also so that we can be prepared to live counter-culturally with confidence. Dr. Trueman is the perfect coach to help us understand how to navigate these strange cultural waters. Just go to scholesisters.com/true to register. *** Click here to access today's show notes. Click here to join the Sistership.

0:00 - Sports & Politics: Tiger, Tiger Woods y'all   13:10 - Dan & Amy want to know the plan for the 18k of illegal border crossers/day   31:04 - Dan & Amy visit University of Chicago's Institute for Political Skullduggery for a discussion on the “laptop from hell”   48:54 - Associate Editor for Commentary Magazine and author of Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America, Noah Rothman, on the  The War Crimes Conundrum. Follow Noah on twitter @NoahCRothman   01:04:00 - Live Action News Correspondent, Christina Bennett, reports on the discovery of aborted babies and potential infanticide in DC. For more on Christina's pro-life work christinabennett.com   01:19:15 - Tom Hogan, who has served as a federal prosecutor, local prosecutor, elected district attorney and is currently in private practice; wants to help Big Blue Cities FIght Back   01:35:21 - Senior Fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, former chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, Andy Puzder, shares his new chart showing Biden is to blame for inflation   01:35:21 - Andy will be speaking at National Review Institute's “Creating Opportunity” regional seminar on April 12 at the University Club of Chicago. Details and tickets are available atwww.nrinstitute.org   01:51:46 - OPEN MIC FRIDAY!!   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Center Co-Directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy are joined by Linda Chavez, Pete Peterson, Theodore Johnson, and Ralph Neas to dive into the pros and cons of voting processes nationwide and explore common sense solutions. Featuring: Robert Shrum - Director, Center for the Political Future; Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics, USC Dornsife Mike Murphy - Co-Director, Center for the Political Future; NBC Political Analyst Linda Chavez - Conservative commentator; Chair, Center for Equal Opportunity Theodore Johnson - Fellows Program Director at Brennan Center for Justice, New York University Ralph Neas - Senior Counsel on Voting Rights, Century Foundation Pete Peterson - Braun Family Dean's Chair, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy; Senior Fellow, Davenport Institute