Podcasts about Period

Singer-songwriter and pop icon Kesha feels c*nty about being Conan O'Brien's friend. Kesha sits down with Conan to discuss the healing waters of Esalen, ghost hunting on her television series Conjuring Kesha, and finally being able to produce her independent album Period with the rights to her own voice. Later, Matt Gourley deals with the fallout of a major faux pas. For Conan videos, tour dates and more visit TeamCoco.com.Got a question for Conan? Call our voicemail: (669) 587-2847. Get access to all the podcasts you love, music channels and radio shows with the SiriusXM App! Get 3 months free using this show link: https://siriusxm.com/conan.

Mehmed II becomes Sultan in 1451 and immediately makes plans to conquer Constantinople.Period: 1448-53 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

WNBA player Caitlin Clark is a phenomenon. It has changed women's basketball, women's sports and sports. Period. But what makes her tick? How did a kid from Iowa become one of the most recognizable athletes in the world? And what does her presence mean for the future of the WNBA and how we talk about it? USA today sports columnist Christine Brennan has covered the beginning of Clark's career, and recently took a step back to write about this superstar in a new book "On Her Game: Caitlin Clark and the Revolution in Women's Sports."Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@usatoday.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This episode, Eamon & Merlin talk the newest episode of The Valley, where we have another boat ride from hell as Kristen unleashes on Janet. Then, a new episode of Real Housewives of Miami, that sees Lisa exhibits some qualities before Alexia's Narcissist party even begins. Plus, the season premiere of Real Housewives of Orange County, where Katie has few friends, and replacing them with bloggers might not be the best substitute. And finally, a week's worth of Love Island USA, where love is finally in the air as we come barreling towards the finals. 4:46 - The Valley: Season 02: Episode 13 1:16:24 - Real Housewives of Miami: Season 07: Episode 05 2:04:34 - Real Housewives of Orange County: Season 19: Episode 01 3:24:06 - Love Island: Season 07: Episodes 30-34 We are Eamon and Merlin, a queer married couple from Texas living in Pittsburgh, PA. We love reality television, wrestling, drag queens, and pretty much anything that can be called even kinda gay. A Gay & His Enby is a podcast where we talk about everything we love in terms of media and pop culture; everything thats gay and gay adjacent; basically all the conversations we have in our living room we are now putting in front of a microphone and on the internet for you. We have launched our MERCH STORE! We are so excited to bring you these designs, all made by Merlin, commemorating some of our favorite iconic moments! Shop now at https://AGayAndHisEnby.Threadless.com Every week, we have the pleasure and privilege of recording from Sorgatron Media Studios in Pittsburgh. The theme song for our main show is Pulsar by Shane Ivers, and the theme song for Binge Watch is Higher Up by Shane Ivers, both of which you can find at https://www.silvermansound.com All of our social media can be found at our linktree: https://linktr.ee/agayandhisenby We want to take a moment to uplift a powerful resource:

Send us a text

Business Coaching Secrets - Episode 305 Summary In this episode of Business Coaching Secrets, Karl Bryan and Rode Dog dive deep into what it really takes to build, sustain, and scale a thriving business coaching practice. The duo tackles foundational business concepts, industry mistakes, the true meaning of “why,” actionable hacks for goal setting, and demystifies financial jargon like EBITDA. Real-world stories, sharp insights, and actionable frameworks pepper the episode, making it essential listening for both new and experienced coaches ready to level up. Key Topics Covered From Stuff to Investments: Reframing Business Decisions Karl Bryan discusses the importance of transitioning from a consumer mindset (buying stuff) to an investor mindset, stressing that tax systems are designed to reward investment, not consumption. He urges coaches to build leverage by creating business assets—processes, checklists, sales tools—rather than endless, unproductive “to-do” lists. The Checklist Principle—Why It Matters Drawing parallels from aviation safety and the medical field, Karl demonstrates how a simple checklist can prevent disasters and streamline operations. He advocates every coach should adopt the checklist mentality for lead generation, demonstrations, and client delivery. Clarity Over Certainty—Common Coaching Industry Mistakes Karl challenges the coaching world's obsession with “certainty,” arguing that adaptability and assertiveness—not rigid certainty—are the real traits of thriving entrepreneurs and coaches. He emphasizes action over perfection, quoting successful entrepreneurs who act on partial information and adjust rapidly. Demystifying EBITDA and the Language of Business Karl breaks down EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization), explaining why this metric is used and its limitations in real-world small business scenarios. He urges coaches to focus on learning to read financials—calling it the ultimate “cheat sheet” for delivering value and driving a business forward. Goal Setting Hacks—The Sniper Approach For effective goal achievement, Karl recommends setting hyper-clear targets with “sniper-like” focus, obsessing over them, and ruling out distractions. He explains why wishy-washy goals lead to lackluster results and shares tactics to maintain relentless clarity. Finding and Using Your ‘Why' The episode revisits the importance of purpose (drawing from Simon Sinek's famous TED Talk), offering coaches a framework to discover their own “why” via their three most painful life experiences. Karl details how this “North Star” approach powers authentic connection, standout marketing, and fierce client loyalty. Notable Quotes “Don't create a to-do list. Create a ‘to-build' list.” – Karl Bryan “Needing nothing attracts everything.” – Karl Bryan “It's not the strongest that survive… It's the most adaptable.” – Karl Bryan “If your goal is wishy-washy, your results will be wishy-washy.” – Karl Bryan “Wealth follows people with clear intentions—and wealth and options go hand in hand.” – Karl Bryan “Your story is what will move people… Your ‘why' is the difference between you and every other business coach.” – Rode Dog Actionable Takeaways • Shift From Consuming to Investing: Ask yourself, “Are you buying stuff, or are you building and investing in long-term assets?” • Build Leverage With Checklists: Create checklists for every major aspect of your coaching business—client acquisition, delivery, demonstration, and more—to reduce errors and increase consistency. • Emphasize Adaptability Over Certainty: Stay flexible, assertively seek solutions, and avoid perfection paralysis. Progress and confidence beat static “certainty.” • Master Financial Fluency: Learn to read and interpret financial statements—this is a critical edge and a “cheat code” for deep, transformational coaching. • Set Clear, Obsession-Worthy Goals: Define your outcomes with sniper accuracy. Eliminate distractions and say “no” to anything that doesn't move you forward. • Surface and Share Your ‘Why': Identify your core motivation by unpacking your pivotal life moments. Let this story fuel your messaging, deepen relationships, and increase client stickiness. Resources Mentioned • Simon Sinek's TED Talk (“Start With Why”) • Profit Acceleration Software™ (by Karl Bryan) • Focused.com – Tools and resources for coaches • The Six-Figure Coach Magazine (Get it here)

Today, I answer some questions that I have recieved on the Ladies' Lab Discord community and on Instagram regarding period recovery, including how long it takes for libido to return, whether macro/calorie counting is beneficial during recovery, and weight gain during period recovery.Join my private, supportive Discord community for those in period recovery, pregnancy, or postpartum: https://discord.com/invite/UAHzM7WUFollow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/athinacrilley

Hey guys, Nico and Derek here! On today's episode of BeerSos, we are joined by You! We give advice to viewers who send in problems they need solving - but if one of us gives bad advice, they get hit with period cramps.We hope you enjoy it!Support the show

As Josiah Walker and Bryan Catherman discuss the question, “What is the Bible?” they've hit the intertestamental period, otherwise known as “the quiet years.” What do the quiet years have to do with the Bible, and how is it helpful to understand what was happening during that time? In this episode, they discuss the significance of those years to the Bible we have today. Copyright 2025. Find more information at SaltyBeliever.com.

Welcome to The Arsenal Transfer Show EP601 with Tom Canton on The Gooner Talk! In today's show, we bring you the very latest on Arsenal's summer transfer activity:

Lisa Hendrickson Jack is here to discuss what your cervical mucus, period, and body signs really mean.New episodes every Friday!Not listening on Spotify? Show notes at: https://www.ashleydeeley.com/w2w/fertilityfridayEpisode brought to you by: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ApolloNeuro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Episode brought to you by:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ VieLight⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Code: DEELEY10Episode brought to you by:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dry Farm Wines⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 04:36 Vital Signs of the Cycle12:35 Charting Your Cycle20:51 Defining a Normal Cycle23:17 Addressing Heavy Periods32:45 Understanding Menstrual Pain: Cramps vs. Contractions40:39 Managing Period Pain: Strategies and Insights49:02 Navigating Perimenopause: Expectations and Realities55:01 Understanding Your Body's Signals57:18 Navigating Perimenopause and Menstrual Changes1:02:33 The Transition to Menopause: A New Perspective1:06:25 Sperm Health and Fertility Considerations1:09:37 Addressing Hormonal Issues and IUD Concerns1:11:35 Finding Practitioners and Resources for Women's Health1:15:16 Empowering Women Through Knowledge and AwarenessWhere to find Lisa Hendrickson-Jack:WebsiteWhere to find Ashley Deeley:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠hello@ashleydeeley.com

The Singapore government has raised the Seller’s Stamp Duty holding period from three to four years for private homes, aiming to cool speculation and curb sub-sales. Supporters say it deters flipping and promotes long-term ownership. Critics argue it could choke market liquidity, tighten supply, and drive prices even higher. But will this move stabilise the market — or squeeze supply and drive prices up? On The Hot Seat, Hongbin Jeong speaks to Nicholas Mak, Chief Research Officer, MOGUL SG and Stanley Wong, Senior Associate District Director, Propnex to find out whether the revised 4-year SSD holding period inflates or stabilises Singapore’s property market.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Proof sells. Period. In this episode of Built by Business, Andy Isom breaks down how Amazon and e-commerce brands are using social proof, reviews, UGC, and visual storytelling to convert browsers into buyers. You'll learn the 5 most effective types of proof, how to collect them fast, and how to embed them directly into your listings, ads, and funnels.   If you've got traffic but low conversions, this episode gives you the credibility framework your brand might be missing.   Want help with your brand, let's get you a free audit: www.weavos.io  

Let me tell you something—winners freaking win. That's it. End of story. I've got a tale for you today that fires me up every single time. His name is JJ Spaun. An underdog. A man who faced injury, setbacks, loss—you name it. But did he give up? No way. He kept going. And he won the U.S. Open.Listen, life's going to try to knock you out. It's going to throw some heavy punches. But the secret? You don't quit. You can't quit. You rise. You grind. You believe that no matter what's in front of you, you're going to win.Because that's what winners do. Winners win. Period. Let's go. 

If Your Copy Sucks, Your Marketing Will Too — Here's How to Fix It - Episode 218Let's be honest: most struggling entrepreneurs aren't being held back by their offers… they're being held back by their copy. The truth is, if your message isn't connecting, you're not converting. Period.In this episode of Marketing Matchmaker, I'm joined by Venchele Saint Dic, branding and writing strategist, to break down why your words matter more than you think, and how to finally write in a way that attracts your dream clients.We dive into:✅ Why storytelling isn't fluff—it's the most powerful conversion tool you're not using right✅ How to use emotional + logical writing (aka pathos, ethos, logos) to make your message stick✅ A simple writing prompt that can unlock the clarity and confidence you've been cravingWhether you're stuck staring at a blank Google doc or leaning too hard on AI-generated fluff, this episode will show you how to write in a way that feels aligned and sells.

Episode 2668: Vinnie Tortorich and Chris Shaffer discuss the MIND diet and how healthy fats for a healthy mind happen with the right whole foods, and more. https://vinnietortorich.com/2025/07/healthy-fats-for-a-healthy-mind-episode-2668 PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS YOU CAN WATCH ALL THE PODCAST EPISODES ON YOUTUBE -  Healthy Fats for A Healthy Mind The MIND Diet (2:30) The Mediterranean Intervention Neurodegeneration Diet, intended to slow cognitive decline. They discuss the suggested protocol, which still includes grains and almost no red meat, only fatty fish and chicken. It recommends avoiding saturated fat. The protocol is erratic and contradicts itself. (8:30) Epidemiological studies are not always accurate. Dr. Mary Newport has been on the show and specifically studies cognitive decline. (16:00) Studies demonstrate that saturated fats from coconut oil (MCT oil) and a ketogenic diet can slow cognitive decline and even reduce symptoms. (17:00) Here are links to some of Dr. Mary Newport's books:  The Coconut Oil and Low-Carb Solution for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Other Diseases: A Guide to Using Diet and a High-Energy Food to Protect and Nourish the Brain   Alzheimer's Disease: What If There Was a Cure (3rd Edition): The Story of Ketones   Clearly Keto: For Healthy Brain Aging and Alzheimer's Prevention The Complete Book of Ketones: A Practical Guide to Ketogenic Diets and Ketone Supplements The Mediterranean Diet is based on inaccurate and manipulated information. (19:00) The focus should not be on cutting out saturated fat, but rather on cutting out processed foods. (21:00) How good is a vegan chocolate cake? (24:00) A New York Times journalist states her reason for going vegan. After looking the author up, she is an environmental advocate; she is vegan based on her environmental beliefs, not likely because she had a good vegan chocolate cake. Just be authentic and accurate! Everyone can agree that everyone should eat clean, whole foods. Period. More News If you are interested in the NSNG® VIP group is currently closed for registration, but you can get on the wait list - Don't forget to check out Serena Scott Thomas on Days of Our Lives on the Peacock channel.  “Dirty Keto” is available on Amazon! You can purchase or rent it . Make sure you watch, rate, and review it!   Eat Happy Italian, Anna's next cookbook, is available!  You can go to  You can order it from .  Anna's recipes are in her cookbooks, website, and Substack–they will spice up your day!  Don't forget you can invest in Anna's Eat Happy Kitchen through StartEngine.  Details are at Eat Happy Kitchen.  There's a new NSNG® Foods promo code you can use! The promo code ONLY works on the NSNG® Foods website, NOT on Amazon. https://nsngfoods.com/   PURCHASE  DIRTY KETO (2024) The documentary launched in August 2024! Order it TODAY! This is Vinnie's fourth documentary in just over five years. Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  Then, please share my fact-based, health-focused documentary series with your friends and family. Additionally, the more views, the better it ranks, so please watch it again with a new friend! REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! PURCHASE BEYOND IMPOSSIBLE (2022) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  REVIEWS: Please submit your REVIEW after you watch my films. Your positive REVIEW does matter! FAT: A DOCUMENTARY 2 (2021) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere:  FAT: A DOCUMENTARY (2019) Visit my new Documentaries HQ to find my films everywhere: 

278: "I am only interested in becoming known for what is true because one day you're going to fucking slip. And I think that is the scariest thing is to paint an entire picture around the most acceptable version of yourself and then fall from that because it's a lie." - Xanthe AppleyardIf you've ever thought you needed 100K followers to "matter" or felt guilty for working weekends while preaching about your “soft girl era”—this episode will rewire your entire approach to online business. Xanthe Appleyard gets incredibly honest about building a successful business on her own terms, from both a financial and energetic lens, ditching the "serious entrepreneur" mask (and why you can still be a silly goose while helping your people), and why leisure and pleasure are just as important as profit and revenue. She may have also single-handedly changed Chelsea's notoriously anti-social media POV!Episode ThemesWhy impulsivity isn't self-sabotage when you're moving toward what you actually wantThe "commitment as trap" myth and how reframing it changes everything about relationships and businessMonotasking your way to sanity: how compartmentalizing tasks prevents burnoutThe follower count lie: why 1K engaged people beats 100K passive scrollers every damn timeTrading "promised freedom later" for "more freedom now" (and why this isn't selfish)Social media as a tool vs. social media as your worth—and how to tell the differenceThe cognitive dissonance of building businesses on platforms we're morally conflicted aboutWhy hiding your "unprofessional" side perpetuates everyone else's shameThis episode isn't about clocking 60 hour work weeks to see results or becoming more palatable—it's about getting so clear on your values that every business decision becomes glaringly obvious. Whether you're sending emails at 5AM or taking two-month sabbaticals, remember: there's no prize for following someone else's blueprint. Your business should energize you, not drain you. PERIOD.Connect with Xanthe Appleyard:Join Xanthe's content creation membership Social Life (at a special price!) until Friday, July 10th!Xanthe's Website Xanthe's IG Xanthe's SubstackConnect with Chelsea:

Here is a quick clip from this week's podcast.  You can listen to the full episode from the show before this one.  The clip is also in video format on my YouTube channel.. AND.. If you want other helpful podcast links based around this topic or my top takeaways from the episode this week, subscribe to my Top 3 Thursday Takeaway Newsletter.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Are you relying on twitter to tell you if you should quite gambling or not following the gambling tax disaster in the BBB?In this episode we sit down with Gary Kondler of Kondler & Associates - the gambling industry leading tax and consulting firm - to discuss the changes in the bill.From the myths that exploded on Twitter to the real-life tax nightmares facing poker pros, slot whales, and DFS grinders, Gary walks us through exactly what's changing, who's most at risk, and how to protect yourself. Whether you're a solo bettor, a casual casino-goer, or part of a syndicate, this episode could save you thousands—and a major audit headache.Kondler & Associates: https://kondlercpa.com/00:00 – The Big Change: Understanding the BBB Bill09:00 – Real Tax Impact: Examples That Hurt21:00 – Filing as a Pro vs. Amateur36:00 – Sessions Method, W2Gs & Audit Risk51:00 – State-Level Chaos & Planning for 20261:12:00 - GP & SP React & Speculate WildlyWelcome to The Risk Takers Podcast, hosted by professional sports bettor John Shilling (GoldenPants13) and SportsProjections. This podcast is the best betting education available - PERIOD. And it's free - please share and subscribe if you like it.My website: https://www.goldenpants.com/ Follow SportsProjections on Twitter: https://x.com/Sports__ProjWant to work with my betting group?: john@goldenpants.comWant 100s of +EV picks a day?: https://www.goldenpants.com/gp-picks

The state health department plans to request federal approval to enact both Medicaid work requirements and co-payments for doctor visits in September. The department opened a 60-day public comment period.

Welcome back to another episode of Poppin' Off (About Pop Culture)! This week we're talking about the outcome of the Diddy trial and then diving into our love for Kesha's new album "." (Period). It's all going down, so get ready to pop off with us!Follow us on Instagram:Poppin' Off About Pop Culture (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@poppinoffaboutpopculture⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Maggie's socials:Twitter: kale queen (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@literallymaggie⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Instagram: ✨maggie✨ (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@literallymaggie_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Stephen's socials:Twitter: stephen gaedcke (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@sgaedcke99⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Instagram: Stephen Gaedcke (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@sgaedcke99⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)Don't forget to rate us 5 stars and leave a comment. We want to hear from you!

#StayClassified with EP346 of the Lacrosse Classified podcast.July is hot and so are the playoff races across the country! We have a ton to talk about this week so lets begin Lax Class!Period #1 We begin getting you caught up on all the summer loops and hand out our Lax Class Report Cards! Then, we bring you our Goalie Factory Goalie of the week and our Rycor Construction stand out players of the week.Period #2 We welcome back Nick Rose to Lax Class. The Northmen had their alumni weekend and premiered their new documentary this past weekend. And oh ya, they are in 1st place in the Jr A standings ( again ). Period #3 This is where we give you our #LaxClassLock of the week presented by Cool Bet. It's a new week as we dive into the WLA odds and put together an exclusive parlay.All that and more comes at you every #Wednesday wherever you listen to your podcasts Go check out our website home LacrosseCultureDaily.com Don't forget to subscribe, and give us a review! Make sure you give us a follow to stay up to date with the show @LacrosseClassified on IG  and Blue Sky. We are also back on the X @LaxClassPodcast !Lacrosse Classified is brought to you buy our great partners. Please support our #sponsors with a like and a follow! @RyCorConstruction @EdgeDynamicsDigital @CoolBetCanada @GoalieFactory_ @WLALacrosse and @AssociatedLP #MakeItStandOut #SharpenYourBrand #GlobalStage #MakeAnImpact #StayCool #PlayWithConfidence #TheLegendaryGame #WLA #AssociatedWithYourBrand #FamilyOwned #Labels #Packages #Goaltending #Saves #Coaching #Listen #Lacrosse #Podcast #Boxla #StayClassified

Kesha released her sixth studio album on Friday – notably, her first as an independent artist. Friend of the pod Brittany Spanos of Rolling Stone joins Russ to break down Period's highs and lows, what it means for Kesha to make unapologetic party music again and where she sits in the pop firmament as she heads out on a roaring summer tour with The Scissor Sisters.To hear the rest of the this episode plus receive weekly bonus episodes of Pop Pantheon, gain access to our Discord channel and so much more, subscribe to Pop Pantheon: All Access at the Icon Tier. You can also subscribe for the audio only directly in the Apple Podcasts app.Note for iOS users: Subscribe using your desktop or mobile browser, not the iOS Patreon app, for cheaper rates on Pop Pantheon: All Access.

Prince Harry is not "being isolated from his family by his wife". He chose to leave to protect himself and his family from the abusive royals and their media henchmen. To imply otherwise is to admit you haven't been paying attention... for years... and you're vilifying Meghan because you're racist. Period.

Stuck. Exhausted. “Doing everything right” and still not getting better? You're not crazy—and your body's not broken. You've just been taught to skip step one. On this episode of Medical Disruptors, I'm joined by Dr. Jess to expose one of the most ignored (and most essential) parts of healing: drainage.  Not detox. Not binders. Drainage. Because if your exits aren't open, nothing's leaving—no matter how “clean” your protocol is. We break down what drainage really means (spoiler: it's way more than bowel movements) and why it's the first thing that should be addressed before anything else.  We talk about liver phases, bile flow, lymphatic stagnation, nervous system overload, and how even your menstrual cycle is part of the drainage picture. But this isn't just biology—it's emotional, energetic, and deeply personal.  Trauma, chronic stress, toxic thoughts, and unprocessed pain clog your system just as much as pathogens or parasites.  If your body doesn't feel safe, it won't let go. Period. Dr. Jess walks us through how she assesses blockages—like mold, root canals, breast implants—and helps patients create conditions for real release. Not through expensive protocols or extreme cleanses, but with minerals, fiber, movement, safety, and deprogramming. If you've been dismissed, gaslit, or told “you're fine” when you're clearly not—this conversation will help you connect the dots, reclaim your clarity, and start clearing what's been stuck. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textChronic inflammation could be the hidden factor disrupting your hormone balance and causing period problems, but understanding its signs and sources can help you restore easier cycles naturally.• Inflammation is a prolonged inflammatory response characterized by an overactive immune system continuously releasing inflammatory compounds• Signs of chronic inflammation include persistent pain, fatigue, insomnia, joint stiffness, skin problems, GI issues, mood disorders, and frequent illness• Inflammation impacts three key hormones: cortisol (stress hormone), insulin (blood sugar regulation), and thyroid hormone• When cortisol is high due to inflammation, your body may delay ovulation or not ovulate at all, leading to cycle irregularity and PMS• Common causes include processed foods, sugar, alcohol, insufficient sleep, lack of exercise, environmental toxins, infections, and emotional stress• Dietary changes like incorporating whole foods, colorful produce, and fatty fish rich in omega-3s can help reduce inflammation• Regular movement, meditation, and quality sleep are foundational approaches to managing inflammation levels• Adaptogenic supplements may provide additional support once the foundations are addressedSave 15% on your Cymbiotika purchaseCONNECT WITH BRIDGET LinkedIn | Instagram | Website Apply for 1:1 Coaching | Sign up for weekly tips via email

viva o 4th of july ngm lançou nada

En este podcast contamos con la colaboración de Airbnb https://www.airbnb.es/. Te voy a contar algunas experiencias que he tenido disfrutando de sus servicios, que seguro te van a dar buenas ideas a la hora de viajar. Primero hicimos el podcast de “Coches que me asustaron”, luego una segunda entrega titulada “Coches que me decepcionaron” y ahora llega la tercera, consecuencia de las anteriores: Coches de los que esperaba poco... ¡y me sorprendieron! Claro está que para bien. Os traigo 10 casos en los que mis “tablas” de periodista no impidieron que los coches me sorprendiesen. Opel Kadett (1984). Este coche me sorprendió. El motor era una delicia, gastaba poco, no poco, ¡muy poco! Corría, era establa, cómodo y de una calidad para mi casi desconocida en un coche de esa categoría. En esos años Opel estaba muy fuerte... no como ahora. Citroën Visa GTi (1985). En esta lista hay 3 Citroën… curioso. El Visa era un coche que convencía, pero no enamoraba… no era esa su función. Pero no fue el caso del GTi. No sé si por la mayor ligereza del Visa, si por sus 30 mm extras de distancia entre ejes o por la puesta a punto, pero este Citroën no resultaba tan dulce como el 205, pero era en mi opinión más eficaz, mucho más barato y me sorprendió… Peugeot 205 GTX (1986). Ya había probado el 205 GTi de 105 CV y me había gustado mucho por su equilibrio entre prestaciones, confort y facilidad de conducción. Pero era un coche carísimo, mucho más que sus rivales. Cuando en 1986 pude probar el GTX con motor 1.6 de 96 CV, me pareció una opción más recomendable que el carísimo GTi con 9 CV más. La estética era muy parecida, el comportamiento similar y resultaba mucho, muchísimo más barato. Fiat Tipo (1988). El Tipo, venía a sustituir al Fiat Ritmo, un coche que conocía muy bien, tanto en versión Fiat como Seat, como Ritmo o como Ronda, prácticamente lo mismo. Un coche, el Ritmo, que no me entusiasmaba mucho si he de ser sincero. Y esperaba que el Tipo fuese mejor… pero no “tanto” mejor. Para comenzar al natural me pareció precioso el diseño conjunto entre I.DE.A Institute (Turín) y el Centro Stile Fiat bajo la dirección del diseñador Ercole Spada. BMW 318i (1989). Hablo de la generación E30. Había probado el 320i con motor 2 litros de 6 cilindros en línea y 125 CV. No era un motor con muchos bajos, pero era “finísimo” y subía de vueltas que daba gusto. También había probado el 318i con motor de 4 cilindros 1.8 y 110 CV. Más equilibrado, por peso, pero de escasa potencia par ser un BMW. Y de repente BMW anuncia si 318is, con el motor de 318, pero con culata de 16 válvulas y 136 CV. R19 16v Cabrio (1991). El R19 ni siquiera en sus versiones más deportivas, era un coche que despertase pasiones por su estética. Y pensé: Pues si a un R19 16v le quitamos el techo y el coche es menos rígido… pues, pero para todo. Fiat Coupé (1993). Este modelo en 1996 llegó a montar el maravilloso motor de 5 cilindros con 20 válvulas y turbo que desarrollaba 220 CV. Pero el que yo probé llevaba el motor del Integrale, pero “rebajado” a 185 CV. El bastidor de este coche, muy afinado, guardaba un “as” en su manga: El uso de autoblocante Fergusson. Audi A3 (1996). Recuerdo que era director de una revista mensual y en el último momento nos llegó la info del Audi A3. Escribí yo mismo, con prisas, el reportaje hecho con fotos e información oficiales y cambiamos la portada poniendo una buena foto de A3 y el titular de “El Golf de Audi” que es la conclusión que saqué leyendo el dossier oficial de la marca. Periodísticamente fue un acierto porque la revista se vendió bien. Pero cuando por fin pude probar el A3 me di cuenta de mi error: Citroën Berlingo (1996). La propuesta de Citroën con el Berlingo parecía muy sensata: Diseñar un coche desde cero pensado en hacer una pequeña furgoneta. Llegó a la redacción y me la llevé esa tarde… después de tres semáforos y apena un kilómetro me enamoré de la Berlingo. Citroën Xsara Picasso (2000). Lo del nombre Picasso, que por cierto no fue nada fácil, me parecía. Pero un nombre bonito no hace mejor a un coche. Pero una vez que lo probe… ¡me pareció genial! De repente la mecánica y bastidas del sencillo Xsara lucia más, la visibilidad era magnifica, el coche amplio y práctico, y además de confortable tenía una estabilidad a prueba de bombas…

Es lunes y el cuerpo lo sabe! Welcome back to La Plática, as a thank you for starting your week off with us the Boily Pops Josh and Sebastian wanted to bring back a crowd favorite - Girly Pop 101.

If your period is missing, your digestion is a mess, and your labs are “normal” but you still feel off—this episode is for you. In today's powerful episode, I'm joined by gut health expert Dr. Heather Finley to explore the invisible yet critical link between digestive health, mineral balance, and your hormones.  We unpack why so many women with a history of dieting, overtraining, and under-eating are now struggling with chronic bloating, constipation, fatigue, and infertility—and why it's NOT just about food intolerance or stress. Dr. Finley shares: What minerals actually do in your body (beyond the basics) How restriction wrecks digestion and creates mineral depletion Why mineral imbalances show up as digestive symptoms When to consider functional lab testing (like HTMA) How to live in wellness without spiraling into obsession Learn more about Heather on her website or by DMing her on Instagram the word MINERALS. Today's episode is brought to you by our exclusive program, Premier Period Recovery for Fertility. Reach out to chat 1-1 with me to see if it's exactly what you need to get your period back and get pregnant in 2025, by applying here. Not ready yet for our premier program, but you are ready to take action to restore your fertility today? Purchase your fertility clarity package here. This period recovery method will change your life...and I've laid it all out for you in my NEW free course, Restore Your Fertility in 90 Days (or less). Download and watch it today! Please note that this podcast is not meant to be used for nutritional, medical or individualized advice and should be used for education only.

This week as Kelly continues to recover from her recent surgery, we here at Back to the Barre wanted to find something to lighten the mood a little. Well knowing our fanbase fairly well by this point we know it's always fun to listen to the moms scream at, yell at, or fight one another! Four seasons in and we've gotten quite good at it with alarming reliability, but what are the cream of the crop fights? Well we've decided to round up our best Dance Moms fight segments into one episode for a special Clip Show-edition of Back to the Barre.We have fights that go all the way back to Episode 1, when Minister Dawn was stirring up trouble. But what Season had the most classic fights? And more importantly, which one was the most quotable? Tune-in to find out!Quotes“Your job is not to talk to her. Your job is to talk to Abby. Period." (04:30-04:33 | Christi)“I don't know anybody who would have been in that situation who wouldn't have said f**k you Abby, you ust threw a chair at my daughter!” (18:29-18:36 | Kelly)“Jill, you can't tell somebody to grow up and get a life when you just chased and dumped water one someone." (30:48-30:53 | Christi)“She should have kept me. I wasn't that embarrassing I think." (48:23-48:26 | Kelly)LinksSubscribe to us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC50aSBAYXH_9yU2YkKyXZ0w Subscribe to our Patreon: www.patreon.com/backtothebarreThank you to Ashley Jana for allowing us to use Electricity!! Follow her on IG HERE: https://instagram.com/ashleyjanamusic?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=Download Electricity HERE: https://music.apple.com/us/album/electricity/1497482509?i=1497482510Follow Christi on IG: www.instagram.com/christilukasiakFollow Kelly on IG: www.instagram.com/kellylhyland Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As the summer dead period winds down, IL's Dan Kaplan and Terry Foy discuss the NCAA's approval of an updated IMLCA recruiting calendar that will lengthen the dead period through July 10 in 2026, then unpack how Penn's parting ways with coach Mike Murphy and subsequent search will affect the recruiting landscape. From there, they dive into the commitments that started on July 1, resulting from the NESCAC pre-reads affecting the Class of 2026 DIII recruiting and the service academies' ability to contact members of the Class of 2027. To wrap up, they sweep through the player evaluations from Sweetlax Summer Challenge and Crab Feast, and tease the forthcoming coverage from: IL Summer Derby NAL Bulldog Brawl Liberty National Elite Classic Naptown

What Was the Worst Time You Started Your Period by Maine's Coast 93.1

This podcast will explain the significance And deeper meaning of the values and law o this three week period leading up to the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem. It will also discuss why the Rabbis set aside an entire  day to mourn for a building destroyed nearly 2000 years ago, and why a parallel day of mourning  on the Jewish calendar is not set side for the Holocaust.

This podcast will explain the significance And deeper meaning of the values and law o this three week period leading up to the destruction of both Temples in Jerusalem. It will also discuss why the Rabbis set aside an entire  day to mourn for a building destroyed nearly 2000 years ago, and why a parallel day of mourning on the Jewish calendar is not set side for the Holocaust.

This episode, Eamon & Merlin double up with two weeks worth of content, as they talk the newest episodes of Real Housewives of Atlanta, where Angela goes full Lansbury in order to solve the mystery of Marcus. Then, two new episodes of The Valley, that sees love prevail in spite of this cast when Luke fishes for a future with Kristen. Plus, two new episodes of Real Housewives of Miami, where the newest housewife Stephanie may be swimming in money, but Julia makes sure Guerdy is swimming against her will. And finally, two week's worth of Love Island USA, where debatable dumpings, a Casa Amor like never before and a word from America turns the villa upside down. 5:12 - Real Housewives of Atlanta: Season 16: Episodes 16 & 17 1:11:18 - The Valley: Season 02: Episodes 11 & 12 2:08:26 - Real Housewives of Miami: Season 07: Episodes 03 & 04 3:07:57 - Love Island: Season 07: Episodes 18-28 We are Eamon and Merlin, a queer married couple from Texas living in Pittsburgh, PA. We love reality television, wrestling, drag queens, and pretty much anything that can be called even kinda gay. A Gay & His Enby is a podcast where we talk about everything we love in terms of media and pop culture; everything thats gay and gay adjacent; basically all the conversations we have in our living room we are now putting in front of a microphone and on the internet for you. We have launched our MERCH STORE! We are so excited to bring you these designs, all made by Merlin, commemorating some of our favorite iconic moments! Shop now at https://AGayAndHisEnby.Threadless.com Every week, we have the pleasure and privilege of recording from Sorgatron Media Studios in Pittsburgh. The theme song for our main show is Pulsar by Shane Ivers, and the theme song for Binge Watch is Higher Up by Shane Ivers, both of which you can find at https://www.silvermansound.com All of our social media can be found at our linktree: https://linktr.ee/agayandhisenby We want to take a moment to uplift a powerful resource:

In episode #294 of SaaS Metrics School, Ben Murray dives into one of the most important metrics for SaaS operators and investors: CAC Payback Period—with a focus on adapting it for usage-based pricing models. Whether you're B2B, B2C, or AI-focused, CAC Payback is a must-have metric when you're investing heavily in go-to-market strategies. But how do you accurately calculate it when your business has subscription + usage revenue? Ben walks through: The standard CAC Payback formula and why it matters How to define "customer" accurately to calculate CAC How to adjust the denominator of the formula to include usage-based revenue How to estimate usage revenue when there's no clear minimum Public company trends in reporting ARR in usage-based models Practical judgment calls that SaaS CFOs must make when incorporating usage data If you're only including subscription ARR in your CAC Payback, but you're generating significant usage revenue—you're underestimating your efficiency. Learn more: https://www.thesaascfo.com/how-to-calculate-cac-payback-period-with-variable-revenue/ Coming Up Next: CAC Payback Period Benchmarks—why you can't just trust the averages you see online. Enjoying the show? Leave a 5-star review and stay tuned for more SaaS finance insights.

07-04-25 - Influencer Hawks Cocktail To Supposedly Stall Or End A Woman's Period - BOSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Snag Our Simplified Budget System!Check out Kali at Perfect-ish!We've got our business bestie back on the mic, and you're in for a treat.

In episode 304 of Business Coaching Secrets, hosts Karl Bryan and Rode Dog dive into the “rules of money” every business coach must know, why being new in a market can be your superpower, and the realities behind popular business myths. The episode combines practical financial wisdom with actionable strategies for business coaches seeking lasting growth and wealth—while reminding listeners that higher-level thinking trumps shortcuts, and focusing on product is the ultimate accelerator. Key Topics Covered The Weight of Local Celebrity and the Power of “New” Karl Bryan compares the pressure faced by athletes like Mitch Marner in their hometowns to the challenges coaches feel when becoming “local legends.” Being new in a market is reframed as a hidden advantage—fresh faces wield a psychological “superpower” that can accelerate growth, provided coaches leverage it rather than fear it. Rules of Money for Business Coaches Money is fundamentally “a game of doubles”—constantly look for trajectories to double investments, whether in marketing, skills, or assets. Compounding is a key driver: marginal utility and small improvements across many areas trigger outsized, accelerated results. Patience and “aggressive patience”: real wealth (for you and your clients) is built by “hurrying up and waiting” rather than chasing quick wins or lotteries. Taxes and fees are often ignored but are the #1 expense for most people and require intentional, strategic management. Product, Sales, and Marketing Mastery Success flows from being excellent at your product first—if your service delivers, sales and marketing get dramatically easier. Sales is one-to-one, marketing is one-to-many, but “product” is what truly solves the problem and generates lasting referrals. The classic principle: “You can't sell or market your way out of a bad product.” Standing Against Popular Business Myths Myths like passive income, four-hour workweeks, and “do what you love and make millions” are unpacked as misleading for most coaches. Instead, the actionable advice is to become extremely good at your craft, focus on profit margins, and fall in love with what you do best. Selecting Ideal Coaching Clients Your ideal client is “you, five years ago,” and those with strong profit margins. Focus on helping highly coachable, successful people, not just anyone willing to pay. Beware of spreading yourself thin with multiple streams of income before your main business is thriving. Notable Quotes “Being new is like a superpower—like new, sex, and chocolate.” “Money is a game of doubles… have a path to turn $1,000 into $2,000.” “You can't sell and market your way out of a bad product.” “Needing nothing attracts everything.” “If you buy stuff, you end up with stuff. Not needing something is the same as having it.” “If you can sell, you can't coach. If you can coach, you can't sell.” “Play big. The anxiety isn't from overwhelm—it's from knowing you're capable of more.” Actionable Takeaways Leverage Your “Newness”: Don't be afraid to enter new markets; position yourself as the fresh expert to stand out and attract attention. Focus on Doubling and Compounding: Aim to double the outcomes of every investment—financial, time, or client results. Teach your clients about the magic of compounding: small, smart improvements in multiple areas add up fast. Be Aggressively Patient: “Hurry up and wait”—apply urgency in action, but patience in expecting results. Master Your Product: Strive to be the absolute best and (eventually) the only choice in your niche. Constantly refine your coaching deliverables and operating systems to make getting clients effortless by reputation and results. Prioritize the Right Clients: Go after highly coachable, growth-minded, and profitable clients—ideally, those you were like 5 years ago. Challenge “Feel-Good” Myths: Don't get distracted by gimmicks promising fast wins or easy lifestyles. Focus on skill-building, operational leverage, and real profitability. Understand Your Real Expenses: Taxes, fees, and interest are the true drains on wealth—work with pros and educate yourself to minimize them for you and your clients. Resources Mentioned Profit Acceleration Software (by Karl Bryan) Book: The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel Book: Money Master the Game by Tony Robbins Book: The Four Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss (discussed critically) Networking Groups & Masterminds Focused.com for tools, resources, and the community If you enjoyed the episode, please subscribe, share with a fellow coach, and leave a review. See you next week on Business Coaching Secrets! Ready to elevate your coaching business? Don't wait. Listen to this episode now and make real moves toward your goals. Visit Focused.com for more details on Profit Acceleration Software™ and join our thriving coaching community. Get a demo at: https://go.focused.com/profit-acceleration

07-04-25 - Influencer Hawks Cocktail To Supposedly Stall Or End A Woman's Period - BOSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this raw and revealing episode, our guest Roselle Pastetes shares how unresolved conflicts around territory, trust, and womanhood showed up in her body - through UTIs, painful cycles, and vaginal discharge - and how her eventual divorce brought resolution in more ways than one.We explore the nuances of GNM's bladder mucosa and uterine programs, the limits of perceptual resolution, and how sometimes the body asks us to make real-life changes we'd rather avoid. This is a conversation about honoring your inner knowing, releasing self-blame, and learning when it's time to let go - not just of symptoms, but of identities, relationships, and old stories.Find us on Instagram:Ashlee -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠@alchemywithashlee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Abigail -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠@ajpuccioni⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Our personal websites:Ashlee -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠alchemywithashlee.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Abigail -⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠abigailpuccioni.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Where to find RoselleInstagram - @staywellwithroselleWebsite - ​​www.staywellwithroselle.com/If you would like to submit a question or comment about the podcast, please reach out to us at  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠freedomfromfearpod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠!

7-2 Dirty Work Hour 2: the audience reacts as there is plenty of blame to go around plus Marcus Thompson on W's relative quiet free agency periodSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This episode hit me different. Sometimes you need to slow down and get real about what's holding you back. Three lessons that changed my perspective completely. First lesson hurts the most. Leave people where they are. Yeah I know that stings. You want everyone you care about to grow with you. To level up when you level up. But here's what I learned the hard way. Some people aren't ready. They're clinging to comfort. To familiarize. To easy. You can't make that choice for them. You'll waste your energy trying to drag people forward who don't want to move. Focus that energy on yourself. On the people who do want to grow. Second lesson is about accepting situations for what they are. Not giving up your power. Not saying "it is what it is" like some victim. But understanding what you can and can't control. You can't change other people. Period. But you can always change your situation. Always. You have that power. Third lesson will save your sanity. Not every action needs a reaction. You're like water hitting a rock. Yeah you still get wet. You still feel it. But you stay unshakable. Unmovable. Unbreakable. Because you choose your response. That's where your real power lives. In your choice to react or not react. These three lessons will change how you move through the world. How you protect your energy. How you focus on what actually matters. Connect:Connect with Rick: https://linktr.ee/mrrickjordanSubscribe & Review to ALL IN with Rick Jordan on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/RickJordanALLIN

Have an upcoming Summer BBQ and feel overwhelmed by what to fuel with? If you are on a period recovery journey and are attempting to navigate social events this summer, this episode is for you! The Eat More Carbs Podcast is the go-to podcast for the GIRLIES who want to fuel their body properly with easy, fun and simple nutrition! Hosted by Reilly Beatty and Jenna Fisher, two registered dietitians that bring you weekly episodes to help you meet your goals while breaking free of diet culture.The Period Recovery Guide is now LIVE! Get your copy today! Use the code "EMC10" to get $20 OFFTo apply to the RBSN Period Recovery Program, visit reillybeatty.com or click hereYou can follow Reilly and Jenna on Instagram @easy.sports.nutrition @jenna.fisher.nutrition

In the first decades of the 20th Century, a growth in literacy and the availability of paperback and hardback books created a culture of mass participation on literary reading that was unprecedented. Nicola Wilson's new book Recommended, a history of the Book Society, tells the story of Hugh Walpole, JB Priestley and Cecil Day Lewis amongst others and how they created the first mass book club which sent monthly recommendations to lower middle class and working class readers. Here we hear from Nicola and explore the era of mass literary culture and also the pushback from more elitist cultural gatekeepers and literary critics. A must listen for anyone interested in Britain's social and cultural modern history. *****STOP PRESS*****I only ever talk about history on this podcast but I also have another life, yes, that of aspirant fantasy author and if that's your thing you can get a copy of my debut novel The Blood of Tharta, right here:Help the podcast to continue bringing you history each weekIf you enjoy the Explaining History podcast and its many years of content and would like to help the show continue, please consider supporting it in the following ways:If you want to go ad-free, you can take out a membership hereOrYou can support the podcast via Patreon hereOr you can just say some nice things about it here Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

 This week, GP and SP go deep on what's arguably the most pivotal week for the gambling world in years. From legislative crackdowns and lawsuits to tax chaos and rigging scandals, the crew delivers a comprehensive State of the Union for sports betting and its gray-market cousins. If you care about betting—legally, professionally, or recreationally—this is a must-listen. 0:00 – Opening Thoughts & Why This Episode Exists5:30 – New Jersey Proxy Betting Bill20:30 – The Sweeps Crackdown29:30 – Prediction Markets: The New Gray Market Darling38:30 – Underdog vs. California?55:30 – The Federal Tax Bomb That Could Kill Sports Betting1:08:30 – Malik Beasley's Sketchy Rebounds Line Movement1:15:30 – Fanatics Passes on Illinois Tax Hike (to You)1:18:30 – SP's “Bug” Speech1:20:30 – Listener Q&AWelcome to The Risk Takers Podcast, hosted by professional sports bettor John Shilling (GoldenPants13) and SportsProjections. This podcast is the best betting education available - PERIOD. And it's free - please share and subscribe if you like it.My website: https://www.goldenpants.com/ Follow SportsProjections on Twitter: https://x.com/Sports__ProjWant to work with my betting group?: john@goldenpants.comWant 100s of +EV picks a day?: https://www.goldenpants.com/gp-picks

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Abby opens up about removing her IUD, getting her period back after six years, and switching to natural family planning. Matt & Abby also share parenting moments with two toddlers, period mishaps, and why they're rethinking screen time. This episode is sponsored by Revolve: Shop at http://REVOLVE.com/unplanned and use code UNPLANNED for 15% off your first order. #REVOLVEpartner Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices