Podcasts about Preference

It's safe to say most of us love comfort. We like things set just right, from the AC to the music to how church feels. But what happens when God asks you to step out of what's comfortable? In this episode, the fellas talk about the difference between purpose and preference and how following Jesus often means saying yes when every part of you wants to say no. From baked potatoes and pumpkin bread to prayer meetings, Serve Days, and Peter's boat, this conversation will make you laugh, think, and maybe even squirm a little. Choosing purpose will always stretch you, but it is in those moments of humble obedience that God moves the most.   Did you accept Christ today? Fill out our digital connection card: https://churchontherock.net/connect-card

In light of the kick-off of Points Program Stage 3 of Aster I'm publishing this episode recorded on September 29, 2025 with Leonard, CEO of Aster, on Aster's value proposition, all things related to the token transparency, Aster Chain, and future plans00:27 Leonard's Journey into Crypto03:56 Defining Aster's Current and Future Vision07:21 Aster's Unique Value Proposition09:57 Governance and Decentralization in Aster11:39 Leonard's Preference on Other DEX Products13:39 The Dark Pool Design Explained18:36 Tokenomics and Supply Dynamics23:57 Genesis Stage 2 / 3 Points Program28:16 Spot Trading and Liquidity Development33:05 Postmortem on XPL Incident35:31 Oracle and Tokenized Stocks37:17 Token Buybacks Philosophy43:04 Product Features and User Demographics46:31 Aster Chain and Future Directions51:02 Market Maker Program and Mobile App DevelopmentX: @LeonardAster/ @Aster_DEX Website: https://www.asterdex.com/ If you like this episode, you're welcome to tip with Ethereum / Solana / Bitcoin:如果喜欢本作品，欢迎打赏ETH/SOL/BTC：ETH: 0x83Fe9765a57C9bA36700b983Af33FD3c9920Ef20SOL: AaCeeEX5xBH6QchuRaUj3CEHED8vv5bUizxUpMsr1KytBTC: 3ACPRhHVbh3cu8zqtqSPpzNnNULbZwaNqG Important Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Mable Jiang, or other podcast guests, are solely their opinion. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice. Mable Jiang may hold positions in some of the projects discussed on this show. 重要声明：Mable Jiang或嘉宾在播客中的观点仅代表他们的个人看法。此播客仅用于提供信息，不作为投资参考。Mable Jiang有时可能会在此节目中讨论的某项目中持有头寸。

Exodus 16 | Andy BauerAre you in a season of wandering? This Fall we are revisiting the first sermon series we ever went through as a church seven years ago. We are following the story of Moses and the Israelites as they encountered God, were delivered from Egypt and wandered in the wilderness. This comes at a significant time as we prepare to move into our own building. To learn how to partner with us, click the link below.https://www.firesidechurch.org/anewspaceforfiresidehttps://www.firesidechurch.org/

What if every single person in your organization—no matter their title—stepped into a starring leadership role? In this episode of Build a Vibrant Culture, Nicole Greer welcomes Lasada “LP” Pippen, a powerhouse keynote speaker and the author of It's Just Not Common Sense. Once a computer engineer, LP now inspires audiences with The Climb, his signature keynote that equips leaders and teams with the mindset to rise higher, personally and professionally.Nicole and LP unpack six powerful principles—Trust, Preference, Perspective, Problem, Moment, and Contentment—that transform the way we lead and the cultures we build. Along the way, they dive into how to replace fear with psychological safety, why principles outlast policies, and how to embrace curiosity, change, and trust at every level of an organization.If you're ready to see problems as opportunities, reset your perspective, and build a culture rooted in trust, this conversation is your roadmap to climbing higher and creating a vibrant workplace.Vibrant Highlights:[00:02:30] What “leadership at every level” really means[00:11:15] Trust as the foundation of culture (and why it matters more than love)[00:20:05] The Preference Principle: freedom to work your way[00:40:10] The Moment Principle: why “now” is the best timeframe[00:44:37] Nicole and LP's final recap of the six principles for building a vibrant cultureConnect with LP:Website: https://www.lasadapippen.com/homeBook: https://www.lasadapippen.com/book-storeLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lasada-pippen-keynote/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LasadaPippenX: https://www.x.com/lasadapippenAlso mentioned in this episode:Positive Intelligence by Shirzad Chamine: https://a.co/d/65htxO2Paralympian David Brown: https://www.teamusa.com/profiles/david-brownTedTalk "How to Start a Movement" by Derek Sivers: https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement?utm_campaign…Listen at vibrantculture.com/podcast or wherever you listen to podcasts!Learn more about Nicole Greer, The Vibrant Coach, at vibrantculture.com.

In this episode of The Neuro Experience, I sit down with Dr. Kellyann Niotis—one of the first fellowship-trained preventive neurologists—to reveal how you can protect your brain long before symptoms of Alzheimer's or dementia appear. With Alzheimer's cases expected to triple by 2050, Dr. Niotis explains the difference between dementia types, the real role of genes like ApoE4, and why lifestyle choices may be more powerful than genetics. If you want actionable tools to lower your risk, strengthen your memory, and understand the future of preventive neurology, this conversation delivers science-backed strategies you can start applying today. About Dr. Kellyann Niotis: Dr. Kellyann Niotis is the first fellowship-trained preventive neurologist focused on reducing risk for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Lewy Body Dementia. She launched the nation's first Alzheimer's Prevention Clinic at Weill Cornell and now leads early-detection and brain health research at the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases Florida. Her work appears in leading medical journals and has been featured by CNN. *** Subscribe to The Neuro Experience for more conversations at the intersection of brain science and performance. I'm committed to bringing you evidence-based insights that you can apply to your own health journey. *** A huge thank you to my sponsors for supporting this episode:TimelineHead to⁠ http://timeline.com/neuro⁠ to get started. BeamVisit ⁠http://shopbeam.com/TNE⁠ and use code TNE at checkout. Jones Road BeautyHead to ⁠http://Jonesroadbeauty.com⁠ and use code NEURO at checkout. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. PLEASE support our show and tell them our show sent you. NOCDHead to ⁠http://learn.nocd.com/NEURO⁠ and book a free 15 minute call to get started. Eko HealthGo to ⁠http:/ekohealth.com/NEURO ⁠ for up to $50 off, plus a free chest piece cover.  *** I'm Louisa Nicola — clinical neuroscientist — Alzheimer's prevention specialist — founder of Neuro Athletics. My mission is to translate cutting-edge neuroscience into actionable strategies for cognitive longevity, peak performance, and brain disease prevention. If you're committed to optimizing your brain — reducing Alzheimer's risk — and staying mentally sharp for life, you're in the right place. Stay sharp. Stay informed. Join thousands who subscribe to the Neuro Athletics Newsletter → https://bit.ly/3ewI5P0 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/louisanicola_/ Twitter : https://twitter.com/louisanicola_ *** Topics discussed: 00:00 – Introduction 01:25 – Preventative neurology 02:23 – Dementia vs. Alzheimer's & Other Types of Dementia 04:08 – What Is Alzheimer's? 05:26 – Clinical Diagnosis: Imaging & Symptoms 07:07 – How Amyloid Disrupts Neural Communication 09:48 – Genetics vs. Lifestyle: Public Misunderstanding 12:02 – Role of Family History & Genetic Risk 14:04 – The ApoE4 Gene Explained15:07 – ApoE Variants 17:08 – ApoE4 and Lipid Transport in the Brain 18:35 – Immune Response & Infection Susceptibility 20:05 – Hormones: Key Role in Brain Health 21:08 – Genotypes & Risk Multipliers 23:01 – ApoE4 Not Always Deterministic: Population Studies 24:15 – Other Genetic Factors Beyond ApoE 25:13 – Biomarkers: Current Use & Limitations 27:13 – Risks of Self-Testing Biomarkers 28:45 – Why Two-Thirds of Patients Are Women 29:46 – Estrogen, Menopause & Neuroprotection 32:07 – Testosterone & Dementia Risk 35:01 – LDL, ApoB & Brain Health Debate 37:01 – Statins & Dementia: Myths vs. Evidence 39:08 – Fear & Misconceptions Around Cholesterol 41:09 – Lipoprotein(a) & Vascular Dementia Risk 44:39 – Brain Vasculature & Hypertension 49:15 – New Alzheimer's Drugs & Risks 55:32 – Why Rates Keep Rising (Lifestyle & Stress) 58:11 – Early Signs 01:00:23 – Tau Protein, Tangles & Neuronal Damage 01:05:49 – Keto vs. Mediterranean 01:07:14 – Personalization & Preference for Mediterranean Diet Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Step inside one of Europe's largest legal brothels with Catherine DeNoire—a PhD student in organizational psychology and the manager behind the business side of the sex industry. From HR to marketing to worker safety, Catherine shares what it's really like to run a brothel that operates more like a corporation than a cliché. We dive into the realities of customer behavior, how legality shapes safety, the surprising economics of sex work, and why personality matters more than looks. Equal parts researcher and operator, Catherine is breaking stereotypes and reshaping how the world sees this often-misunderstood industry.Behavior Concepts Covered:GeneralizationContingent reinforcement Preference assessment Shaping Unconditioned reinforcement Connect with Catherine:Instagram: @catherine_de_noire and @cath_de_noireTikTok: @kate.denoireFacebook: Catherine De Noire pageOnlyFans: onlyfans.com/catherinedenoire/Connect with Behavior BitchesInsta: @behaviorbitchespodcastFacebook: Behavior Bitches PodcastWebsite: BehaviorBitches.comPatreon: Patreon.com/BehaviorBitchesPodcastContact Us: For podcast inquiries, episode ideas, or just to say hi, email us at behaviorbitches@studynotesaba.com Leave us a 5-star review in the Apple Podcast App so we can read it to everyone during our episodes and make us super happy!Looking for BCBA Exam Prep or CEUs?• Whether you need help passing the BCBA exam or are looking to earn CEUs, Study Notes ABA has you covered. Check out our website for comprehensive exam prep materials, prep courses, and CEUs• Test Prep: StudyNotesABA.com• CEUs: CEU.StudyNotesABA.com

In 2011, Coca-Cola introduced a white version of their Coca-Cola can. The drink inside was identical to original Coca-Cola, but customers drinking from this white can hated the taste.  The white can made buyers think the Cola tasted worse.  To explain why, I need to delve into the science of sensehacking. With Professor Adrian North, I'll explain why tennis players grunt loudly, why cars smell different when new, how a tablecloth alters our taste, and that music changes what you buy.  ---  Join the Nudge Vaults waiting list: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join the Nudge Unit waiting list: https://maven.com/nudge-unit/course-cohort Sign up for my newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list   Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew-22213187/   Watch Nudge on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nudgepodcast/  ---  Today's sources  Bschaden, A., Dörsam, A., Cvetko, K., & Stroebele-Benschop, N. (2020). The impact of lighting and table linen as ambient factors on meal intake and taste perception. Food Quality and Preference, 79, 103797. Cañal-Bruland, R., Müller, F., Lach, B., & Spence, C. (2018). Auditory contributions to visual anticipation in tennis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 100–103. Garber, M. (2012, July 26). The future of advertising will be squirted into your nostrils as you sit on a bus. The Atlantic. Golan, M., & Fenko, A. (2015). Toward a sensory congruence model: Matching sounds with material properties. Food Quality and Preference, 46, 33–43. Guéguen, N., Jacob, C., Lourel, M., & Pascual, A. (2012). When drivers see red: Car color and driving behavior. Color Research & Application, 37(5), 452–455. Hanss, D., Steger, D., & Giesel, F. (2012). The influence of car color on driver behavior and perceptions of speed. Color Research & Application, 37(4), 304–309. Hirsch, A. (1991, February 4). Preliminary results of olfaction Nike study. Marketing News, 25, 1–2. Horswill, M. S., & Plooy, A. M. (2008). Auditory feedback influences perceived driving speed. Perception, 37(7), 1037–1043. Leenders, M. A. A. M., Smidts, A., & El Haji, A. (2019). Ambient scent as a mood inducer in supermarkets: The role of scent intensity and time-pressure of shoppers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 270–280. Milliman, R. E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 86–91. North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 271–276. Spence, C. (2021). Sensehacking: How to use the power of your senses for happier, healthier living. Viking. Wall Street Journal. (2012, October 23). Why consumers doubt silent vacuum cleaners. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203406404578074671598804116 Zellner, D., Geller, T., Lyons, S., Pyper, A., & Riaz, K. (2017). Ethnic congruence of music and food affects food selection but not liking. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 126-129.

Preference card management plays a critical role in improving accuracy, reducing costs, and driving efficiency across surgical services. Host LaTammy Marks, Senior Performance Improvement Program Director at Vizient, sits down with Carol Zelenkowski, System Operations Manager for Surgical Services at Main Line Health, to discuss their journey toward optimizing over 20,000 preference cards. Carol shares how her team used data to uncover cost variations, build surgeon buy-in, and achieve reduction in card volume. She also reflects on lessons learned and how these improvements are now expanding into other specialties, offering valuable insights for health systems nationwide.   Guest speaker: Carol Zelenkowski, BSN, RN, CNOR System Operations Manager MLH Surgical Services, Main Line Corporate Center   Host: LaTammy Marks, MBA, BSN, RN Senior PI Program Director, Performance Improvement Programs Vizient   Show notes: [01:01] – Main Line Health's starting point and challenges with preference cards before joining the Vizient collaborative [01:50] – Why Main Line Health chose to participate in the Vizient collaborative [02:51] – How the team decided which preference cards to prioritize for review and optimization [03:24] – Key insights uncovered in the data, including cost saving and variation trends [04:33] – Gaining surgeon buy-in by presenting accurate preference card data [05:35] – The measurable savings achieved and the positive impact on Main Line Health's surgical services [06:52] – Expanding preference card optimization to other specialties and the future of this work.   Links | Resources: Contacting Knowledge on the Go: picollaboratives@vizientinc.com Unlocking savings through preference card management Transform your perioperative supply chain Subscribe Today! Apple Podcasts Spotify Android RSS Feed

Hey UN•THERAPIST,We need your help UN•THERAPIZING something…

Celý díl najdete na našem HeroHero a Patreonu.

Boo Maddox reveals how to scale with focus, energy, and vision. From 204 transactions to team leadership, he shares practical strategies, ethical insights, and inspiring lessons that prove wealth is about impact, not just numbers.See full article: https://www.unitedstatesrealestateinvestor.com/building-wealth-and-purpose-through-real-estate-with-boo-maddox/(00:03) - Introduction to The REI Agent Podcast and Guest Boo Maddox(00:21) - Boo Maddox's Journey: From Mortgage Lending to Top Real Estate Sales(01:10) - The Story Behind the Name "Boo"(02:22) - Early Career in Mortgage and Transition to Real Estate Sales(03:58) - Rapid Success: Selling 58 Homes in Eight Months(05:48) - Building a Mini-Team: Hiring Content Creators and Support Staff(08:52) - Scaling Business by Working with Investors(10:41) - Running a Team of 70+ Agents at Real Broker(11:44) - Serving Builders: Marketing, Pricing, and Manpower Strategies(13:25) - Land Acquisition: The Key to Controlling Builder Relationships(14:46) - Pricing Strategies for Builders and Phased Development(15:53) - Organic Content and Marketing for Builders(17:30) - Long-Term Goal: Becoming Utah's Go-To Builder Agent(17:57) - Considering Investment in Developments and Land Deals(19:19) - Ethics vs. Profit: Boo's Perspective on Rental Communities(21:16) - Family Goals: Rental Properties as Gifts for Children(22:30) - Tax Advantages: Bonus Depreciation and Cost Segregation(23:39) - Identifying Investor Goals: Cash Flow vs. Appreciation(24:38) - Working with Mom-and-Pop vs. Large-Scale Investors(25:26) - Preference for New Construction in Rental Investments(26:25) - Comparing New Construction vs. Burr Method Strategies(27:07) - Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing(28:06) - New Construction Version of the BRRRR Strategy(29:23) - Challenges with Interest Rates and Exploring Midterm Rentals(30:24) - Creative Financing with Builder Concessions(31:52) - Focusing on Production in the First Two Years of Real Estate(34:12) - The Boulder Analogy: The Two-Year Grind Before Success(35:44) - Three Golden Nuggets: Simplify, Focus, Prioritize Energy(36:37) - Book Recommendation: Unreasonable Hospitality by Will Guidara(38:15) - Lessons from Apple and Disney on Experience vs. Specs(39:01) - Where to Find Boo Maddox Online(39:23) - Closing Thoughts from Mattias and Boo(39:39) - Outro and DisclaimerContact Boo Maddoxhttps://www.facebook.com/steven.maddox.79/https://www.instagram.com/boo_maddox/https://www.youtube.com/@boomaddoxhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/boo-maddox-a5aa50b4/Success is not just about the numbers but about creating meaningful impact, building strong teams, and living with purpose. Keep the main thing the main thing, and visit https://reiagent.com

Catherine Lanigan is the bestselling author of over forty published titles in both fiction and non-fiction, including the novelizations of Romancing the Stone and The Jewel of the Nile, as well as over half a dozen anthologies, including “Chicken Soup for the Soul: Living your Dream”, “Chicken Soup for the Writer's Soul”, “Chocolate for a Woman's Heart”, and “Chocolate for a Woman's Spirit”. Ms. Lanigan's novels have been translated into over a dozen languages including German, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian, Portuguese, Chinese, and Japanese. Ms. Lanigan's novels are also available on audio-cassette, CD and in E-books on Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.com. Several of her titles have been chosen for The Literary Guild and Doubleday Book Clubs. Her Vietnam war-based novel, The Christmas Star, won the Gold Medal Award Top Pick from Romantic Times Magazine and has also won Book of the Year Romance Gold Award from ForeWord Magazine as well as Book of the Year Romance from Reader's Preference.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media. 

When & why did circumcision begin (it's not what you think)? What are the arguments for it & what are the experts saying? Sugar water instead of anesthetic?? Brendon Marotta is a filmmaker whose feature-length documentary, American Circumcision, won multiple awards & can be found on Amazon & YouTube. In this episode, we talk about the surprising history of circumcision, the practice today, parental consent & why this is so hard to talk about, but female circumcision isn't.  This episode originally aired March 13, 2023. If you like this episode, you'll also like episode 293: THE SECRET LIVES OF MEN: MENTAL HEALTH CONFESSIONS! Guest: https://www.hegemonmedia.com/https://brendonmarotta.com/https://twitter.com/bdmarottahttps://www.instagram.com/bdmarotta/ Host:  https://www.meredithforreal.com/  https://www.instagram.com/meredithforreal/ meredith@meredithforreal.comhttps://www.youtube.com/meredithforreal  https://www.facebook.com/meredithforrealthecuriousintrovert  Sponsors: https://www.jordanharbinger.com/starterpacks/ https://www.historicpensacola.org/about-us/  00:00 — Why Americans still circumcise02:00 — Thought barriers around foreskin04:30 — Cultural hypnosis at work07:00 — The ripple effect on men's lives09:00 — Masculinity, shame & silence13:00 — Who really benefits?14:00 — Circumcision's strange beginnings16:00 — From “cure for masturbation” to medicine18:00 — Parental choice or medical coercion?21:00 — Relative vs absolute risk explained23:00 — Science, politics & cultural blame game27:00 — The baby restraint nobody wants to see28:00 — Sugar water instead of anesthetic29:00 — Trauma that lives in the body30:00 — Physical consequences & lost sensation33:00 — When men discover hidden trauma35:00 — Anger, intimacy & what's really missing36:00 — The simplest solution of all37:00 — Where to find Brendon's workRequest to join my private Facebook Group, MFR Curious Insiders https://www.facebook.com/share/g/1BAt3bpwJC/

A new study in the journal Food Quality and Preference investigated if increasing the spiciness of a meal could influence eating behaviors and reduce how much food people consume. In a series of experiments, researchers had adults eat either a mild or a spicy version of beef chili or chicken tikka masala in a lab setting. The results were significant: when participants ate the spicy beef chili, they consumed 11% less food (about 46 grams) and ate 11% more slowly compared to when they ate the mild version. A similar outcome was observed with a reformulated chicken tikka masala, where the spicy version led to an 18% reduction in food intake (about 64 grams) and a 17% slower eating rate. Interestingly, this reduction in consumption was not because participants liked the spicy food less or drank more water. The findings suggest that the “oral burn” from capsaicin—the active component in chili peppers—directly leads to slower eating and bite rates, which in turn reduces overall food and energy intake.DisclaimersThis information is for educational purposes only and should not be interpreted as medical advice.The study discussed was conducted on adults in a controlled laboratory setting. These findings may not apply to different populations or real-world dining situations.Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making any changes to your diet, supplement regimen, or treatment plan, especially if you have a medical condition or are taking medications.#Capsaicin #EatingRate #FoodIntake #Satiation #PaprikaCunningham, P. M., Smith, I. M., & Hayes, J. E. (2025). Increasing the spiciness of a lunch meal influences oral processing behaviors and decreases food and energy intake. Food Quality and Preference, 131, 105566.Capsaicin, paprika, oral burn, spice, chili pepper, eating rate, food intake, energy intake, oral processing, satiation, satiety, ad libitum intake, beef chili, chicken tikka masala, eating behavior, weight management, food formulation, paprika, non-textural manipulation, bite rate, meal duration, food pleasure, calorie reduction, appetite, human study, crossover design

Tři týdny před sněmovními volbami si opoziční hnutí ANO stále drží výrazný náskok před vládní koalicí Spolu. Ta varuje před možnou vládou ANO s SPD a komunisty ze Stačilo!. Spolupráci s Andrejem Babišem Spolu ale rozhodně odmítá. „S ohledem na to, jak vyostřená je rétorika hnutí ANO vůči krokům, které vláda dělá a které udělala i v těžkých časech, a hlavně to, co přinesly v programu, což je fakt chiméra, že by bilion korun byli schopni získat z šedé ekonomiky, tak za sebe říkám, že představit si to nedovedu. A hnutí ANO říká totéž,“ prohlásil místopředseda ODS a ministr dopravy Martin Kupka v předvolebním speciálu Ptám se já z Next Zone na pražském Smíchově. Preference hnutí ANO se necelé tři týdny do sněmovních voleb 3. a 4. října drží nad 30 procenty hlasů. Vládní koalice Spolu složená z ODS, TOP 09 a KDU-ČSL kolem 20 procent. Její zástupci nicméně stále věří, že můžou získat další voliče. „Teď jsme ve finiši kampaně a usilujeme o to, abychom získali nerozhodnuté voliče, i ty, které jsme třeba nenadchli nebo zklamali,“ řekl Kupka. „A jde nám o to, aby naše země zůstala opravdu pevná v dalším směřování v rámci NATO a v rámci Evropské unie jako aktivní člen, který bude víc říkat, co chce a kde jsou jeho národní zájmy.“„Snažíme se ukazovat nejen to, co se povedlo nám jako vládě, ale co se povedlo podnikatelům, společnosti, jak se společnost zachovala jako celek v okamžiku, kdy Putin zaútočil na Ukrajinu. To jsou hrozně důležité body, které drží společnost,“ dodal ministr.Zároveň připustil, že vládě se některé věci skutečně nepovedly, ať už šlo třeba o nedodržení slibu, že nezvýší daně nebo že zajistí vyšší platy učitelů. Co bude se Spolu a pozicí jejího lídra, šéfa ODS a současného premiéra Petra Fialy, pokud koalice volby prohraje, nechtěl Martin Kupka předjímat. „O tom teď vůbec nebudu spekulovat, protože by to okamžitě vyvolávalo vlnu otázek, jak to vlastně ten Kupka myslí a co tam řekl. Ne, já stojím pevně za Petrem Fialou,“ reagoval místopředseda ODS na dotaz, zda by byl případně připraven kandidovat do čela strany. Nepřehání to Spolu se strašením před Andrejem Babišem? A proč nedokázala lidem lépe vysvětlit svoji politiku? --Podcast Ptám se já. Rozhovory s lidmi, kteří mají vliv, odpovědnost, informace.Sledujte na Seznam Zprávách, poslouchejte na Podcasty.cz a ve všech podcastových aplikacích.Archiv všech dílů najdete tady. Své postřehy, připomínky nebo tipy nám pište prostřednictvím sociálních sítí pod hashtagem #ptamseja nebo na e-mail: audio@sz.cz.

Enjoy this podcast, as Pastor Donny Smith teaches the word of God.Check us out on our website at AscensionChristianCenter.com or our Facebook and Instagram @AscensionChristianCenter.

In this candid conversation, Poppy Bourg and Shannon McGough of Poppy McGough Design House unpack the evolving Dallas design scene, the challenges of modern publishing, and the importance of integrating architecture and interior design. They discuss how their unique backgrounds inform their approach, client expectations in a shifting market, and why authenticity and craftsmanship matter more than fleeting trends. Designer Resources Pacific Sales Kitchen and Home. Where excellence meets expertise. Design Hardware - A stunning and vast collection of jewelry for the home! TimberTech - Real wood beauty without the upkeep LOME-AI.com, simple, inexpensive, text to video harnessing the power of AI to grow your firm, beautifully. From the pitfalls of celebrity-driven design magazines to the nuanced demands of Dallas homeowners, Poppy and Shannon reveal how they balance creativity, technical knowledge, and client relationships to create spaces that are not only beautiful but built to last. They explore the impact of regional influences, climate challenges, and the expanding role of interior designers in shaping cohesive, livable homes. 1. The State of Design Publications & Celebrity Influence Shift in design media focus: from architecture to celebrity homes Challenges of magazines cutting back editorial staff and local flavor Dallas's design culture: diverse, not pigeonholed into one “look” 2. Client Trends and Diversity in Dallas Architecture Clients influenced by wide range of styles via online exposure Resurgence of traditional styles alongside modern, Mediterranean, Santa Barbara influences Growing trend of lake homes post-2020 pandemic and its impact on local design culture 3. Modernism and Design Inspirations Experience visiting Modernism Week in Palm Springs Dallas's limited mid-century modern presence compared to other cities Appreciation for maximalism and richly detailed interiors beyond minimalist trends 4. Backgrounds & Partnership Story Shannon's hospitality design and hotel experience, focus on durability and build process Poppy's real estate and builder project management background, deep builder and trade knowledge How their combined skills create a holistic approach to residential design and construction collaboration 5. Building Challenges in Dallas Impact of active soil, climate extremes, and shifting weather on construction and interiors Importance of realistic client expectations around timelines, soil testing, and permitting Regional differences in design challenges and neighborhood personalities across Dallas metroplex 6. Expanded Role of Interior Designers Growing client education on lighting, air quality, water filtration, and acoustics Increasing involvement in exterior design for cohesive indoor-outdoor flow Navigating intellectual property issues, brand extensions, and designer-led product lines 7. Photography, Styling, and Portfolio Strategy Not every project gets photographed due to client preference or cost In-house styling process balancing client personality with editorial needs Preference for showcasing recent projects and maintaining strong referral-based business Thank you, Poppy, Shannon. Loved our chat and appreciate the time. Thank you for listening. If you liked this episode, share it with a friend or colleague who loves design and architecture like you do, subscribe to Convo By Design wherever you get your podcasts. And continue the conversation on Instagram @convo x design with an “x”. Keep those emails coming with guest suggestions, show ideas and locations where you'd like to see the show. Convo by design at outlook.com. Thank you, Poppy, Shannon. Loved our chat and appreciate the time. Thank you for listening. If you liked this episode, share it with a friend or colleague who loves design and architecture like you do, subscribe to Convo By Design wherever you get your ...

It's deep cut season.    Be prepared for strong opinions and very personal views as Indigo hosts the first of three episodes exploring queer life and some of the stand out issues for the queer community. This week, the topic is dating!   Indigo and Luke will get very frank in sharing their thoughts and opinions, please remember that these are the views of the individuals.   Share your own thoughts, experiences and join the conversation on Insta: @aheartstopperpodcast and in the Facebook group.

(00:00) Fred is quizzed on action movie franchises! (19:31) Dave Richard is the Fantasy Football Guru for CBSSports.com - He joins the show to help get your team ready for week 2 (32:55) Joe Murray’s is asked about his italian sub preference (PLEASE be aware timecodes may shift up to a few minutes due to inserted ads) CONNECT WITH TOUCHER & HARDY: linktr.ee/ToucherandHardy For the latest updates, visit the show page on 985thesportshub.com. Follow 98.5 The Sports Hub on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Watch the show every morning on YouTube, and subscribe to stay up-to-date with all the best moments from Boston’s home for sports!

Hour 4 of the Wednesday Bob Rose Show with Greg Cassidy filling in. Latest figures show gains in Republican voter registrations during Gov. DeSantis' administration, now over 1.3 million more than Dems, plus the morning's biggest stories for 9-3-2025

As May—and Food Allergy Awareness and Celiac Disease Awareness Month—wraps up, I'm delighted to bring you a truly impactful conversation with Claire Beach, Catering Director at Azura Events in London. Claire is a passionate advocate for inclusive and sustainable event planning, drawing deeply from her own lived experiences as a gluten-free, neurodivergent attendee. In this candid episode, we explore what it actually means to get gluten-free right at events—and why it's a true responsibility, not a mere preference, for everyone involved in our industry. Claire and I dive into how communication, education, and empathy are at the heart of providing safe, empowering, and waste-conscious dining experiences for all. Tune in to hear practical strategies her new UK task force is pursuing, plus creative ideas to ensure every guest feels truly welcomed and included. You'll hear the real-life impact—physical, emotional, and professional—of getting it wrong and how we can all do better.

Cory Holen is a seasoned staffing and search consultant with nearly 14 years of experience at Preference Employment Solutions in Fargo, North Dakota, where he leads the Professional Search Division and plays a key role on the leadership team. A proud University of Jamestown (ND) graduate and former Jimmies football player, Holen brings the discipline, competitiveness, and team-first mindset he developed as a student-athlete into his career helping businesses find and grow great talent.Passionate about connecting people with opportunities, Holen thrives on understanding what makes organizations tick and helping candidates step into roles where they can truly succeed. He's a Certified Search Consultant through the American Staffing Association, DiSC certified, and a Dale Carnegie–trained leader who's always looking for ways to keep learning and improving.Outside of work, Holen is a dedicated husband and dad who loves coaching, mentoring, and supporting his two sports-loving sons, Kason and Brooks. He's also active in the Fargo/Moorhead community, serving as Workforce Readiness Director for FMHRA and contributing to The Chamber's Business Training Committee. Known for his energy, integrity, and genuine care for others, Cory brings both expertise and heart to everything he does. More on Cory here: Our Team - Preference Employment Solutions

This is the third episode of a series focused on the findings of the Horizon Europe project CAPABLE (ClimAte Policy AcceptaBiLity Economic framework). The aim of this podcast series is to provide an overview of the CAPABLE project and draw attention to some particularly relevant findings. In this third episode, we dive into a fascinating survey carried out in the context of the CAPABLE project that explores how citizens across the European Union view the feasibility of climate change policies. We focus on social and contextual factors affecting behavioral change and support for specific climate policies. The guest is Keith Smith. Keith is a senior researcher at ETH Zurich. His research analyses the incentives shaping why institutions, policymakers and citizens around the world will (or will not) work towards creating environmental public goods, such as mitigating climate change, or improving air quality. Along with colleagues at the University of Groningen, Keith is a co-lead WP2 in the HEU Capable project on social acceptability and feasibility. CAPABLE is a research project funded by the Horizon Europe Programme under grant agreement No 101056891. It provides robust, resilient and actionable recommendations for the design of socially and economically acceptable climate policy measures for 2030 and beyond, examining experiences, policy design and implementation solutions to identify strategies that can enable a successful transition. Views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union. More info on CAPABLE: https://capableclimate.eu/

Drs. Zubair Ansari and Basil Williams join for a candid discussion regarding the state of the ophthalmology residency match, including a discussion of dropping match percentages and the introduction of preference signaling.

Preference & Priorities | Dwelling Place Pt 4 | Adam Williams

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Hour 2 of A&G features... Tariffs & consumer news US colleges & the UK immigration crisis Preference falsification & Gender Bending Madness Schedule for meeting with Zelensky See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hour 2 of A&G features... Tariffs & consumer news US colleges & the UK immigration crisis Preference falsification & Gender Bending Madness Schedule for meeting with Zelensky See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We create tremendous suffering by shrinking our world to the narrow confines of our personal preferences. They have the effect of locking us in a house of our own building wherein we don't realize there is a whole universe outside that house. Through sincere inner work, we can expand our awareness beyond the limits of ourselves into a world of peace, clarity, and selfless giving. © Sounds True Inc. Episodes: © 2025 Michael A. Singer. All Rights Reserved.

We create tremendous suffering by shrinking our world to the narrow confines of our personal preferences. They have the effect of locking us in a house of our own building wherein we don't realize there is a whole universe outside that house. Through sincere inner work, we can expand our awareness beyond the limits of ourselves into a world of peace, clarity, and selfless giving. © Sounds True Inc. Episodes: © 2025 Michael A. Singer. All Rights Reserved.

Nick and Jonathan react to their conversation with Eliot Shorr-Parks by talking about Browns fans' interest in both rookie quarterbacks.

Nick and Jonathan react to the news that Browns rookie RB Quinshon Judkins will not face any formal charges. Then, they're joined by Eliot Shorr-Parks of WIP, and they talk about Browns fans' interest in both rookie quarterbacks.

Jacob Winograd explores why libertarianism—when grounded in Scripture—is more than a political theory; it's a means of living out Christian faith with integrity. He connects biblical principles of stewardship, justice, and mercy to the way we think about law, economics, and the use of power, showing how liberty reflects the ethics of Christ in every sphere of life.Drawing from Scripture, Austrian economic insights, and a consistent application of proportional justice, Jacob presents three reasons liberty matters for Christians: it fosters faithful stewardship of God's creation and resources, it equips believers to balance justice and mercy without coercion, and it demands alignment between our private convictions and public actions. From there, Jacob challenges the mindset that government power can solve moral problems—exposing how state overreach, central economic control, and the criminalization of sin distort both justice and the gospel. He urges Christians to reject domination in all its forms and to live out the self-governance, accountability, and love for neighbor that mark the kingdom of God.Full Episode Notes at BiblicalAnarchyPodcast.comThe Biblical Anarchy Podcast is part of the Christians For Liberty Network, a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute.Audio Production by Podsworth Media.

Have you ever used your giving to steer decisions or send a message?It might seem harmless—or even wise—to designate your gift to specific ministries or withhold it when you disagree with leadership. But when our generosity becomes a tool for control, we've crossed a line. In this episode, we'll explore the subtle danger of using giving as leverage—and discover a better way rooted in surrender and trust.A Hidden Temptation in Church GivingLet's be honest—no one likes the word control when it's pointed at them. But in church life, this temptation surfaces more often than we'd like to admit.It might look like this:Giving only to certain ministries because you don't trust how the church allocates general funds.Withholding your giving when a leadership decision—like a staffing change or budget shift—doesn't sit well with you.Designating gifts to specific areas, not out of passion, but as a form of protest.On the surface, it may look like good financial stewardship. But beneath the surface, it's often an attempt to say, “I want things to go my way, and I'll use my money to make that happen.”That's not generosity. That's leverage. And Scripture warns us against it.The Corban Example: A Heart Check from JesusIn Mark 7, Jesus confronts the Pharisees for misusing a practice called Corban—a method of dedicating money or resources to God. While it sounded spiritual, the religious leaders were using it to dodge their responsibility to care for aging parents.As GotQuestions.org explains:“The Pharisees took a legitimate Corban offering and used it in an illegitimate and devious way to defraud their parents…Jesus tells the Pharisees that their misuse of Corban was an evil rationale to avoid doing what they should.”It wasn't the gift itself that Jesus condemned—it was the motive behind it.In the same way, when we give to maintain control or push our preferences, we're following the spirit of Corban. Even if our reasons sound righteous, they can mask a deeper issue: an unwillingness to surrender.From Leverage to Surrender: The Biblical CallThe Bible offers a better vision.Psalm 24:1 reminds us,“The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it.”That includes our finances. We don't give to direct the church. We give because God owns it all—and calls us to steward it faithfully.Consider the example in Acts 4. Believers sold land and possessions, then laid the proceeds at the apostles' feet. No strings attached. No demands were made about how it was to be used. Just trust, unity, and wholehearted surrender.Of course, that doesn't mean churches shouldn't be transparent or held accountable. Scripture calls leaders to wise and faithful stewardship. But giving with strings isn't about accountability—it's about control. And control is the opposite of trust.What's Driving Your Generosity?Ask yourself: What's driving my giving?Is it love for God?Faith in His provision?Worship and gratitude?Or is it something else?Preference?Power?Payback?When giving becomes conditional, it's no longer cheerful—it's contractual. We treat God's work like a business deal instead of a spiritual act of worship.But when we let go of control, something beautiful happens: we find peace. We no longer feel the pressure to manage every church decision. We can give freely, knowing God is at work—even when His ways don't align with our expectations.Moving Forward in Trust and GraceIf you realize that control has been influencing your giving, here are three steps to take:1. Confess it to the Lord. God is gracious and patient. Ask Him to realign your heart with His and help you give from a place of surrender.2. Release your preferences. You don't have to stop asking questions or seeking transparency. But your generosity shouldn't be tied to your personal comfort or preferences.3. Give with trust. Trust God's ability to work through imperfect people. Trust that when you give with the right heart, your gift brings Him glory.Because when we give to control, we place ourselves at the center. But when we give in faith, we put God at the center—where He belongs.A Resource for the JourneyWant to go deeper into the heart behind generosity? Request a copy of Faithful Steward, our quarterly magazine for FaithFi Partners. With a gift of $35/month or $400 annually, you'll receive this encouraging resource and join a growing community committed to biblical financial wisdom.Learn more at FaithFi.com/Partner.On Today's Program, Rob Answers Listener Questions:My husband's adult son often asks us for money. He and his wife are behind on their bills, but we know they also spend on partying and things like marijuana. My husband feels emotionally pulled in, especially when his son talks about possibly losing their home. We want to be generous, but we don't want to enable irresponsible behavior. How can we approach this situation in a way that's wise and biblical?I'd like to assign someone as my power of attorney, but I don't have any family members I trust to take on that role. What options do I have in this situation?Is it wise to purchase life insurance for your children or grandchildren? What are the pros and cons?I'm thinking about getting a reverse mortgage to create some extra income. Can you explain how they work, and whether they're a good idea? I'd also like to know what risks or downsides I should be aware of.Resources Mentioned:Faithful Steward: FaithFi's New Quarterly Magazine (Become a FaithFi Partner)Understanding Reverse: Simplifying the Reverse Mortgage by Dan HultquistWisdom Over Wealth: 12 Lessons from Ecclesiastes on MoneyLook At The Sparrows: A 21-Day Devotional on Financial Fear and AnxietyRich Toward God: A Study on the Parable of the Rich FoolFind a Certified Kingdom Advisor (CKA) or Certified Christian Financial Counselor (CertCFC)FaithFi App Remember, you can call in to ask your questions most days at (800) 525-7000. Faith & Finance is also available on the Moody Radio Network and American Family Radio. Visit our website at FaithFi.com where you can join the FaithFi Community and give as we expand our outreach.

As new leaders step into new roles, many of them fail to help their subordinates understand the best way to communicate with them. Rather, they let vague assertions, false assumptions and ongoing trial-and-error observations shape the way they get and give information. In this episode, I provide a simple two-step process to gain clarity about […] The post Ep. 375 – Defining your communication preference (no more guessing) appeared first on Just Saying.

Subscribe to the latest sermons: http://bit.ly/TBCsermons To learn more about The Block Church: http://theblockchurch.org/ Stay Connected Facebook: http://bit.ly/2vOiaLa Instagram: http://bit.ly/2nzZNWB Twitter: http://bit.ly/2KEScPL #theblockchurch #ChurchOnline #Onlinechurch

In this episode, Leila (@LeilaHormozi) breaks down one of the most transformative mindset shifts in her personal and professional life: understanding the difference between needs and preferences. Mislabeling a strong desire as a “need” can trap you in emotional drama, drain your relationships, and sabotage your leadership. With personal examples from business, marriage, and recovery from major surgery, Leila shows how language isn't just communication, it's control.Want to scale your business? Apply for one of our scaling workshops here: https://www.acquisition.com/podlWelcome to Build where we talk about the lessons I have learned in scaling big businesses, gaining millions in sales, and helping our portfolio companies do the same. Buckle up, because we're creating an unshakeable business.Want to scale your business? Click here.Follow Leila Hormozi's Socials:LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Acquisition

Discernment has nothing to do with your personal choice, what you prefer, or even what you ‘resonate' with. Most people lack the ability to discern between when their soul is guiding them, and when their unhealed inner child is pulling them in certain direction. In this podcast Rachel expands on the levels of discernment enlightened beings have and how they move through life following their guidance. The Masters of Self University PODCAST is your highest source of Sacred Truth and Universal Wisdom, offered by Rachel Fiori, mystical teacher, psycho-energetic healer, & CEO. Join our journey of soul transformation with hosts Ellie Lee, Danny Morley, and the rest of our amazing Certified Mystical Coaches of Oneness™.Student Enrollment Information:    https://www.mastersofselfuniversity.com/university-enrollmentENTER THE PORTAL TO ONENESS   https://www.mastersofselfuniversity.com/portal-to-onenessRachel's Book on Amazon:  ⁠https://shorturl.at/hkyLRMasters of Self University:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mastersofselfuniversity.com/Rachel's Social Media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/rachel_fiori/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.tiktok.com/@rachelfiori_  https://www.youtube.com/@mastersofselfuniversityNEW EPISODES EVERY MONDAY AND THURSDAY!

Join us as Pastor Rich continues our series, Made To Magnify. 

• Dan explains being late due to Crystal Van leaving early for a real estate closing • Praise for Bart Merrick and Crystal Van's experience in real estate • Importance of pricing a house correctly to avoid financial loss • Bart and Crystal's ability to handle different real estate market phases • Benefits of using a two-person real estate team for scheduling and support • Emphasis on the customer service and financial advantages of experienced realtors • Endorsement of the Bart Merrick Team with website mention • Introduction of the Friday free show of A Mediocre Time with Tom and Dan • Savannah joins the show as a guest • Savannah preparing for an upcoming trip to Australia • Introduction of Jetson, Tom's brother-in-law and an endurance athlete • Jetson participating in the Summit 200 race in Colorado • Description of the Summit 200: 200 miles, 40,000 feet elevation change • Distance comparison from Orlando to Brunswick, GA or Fort Lauderdale • Jetson needing pacers during the race due to hallucinations • Tom discusses planning to pace Jetson but backing out due to foot pain • Joking exchange about Tom's foot and boogers • Tom's original dream of pacing Jetson with his sons in a Winnebago • Jetson identifies Tom as the shortest pacer with a 13-mile segment • Tom realizes his foot fails after 10–12 miles and drops out • Dan and Andrea mention tracking Jetson online during the race • Jetson describes his training regimen for the Summit 200 • Weekly peak training includes 90 miles total: 30 weekday, 60 weekend plus biking • Discussion of sleep schedule and race strategy • Jetson's goal to finish in 85 hours, within the 110-hour cutoff • Use of a spreadsheet for time and mileage planning • Andrea jokes about math and calorie tracking during endurance events • Jetson explains physical exhaustion can lead to collapse despite mental determination • Jokes about dying from diarrhea while wearing tiny shorts during a race • Discussion about whether endurance runners wear diapers—Jetson confirms they just poop in the woods • Jetson outlines nutrition plan: 30,000 calories over 85–90 hours • Sleep strategy includes 3–4 hours total with trail naps and short rests • Sleep stations are basic campsites with cots; runners may skip them if not tired • Preference for trail naps over structured sleep stations • Commentary on early human hunting and endurance-based evolution • Jokes about ancient humans mating with animals before eating them • Jetson's aid station food includes energy gels (“goos”) and dense “fun bars” (adult Rice Krispie treats) • Andrea and Maisie's opinions on athletic energy snacks • Jetson describes the personal reward of pushing physical limits as achieving inner peace • Comparison to psychedelic experiences—“shaking hands with God” • Emphasis on gaining perspective through endurance challenges ### **Social Media:**   [Website](https://tomanddan.com/) | [Twitter](https://twitter.com/tomanddanlive) | [Facebook](https://facebook.com/amediocretime) | [Instagram](https://instagram.com/tomanddanlive) **Where to Find the Show:**   [Apple Podcasts](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-mediocre-time/id334142682) | [Google Podcasts](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2FtZWRpb2NyZXRpbWUvcG9kY2FzdC54bWw) | [TuneIn](https://tunein.com/podcasts/Comedy/A-Mediocre-Time-p364156/) **The Tom & Dan Radio Show on Real Radio 104.1:**   [Apple Podcasts](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-corporate-time/id975258990) | [Google Podcasts](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2Fjb3Jwb3JhdGV0aW1lL3BvZGNhc3QueG1s) | [TuneIn](https://tunein.com/podcasts/Comedy/A-Corporate-Time-p1038501/) **Exclusive Content:** [Join BDM](https://tomanddan.com/registration) **Merch:** [Shop Tom & Dan](https://tomanddan.myshopify.com/)

Our hosts are on the hot seat again to attempt to enlighten and inspire our listeners by answering some of their stellar questions. But the jury is still out on how well Ron, Mark and Jason met the challenge. No matter their final grade, our hosts share thrilling wildlife encounters and delve into the nuances of wildlife photography, including an exploration of the pros and cons between DSLR and mirrorless cameras, their workflows for organizing images, and their dream wildlife encounters, as well as their scariest encounters. The conversation also touches on the challenges of capturing unique wildlife images, as the sport of wildlife photography attracts more new players to the field every week. Join us for a laugh or two on this very diverse episode. Sound Bites"We're trying to build some of these up.""It's a whole different shooting experience.""I would love to photograph a honey badger."Chapters00:00 Wildlife Encounters and Photography Stories03:07 Listener Questions and Podcast Updates06:11 Wildlife Photography Techniques and Strategies11:56 Camera Technology: DSLR vs. Mirrorless20:06 Cataloging and Organizing Images in Lightroom36:32 Finding Your Workflow38:02 Organizing and Cataloging Images40:33 Dream Wildlife Encounters54:09 Scary Wildlife EncountersThis Episodes Questions:@Elksongs_Images (Jason Cox)Are you looking for new locations, or working harder than other photogs in the National Parks?@Vancouver.Island.BackcountryWhat are the pros and cons of DSLR vs. Mirroless cameras wildlife photography?@Randy_TremblayIn Adobe Lightroom, do you use one catalogue or multiples? Do you use subject folders?@Wildly.Thick.Of.ItDream up the most magical wildlife encounter imaginable. Preference: alone or with a buddy?@DeirdreDenaliPhotographyWhat is the scariest wildlife encounter each of you has had?Thanks for tuning in to the Beyond the Wild Podcast. Don't forget to subscribe to stay notified about upcoming episodes for your listening and viewing pleasure! Beyond the Wild Podcast is sponsored by Pictureline.com and Canon USA.

Jennifer Love Hewitt Sparks HUGE DEBATE On Preference: Are Black Men Bottom Feeders? CoachGregAdams YouTube FreeAgentLifestyle YouTube

In this episode of Iron Culture, Dr. Eric Trexler and Dr. Lauren Colenso-Semple discuss science related to attractiveness, coolness, and personality type. They explore scientific studies on the factors associated with perceived attractiveness and "coolness," discussing body fat percentages and societal perceptions. The conversation shifts to how personality traits appear to predict workout preferences and engagement in fitness, then they debate the importance of matching exercise to individual characteristics. Time stamps: 00:00 Introduction to Iron Culture and Guests 5:57 The Science of (Male) Attractiveness 10:39 Evolutionary Underpinnings of Male Attractiveness 13:53 Distorted Perceptions of Attractiveness (In the Fitness World) 20:10 The Irony of Pursuing Attractiveness 22:22 Body-Fat and Optimized Health 24:18 Surprising Article Feedback 28:50 Unrealistic Body Standards and Gender Perceptions 32:49 Achieving the Outcome Versus Doing Hard Things 35:07 Attractiveness is More Than Body Shape/Size 37:48 The Science of Being Cool 47:19 Matching Exercise To Personality Types References: Xia F, Sauciuvenaite J, Bissland R, Hambly C, Starr-Vaanholt L, Faries MD, et al. The relationship between body fatness and physical attractiveness in males. Personality and Individual Differences. 2025 Sep 1;243:113240. de Jager S, Coetzee N, Coetzee V. Facial Adiposity, Attractiveness, and Health: A Review. Front Psychol. 2018 Dec 21;9:2562. Brierley ME, Brooks KR, Mond J, Stevenson RJ, Stephen ID. The Body and the Beautiful: Health, Attractiveness and Body Composition in Men's and Women's Bodies. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156722. Sorokowski P, Kościński K, Sorokowska A, Huanca T. Preference for Women's Body Mass and Waist-to-Hip Ratio in Tsimane' Men of the Bolivian Amazon: Biological and Cultural Determinants. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 22;9(8):e105468. Tovée MJ, Cornelissen PL. Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in front-view and profile. Br J Psychol. 2001 May;92(Pt 2):391–402. Jayedi A, Khan TA, Aune D, Emadi A, Shab-Bidar S. Body fat and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Int J Obes (Lond). 2022 Sep;46(9):1573–81. Hu J, Chen X, Yang J, Giovannucci E, Lee DH, Luo W, et al. Association between fat mass and mortality: analysis of Mendelian randomization and lifestyle modification. Metabolism. 2022 Nov;136:155307. Ramlau-Hansen CH, Thulstrup AM, Nohr EA, Bonde JP, Sørensen TIA, Olsen J. Subfecundity in overweight and obese couples. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jun;22(6):1634–7. Wei S, Schmidt MD, Dwyer T, Norman RJ, Venn AJ. Obesity and menstrual irregularity: associations with SHBG, testosterone, and insulin. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009 May;17(5):1070–6. Liu Y, Hu X, Xiong M, Li J, Jiang X, Wan Y, et al. Association of BMI with erectile dysfunction: A cross-sectional study of men from an andrology clinic. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1135024. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0001799 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1587472/full

The SEC commissioner kicked off SEC Media Days by saying that if the SEC and B1G can't get on the same page regarding a 16-team playoff, then it could still remain as a 12-team playoff, with the deadline for any change being December 1st  He seemed more than fine to keep it at 12 teams in his comments…he also said regarding college athletics, “it's not broken—it is under stress and it is strained.” There's a lot of ways to try and describe college sports right now… Show Sponsored by SANDHILLS GLOBALOur Sponsors:* Check out Hims: https://hims.com/EARLYBREAKAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In the Kingdom of God, blessings aren't random, they're rooted in principle. When you understand the order, you'll stop living by emotion and start walking in authority.Get access to our real estate community, coaching, courses, and events at Wealthy University https://www.wealthyuniversity.com/Join our FREE community, weekly calls, and bible studies for Christian entrepreneurs and business people. https://www.wealthykingdom.com/ If you want to level up, text me at 725-527-7783!--- About Ryan Pineda: Ryan Pineda has been in the real estate industry since 2010 and has invested in over $100,000,000 of real estate. He has completed over 700 flips and wholesales, and he owns over 650 rental units. As an entrepreneur, he has founded seven different businesses that have generated 7-8 figures of revenue. Ryan has amassed over 2 million followers on social media and has generat...

The ego often says “I don't care” as a defense mechanism to avoid pain or disappointment. Truly not caring isn't about becoming indifferent, but about genuinely letting go of the need for things to be a certain way. When we stop resisting life and release our inner preferences, we experience a peaceful state where nothing has to change for us to be OK. For more information, go to michaelsingerpodcast.com. © Sounds True Inc. Episodes: © 2025 Michael A. Singer. All Rights Reserved.

The ego often says “I don't care” as a defense mechanism to avoid pain or disappointment. Truly not caring isn't about becoming indifferent, but about genuinely letting go of the need for things to be a certain way. When we stop resisting life and release our inner preferences, we experience a peaceful state where nothing has to change for us to be OK. For more information, go to michaelsingerpodcast.com. © Sounds True Inc. Episodes: © 2025 Michael A. Singer. All Rights Reserved.