Podcasts about Procedural

Pam Harris, Exploring the Power & Purpose of Number Strings ROUNDING UP: SEASON 4 | EPISODE 4 I've struggled when I have a new strategy I want my students to consider and despite my best efforts, it just doesn't surface organically. While I didn't want to just tell my students what to do, I wasn't sure how to move forward. Then I discovered number strings.  Today, we're talking with Pam Harris about the ways number strings enable teachers to introduce new strategies while maintaining opportunities for students to discover important relationships.  BIOGRAPHY Pam Harris, founder and CEO of Math is Figure-out-able™, is a mom, a former high school math teacher, a university lecturer, an author, and a mathematics teacher educator. Pam believes real math is thinking mathematically, not just mimicking what a teacher does. Pam helps leaders and teachers to make the shift that supports students to learn real math. RESOURCES Young Mathematicians at Work by Catherine Fosnot and Maarten Dolk  Procedural fluency in mathematics: Reasoning and decision-making, not rote application of procedures position by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Bridges number string example from Grade 5, Unit 3, Module 1, Session 1 (BES login required) Developing Mathematical Reasoning: Avoiding the Trap of Algorithms by Pamela Weber Harris and Cameron Harris Math is Figure-out-able!™ Problem Strings TRANSCRIPT Mike Wallus: Welcome to the podcast, Pam. I'm really excited to talk with you today. Pam Harris: Thanks, Mike. I'm super glad to be on. Thanks for having me. Mike: Absolutely.  So before we jump in, I want to offer a quick note to listeners. The routine we're going to talk about today goes by several different names in the field. Some folks, including Pam, refer to this routine as “problem strings,” and other folks, including some folks at The Math Learning Center, refer to them as “number strings.” For the sake of consistency, we'll use the term “strings” during our conversation today.  And Pam, with that said, I'm wondering if for listeners, without prior knowledge, could you briefly describe strings? How are they designed? How are they intended to work? Pam: Yeah, if I could tell you just a little of my history. When I was a secondary math teacher and I dove into research, I got really curious: How can we do the mental actions that I was seeing my son and other people use that weren't the remote memorizing and mimicking I'd gotten used to?  I ran into the work of Cathy Fosnot and Maarten Dolk, and [their book] Young Mathematicians at Work, and they had pulled from the Netherlands strings. They called them “strings.” And they were a series of problems that were in a certain order. The order mattered, the relationship between the problems mattered, and maybe the most important part that I saw was I saw students thinking about the problems and using what they learned and saw and heard from their classmates in one problem, starting to let that impact their work on the next problem. And then they would see that thinking made visible and the conversation between it and then it would impact how they thought about the next problem. And as I saw those students literally learn before my eyes, I was like, “This is unbelievable!” And honestly, at the very beginning, I didn't really even parse out what was different between maybe one of Fosnot's rich tasks versus her strings versus just a conversation with students. I was just so enthralled with the learning because what I was seeing were the kind of mental actions that I was intrigued with. I was seeing them not only happen live but grow live, develop, like they were getting stronger and more sophisticated because of the series of the order the problems were in, because of that sequence of problems. That was unbelievable. And I was so excited about that that I began to dive in and get more clear on: What is a string of problems?  The reason I call them “problem strings” is I'm K–12. So I will have data strings and geometry strings and—pick one—trig strings, like strings with functions in algebra. But for the purposes of this podcast, there's strings of problems with numbers in them. Mike: So I have a question, but I think I just want to make an observation first. The way you described that moment where students are taking advantage of the things that they made sense of in one problem and then the next part of the string offers them the opportunity to use that and to see a set of relationships. I vividly remember the first time I watched someone facilitate a string and feeling that same way, of this routine really offers kids an opportunity to take what they've made sense of and immediately apply it. And I think that is something that I cannot say about all the routines that I've seen, but it was really so clear. I just really resonate with that experience of, what will this do for children? Pam: Yeah, and if I can offer an additional word in there, it influences their work. We're taking the major relationships, the major mathematical strategies, and we're high-dosing kids with them. So we give them a problem, maybe a problem or two, that has a major relationship involved. And then, like you said, we give them the next one, and now they can notice the pattern, what they learned in the first one or the first couple, and they can let it influence. They have the opportunity for it to nudge them to go, “Hmm. Well, I saw what just happened there. I wonder if it could be useful here. I'm going to tinker with that. I'm going to play with that relationship a little bit.” And then we do it again. So in a way, we're taking the relationships that I think, for whatever reason, some of us can wander through life and we could run into the mathematical patterns that are all around us in the low dose that they are all around us, but many of us don't pick up on that low dose and connect them and make relationships and then let it influence when we do another problem.  We need a higher dose. I needed a higher dose of those major patterns. I think most kids do. Problem strings or number strings are so brilliant because of that sequence and the way that the problems are purposely one after the other. Give students the opportunity to, like you said, apply what they've been learning instantly [snaps]. And then not just then, but on the next problem and then sometimes in a particular structure we might then say, “Mm, based on what you've been seeing, what could you do on this last problem?” And we might make that last problem even a little bit further away from the pattern, a little bit more sophisticated, a little more difficult, a little less lockstep, a little bit more where they have to think outside the box but still could apply that important relationship. Mike: So I have two thoughts, Pam, as I listen to you talk.  One is that for both of us, there's a really clear payoff for children that we've seen in the way that strings are designed and the way that teachers can use them to influence students' thinking and also help kids build a recognition or high-dose a set of relationships that are really important.  The interesting thing is, I taught kindergarten through second grade for most of my teaching career, and you've run the gamut. You've done this in middle school and high school. So I think one of the things that might be helpful is to share a few examples of what a string could look like at a couple different grade levels. Are you OK to share a few? Pam: You bet. Can I tack on one quick thing before I do? Mike: Absolutely. Pam: You mentioned that the payoff is huge for children. I'm going to also suggest that one of the things that makes strings really unique and powerful in teaching is the payoff for adults. Because let's just be clear, most of us—now, not all, but most of us, I think—had a similar experience to me that we were in classrooms where the teacher said, “Do this thing.” That's the definition of math is for you to rote memorize these disconnected facts and mimic these procedures. And for whatever reason, many of us just believed that and we did it. Some people didn't. Some of us played with relationships and everything. Regardless, we all kind of had the same learning experience where we may have taken at different places, but we still saw the teacher say, “Do these things. Rote memorize. Mimic.”  And so as we now say to ourselves, “Whoa, I've just seen how cool this can be for students, and we want to affect our practice.” We want to take what we do, do something—we now believe this could be really helpful, like you said, for children, but doing that's not trivial. But strings make it easier. Strings are, I think, a fantastic differentiated kind of task for teachers because a teacher who's very new to thinking and using relationships and teaching math a different way than they were taught can dive in and do a problem string. Learn right along with your students. A veteran teacher, an expert teacher who's really working on their teacher moves and really owns the landscape of learning and all the things still uses problem strings because they're so powerful. Like, anybody across the gamut can use strings—I just said problem strings, sorry—number strengths—[laughs] strings, all of us no matter where we are in our teaching journey can get a lot out of strings. Mike: So with all that said, let's jump in. Let's talk about some examples across the elementary span. Pam: Nice. So I'm going to take a young learner, not our youngest, but a young learner. I might ask a question like, “What is 8 plus 10?” And then if they're super young learners, I expect some students might know that 10 plus a single digit is a teen, but I might expect many of the students to actually say “8, 9, 10, 11, 12,” or “10, 11,” and they might count by ones given—maybe from the larger, maybe from the whatever. But anyway, we're going to kind of do that. I'm going to get that answer from them. I'm going to write on the board, “8 plus 10 is 18,” and then I would have done some number line work before this, but then I'm going to represent on the board: 8 plus 10, jump of 10, that's 18. And then the next problem's going to be something like 8 plus 9. And I'm going to say, “Go ahead and solve it any way you want, but I wonder—maybe you could use the first problem, maybe not.” I'm just going to lightly suggest that you consider what's on the board. Let them do whatever they do. I'm going to expect some students to still be counting. Some students are going to be like, “Oh, well I can think about 9 plus 8 counting by ones.” I think by 8—”maybe I can think about 8 plus 8. Maybe I can think about 9 plus 9.” Some students are going to be using relationships, some are counting. Kids are over the map.  When I get an answer, they're all saying, like, 17. Then I'm going to say, “Did anybody use the first problem to help? You didn't have to, but did anybody?” Then I'm going to grab that kid. And if no one did, I'm going to say, “Could you?” and pause.  Now, if no one sparks at that moment, then I'm not going to make a big deal of it. I'll just go, “Hmm, OK, alright,” and I'll do the next problem. And the next problem might be something like, “What's 5 plus 10?” Again, same thing, we're going to get 15. I'm going to draw it on the board.  Oh, I should have mentioned: When we got to the 8 plus 9, right underneath that 8, jump, 10 land on 18, I'm going to draw an 8 jump 9, shorter jump. I'm going to have these lined up, land on the 17. Then I might just step back and go, “Hmm. Like 17, that's almost where the 18 was.” Now if kids have noticed, if somebody used that first problem, then I'm going to say, “Well, tell us about that.” “Well, miss, we added 10 and that was 18, but now we're adding 1 less, so it's got to be 1 less.” And we go, “Well, is 17 one less than 18? Huh, sure enough.” Then I give the next set of problems. That might be 5 plus 10 and then 5 plus 9, and then I might do 7 plus 10. Maybe I'll do 9 next. 9 plus 10 and then 9 plus 9. Then I might end that string. The next problem, the last problem might be, “What is 7 plus 9?” Now notice I didn't give the helper. So in this case I might go, “Hey, I've kind of gave you plus 10. A lot of you use that to do plus 9. I gave you plus 10. Some of you use that to do plus 9, I gave you plus 10. Some of you used that plus 9. For this one, I'm not giving you a helper. I wonder if you could come up with your own helper.”  Now brilliantly, what we've done is say to students, “You've been using what I have up here, or not, but could you actually think, ‘What is the pattern that's happening?' and create your own helper?” Now that's meta. Right? Now we're thinking about our thinking. I'm encouraging that pattern recognition in a different way. I'm asking kids, “What would you create?” We're going to share that helper. I'm not even having them solve the problem. They're just creating that helper and then we can move from there.  So that's an example of a young string that actually can grow up. So now I can be in a second grade class and I could ask a similar [question]: “Could you use something that's adding a bit too much to back up?” But I could do that with bigger numbers. So I could start with that 8 plus 10, 8 plus 9, but then the next pair might be 34 plus 10, 34 plus 9. But then the next pair might be 48 plus 20 and 48 plus 19. And the last problem of that string might be something like 26 plus 18. Mike: So in those cases, there's this mental scaffolding that you're creating. And I just want to mark this. I have a good friend who used to tell me that part of teaching mathematics is you can lead the horse to water, you can show them the water, they can look at it, but darn it, do not push their head in the water. And I think what he meant by that is “You can't force it,” right?  But you're not doing that with a string. You're creating a set of opportunities for kids to notice. You're doing all kinds of implicit things to make structure available for kids to attend to—and yet you're still allowing them the ability to use the strategies that they have. We might really want them to notice that, and that's beautiful about a string, but you're not forcing. And I think it's worth saying that because I could imagine that's a place where folks might have questions, like, “If the kids don't do the thing that I'm hoping that they would do, what should I do?” Pam: Yeah, that's a great question. Let me give you another example. And in that example I'll talk about that.  So especially as the kids get older, I'm going to use the same kind of relationship. It's maybe easier for people to hang on to if I stay with the same sort of relationship. So I might say, “Hey everybody. 7 times 8. That's a fact I'm noticing most of us just don't have [snaps] at our fingertips. Let's just work on that. What do you know?” I might get a couple of strategies for kids to think about 7 times 8. We all agree it's 56.  Then I might say, “What's 70 times 8?” And then let kids think about that. Now, this would be the first time I do that, but if we've dealt with scaling times 10 at all, if I have 10 times the number of whatever the things is, then often kids will say, “Well, I've got 10 times 7 is 70, so then 10 times 56 is 560.” And then the next problem might be, “I wonder if you could think about 69 times 8. If we've got 70 eights, can I use that to help me think about 69 eights?” And I'm saying that in a very specific way to help ping on prior knowledge. So then I might do something similar. Well, let's pick another often missed facts, I don't know, 6 times 9. And then we could share some strategies on how kids are thinking about that. We all agree it's 54. And then I might say, “Well, could you think about 6 times 90?” I'm going to talk about scaling up again. So that would be 540. Now I'm going really fast. But then I might say, “Could we use that to help us think about 6 times 89?” I don't know if you noticed, but I sort of swapped. I'm not thinking about 90 sixes to 89 sixes. Now I'm thinking about 6 nineties to help me think about 6 eighty-nines. So that's a little bit of a—we have to decide how we're going to deal with that. I'll kind of mess around with that. And then I might have what we call that clunker problem at the end. “Notice that I've had a helper: 7 times 8, 70 times 8. A lot of you use that to help you think about 69 times 8. Then I had a helper: 6 times 9, 6 times 90. A lot of you use that to help you think about 6 times 89. What if I don't give you those helpers? What if I had something like”—now I'm making this up off the cuff here, like—“9 times 69. 9 times 69. Could you use relationships we just did?”  Now notice, Mike, I might've had kids solving all those problems using an algorithm. They might've been punching their calculator, but now I'm asking the question, “Could you come up with these helper problems?” Notice how I'm now inviting you into a different space. It's not about getting an answer. I'm inviting you into, “What are the patterns that we've been establishing here?” And so what would be those two problems that would be like the patterns we've just been using? That's almost like saying when you're out in the world and you hit a problem, could you say to yourself, “Hmm, I don't know that one, but what do I know? What do I know that could help me get there?” And that's math-ing. Mike: So, you could have had a kid say, “Well, I'm not sure about how—I don't know the answer to that, but I could do 9 times 60, right?” Or “I could do 10 times”—I'm thinking—“10 times 69.” Correct? Pam: Yes, yes. In fact, when I gave that clunker problem, 9 times 69, I said to myself, “Oh, I shouldn't have said 9 because now you could go either direction.” You could either “over” either way. To find 9 I can do 10, or to find 69 I can do 70. And then I thought, “Ah, we'll go with it because you can go either way.” So I might want to focus it, but I might not. And this is a moment where a novice could just throw it out there and then almost be surprised. “Whoa, they could go either direction.” And an expert could plan, and be like, “Is this the moment where I want lots of different ways to go? Or do I want to focus, narrow it a little bit more, be a little bit more explicit?” It's not that I'm telling kids, but I'm having an explicit goal. So I'm maybe narrowing the field a little bit. And maybe the problem could have been 7 times 69, then I wouldn't have gotten that other “over,” not the 10 to get 9. Does that make sense? Mike: It absolutely does. What you really have me thinking about is NCTM's [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics'] definition of “fluency,” which is “accuracy, efficiency, and flexibility.” And the flexibility that I hear coming out of the kinds of things that kids might do with a string, it's exciting to imagine that that's one of the outcomes you could get from engaging with strings. Pam: Absolutely. Because if you're stuck teaching memorizing algorithms, there's no flexibility, like none, like zilch. But if you're doing strings like this, kids have a brilliant flexibility. And one of the conversations I'd want to have here, Mike, is if a kid came up with 10 times 69 to help with 9 times 69, and a different kid came up with 9 times 70 to help with 9 times 69, I would want to just have a brief conversation: “Which one of those do you like better, class, and why?” Not that one is better than the other, but just to have the comparison conversation. So the kids go, “Huh, I have access to both of those. Well, I wonder when I'm walking down the street, I have to answer that one: Which one do I want my brain to gravitate towards next time?” And that's mathematical behavior. That's mathematical disposition to do one of the strands of proficiency. We want that productive disposition where kids are thinking to themselves, “I own relationships. I just got to pick a good one here to—what's the best one I could find here?” And try that one, then try that one. “Ah, I'll go with this one today.” Mike: I love that.  As we were talking, I wanted to ask you about the design of the string, and you started to use some language like “helper problems” and “the clunker.” And I think that's really the nod to the kinds of features that you would want to design into a string. Could you talk about either a teacher who's designing their own string—what are some of the features?—or a teacher who's looking at a string that they might find in a book that you've written or that they might find in, say, the Bridges curriculum? What are some of the different problems along the way that really kind of inform the structure? Pam: So you might find it interesting that over time, we've identified that there's at least five major structures to strings, and the one that I just did with you is kind of the easiest one to facilitate. It's the easiest one to understand where it's going, and it's the helper-clunker structure. So the helper-clunker structure is all about, “I'm going to give you a helper problem that we expect all kids can kind of hang on.” They have some facility with, enough that everybody has access to. Then we give you a clunker that you could use that helper to inform how you could solve that clunker problem. In the first string I did with you, I did a helper, clunker, helper, clunker, helper, clunker, clunker. And the second one we did, I did helper, helper, clunker, helper, helper, clunker, clunker. So you can mix and match kind of helpers and clunkers in that, but there are other major structures of strings. If you're new to strings, I would dive in and do a lot of helper-clunker strings first. But I would also suggest—I didn't create my own strings for a long time. I did prewritten [ones by] Cathy Fosnot from the Netherlands, from the Freudenthal Institute. I was doing their strings to get a feel for the mathematical relationships for the structure of a string. I would watch videos of teachers doing it so I could get an idea of, “Oh, that move right there made all the difference. I see how you just invited kids in, not demand what they do.” The idea of when to have paper and pencil and when not, and just lots of different things can come up that if you're having to write the string as well, create the string, that could feel insurmountable.  So I would invite anybody out listening that's like, “Whoa, this seems kind of complicated,” feel free to facilitate someone else's prewritten strings. Now I like mine. I think mine are pretty good. I think Bridges has some pretty good ones. But I think you'd really gain a lot from facilitating prewritten strings.  Can I make one quick differentiation that I'm running into more and more? So I have had some sharp people say to me, “Hey, sometimes you have extra problems in your string. Why do you have extra problems in your string?” And I'll say—well, at first I said, “What do you mean?” Because I didn't know what they were talking about. Are you telling me my string's bad? Why are you dogging my string? But what they meant was, they thought a string was the process a kid—or the steps, the relationships a kid used to solve the last problem. Does that make sense? Mike: It does. Pam: And they were like, “You did a lot of work to just get that one answer down there.” And I'm like, “No, no, no, no, no, no. A problem string or a number string, a string is an instructional routine. It is a lesson structure. It's a way of teaching. It's not a record of the relationships a kid used to solve a problem.” In fact, a teacher just asked—we run a challenge three times a year. It's free. I get on and just teach. One of the questions that was asked was, “How do we help our kids write their own strings?” And I was like, “Oh, no, kids don't write strings. Kids solve problems using relationships.” And so I think what the teachers were saying was, “Oh, I could use that relationship to help me get this one. Oh, and then I can use that to solve the problem.” As if, then, the lesson's structure, the instructional routine of a string was then what we want kids to do is use what they know to logic their way through using mathematical relationships and connections to get answers and to solve problems. That record is not a string, that record is a record of their work. Does that make sense, how there's a little difference there? Mike: It totally does, but I think that's a good distinction. And frankly, that's a misunderstanding that I had when I first started working with strings as well. It took me a while to realize that the point of a string is to unveil a set of relationships and then allow kids to take them up and use them. And really it's about making these relationships or these problem solving strategies sticky, right? You want them to stick. We could go back to what you said. We're trying to high-dose a set of relationships that are going to help kids with strategies, not only in this particular string, but across the mathematical work they're doing in their school life. Pam: Yes, very well said. So for example, we did an addition “over” relationship in the addition string that I talked through, and then we did a multiplication “over” set of relationships and multiplication. We can do the same thing with subtraction. We could have a subtraction string where the helper problem is to subtract a bit too much. So something like 42 minus 20, and then the next problem could be 42 minus 19. And we're using that: I'm going to subtract a bit too much and then how do you adjust? And hoo, after you've been thinking about addition “over,” subtraction “over” is quite tricky. You're like, “Wait, why are we adding what we're subtracting?” And it's not about teaching kids a series of steps. It's really helping them reason. “Well, if I give you—if you owe me 19 bucks and I give you a $20 bill, what are we going to do?” “Oh, you've got to give me 1 back.” Now that's a little harder today because kids don't mess around with money. So we might have to do something that feels like they can—or help them feel money. That's my personal preference. Let's do it with money and help them feel money.  So one of the things I think is unique to my work is as I dove in and started facilitating other people's strings and really building my mathematical relationships and connections, I began to realize that many teachers I worked with, myself included, thought, “Whoa, there's just this uncountable, innumerable wide universe of all the relationships that are out there, and there's so many strategies, and anything goes, and they're all of equal value.” And I began to realize, “No, no, no, there's only a small set of major relationships that lead to a small set of major strategies.” And if we can get those down, kids can solve any problem that's reasonable to solve without a calculator, but in the process, building their brains to reason mathematically. And that's really our goal, is to build kids' brains to reason mathematically. And in the process we're getting answers. Answers aren't our goal. We'll get answers, sure. But our goal is to get them to build that small set of relationships because that small set of strategies now sets them free to logic their way through problems. And bam, we've got kids math-ing using the mental actions of math-ing. Mike: Absolutely. You made me think about the fact that there's a set of relationships that I can apply when I'm working with numbers Under 20. There's a set of relationships, that same set of relationships, I can apply and make use of when I'm working with multidigit numbers, when I'm working with decimals, when I'm working with fractions. It's really the relationships that we want to expose and then generalize and recognize this notion of going over or getting strategically to a friendly number and then going after that or getting to a friendly number and then going back from that. That's a really powerful strategy, regardless of whether you're talking about 8 and 3 or whether you're talking about adding unit fractions together. Strings allow us to help kids see how that idea translates across different types of numbers. Pam: And it's not trivial when you change a type of number or the number gets bigger. It's not trivial for kids to take this “over” strategy and to be thinking about something like 2,467 plus 1,995—and I know I just threw a bunch of numbers out, on purpose. It's not trivial for them to go, “What do I know about those numbers? Can I use some of these relationships I've been thinking about?” Well, 2,467, that's not really close to a friendly number. Well, 1,995 is. Bam. Let's just add 2,000. Oh, sweet. And then you just got to back up 5. It's not trivial for them to consider, “What do I know about these two numbers, and are they close to something that I could use?” That's the necessary work of building place value and magnitude and reasonableness. We've not known how to do that, so in some curriculum we create our whole extra unit that's all about place value reasonableness. Now we have kids that are learning to rote memorize, how to estimate by round. I mean there's all this crazy stuff that we add on when instead we could actually use strings to help kids build that stuff naturally kind of ingrained as we are learning something else.  Can I just say one other thing that we did in my new book? Developing Mathematical Reasoning: Avoiding the Trap of Algorithms. So I actually wrote it with my son, who is maybe the biggest impetus to me diving into the research and figuring out all of this math-ing and what it means. He said, as we were writing, he said, “I think we could make the point that algorithms don't help you learn a new algorithm.” If you learn the addition algorithm and you get good at it and you can do all the addition and columns and all the whatever, and then when you learn the subtraction algorithm, it's a whole new thing. All of a sudden it's a new world, and you're doing different—it looks the same at the beginning. You line those numbers still up and you're still working on that same first column, but boy, you're doing all sorts—now you're crossing stuff out. You're not just little ones, and what? Algorithms don't necessarily help you learn the next algorithm. It's a whole new experience. Strategies are synergistic. If you learn a strategy, that helps you learn the next set of relationships, which then refines to become a new strategy. I think that's really helpful to know, that we can—strategies build on each other. There's synergy involved. Algorithms, you got to learn a new one every time. Mike: And it turns out that memorizing the dictionary of mathematics is fairly challenging. Pam: Indeed [laughs], indeed. I tried hard to memorize that. Yeah. Mike: You said something to me when we were preparing for this podcast that I really have not been able to get out of my mind, and I'm going to try to approximate what you said. You said that during the string, as the teacher and the students are engaging with it, you want students' mental energy primarily to go into reasoning. And I wonder if you could just explicitly say, for you at least, what does that mean and what might that look like on a practical level? Pam: So I wonder if you're referring to when teachers will say, “Do we have students write? Do we not have them write?” And I will suggest: “It depends. It's not if they write; it's what they write that's important.”  What do I mean by that? What I mean is if we give kids paper and pencil, there is a chance that they're going to be like, “Oh, thou shalt get an answer. I'm going to write these down and mimic something that I learned last year.” And put their mental energy either into mimicking steps or writing stuff down. They might even try to copy what you've been representing strategies on the board. And their mental effort either goes into mimicking, or it might go into copying.  What I want to do is free students up [so] that their mental energy is, how are you reasoning? What relationships are you using? What's occurring to you? What's front and center and sort of occurring? Because we're high-dosing you with patterns, we're expecting those to start happening, and I'm going to be saying things, giving that helper problem. “Oh, that's occurring to you? It's almost like it's your idea—even though I just gave you the helper problem!” It's letting those ideas bubble up and percolate naturally and then we can use those to our advantage. So that's what I mean when [I say] I want mental energy into “Hmm, what do I know, and how can I use what I know to logic my way through this problem?” And that's math-ing. Those are the mental actions of mathematicians, and that's where I want kids' mental energy. Mike: So I want to pull this string a little bit further. Pun 100% intended there. Apologies to listeners.  What I find myself thinking about is there've got to be some do's and don'ts for how to facilitate a string that support the kind of reasoning and experience that you've been talking about. I wonder if you could talk about what you've learned about what you want to do as a facilitator when you're working with a string and maybe what you don't want to do. Pam: Yeah, absolutely. So a good thing to keep in mind is you want to keep a string snappy. You don't want a lot of dead space. You don't want to put—one of the things that we see novice, well, even sometimes not-novice, teachers do, that's not very helpful, is they will put the same weight on all the problems.  So I'll just use the example 8 plus 10, 8 plus 9, they'll—well, let me do a higher one. 7 times 8, 70 times 8. They'll say, “OK, you guys, 7 times 8. Let's really work on that. That's super hard.” And kids are like, “It's 56.” Maybe they have to do a little bit of reasoning to get it, because it is an often missed fact, but I don't want to land on it, especially—what was the one we did before? 34 plus 10. I don't want to be like, “OK, guys, phew.” If the last problem on my string is 26 plus 18, I don't want to spend a ton of time. “All right, everybody really put all your mental energy in 36 plus 10” or whatever I said. Or, let's do the 7 times 8 one again. So, “OK, everybody, 7 times 8, how are you guys thinking about that?” Often we're missing it. I might put some time into sharing some strategies that kids use to come up with 7 times 8 because we know it's often missed. But then when I do 70 times 8, if I'm doing this string, kids should have some facility with times 10. I'm not going to be like, “OK. Alright, you guys, let's see what your strategies are. Right? Everybody ready? You better write something down on your paper. Take your time, tell your neighbor how….” Like, it's times 10. So you don't want to put the same weight—as in emphasis and time, wait time—either one on the problems that are kind of the gimmes, we're pretty sure everybody's got this one. Let's move on and apply it now in the next one. So there's one thing. Keep it snappy. If no one has a sense of what the patterns are, it's probably not the right problem string. Just bail on it, bail on it. You're like, “Let me rethink that. Let me kind of see what's going on.” If, on the other hand, everybody's just like, “Well, duh, it's this” and “duh, it's that,” then it's also probably not the right string. You probably want to up the ante somehow.  So one of the things that we did in our problem string books is we would give you a lesson and give you what we call the main string, and we would write up that and some sample dialogs and what the board could look like when you're done and lots of help. But then we would give you two echo strings. Here are two strings that get at the same relationships with about the same kind of numbers, but they're different and it will give you two extra experiences to kind of hang there if you're like, “Mm, I think my kids need some more with exactly this.” But we also then gave you two next-step strings that sort of up the ante. These are just little steps that are just a little bit more to crunch on before you go to the next lesson that's a bit of a step up, that's now going to help everybody increase. Maybe the numbers got a little bit harder. Maybe we're shifting strategy. Maybe we're going to use a different model. I might do the first set of strings on an area model if I'm doing multiplication. I might do the next set of strings in a ratio table. And I want kids to get used to both of those.  When we switch up from the 8 string to the next string, kind of think about only switching one thing. Don't up the numbers, change the model, and change the strategy at the same time. Keep two of those constant. Stay with the same model, maybe up the numbers, stay with the same strategy. Maybe if you're going to change strategies, you might back up the numbers a little bit, stick with the model for a minute before you switch the model before you go up the numbers. So those are three things to consider. Kind of—only change up one of them at a time or kids are going to be like, “Wait, what?” Kids will get higher dosed with the pattern you want them to see better if you only switch one thing at a time. Mike: Part of what you had me thinking was it's helpful, whether you're constructing your own string or whether you're looking at a string that's in a textbook or a set of materials, it's still helpful to think about, “What are the variables at play here?” I really appreciated the notion that they're not all created equal. There are times where you want to pause and linger a little bit that you don't need to spend that exact same amount of time on every clunker and every helper. There's a critical problem that you really want to invest some time in at one point in the string. And I appreciated the way you described, you're playing with the size of the number or the complexity of the number, the shift in the model, and then being able to look at those kinds of things and say, “What all is changing?” Because like you said, we're trying to kind of walk this line of creating a space of discovery where we haven't suddenly turned the volume up to 11 and made it really go from like, “Oh, we discovered this thing, now we're at full complexity,” and yet we don't want to have it turned down to, “It's not even discovery because it's so obvious that I knew it immediately. There's not really anything even to talk about.” Pam: Nice. Yeah, and I would say we want to be right on the edge of kids' own proximal development, right on the edge. Right on the edge where they have to grapple with what's happening. And I love the word “grapple.” I've been in martial arts for quite a while, and grappling makes you stronger. I think sometimes people hear the word “struggle” and they're like, “Why would you ever want kids to struggle?” I don't know that I've met anybody that ever hears the word “grapple” as a negative thing. When you “grapple,” you get stronger. You learn. So I want kids right on that edge where they are grappling and succeeding. They're getting stronger. They're not just like, “Let me just have you guess what's in my head.” You're off in the field and, “Sure hope you figure out math, guys, today.” It's not that kind of discovery that people think it is. It really is: “Let me put you in a place where you can use what you know to notice maybe a new pattern and use it maybe in a new way. And poof! Now you own those relationships, and let's build on that.” And it continues to go from there.  When you just said—the equal weight thing, let me just, if I can—there's another, so I mentioned that there's at least five structures of problem strings. Let me just mention one other one that we like, to give you an example of how the weight could change in a string. So if I have an equivalent structure, an equivalent structure looks like: I give a problem, and an example of that might be 15 times 18. Now I'm not going to give a helper; I'm just going to give 15 times 18. If I'm going to do this string, we would have developed a few strategies before now. Kids would have some partial products going on. I would probably hope they would have an “over,” I would've done partial products over and probably, what I call “5 is half a 10.”  So for 15 times 18, they could use any one of those. They could break those up. They could think about twenty 15s to get rid of the extra two to have 18, 15. So in that case, I'm going to go find a partial product, an “over” and a “5 is half a 10,” and I'm going to model those. And I'm going to go, “Alright, everybody clear? Everybody clear on this answer?” Then the next problem I give—so notice that we just spent some time on that, unlike those helper clunker strings where the first problem was like a gimme, nobody needed to spend time on that. That was going to help us with the next one. In this case, this one's a bit of a clunker. We're starting with one that kids are having to dive in, chew on. Then I give the next problem: 30 times 9. So I had 15 times 18 now 30 times 9. Now kids get a chance to go, “Oh, that's not too bad. That's just 3 times 9 times 10. So that's 270. Wait, that was the answer to the first problem. That was probably just coincidence. Or was it?” And now especially if I have represented that 15 times 18, one of those strategies with an area model with an open array, now when I draw the 30 by 9, I will purposely say, “OK, we have the 15 by 18 up here. That's what that looked like. Mm, I'll just use that to kind of make sure the 30 by 9 looks like it should. How could I use the 15 by 18? Oh, I could double the 15? OK, well here's the 15. I'm going to double that. Alright, there's the 30. Well, how about the 9? Oh, I could half? You think I should half? OK. Well I guess half of 18. That's 9.”  So I've just helped them. I've brought out, because I'm inviting them to help me draw it on the board. They're thinking about, “Oh, I just half that side, double that side. Did we lose any area? Oh, maybe that's why the products are the same. The areas of those two rectangles are the same. Ha!” And then I give the next problem. Now I give another kind of clunker problem and then I give its equivalent. And again, we just sort of notice: “Did it happen again?” And then I might give another one and then I might end the string with something like 3.5 times—I'm thinking off the cuff here, 16. So 3.5 times 16. Kids might say, “Well, I could double 3.5 to get 7 and I could half the 16 to get 8, and now I'm landing on 7 times 8.” And that's another way to think about 3.5 times 16. Anyway, so, equivalent structure is also a brilliant structure that we use primarily when we're trying to teach kids what I call the most sophisticated of all of the strategies. So like in addition, give and take, I think, is the most sophisticated addition. In subtraction, constant difference. In multiplication, there's a few of them. There's doubling and having, I call it flexible factoring to develop those strategies. We often use the equivalent structure, like what's happening here? So there's just a little bit more about structure. Mike: There's a bit of a persona that I've noticed that you take on when you're facilitating a string. I'm wondering if you can talk about that or if you could maybe explain a little bit because I've heard it a couple different times, and it makes me want to lean in as a person who's listening to you. And I suspect that's part of its intent when it comes to facilitating a string. Can you talk about this? Pam: So I wonder if what you're referring to, sometimes people will say, “You're just pretending you don't know what we're talking about.” And I will say, “No, no, I'm actually intensely interested in what you're thinking. I know the answer, but I'm intensely interested in what you're thinking.” So I'm trying to say things like, “I wonder.” “I wonder if there's something up here you could use to help. I don't know. Maybe not. Mm. What kind of clunker could—or helper could you write for this clunker?”  So I don't know if that's what you're referring to, but I'm trying to exude curiosity and belief that what you are thinking about is worth hearing about. And I'm intensely interested in how you're thinking about the problem and there's something worth talking about here. Is that kind of what you're referring to? Mike: Absolutely.  OK. We're at the point in the podcast that always happens, which is: I would love to continue talking with you, and I suspect there are people who are listening who would love for us to keep talking. We're at the end of our time. What resources would you recommend people think about if they really want to take a deeper dive into understanding strings, how they're constructed, what it looks like to facilitate them. Perhaps they're a coach and they're thinking about, “How might I apply this set of ideas to educators who are working with kindergartners and first graders, and yet I also coach teachers who are working in middle school and high school.” What kind of resources or guidance would you offer to folks? Pam: So the easiest way to dive in immediately would be my brand-new book from Corwin. It's called Developing Mathematical Reasoning: Avoiding the Trap of Algorithms. There's a section in there all about strings. We also do a walk-through where you get to feel a problem string in a K–2 class and a 3–5 [class]. And well, what we really did was counting strategies, additive reasoning, multiplicative reasoning, proportional reasoning, and functional reasoning. So there's a chapter in there where you go through a functional reasoning problem string. So you get to feel: What is it like to have a string with real kids? What's on the board? What are kids saying? And then we link to videos of those. So from the book, you can go and see those, live, with real kids, expert teachers, like facilitating good strings. If anybody's middle school, middle school coaches: I've got building powerful numeracy and lessons and activities for building powerful numeracy. Half of the books are all problem strings, so lots of good resources.  If you'd like to see them live, you could go to mathisfigureoutable.com/ps, and we have videos there that you can watch of problem strings happening.  If I could mention just one more, when we did the K–12, Developing Mathematical Reasoning, Avoiding the Trap of Algorithms, that we will now have grade band companion books coming out in the fall of '25. The K–2 book will come out in the spring of '26. The [grades] 3–5 book will come out in the fall of '26. The 6–8 book will come out and then six months after that, the 9–12 companion book will come out. And those are what to do to build reasoning, lots of problem strings and other tasks, rich tasks and other instructional routines to really dive in and help your students reason like math-y people reason because we are all math-y people. Mike: I think that's a great place to stop. Pam, thank you so much for joining us. It's been a pleasure talking with you. Pam: Mike, it was a pleasure to be on. Thanks so much. Mike: This podcast is brought to you by The Math Learning Center and the Maier Math Foundation, dedicated to inspiring and enabling all individuals to discover and develop their mathematical confidence and ability. © 2025 The Math Learning Center | www.mathlearningcenter.org

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Getting an Italian visa to live in Italy often depends on where and how you plan to stay. Applicants must show valid proof of accommodation, whether through a long-term rental contract or property ownership, and understand what Italian consulates expect when reviewing housing documents. It is essential to know the housing and residency requirements that affect long-stay visa applications and what future residents should prepare before making the move. In this episode of The Italian Real Estate Podcast hosted by Italian attorney Marco Permunian and dual citizen expat podcaster Rafael Di Furia, we'll learn more about the housing and residency requirements for obtaining an Italian visa.For help with buying a home in Italy, and more information about Italian Real Estate Lawyers visit IREL's website:https://ItalianRealEstateLawyers.comTo contact Italian Attorney Marco Permunian and his team, you can use the contact form on the Italian Real Estate Lawyers website: https://italianrealestatelawyers.com/contact-us/To see more from  @RafaelDiFuria  about life abroad and life as a dual citizen expat check out his YouTube channel and website:http://YouTube.com/RafaelDiFuriaHttp://RafaelDiFuria.comTopics & Timestamps:0:00 – Intro & Opening Thoughts0:41 - Is it possible to use a B&b to get residency for an Italian visa?1:54 - Having a rental contract for the visa3:20 - What if you or a family member own a property in Italy?4:31 - Are there any restrictions on the type of rental contract?5:53 - Can getting out the contract affect the visa validity?7:58 - Do you need to be physically present in the apartment in order to establish residency? 9:51 - How to rent a property remotely10:47 - Can you end the contract if you don't get the visa?13:20 - Procedural side of signing the contract16:12 - Closing Thoughts & Outro

Learning how to perform procedures on patients is an important part of medical training, but how do programs decide what to teach? And how do they integrate the latest technology? Host Eddie Qian, MD, from Vanderbilt University Medical Center, talks to Meredith Pugh, MD, MSCI, and Kaele Leonard, MD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Together, they discuss how they think about working with trainees and fellows when it comes to teaching important procedures. 

In this episode, host Peter Bauman (Le Random's editor in chief) and Conrad House (Le Random's Collection Lead) sit down with artist/curator Jared Madere (Yeche Lange, VVV) to trace his early Whitney break and the rise of the Solana avant scene. They unpack on-chain transparency, Drifella's meme-native collage, and how new online collectors are shifting power and reimagining culture in real time.Chapters

It's Day 3 of a partial government shutdown. Both sides are dug in, and no weekend Senate votes are currently expected. The administration raises the stakes in its rhetoric on efforts to combat drug cartels. And a key senator's AI framework is getting backing from Big Tech, but privacy and consumer advocates still have concerns. David Higgins has your CQ Morning Briefing for Friday, October 3, 2025.

This conversation delves into the foundational aspects of constitutional law, focusing on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. It explores their historical significance, judicial interpretations, and real-world applications, emphasizing the importance of understanding these concepts for aspiring legal professionals. The discussion also highlights the evolving nature of individual rights and the complexities of judicial scrutiny in contemporary legal challenges.Imagine a world where the government could seize your home without notice or where laws discriminated based on race or gender. These scenarios, reminiscent of dystopian fiction, highlight the importance of constitutional safeguards in American legal history. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are pivotal in protecting against such injustices.Historical Origins and Judicial Interpretation: The 14th Amendment, adopted post-Civil War, reshaped the relationship between individuals and the government. It aimed to secure rights for freed slaves, but its impact extends far beyond, forming the basis for landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges. The Due Process Clause, appearing in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments, ensures fairness from both federal and state governments. It has been interpreted expansively, covering life, liberty, and property in ways that affect modern administrative law.Procedural vs. Substantive Due Process: Procedural due process guarantees fair procedures when the government acts against an individual, asking "what process is due?" Landmark cases like Goldberg v. Kelly and Matthews v. Eldridge illustrate the evolving standards of procedural fairness. Substantive due process, on the other hand, protects fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, challenging the inherent fairness of laws themselves. This concept has been pivotal in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.Equal Protection Clause: The Equal Protection Clause promises that no state shall deny any person equal protection under the law. It focuses on who the government treats differently and ensures that any classification is justified by strong constitutional reasons. The clause has been central in cases involving race, gender, and sexual orientation, applying varying levels of judicial scrutiny to assess the fairness of laws.The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses are dynamic doctrines, continually shaped by societal challenges and judicial interpretation. They not only protect established rights but also provide a framework for future generations to challenge discrimination and assert evolving understandings of liberty. As society changes, these clauses remain vital in demanding justice and fairness.TakeawaysThe fight against injustices is essential to American legal history.The 14th Amendment reshaped the relationship between individuals and government.Due Process and Equal Protection are critical for individual rights.Understanding procedural vs. substantive due process is vital for legal analysis.The Equal Protection Clause prevents purposeful discrimination.Judicial scrutiny varies based on the classification involved.Rational basis review is the most lenient standard for government actions.Strict scrutiny applies to laws affecting suspect classes or fundamental rights.The right to travel encompasses multiple distinct rights.Felony disenfranchisement policies are subject to ongoing debate and reform.Constitutional Law, Due Process, Equal Protection, 14th Amendment, Judicial Scrutiny, Individual Rights, Legal History, Civil Rights, American Law, Supreme Court

I'm tackling the twists and turns of the criminal appellate process—particularly the difference between direct and indirect appeals, also known as post-conviction or habeas corpus actions. I'm drawing directly from my experiences and real questions that come up in my practice, breaking down what I call the “appellate ladder” that anyone must climb after a conviction, especially here in Ohio.I'll explain why you can't just skip steps in the appeal process, even if it feels like it might save time or money. Skipping a rung can create procedural traps, especially if you're hoping to take your case up to the federal courts later on. I know how tempting it can be to jump ahead, but I'll show you why following every step is crucial if you want a real shot at relief.I'm here to cut through the legal jargon and share practical advice for anyone facing an appeal—or just curious about how the process really works. And yes, I'll even throw in a Mario Bros. analogy to make it all a bit more fun. Stick around if you want to understand the true “appeal” of appeals!Moments00:00 Consider indirect appeal first; it's often more successful and cost-effective than the direct appeal, saving time and legal resources.03:30 Habeas corpus in federal court is complex; missing technicalities at the state level can lead to case dismissal.Here are 3 key takeaways from the episode:There Are Two Appellate Ladders: The criminal appellate process includes a direct appeal (challenging errors from the trial as recorded in the official record) and an indirect or post-conviction appeal (addressing issues outside the record). Both play crucial roles.Don't Skip Steps: As tempting as it is to save time and money by jumping straight to the “stronger” argument, skipping any step in the ladder can lead to procedural default—meaning federal courts may not even consider your case.Strategic Foresight is Vital: Allowing each court level to rule preserves your right to seek relief at the federal level (like habeas corpus). Shortcuts, unfortunately, just aren't an option in appellate law.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm...

The House nears a vote on a CR as Democrats unveil their own take on the legislation. Amid a broader push for federal control, the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing about Washington, D.C. A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee looks at 29 bills related to broadband regulation. Jacob Fulton has your CQ Morning Briefing for Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025.

We're back with another episode of Geektown Radio! This week, Dave is joined by Gray to chat through the Emmys, ITV's new thriller Coldwater, Sky's workplace comedy The Paper, and the return of Only Murders in the Building. Plus all the latest TV news, renewals, cancellations, and upcoming UK highlights.Timestamps 00:00 – Intro & catch up 01:30 – What Gray has been watching: Ironheart, Reacher, The Assassin, How To Die Alone, reality shows (Destination X, Fortune Hotel, The Inheritance, Stranded On Honeymoon Island, Bake Off) 12:30 – Procedural catch-up: FBI, Chicago shows, Fire Country, SWAT 18:00 – Gray on The Paper pilot 22:00 – Gray's trip to see The Thursday Murder Club at the cinema 26:00 – Dave on Coldwater (ITVX/ITV) 34:00 – Foundation Season 3 finale 39:00 – Strange New Worlds Season 3 finale 45:00 – The Handmaid's Tale Season 6 wrap-up 52:00 – Only Murders in the Building Season 5 first episodes 01:00:00 – The 2025 Emmy Awards results and discussion 01:20:00 – TV News: Red Dwarf update, Foundation renewal, The Hunting Wives, Charlie Brooker's new Netflix thriller, SWAT: Exiles 01:40:00 – Highlights for next week: Doc, Gen V S2, High Potential S2, The Morning Show S4, Into the Badlands, Juice S2, Damages, Tulsa King S3, Waterloo Road S16, Marvel Zombies, Shakespeare and Hathaway S5, Slow Horses S5 01:52:00 – OutroSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/geektown. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

https://vimeo.com/1114518395?share=copy#t=0 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2025/9/1/2025-09-02-better-late-than-never-rampe-procedural-relief This week we look at: Federal Circuit Ruling Finds Limits on Executive Authority to Impose Tariffs Under IEEPA Introduction to OBBBA R&E Expenditure Procedures Sixth Circuit Realigns on Tax Court Jurisdiction Innocent Spouse Relief: Walsh v. Commissioner Overview Taxpayer Precluded from Challenging Liability: Sullivan v. Commissioner 60-Day IRA Rollover Waiver in a Fraud Scenario

IRS releases guidance on changes in research and experimental expenditures, Sixth Circuit agrees with Second and Third Circuits on equitable relief for late Tax Court petitions in deficiency cases and more.

This week we look at: Federal Circuit Ruling Finds Limits on Executive Authority to Impose Tariffs Under IEEPA Introduction to OBBBA R&E Expenditure Procedures Sixth Circuit Realigns on Tax Court Jurisdiction Innocent Spouse Relief: Walsh v. Commissioner Overview Taxpayer Precluded from Challenging Liability: Sullivan v. Commissioner 60-Day IRA Rollover Waiver in a Fraud Scenario

A recent court decision dismissing a high-profile influencer lawsuit highlights the critical role that procedural rules can play in advertising and endorsement disputes. While the case didn't move forward on the merits, it still offers important lessons on how courts may handle claims involving influencer marketing practices. For legal, compliance, and marketing teams, the takeaway is clear: even when procedural issues decide the outcome, the underlying risks tied to endorsements, disclosures, and consumer trust remain front and center. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

In this episode, we delve into the critical distinctions between general and specific jurisdiction, fundamental concepts in personal jurisdiction law. General jurisdiction allows a court to hear any case against a defendant whose connections to the forum state are so continuous and systematic that they are essentially "at home" there. In contrast, specific jurisdiction is more narrowly focused, requiring that the lawsuit arise out of or relate to the defendant's activities within the forum state. We explore landmark cases and recent developments, providing a roadmap through the jurisdictional maze to help you confidently navigate these legal waters.This conversation delves into the complexities of personal jurisdiction, particularly in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Fold v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The discussion covers the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine, the minimum contacts test, and the distinctions between general and specific jurisdiction. It also highlights the implications of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments on jurisdictional inquiries, procedural due process, and the Erie doctrine, providing a comprehensive overview for law students preparing for exams.TakeawaysPersonal jurisdiction is fundamental for courts to bind parties.A court's judgment is void without proper personal jurisdiction.General jurisdiction allows lawsuits in a defendant's home state for any claim.Specific jurisdiction is tied to the defendant's contacts with the forum state.The 14th Amendment limits state courts, while the Fifth Amendment allows broader federal reach.The Fold case changes the understanding of jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment.Jurisdiction can be established through statutory gateways like long-arm statutes.Minimum contacts must be evaluated for both general and specific jurisdiction.Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.Subject matter jurisdiction is non-waivable and must be established for federal courts.personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts, Fold v. Palestine Liberation Organization, procedural due process, subject matter jurisdiction, Erie doctrine, general jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

We got another letter from the Advice Box we set out at our live show, and you know what that means! Something pervy! Today we help a loyal Grawlix fan figure out how to get their mom some sweet, sweet lovin'!  ⁠CLICK HERE TO VOTE FOR THIS WEEK'S WINNER⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (Poll opens at 10am Mountain Time) LINKS: Follow us for show dates and more: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Adam Cayton-Holland⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ben Roy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andrew Orvedahl⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Grawlix⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support this podcast on Patreon to get ad-free episodes, bonus videos, exclusive merch, birthday shout-outs and more.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  UPCOMING SHOWS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See the Grawlix live at the Bug Theatre on Saturday, August 30th with Nato Green, Janae Burris and Lily Ostberg!⁠⁠ See Andrew performing at the King Penny Radio Show on August 21st! See Ben's new band Arson Charge at Hi-Dive in Denver on August 22nd! See Adam headlining at the Lincoln Lodge in Chicago on August 27th! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out Andrew's new tabletop role-playing game, Procedural!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Got a question? Email us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠question@advicefight.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

NEWS: ICC approves Duterte's request to postpone procedural deadlines while it is on recess | Aug. 16, 2025Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein #TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hey writers! Sarina here! I have never been quiet about how much I enjoy Karin Slaughter's work. So when the opportunity arose for me to read her brand new book, We Are All Guilty Here, and then interview her about it, I raised my hand faster than an extra in a deodorant ad. The new book is a series starter with a kickass female heroine, and I could not have loved it more! Join as as I quiz Karin on: * How to write a sweeping series starter* Small towns as a setting. How small is too small?* The difference between a procedural and psychological suspense* Character development and much more! Karin is incredibly smart and such an important voice in suspense. You won't want to miss this one!Other favorite's of Karin's that we discussed include:Pieces of Her The Grant County seriesHey, Jess here to talk to you about a series I have created just for supporters of the #AmWriting Podcast.I met an aspiring author and speaker who has an idea for a book that just knocked me over. I said, please, please write that book. This is someone who had an idea that has a place in the market. It's timely. She's the perfect person to write it, and I asked her, I begged her, if I could please mentor her through this process publicly on the podcast.So while we're not giving her full name and we're not giving the actual title of the book, because we don't want to hand those things away, I am coaching her through the entire process, from preparing her book proposal to querying an agent. I'm going through the whole thing with her. She knows nothing about the publishing industry, she knows very little about how one goes about writing a book—so essentially, this is as I mentioned before, from soup to nuts, From Authority to Author, and hopefully we'll get her there.But really, whether or not this book ends up selling, whether after this book she ends up having a speaking career, this is about the process of preparing to do that. I hope you'll join us.This series is for supporters only, so if you are a free subscriber right now, consider upgrading. Remember, if you upgrade, you'll also get the ability to submit for our First Pages Booklab, and lots of other fun stuff that we put out just for supporters—So come join us. It's a lot of fun.Transcript below!EPISODE 461 - TRANSCRIPTJess LaheyHey, Jess here to talk to you about a new series I have created just for supporters of the Hashtag AmWriting Podcast. I met an aspiring author and speaker who has an idea for a book that just knocked me over. I said, please, please write that book. This is someone who had an idea that—it has a place in the market, it's timely, she's the perfect person to write it—and I asked her, I begged her, if I could please mentor her through this process publicly on the podcast. So while we're not giving her full name and we're not giving the actual title of the book, because we don't want to hand those things away, I am coaching her through the entire process, from preparing her book proposal to querying an agent. I'm going through the whole thing with her. She knows nothing about the publishing industry. She knows very little about how, you know, one goes about writing a book. And so she—essentially, this is, as I mentioned before, From Soup to Nuts, From Authority to Author, and hopefully we'll get her there. But really, whether or not this book ends up selling, whether this book—she ends up having a speaking career—this is about the process of preparing to do that. How do you write a book? How do you prepare to become a speaker on the back of that book? So I hope you join us. This is a series for supporters only, so if you are a free supporter—or if you're a free subscriber right now—consider upgrading. Remember, if you upgrade, you'll also get access to the ability to submit for our First Pages Booklab and lots of other fun stuff that we put out just for supporters. So come join us. It's a lot of fun.Multiple SpeakersIs it recording? Now it's recording, yay. Go ahead. This is the part where I stare blankly at the microphone. I don't remember what I'm supposed to be doing. All right, let's start over. Awkward pause. I'm going to rustle some papers. Okay, now one, two, three.Sarina BowenHello, my name is Sarina Bowen, and you're listening to the AmWriting Podcast. This is the podcast about writing all the things—short things, long things, fictional things, non-fictional things, pitches and proposals—in short, this is the podcast about sitting down and getting the work done. I am alone today with an interview that I could not be more excited about. I don't know how I drew the long straw here, but today I have the pleasure of interviewing Karin Slaughter. She is the author of more than 20 instant New York Times best-selling novels, including the Edgar-nominated Cop Town and standalone novels The Good Daughter, Pretty Girls, and Girl Forgotten. That's actually an amazing one, by the way—go read it. She's published in 120 countries, with more than 40 million copies sold across the globe. She also has a number one Netflix series and another long-running series. She has hit all the bells and checked all the boxes in thriller land, and she is also just one of my favorite writers. So happy to be here. Welcome, Karin Slaughter.Karin SlaughterIt's my pleasure. Thank you.Sarina BowenWe're here to talk about your August release, which is called We Are All Guilty Here. I received this ARC a few months ago—actually read it immediately—because I love your suspense, and I also was really excited to see that it was clear as day on the release. So you owe me now that it's a series starter.Karin SlaughterIt is, yeah. It was a lot of fun planning it out.Sarina BowenOh, good, yeah. And I want to hear a little bit about that, but I'm just going to read the very short flap copy for We Are All Guilty Here so we all know what we're talking about.[Reads flap copy]The first thrilling mystery in the new North Falls series from Karin Slaughter. Welcome to North Falls—a small town where everyone knows everyone. Or so they think. Until the night of the fireworks, when two teenage girls vanish and the town ignites. For Officer Emmy Clifton, it's personal. She turned away when her best friend's daughter needed help—and now she must bring her home. But as Emmy combs through the puzzle the girls left behind, she realizes she never really knew them. Nobody did. Every teenage girl has secrets. But who would kill for them? And what else is the town hiding?So, flap copy very much pitched as a thriller. Here is the problem here—you know, we're wanting the solution, but I would argue that your novels are always, always about bigger than the problem and its solution. So how did you conceive of this town, and what does North Falls mean to you as you were getting into it?Karin SlaughterWell, I mean, North Falls is a very small town inside of a larger county. So it's rural, but it's not tiny like my Grant County Series. And I think that I learned some lessons in Grant County—mainly, make it a larger town so there's more people you can kill, because at a certain point, why would anyone live in this tiny town? But also, I knew going into it that it was going to be a series. And so, you know, unlike Grant County and Will Trent—which I was hoping would be series, but I wasn't sure, and I was at a different point in my writing life—you know, I'm pretty sure, 25 books in, that they're going to publish at least two or three more of my books. So I thought, let me set this up as a series, and let me do this world building that can carry on into several books, and let's make this town. You know, North Falls is the seat of the county, but it's also in a county called Clifton County. And the main narrator you meet is called Emmy Clifton, and she's a sheriff's deputy. Her father, Gerald Clifton, is the sheriff of this county. There are Cliftons everywhere—there are rich Cliftons and poor Cliftons—and so you have this family saga potential. But also, it gave me the opportunity to plant a lot of different seeds that will later grow into novels. So I was really happy about that, but I definitely structured the county in a way where there's plenty of space to tell stories.Sarina BowenRight. So I noticed, and when I read a book like this, I am reading it as a reader, but also as a writer.Karin SlaughterYes.Sarina BowenAnd so I really noticed how long the character count in this book is—by which I mean how many characters there really are, how many named characters. There's so many of them, and that felt really fearless to me, you know, like you weren't sitting there at your keyboard wondering if you were going to ask your reader to remember this other family member, but you just went for it. And is that something that you ever try to balance? Like, you're not taking it easy on us here, and ultimately, I loved every word of it. But do you ever worry about that? Like, do you let that voice from other books past into your brain to say, like, well, that one time…Karin SlaughterNot really. You know, I think a writer's job is to trust the reader, and it's certainly my job to tell a story that is gripping and that makes sense and that pulls them into the world. And so what I was thinking about as I was writing this was, I need to write these characters in such a way that you care about them; otherwise, you won't care what happens. And, you know, Emmy is in a pretty universal position for a lot of millennial women. She's in a marriage that's not a great marriage. She's trying to raise her son. Her parents are starting to get older—you know, they're failing a little bit—so she's noticing that. And in the middle of this, she has this horrific crime happen where these two girls are abducted. And because they are in this small town, she knows one of these girls, who's actually a stepdaughter of her best friend—her best friend since kindergarten—and so just that one thing happening blows her world apart. To me, that's what the hook is. You know, there's this greater mystery of what happened to these girls, what's going to happen, who took them—all those things—but there's also something that I rely on a lot in my books, which is the mystery of character, and people wanting to know more about how does Emmy navigate this. What happens to her brother and her sister-in-law, and this handsome guy who is the school resource officer? You know, how does this all play out? And that, to me, is the job of the writer—to make these characters interesting and make the plot and the balance of the character stories fit together in a way that, you know, when there's not a car chase or a gunfight or whatever, you still want to keep reading because you're involved in the mystery of the character.Sarina BowenYeah, and we sure are. And Emmy is just the beating heart of this book, but she is not your only point of view character. And how—is that something you really have to fiddle with as you go, like, do you try on other point of view characters and then pick the winners as you go?Karin SlaughterYeah... I never have, you know, I think that I'm a very opinionated writer. I have a very firm sense of point of view. And so I knew that Emmy was going to get the bulk of the first part of the story. And then I knew that Jude was going to come in when she came in, and that I would have to build out, like, just drop the reader in this unfamiliar, new world, right in San Francisco, with like, a completely different character, and you don't know what's going on, and you make assumptions about her based on what she does for a living and all this other stuff. And you know, I knew that was coming all along and that the book would be told from these two women's points of view. I never felt—other than the early part with Madison, one of the girls who is abducted—I never really felt like anyone else could tell these stories.Sarina BowenOkay! And you mentioned that you learned some things from writing your Grant County Series that informed your choice of the size and milieu of what you chose for North Falls and for Clifton County. What do you think? How did it feel to start a series in 2025 versus starting one, you know, a decade ago? Like, is there anything about the world that made your choices different, or is it all, um, you know, coming from what you've learned as an author?Karin SlaughterYeah, I think it's cumulative. I mean, the point of being an author with a 25-year career is to learn from each book, and I never want to feel like when I finish a book, oh, that's perfect. I can't do better than that. I always, you know, want to learn something, and then the next book I want to try something new. I mean, I could have just kept writing Will Trent novels and occasionally standalones for the rest of my life. I mean, and I am going to write more Will Trent novels interspersed with North Falls. It's really important to me to—I love that character, I love Sara Linton, and I want to keep telling those stories. And I actually have another idea for a standalone I want to do. But, you know, the point of being a writer is to get better at it. I think anybody who loves writing and the challenge of writing, and feels a calling, wants to be better with each story—to hone certain skills, to do novel things (to use a pun there) in their writing that challenge them and make the work more interesting—and that's what I try to do with every book. So starting North Falls this far into my career was a leap, but I think, hopefully, it's one that has paid off for me as a writer, just to have the ability to tell new stories and kind of prove that I've got more stories in me.Sarina BowenYeah, I confess that I regularly have moments where I stop myself and ask, have I said this before this way? Have I done this little thing before? And what would you tell me about that—like, to just, like, get over myself? Or, you know, what happens when you come to a moment like that in your own story craft?Karin SlaughterWell, I mean, in polite terms, you could think of it as an homage to yourself. I mean, honestly, I'm writing about murder. I'm writing about violence against women. I mean, I do write about men dying, but no one seems to care—so sorry, guys. You know, I had one book where I killed, like, six men, and then the next one I killed one woman, and they were like, wow, this return to violence. I'm like, come on, guys. But yeah, you know? So I think how you do it is you have to think of it through the lens of the character, and that's a choice I made in Grant County and Will Trent—was that they were going to be affected by what happened in the previous book, right? So, you know, you don't have a situation—you know, I love series novels, but there are some where… and Jack Reacher is an exception because I love Jack Reacher, and every Reacher book is: he gets to a new town, people are doing bad s**t, and he shoots a lot of people, and he makes it right, you know. And I love Jack Reacher. But, you know, some writers do write the same thing over and over again—they have the same concept or the same gimmick—and that's never been a career that I'm interested in. For me, I want to tell new stories and do new things. And, you know, after a while you run out of crimes that are new crimes. You know, I've written about abduction before, I've written about abuse before, but it's the character—the way the character sees a story, and the connection, the emotional connection the character has—that makes a difference. And, you know, in many ways, it's harder to write a novel in North Falls, where Emmy has a personal connection to the crimes that are occurring, as opposed to writing a Will Trent novel set in Atlanta, where, you know, it's a stranger to them. And so I have to...Sarina BowenIf Will Trent knew—yeah, if Will Trent knew every dead person, that would just seem weird.Karin SlaughterYeah, exactly, yeah. And so I have to find a way into the story, and with Will and Sara, for instance, it's a little more difficult than something where, okay, there's this immediate emotional connection, because I'm writing in North Falls more psychological thrillers, as opposed to Will Trent, which is more procedural.Sarina BowenOkay, can I poke you about that a little bit? Because, um, these words are used a lot. Procedural, to me, I've always understood to be a professional character. So Emmy Clifton is a law enforcement officer—she's a pro—so in strictly, strict definition, this is a procedural novel. But how do you feel the difference between psychological versus procedural functions in those two series?Karin SlaughterWell, you know, I think absolutely, if you want to be strictly by definition, it would be procedural. But, you know, the thing about thrillers is they're all things now, right? I mean, you could call it domestic—a domestic thriller, or domestic mystery, or whatever—you could call it, you know, a family story. And I think of it more as a saga, because it is about a family spanning generations, and this town spanning generations. But, you know, yeah, there's a procedural element. There's also—like, it's very emotionally tied into the character. There's a darkness to it, so it's psychologically, you know, you're very close to the bone on it. And I think that's why I would call it more of a psychological thriller, as opposed to Will Trent where, you know, it's very led by the investigatory steps, right? Like, you know, if Will Trent is going to be there, they're going to talk to witnesses, they're going to talk to suspects, they're going to, you know, have to fill in with their boss. There are just different parts of that that, in one way, the structure makes it easier to write than something like We Are All Guilty Here. But, you know, with this in particular, where you have it talking about not just the crime, but how f*****g hard it is to grow yourself into a woman, as Emmy says, and friendships and relationships and family and dealing with aging parents and, you know, siblings and that sort of stuff—that, to me, is what makes it more in the realm of psychological.Sarina BowenOkay. I've actually really admired the way that you sometimes walk the line on this. For example, I really enjoyed Girl Forgotten, which is the character that is first introduced in Pieces of Her, where she is not a professional. And then in Girl Forgotten, she has joined a law enforcement agency, but it's still her first day on the job—which is just such a wonderfully fun way to throw things at that character—because then it becomes both a procedural and not. Like, she is technically a professional, but she doesn't know what the heck she's doing, and not everybody there is willing to help her. So to me, that was a fantastically fun way of making both things true at once. And when I was reading that book, and of course then this one, I wonder—how you get the legal—the law enforcement stuff? So, like, how did…I know that by now, at this point in your career, you must have many people you can talk to about this, but how did you start that? Like, how did you inform yourself of what you didn't know so that you could fix it and not get those things wrong?Karin SlaughterYeah, you know, when I wrote my second book, I had met a guy who's a doctor, and he is married to a pediatrician, and his brother works on a body farm in Texas. So this is, like, the perfect family for me for what I'm doing to make Sara the smartest doctor on the entire planet. Because, you know, it might take my friend David, who advises me, four days to come up with a solution, but Sara has to do it in half a paragraph. So she's definitely the doctor you want if anything very unusual happens. I mean, her career would be the subject of scholarly articles forever.Sarina BowenZebra is not horses for her.Karin SlaughterExactly, yeah. And so I am…I have them—I have a lot of police officers I speak to, a lot of retired GBI officers. One of them was very helpful in this novel because, you know, the GBI—it escalates, you know, crimes in the state of Georgia escalate completely when there's a child involved, just because, you know, somebody who's in Fulton County can't jump to Acworth, for instance, as far as policing, but the GBI is in charge of the entire state—Georgia Bureau of Investigation—so they handle a lot of kidnappings and abductions. And most of the time, you know, it's statistically…there's a 1% chance it's going to be a stranger. Usually it's a parent or “Uncle Bob,” or, you know, the youth pastor, or someone like that who has access to a child. And so she hooked me into the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is a remarkable resource. And, I mean, I think they're just amazing in what they do. But, you know, the thing is, as much as I know about this stuff, I always check my work because I'm not a professional. And, you know, it's very rare these days, I think, for people to say, hey, I'm not an expert in this, let me talk to someone who is and has spent 20 years becoming an expert. But it's really important to me to get those details as correct as I can. Now, they're not always going to be 100% accurate because I'm telling a story, you know? If putting in a chest tube takes 20 different steps…Sara's going to do it, you know, in like a sentence.Sarina BowenRight.Karin SlaughterSo I have to—but I feel like I need to know the rules and I need to know the facts before I fudge them so that I can still give them a sense of believability. I'm writing…not writing textbooks, I'm writing fiction, but I want to be as accurate as possible, and I think that's really important, you know? And I know that a lot of my readers are very immersed in true crime and podcasts and all these sorts of things. And sometimes you can get the accurate information from those. A lot of times you don't. And I want them to say, wait a minute, you know, on “Murder Death Podcast”, they said this would never happen, and if they look it up, or they talk to an expert, they'll be like, ha, “Murder Death Podcast” was wrong. You know, maybe I shouldn't trust this guy or gal who's doing a podcast out of the backseat of her car for my forensic knowledge. So that's my job as a writer—to get it as factually accurate as I can.Sarina BowenYeah, and there are areas, um, where readers care more. Like, when I ask readers, um, what do you—what drives you nuts in research? It's the nurses are really, like, um, triggered by bad medicine. But…Karin SlaughterYeah.Sarina BowenBut there are some areas, you know, like technology, and there are some places where, you know, less accuracy—or more creative accuracy—is more excusable than if you do the nurse thing wrong, because they will come for you.Karin SlaughterYeah, yeah, they will. Or guns…Sarina BowenRight.Karin SlaughterYou know? And it's really because the armorer for the GBI—I actually confirmed some details with him in a book—and, like, some guy in, I don't know, Idaho sent me this angry email saying I got it wrong. And I'm like, talk to the armorer, right? I mean, people…people just want to fight sometimes. But yeah, nurses can be brutal when they come for you. It's like, come on, man. It's funny that you mentioned doctors, actually; doctors are like, you know, people get it wrong, but nurses are like, no, you got this wrong, you need to apologize.Sarina BowenIt's funny that you mentioned the guns, because I heard last year Gregg Hurwitz speak, and he said, “Don't get the guns wrong. The gun people will come for you. And don't hurt the cat, because the cat people will come for you.”Karin SlaughterTrue. It's true. I would say the cat people are more brutal than the gun people.Sarina BowenYeah.Karin SlaughterAs it should be. You should never hurt an animal in a book.Sarina BowenRight. So back to the idea of a series again. I was so excited to see that this will be a series, and I—the expansiveness of the first book makes a lot of sense series-wise. What do you think is actually harder about writing a series versus a standalone, or the reverse?Karin SlaughterWell, you know, in a standalone, the stakes can be much higher because you're not going—you can damage these characters. I mean, you can kill the characters. You can kill them all by the end of the book, you know? So the sense of jeopardy is always heightened in a standalone, at least in my standalones, because I'm not precious with people, even if they're narrators. But, you know, I think it's really important to—no matter what you're writing—just keep in mind that there's someone out there who has experienced the crimes you're writing about. And, you know, a case of gender violence is happening right now, and right now, right now, and right now, right? So it's like every second of the day in the world, it's happening somewhere. And I keep that in mind when I'm writing, and I want to make it matter. I don't want to use it for effect—it's not titillating or sexualized, or any of those things. So, you know, when I'm writing—whether it's a standalone or a series—I want to set up that world where the lives of these people matter, and you understand that the loss of life is felt in the community, and by the family, and the characters, and the investigators, and everyone there. And so, you know, the challenge with the standalone is finding that world, building that world, and then leaving that world, right? It's a lot of work, as opposed to in a series where you know you're going to carry it on. So you have to be a little careful about how you structure things, and you don't want to leave your character in a place where the next book you don't know how they're going to go on, also. And so you have to have some sense of hope, or some sense of closing that one chapter and moving on to the other. I mean, I use a lot of humor in my books. I get a lot of questions about the violence, but I never get questions about the humor. I think it's really important to have that lightness among the darkness. I mean, my grandmother used to say, “You can't fall off the floor,” and I'm a big proponent of that. I think at some point, you know, you have to have some relief from it. And in a standalone, you know, you have a very short runway to do that, but in a series, you have a longer…you know, you can trust the reader, as they get to know these characters, that they have a little more empathy and sympathy with what they're going through.Sarina BowenYeah, so you mentioned darkness, and I've been thinking a lot about this. And your books have some very dark topics and themes, as they must, because you are carrying storylines that are, um, can be very dramatic and have very high stakes. One thing I've noticed about your books, and why I like them so much, is that even in the year of our Lord 2025, when I pick up a Karin Slaughter book, it could be dark as anything, but I know from at least chapter one and a half who I am rooting for and who I care about. So Emmy is a wonderful example of this. Ten minutes into my journey with her, I know that she's my girl. You know, I'm very invested in her, even though that does not mean she has to be perfect, that she isn't flawed, or that she even knows what's going on—but I know, because of the cues that you've given me, that I'm supposed to care about her, and I do instantly. So when I began reading lots and lots of suspense three or four years ago, as I was writing my own, I very quickly sorted all of the suspense in the world that's selling right now into two pots, without trying to—which is the books where I know who I'm supposed to root for immediately, and the books where you don't. And I noticed that that second category is awfully popular now, and maybe is sort of on an upswing, like where the mystery, the story, might be very beautifully rendered, but I don't necessarily care about any of the people, or I'm not sure who to pull for. And that's not because these books aren't well written, but because that's a mood, and I wonder if you've noticed that, and, um, and how you feel about it, just from a writerly perspective. Like, what is going on there? Like, why is there so much darkness in the reader's perspective, and, you know, not just in the themes right now?Karin SlaughterWell, I mean, I think it's where we are, just in the world, right? You had a lot of that before 9/11, and then there was a need after—I mean that, and I speak to 9/11 because that's…my first book was published a few days after 9/11, so…Sarina BowenOh, wow.Karin SlaughterAnd there was this idea, like, you saw it in the TV show 24, where there's good and bad, and there's, you know, black and white. It's very—and then we've moved definitively toward grays. But, you know, I like books where you know where you stand. And I have written books with unreliable narrators at times, and, you know, Gillian Flynn did it best and kicked that off. But, you know the thing about an unreliable narrator or an antagonist being your narrator is, I prefer a Tom Ripley, right? I mean, Tom Ripley, Patricia Highsmith's character, is decidedly a bad guy. He murders and steals and, you know, but you're rooting for him, even not to get caught, you know. And a lot of the tension comes from him making really stupid mistakes, and you're cringing as a reader and thinking, God, how's he going to get out of this? And I don't want him to get arrested, even though he's this bad guy. And I love books that play against that. I think sometimes we have books where people—I mean, what you're saying about not knowing who to root for—I mean, if they're a good antagonist or they're a good foil, like a Moriarty…I mean, a lot of times you're not rooting for Sherlock, you're rooting for Moriarty. It just depends on how it's drawn. But for me, I just felt like, you know, this is sort of a return to Grant County, which is…I started writing Grant County, and, you know, you believe that Jeffrey and Sara and Lena, for the most part, were always trying to do the right thing. And I think we've lost the benefit of the doubt for a lot of people—particularly police officers have lost the benefit of the doubt—which is very troubling, because they police with our consent. And we need to understand who we're giving consent to. And we need to understand—you know, “defund the police” has been, like, a buzz…buzzword, phrase, whatever, for a while now, but rural areas, particularly in smaller states, have been defunding the police for years. And it's not a movement or anything; it's just not paying people enough money to live off of, right? So we've got police officers who have two or three jobs, rather than professionals who have one job, and that pays their bills, and they can take care of their responsibilities with that. So we've been defunding them. We don't give them enough training, and we're just seeing an erosion of that. And so it's something that I'm going to talk about a little bit in this next novel—is that defunding of police and how it's been, like, a nationally…it's been a real issue. We're seeing a deterioration in police forces because of it, and particularly in retention. And so that's definitely something I want to talk about, but I think you have to put it in context and take the politics out of it, because it's not politics. It's just people not having money to pay, or choosing not to pay for services that they really need.Sarina BowenRight. Or it is politics. It's just not party politics. It's just…Karin SlaughterExactly, yeah, yeah.Sarina BowenIt's just bad politics.Karin SlaughterYeah, well, it's bad social engineering.Sarina BowenYes.Karin SlaughterBasically. So it's there…if you could look at it from a sociological standpoint, it's just a really bad idea. And, you know, you don't retain good officers. So what do you have when that's over? You know, and not to say, like, paint entire police forces as bad because they're just not making money—but, you know, it takes…all it takes is a few bad cops, and a police force is in jeopardy.Sarina BowenRight, like, would you rather live in a state where the cops and the teachers were paid well, or a state where they weren't and…?Karin SlaughterYeah, yeah.Sarina BowenWell, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with us today about all of these story craft problems that were mired in all week along. If listeners want to find you, where is the best place for them to look, besides the bookstore, where this this book is coming?Karin SlaughterWell, I I'm all over social media. All you have to do is search for me. You see a little black cat with gorgeous green eyes. That's my baby boy, Dexter. So that gives you an indication of it. You're in the right place, or Facebook, obviously, but yeah, I'm all over the place.Sarina BowenWonderful! Thank you so much for being with us today, and listeners, until next week—keep your butts in the chair and your heads in the game.Jess LaheyThe Hashtag AmWriting Podcast is produced by Andrew Perilla. Our intro music, aptly titled Unemployed Monday, was written and played by Max Cohen. Andrew and Max were paid for their time and their creative output, because everyone deserves to be paid for their work. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit amwriting.substack.com/subscribe

A listener—who's battling with their health insurance about an expensive medication—asks us how to make the system work in their favor. Good news: We totally solved everything. CLICK HERE TO DECIDE THIS WEEK'S WINNER⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (Vote now!) LINKS: Follow us for show dates and more: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Adam Cayton-Holland⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ben Roy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andrew Orvedahl⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Grawlix⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support this podcast on Patreon to get ad-free episodes, bonus videos, exclusive merch, birthday shout-outs and more.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  UPCOMING SHOWS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See the Grawlix live at the Bug Theatre on Saturday, August 30th with Nato Green, Janae Burris and Lily Ostberg!⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out Andrew's new tabletop roleplaying game, Procedural!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠See Ben headlining in the Washington, DC and Baltimore area on August 6th-8th⁠⁠⁠ See Andrew's show Nerds Forever! at Dude IDK Studios in Denver on August 7th! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See Adam peforming at the Southeast Arizona Birding Festival in Tuscon on August 8th!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠See Andrew headlining at Denver Comedy Underground on August 8th-9th!⁠ Got a question? Email us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠question@advicefight.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How to be a good parent when everything sucks. What starts as a letter from a sweetie-pie dad worried about whether he's doing a good enough job parenting, spirals into a call for help about the impending collapse of society as we know it. Fortunately, the Advice Boys are up to the task. They fix it. They fix everything in this episode. And the world is finally okay. Um, you're welcome, much? CLICK HERE TO VOTE FOR THIS WEEK'S WINNER⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (Poll opens at 10am MT) LINKS: Follow us for show dates and more: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Adam Cayton-Holland⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Ben Roy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Andrew Orvedahl⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ • ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Grawlix⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support this podcast on Patreon to get ad-free episodes, bonus videos, exclusive merch, birthday shout-outs and more.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  UPCOMING SHOWS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See the Grawlix live at the Bug Theatre on Saturday, August 30th with Nato Green, Janae Burris and Lily Ostberg! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out Andrew's new tabletop roleplaying game, Procedural!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠See Adam headlining at Dallas Comedy Club on August 1st!⁠⁠ ⁠See Ben's band SPELLS at the Recess Records Romp in San Pedro, California on August 1st-3rd⁠⁠⁠! See Andrew headlining the Laugh-Out Loveland Festival on August 3rd! ⁠⁠See Ben headlining in the Washington, DC and Baltimore area on August 6th-8th⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠See Adam peforming at the Southeast Arizona Birding Festival in Tuscon on August 8th!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ See Andrew headlining at Denver Comedy Underground on August 8th-9th! Got a question? Email us: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠question@advicefight.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Room to Grow, Joanie and Curtis continue the season 5 series on the Mathematics Teaching Practices from NCTM's Principles to Actions, celebrating it's 10th anniversary. This month's practice is “Build procedural fluency from conceptual understanding.”  This is defined as follows: Effective teaching of mathematics builds fluency with procedures on a foundation of conceptual understanding so that students, over time, become skillful in using procedures flexibly as they solve contextual and mathematical problems. Using some discussion about multiplication, our hosts try to differentiate what is meant by conceptual understanding and by procedural fluency. They tease out the confusion that can arise by associating conceptual understanding with inquiry-based instruction and procedural fluency with direct instructional strategies. Although these types of instruction often go together, they are different, and separating them can help educators focus on how to best get to student learning. Additional referenced content includes:·       NCTM's Principles to Actions·       NCTM's Taking Action series for grades K-5, grades 6-8, and grades 9-12·       NCTM's position paper on Procedural Fluency (January 2023 – membership not necessary) Did you enjoy this episode of Room to Grow? Please leave a review and share the episode with others. Share your feedback, comments, and suggestions for future episode topics by emailing roomtogrowmath@gmail.com . Be sure to connect with your hosts on X and Instagram: @JoanieFun and @cbmathguy. 

This Day in Legal History: Jane Matilda Bolin Appointed to BenchOn this day in 1939, Jane Matilda Bolin shattered a historic barrier when she was appointed by New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia as a judge of the city's Domestic Relations Court. With that appointment, Bolin became the first Black woman to serve as a judge in the United States. A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School—where she was the first Black woman to earn a law degree—Bolin entered a profession that had few women and even fewer people of color. Her appointment was more than symbolic; she used her position to advocate for children and families, ensuring fair treatment for all who appeared before her court.Judge Bolin served with distinction for four decades, retiring in 1979. During her tenure, she challenged policies that segregated children based on race in publicly funded childcare agencies and fought to assign probation officers without regard to ethnicity or religion. She approached family law not as a soft discipline, but as a critical area where justice, equity, and social stability intersect. Bolin's presence on the bench helped normalize the inclusion of women—and particularly women of color—in legal authority roles.Her quiet determination and policy reform work made lasting impacts in juvenile justice and child welfare. Despite the deep racial and gender bias of her era, Bolin held fast to a vision of a fairer legal system. Today, her legacy lives on in the increasing diversity of the judiciary and in reforms aimed at making family courts more humane and equitable. Her appointment marked the beginning of a broader movement toward inclusion in American legal institutions.Donald Trump's defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal faces a significant procedural hurdle under Florida law, as legal experts point out he may not have followed the state's five-day pre-suit notice requirement for suing a media outlet. Trump filed the suit in Miami federal court, seeking at least $10 billion per defamation count over a July 17 article linking him to a birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that allegedly included a sexually suggestive drawing and reference to shared secrets. The Journal has stood by its reporting and pledged to defend itself.Beyond the timing issue, Trump will also need to meet the demanding “actual malice” standard, which requires public figures to prove that a publication knowingly or recklessly published false information. Legal experts note that simply disputing a claim's truth doesn't suffice—Trump must show the Journal deliberately lied. The large monetary figure Trump is seeking appears to be more for public attention than legal plausibility, especially considering recent precedent like Fox News' $787.5 million settlement with Dominion and Alex Jones' $1.3 billion defamation judgment.Trump's suit follows a pattern of litigation against the press, with mixed outcomes. Courts have dismissed previous cases against CNN and The New York Times, while some outlets like ABC and Paramount have settled. Experts caution that while Trump's case may ultimately fail, his persistent use of defamation claims could chill press freedom due to the high cost of legal defense. The article also draws a parallel to former Trump ally Dan Bongino, whose defamation case was dismissed for a similar procedural misstep.Trump's Wall Street Journal suit over Epstein story faces timing hurdle | ReutersFormer Louisville police officer Brett Hankison was sentenced to 33 months in prison for violating Breonna Taylor's civil rights during the 2020 raid that led to her death. The sentence came despite a surprising, that is to say not at all surprising, request from the Trump Justice Department for only a one-day sentence. U.S. District Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings criticized that recommendation, calling it politically influenced and inconsistent with the gravity of the case. Although Hankison didn't fire the fatal shots, a federal jury convicted him in 2024 for endangering Taylor and her neighbors by firing blindly during the raid.Taylor, a Black woman, was killed when officers executed a no-knock warrant at her home. Her boyfriend, thinking the officers were intruders, legally fired a shot, prompting a hail of police gunfire. Her death, along with George Floyd's, fueled nationwide protests against police brutality.Hankison apologized in court, claiming he would have acted differently if he had known the warrant was flawed. The sentence was at the low end of federal guidelines but far exceeded what Trump's Justice Department sought. That sentencing memo was notably unsigned by career prosecutors and was submitted by political appointees, signaling a shift in the department's stance on police accountability.Taylor's family and boyfriend urged the court to impose the maximum penalty, calling the lenient recommendation an insult. Under President Biden, the Justice Department had reversed course, bringing charges in both the Taylor and Floyd cases to hold officers accountable.US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor | ReutersThe Justice Department has appealed a federal court ruling that struck down a directive from President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Jenner & Block. The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit after U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ruled that Trump's March 25 order violated the firm's First Amendment rights. The directive had cited Jenner's past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation—an affiliation Trump viewed as politically adversarial.Judge Bates found the order to be retaliatory, noting it punished Jenner for its court work and lawyer associations. Trump's order was part of a broader pattern of targeting major law firms linked to perceived political opponents. Other actions under similar orders included attempts to cancel federal contracts, revoke security clearances, and block law firm personnel from federal buildings.Jenner & Block, represented by a legal team from Cooley, said it welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm the lower court's ruling on appeal, defending its right to represent clients without political interference. The Justice Department's move mirrors similar appeals in cases involving Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, signaling a continued legal defense of Trump actions against Big Law firms.DOJ Appeals Ruling for Jenner & Block in Trump Big Law BattleMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the IRS's recent retreat from enforcing the Johnson Amendment through a consent decree signals a quiet dismantling of the traditional legal framework governing political speech by churches. The Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law, prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. While the IRS hasn't officially repealed the rule, its failure to enforce it undermines its authority and creates legal uncertainty. I point out that in today's media environment, religious speech and political messaging often blur, making enforcement even more complicated.I propose a clearer, more functional alternative: creating a new legal category called “Religious-Political Entity.” Under this designation, churches that wish to engage in explicit political activity could do so—provided they accept trade-offs like losing the ability to receive tax-deductible donations, disclosing their political spending, and separating charitable and campaign funds. This approach would preserve the rights of churches to speak on political issues aligned with their missions while drawing a firm line at partisan campaigning.The current ambiguity risks selective enforcement and invites abuse. Only Congress, not courts or ad hoc consent decrees, can craft the statutory structure needed to balance religious free speech with tax law integrity.New ‘Religious-Political Entity' Category Would Clear Up Tax Law This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

SummaryThis lecture discussion examines the dual dimensions of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process ensures that the government follows fair methods before depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. This includes notice and an opportunity to be heard, with requirements varying by context according to the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test. Substantive due process protects certain fundamental rights from government intrusion regardless of the procedures used. The lecture traces the doctrine from its controversial origins in the Lochner era to its evolution in protecting rights related to privacy, autonomy, and family, including landmark decisions like Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges. It also discusses the role of selective incorporation, which applies most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The lecture concludes by reflecting on due process as both a safeguard of individual liberties and a structural principle of fairness in American constitutional law.Key TakeawaysTwo Branches of Due Process:Procedural: Ensures fairness in how the government acts.Substantive: Limits what the government may do, protecting fundamental rights.Procedural Due Process:Triggered when life, liberty, or property is at stake.Assessed using the Mathews v. Eldridge three-part balancing test.Applied in both civil and criminal contexts (e.g., Goldberg v. Kelly, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).Substantive Due Process:Protects deeply rooted rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution.Key cases: Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges.Fundamental rights trigger strict scrutiny; non-fundamental rights require only rational basis review.Criticism and Defense:Critics: Lacks textual foundation; invites judicial activism.Defenders: Essential to protect liberty from majoritarian overreach.Selective Incorporation:Most of the Bill of Rights applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.Ensures nationwide uniformity in core constitutional protections.Rule of Law Values:Due process also ensures clarity, predictability, and fairness in law (e.g., Papachristou v. Jacksonville)

SummaryThis lecture discussion explores the evolution of the Commerce Clause, located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Initially intended to prevent economic fragmentation among the states under the Articles of Confederation, the clause has since become a cornerstone of federal legislative authority. The lecture traces the doctrine's development from early cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, which established a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, through periods of judicial contraction during the Lochner era, and into its expansive use during the New Deal era with cases like Wickard v. Filburn. It also covers the modern Court's retrenchment in United States v. Lopez and Morrison, reaffirming limits on federal power. The lecture concludes with analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, the Affordable Care Act case (NFIB v. Sebelius), and the interplay between the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, providing students with a framework to understand the clause's reach and limitations in contemporary constitutional law.Key TakeawaysCommerce Clause Authority: Congress has the power to regulate channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.Early Interpretations: Gibbons v. Ogden broadly defined “commerce” and Congress's authority over it.Judicial Contraction: Cases like E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart restricted commerce power by excluding manufacturing and production.New Deal Expansion: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn upheld federal regulation of intrastate activities with substantial economic effects.Civil Rights and Commerce: Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung affirmed Congress's authority to address racial discrimination through commerce power.Modern Limits: Lopez and Morrison reasserted that non-economic activities and areas of traditional state concern fall outside commerce power.Necessary and Proper Clause: Raich shows Congress may regulate intrastate activity if essential to a broader regulatory scheme.Tenth Amendment Constraints: Federal power under the Commerce Clause cannot commandeer state governments (New York v. United States, Printz).Affordable Care Act: In NFIB v. Sebelius, the individual mandate exceeded commerce power but was upheld under the taxing power.Doctrinal Framework: The three-category test for Commerce Clause regulation guides constitutional analysis post-Lopez.

Senate Republicans make changes to the rescissions bill to gain necessary Republican support ahead of the first procedural vote, restoring $400 million for PEPAR, the global anti-AIDS program and protecting funding for some rural public broadcasters; Inflation report from the Labor Dept – up 0.3% in June, an annual rate of 2.7%, highest since February and maybe a sign President Trump's tariffs are leading to increases prices; House Republicans vote down a Democratic motion to make public FBI files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after the Trump Admin stated Epstein did not keep a client list and did commit suicide in prison, which some of the president's MAGA supporters are questioning, while President Trump tells reporters General Pam Bondi should release "whatever she thinks is credible" on Jeffrey Epstein; U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations nominee Mike Waltz testifies before Senate Foreign Relations Committee about reforming the UN and on the Signal Chat controversy when he was National Security Adviser; NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte meets with Senators on Capitol Hill about supporting Ukraine in the war with Russia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jared Halpern from Fox News Radio joins Kim St. Onge to break down the Senate's debt ceiling bill, including the push for tax and spending cuts, changes to green energy credits, and adjustments to Medicaid and SNAP provisions. They discuss the complex House approval process, challenges from both the Freedom Caucus and moderate Republicans, and the looming July 4th recess deadline. Halpern also explains how President Trump's influence continues to shape Republican strategy and electoral risks tied to the bill.

Surgical instruments require consistent care from use, through processing and storage, and back to the procedural area. This care saves healthcare systems money and, more importantly, assures that practitioners have the tools that they need, when they need them, to improve patient outcomes. We know from manufacturers' instructions for use (IFU) and peer-reviewed research that the care of surgical instruments, both simple and complex, begins at the point of use (POU). But how can Sterile Processing professionals communicate effectively with our procedural partners about POU treatment of instruments? In episode 129, host Casey Czarnowski talks with Tami Heacock, System Director of Sterile Processing at Lee Health, about POU treatment (not cleaning!) and its importance to our work in patient care. She discusses guidelines and standards that are available for encouraging POU treatment and strategies for talking with procedural partners about its importance. Earn CE Now

It's Monday, June 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus South Korea detains 6 Americans sending Bibles into North Korea South Korean authorities detained six Americans today after they attempted to send 1,600 plastic bottles containing miniature Bibles into North Korea by sea, reports International Christian Concern. In Isaiah 55:11, God says, “My Word that goes out from My mouth: It will not return to Me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” According to the Gwanghwa Island police, the Americans are being investigated because they allegedly violated the law on disaster management. The Americans reportedly threw the bottles, which also included USB sticks, money, and rice, into the sea, hoping North Koreans would eventually find them washed up on their shore. The police did not disclose the contents of the USB sticks.   Christian missionaries and human rights groups have attempted to send plastic bottles by sea and balloons by air into North Korea. Sadly, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung, who was just elected June 4, 2025, has pledged to halt such campaigns, arguing that such items could provoke North Korea.   According to Open Doors, North Korea is the most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill clears procedural vote The U.S. Senate advanced the latest version of President Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill” in a procedural vote on June 28, clearing the way for floor debate on the substance of the sweeping megabill, reports The Epoch Times. This moves Republicans one step closer to delivering on key parts of President Donald Trump's second-term agenda. The bill advanced in a vote of 51 to 49, with enough Republican holdouts joining party leaders to avoid the need for Vice President J.D. Vance's tie-breaking vote and to push the measure forward despite lingering concerns about some of its provisions. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri, two pivotal holdouts, said on June 28 that they would vote to advance the megabill, pointing to revisions unveiled by party leaders on June 27 that addressed some of their earlier objections. Hawley, who had previously objected to proposed Medicaid cuts, told reporters on June 28 that he would back not only the motion to proceed, but also final passage of the bill. He credited his decision to new language in the updated bill that delays implementation of changes to the federal cap on Medicaid provider taxes—a provision he said would ultimately bring more federal funding to Missouri's Medicaid program over the next four years. In an attempt to delay passage of the bill, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and his fellow Democrats required that the clerks read the entire 940-page bill out loud, which took 15 hours 55 minutes through yesterday afternoon, reports CBS. The chamber began up to 20 hours of debate on Sunday afternoon which you can watch through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects a final vote on the package sometime today. Two GOP defections on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill There were two Republicans who voted against advancing Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, reports The Hill.com. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who opposes a provision to raise the debt limit by $5 trillion, and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who says the legislation would cost his state $38.9 billion in federal Medicaid funding. Three other Republicans, who had wavered, changed their minds.  Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin changed his “no” vote to “aye,” and holdout Senators Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida, and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming also voted yes to advance the bill. The bill had suffered several significant setbacks in the days and hours before coming to the floor, at times appearing to be on shaky ground. Trump blasted Tillis on Truth Social, vowing to interview candidates to run against him in the upcoming senatorial primary. He said, “Looks like Senator Thom Tillis, as usual, wants to tell the Nation that he's giving them a 68% Tax Increase, as opposed to the Biggest Tax Cut in American History! “America wants Reduced Taxes, including NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, AND NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, Interest Deductions on Cars, Border Security, a Strong Military, and a Bill which is GREAT for our Farmers, Manufacturers and Employment, in general. Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!” Just one day after drawing President Trump's ire for opposing the party's  sweeping domestic policy package, Senator Tillis surprisingly announced that he will not seek a third 6-year term in 2026, reports The Guardian. Trump's bill does defund Planned Parenthood President Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill still includes language to stop forced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion for one year, reports LifeNews.com. The good news is that Planned Parenthood defunding is retained in the final version of the bill, but the bad news is that the 10 year funding ban has been scaled back to just one year. According to Planned Parenthood's latest annual fiscal report, the organization killed more than 400,000 babies through abortion in 2023 and 2024 and received nearly $800 million from taxpayers. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser said, “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act that stops forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry has been retained in the Senate bill, as we were confident it would, though for one year. This is a huge win.” Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” Call your two U.S. Senators ASAP on Monday at 202-224-3121 to urge them to retain the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the bill. That's 202-224-3121. Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan Last Friday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win by allowing it, for now, to take steps to implement its proposal to end automatic birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants, reports NBC News.  TRUMP: “That was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system.” In a 6-3 vote, the court granted the request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of nationwide injunctions imposed by judges so that they only apply to the states, groups and individuals that sued. TRUMP: “This was a big decision, an amazing decision!”  The White House said, “Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected. Of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia. “Now, the Trump administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country — like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, and stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries.” Appearing on Fox News Channel, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University Law School Professor, explained that this is a major victory for Trump. TURLEY: “This is a huge win for him. It does negate what has been a stumbling block. These judges have been throwing sand in the works in many of these policies, from immigration to birthright citizenship to [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts -- that will presumably now be tamped down. If these judges try to circumvent that, I think they'll find an even more expedited path to a Supreme Court that's going to continue to reverse some of these, lift some of these injunctions.” President Trump agreed wholeheartedly. TRUMP: “We've seen a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.” Professor Turley was shocked by the forcefulness of Amy Coney Barrett's 96-page majority opinion, which took on leftist Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the author of the 20-page dissent.  Barrett wrote, “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. … Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” TURLEY: “The opinion was really radioactive in this takedown of Justice Jackson. I've been covering the Supreme Court for decades. It's rare to see that type of exchange. The important thing to remember is that Justice Barrett delivered what was essentially a pile driver. “But she didn't do it alone. I mean, her colleagues signed on to this. And I think it's very clear that the majority is getting tired of the histrionics and the hysteria that seems to be growing a bit on the left side of the court.” Turley cited two examples of the hyperbolic rhetoric of the three leftist judges on the Supreme Court. TURLEY: “It's the hyperbole that's coming out of the dissent that is so notable. Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor, in that Maryland case, said that giving parents the ability to opt out of a few [pro-homosexual/transgender] lessons was going to, ‘create chaos and probably end public education.' Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson saying this could very well essentially be the ‘death of democracy.' It's the type of hyperbole that most justices have avoided.” Even CNN's Michael Smerconish said that Trump is meeting and surpassing expectations. SMERCONISH: “By any objective measure, President Trump has his opponents on the run.” 30 Worldview listeners gave $8,873 to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our $123,500 goal by today, June 30, to fully fund The Worldview's annual budget for our 6-member team, 30 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Frederick in Kennesaw, Georgia who gave $20 as well as Michael in Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada, Kenyon in Merritt Island, Florida, Leslie in Florham Park, New Jersey, Augustine in Auburn, California,  Anastasia in Beausejour, Manitoba, Canada, and John-William in Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan – each of whom gave $25. We appreciate Tim in Derby, New York who gave $33 as well as Charles from an unknown city, Yvonne in Cornwall, New York, Stephanie in Mesa, Arizona, James and Mary in Glade Valley, North Carolina, Colleen in Goose Creek, South Carolina, Glenn and Linda in Palmdale, California, Timothy and Brenda in Colorado Springs, Colorado, George in Niagara Falls, New York, Keziah in Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bob in Wilmot, South Dakota – each of whom gave $50. We're grateful to God for Samuel in Bartlett, Tennessee, Elizabeth in Cordova, Illinois, Amy in Snohomish, Washington, Kevin in North Bend, Oregon, Carl and Mary in Chaska, Minnesota, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation – each of whom gave $100. And we were touched by the generosity of Tobi (age 17), Kowa (age 15) Jedidiah (age 14), and Kensington (age 11) in Star, Idaho who pooled their resources and gave $140, Royal in Topeka, Kansas who gave $250, Joe and Becky in Gainesville, Georgia who pledged $40/month for 12 months for a gift of $480, Stuart in Zillah, Washington who gave $500, Stephen in California, Maryland who pledged $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200, and an anonymous donor through the National Christian Foundation who gave $5,000. Those 30 Worldview listeners gave a total of $8,873. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $112,959.55!  (People clapping and cheering sound effect)   Wow!  To each one of you who gave Friday and over the weekend, thank you! That means by tonight, we need to raise the final $10,540.45 on this Monday, June 30th, our final day to get across the finish line to fund the 6-member Worldview newscast team. We need to find the final 5 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 8 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600. Go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. Help fund this one-of-a-kind Christian newscast for another year with accurate news, relevant Bible verses, compelling soundbites, uplifting stories, and practical action steps. Proverbs 12:22 says, “The LORD detests lying lips, but He delights in people who are trustworthy.” We aspire to earn your trust as we report on the news. Stand with us now so we can continue to accurately report the last 24 hours of God's providential story. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, June 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Welcome to Season 2 of the Orthobullets Podcast.Today's show is Podiums, where we feature expert speakers from live medical events. Today's episode will feature ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Stefan Kreuzer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and is titled⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ "Evolution of Outpatient Joint Arthroplasty Procedural Selection & Execution."⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Orthobullets⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Social Media:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

As the various Senate committees release their proposals for the reconciliation bill, the Senate parliamentarian is ruling out many of the more controversial elements. Here with more insight into what this might portend for the megabill's fate and other Congressional activity is deputy news director at Bloomberg Government, Loren Duggan.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Mishka Katkoff talks with George Ng, co-founder and CTO of GGWP, about the real AI crisis in gaming—and it's not what you think.From manipulative personalization to privacy nightmares, we unpack how AI is already reshaping development, monetization, and the player experience. George breaks down the tech behind the buzz, the moral minefields, and whether AI will elevate creativity or just flood the market with noise.Topics: • AI as a tool—or a trap—for player engagement • The shifting role of creatives in an AI-driven dev pipeline • Procedural generation, NPCs, and the illusion of emotion • Why the biggest threat isn't bad AI—it's good AI used badlyConnect with George on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/georgeng/Sponsored by: AppCharge, Sensor Tower, Want to work with us? Reach out: consulting@deconstructoffun.com00:32 - Ethical concerns: AI personalization, monetization & manipulation03:17 - AI bias and fairness in moderation07:33 - How AI impacts game development & team structure11:03 - Where AI's impact is most significant: narrative design?13:01 - The future of autonomous NPCs & emotional attachment16:39 - Procedural generation: Can AI replace human designers?21:07 - Market trends: AI, copycats, and the “bull vs. bear” case34:51 - Fully AI-generated games: who needs them?42:45 - The future of AI in game development

This lecture explores the critical phase of default, remedies, and enforcement in secure transactions under Article 9 of the UCC. It covers the definition of default, the rights of secured parties upon default, the process of repossession, and the importance of commercial reasonableness in the disposition of collateral. The lecture also discusses the procedural safeguards in place to protect debtor rights and the implications of noncompliance with UCC requirements.TakeawaysDefault is largely defined by the parties' agreement.Secured parties have powerful rights upon default.Repossession can occur without judicial process if done peacefully.Commercial reasonableness is crucial in the sale of collateral.Failure to provide notice can lead to loss of deficiency rights.Debtors have redemption rights before collateral is disposed of.Judicial remedies can be pursued when self-help is risky.Procedural safeguards ensure fairness in enforcement.Noncompliance with UCC can result in sanctions.Understanding these principles is vital for commercial law practice.secure transactions, default, remedies, UCC, collateral, enforcement, commercial law, debtor rights, repossession, judicial remedies

Episode Summary In this episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast, host Mark Holthe is joined by guest co-host Igor Kyryliuk to tackle one of the most critical yet misunderstood components of Express Entry applications: responding to Procedural Fairness Letters (PFLs). This episode is part of the "Time's Up" series and shines a spotlight on the rising trend of misrepresentation allegations and PFLs issued by IRCC, particularly around work history inconsistencies. Mark and Igor walk through the anatomy of a procedural fairness letter, highlight real-world examples, and break down the essential do's and don'ts when drafting your response. They also explore how changes in federal immigration policy, increased use of AI in application assessments, and the government's intent to reduce temporary and permanent residents are raising the stakes for Express Entry applicants. Whether you're currently facing a PFL or want to avoid one altogether, this episode provides vital strategies to safeguard your immigration future. Key Topics Discussed What is a Procedural Fairness Letter? Understanding its role in Canadian immigration processing. Legal duty of fairness and when it is (and isn't) triggered. Common Triggers for Procedural Fairness Letters Inconsistencies in work and education history across past applications. Undeclared prior visa refusals. Omissions vs. commissions and the role of intent. Responding to a PFL Effectively How to structure your response to rebuild officer trust. Importance of taking full responsibility and providing detailed explanations. Addressing issues proactively—even before receiving a PFL. Examples of Misrepresentation Real cases where innocent mistakes led to serious consequences. When forgetting to mention past employment or education can cost you your future in Canada. Consequences of Misrepresentation Five-year inadmissibility bans. Loss of status, future refusals, and trouble with immigration systems worldwide. Strategic Considerations When to disclose new information voluntarily via a webform. Use of GCMS notes to anticipate officer concerns. Consulting with an immigration lawyer to preempt or respond to issues. Key Takeaways A small mistake in your Express Entry profile can escalate into a misrepresentation allegation with devastating consequences. Procedural fairness letters are your opportunity to clarify and defend your case—use them wisely. Owning your error and submitting a well-organized, transparent response is critical. Proactively addressing discrepancies before IRCC flags them can save your application. Legal help isn't optional—it's essential when facing a PFL. Quotes from the Episode Mark Holthe: “Even if you're not trying to mislead, a simple omission can still land you with a five-year ban for misrepresentation.” Igor Kyryliuk: “Officers don't have hours to read your documents. Your response should be clear, well-structured, and make it easy for them to say yes.” Links and Resources Watch this episode on YouTube Canadian Immigration Podcast Book a consult Enroll in the Express Entry Accelerator and Masterclass Subscribe for MoreStay up-to-date with the latest in Canadian immigration by subscribing to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on iTunes, Spotify, or YouTube. Don't miss future episodes on policy changes, strategies, and practical advice for navigating Canada's immigration process. Disclaimer This episode provides general information about Canadian immigration and is not intended as legal advice. For personalized assistance, consult an immigration lawyer.

In this episode, Dr. Valentin Fuster explores groundbreaking research on long-acting Factor XI inhibitors, highlighting their potential to reduce bleeding risks during invasive procedures in patients with atrial fibrillation. Experts discuss the promising safety profile and the ongoing quest to balance effective anticoagulation without increased bleeding.

Procedural shenanigans and strong armed bills in the House of Commons

Ever wonder why you can still remember your home phone number from childhood, but forget someone's name seconds after meeting them? That's not memory loss—it's your memory systems doing exactly what they're designed to do. In this episode, I'm breaking down the four main types of memory, how they work, and why understanding them is essential for protecting your brain health, especially during menopause.What to Listen For[00:01:00] Why memory isn't a single process—and what that means for brain fog and forgetfulness[00:02:00] The top 2 myths about memory (and what science says instead)[00:04:00] How forgetting can actually be a healthy brain function[00:05:00] The difference between sensory, working, and long-term memory[00:06:00] What working memory really does—and why yours may feel overloaded lately[00:12:00] What episodic memory is and why it's the first to decline with Alzheimer's[00:15:00] The role of semantic memory in remembering facts and concepts[00:18:00] Procedural memory and why Alzheimer's patients can still play piano[00:22:00] How all your memory systems work together, like a jazz band[00:23:00] The impact of menopause on memory and the role estrogen plays in brain healthWhen you understand how your memory systems function—and how they're affected by things like menopause and stress—you can take meaningful action to support your brain.  

Can artificial intelligence truly become wise? In this landmark lecture, John Vervaeke explores the future of AI through a lens few dare to examine: the limits of intelligence itself. He unpacks the critical differences between intelligence, rationality, reasonableness, and wisdom—terms often used interchangeably in discussions around AGI. Drawing from decades of research in cognitive science and philosophy, John argues that while large language models like ChatGPT demonstrate forms of generalized intelligence, they fundamentally lack core elements of human cognition: embodiment, caring, and participatory knowing. By distinguishing between propositional, procedural, perspectival, and participatory knowing, he reveals why the current paradigm of AI is not equipped to generate consciousness, agency, or true understanding. This lecture also serves as a moral call to action: if we want wise machines, we must first become wiser ourselves. Connect with a community dedicated to self-discovery and purpose, and gain deeper insights by joining our Patreon. — 00:00 Introduction: AI, AGI, and the Nature of Intelligence 02:00 What is General Intelligence? 04:30 LLMs and the Illusion of Generalization 07:00 The Meta-Problems of Intelligence: Anticipation & Relevance Realization 09:00 Relevance Realization: The Hidden Engine of Intelligence 11:30 How We Filter Reality Through Relevance 14:00 The Limits of LLMs: Predicting Text vs. Anticipating Reality 17:00 Four Kinds of Knowing: Propositional, Procedural, Perspectival, Participatory 23:00 Embodiment, Consciousness, and Narrative Identity 27:00 The Role of Attention, Care, and Autopoiesis 31:00 Culture as Niche Construction 34:00 Why AI Can't Participate in Meaning 37:00 The Missing Dimensions in LLMs 40:00 Rationality vs. Reasonableness 43:00 Self-Deception, Bias, and the Need for Self-Correction 46:00 Caring About How You Care: The Core of Rationality 48:00 Wisdom: Aligning Multiple Selves and Temporal Scales 53:00 The Social Obligation to Cultivate Wisdom 55:00 Alter: Cultivating Wisdom in an AI Future — The Vervaeke Foundation is committed to advancing the scientific pursuit of wisdom and creating a significant impact on the world. Become a part of our mission: https://vervaekefoundation.org/ Join Awaken to Meaning to explore practices that enhance your virtues and foster deeper connections with reality and relationships: https://awakentomeaning.com/ — Ideas, People, and Works Mentioned in this Episode: Jeff Hinton Jordan Peterson Keith Stanovich Michael Levin Stroop Effect Bertrand Russell Plato (Republic, Symposium) Predictive Processing Relevance Realization Spearman (1926) DeepMind (DeepSeek) — Follow John Vervaeke: https://johnvervaeke.com/ https://twitter.com/vervaeke_john https://www.youtube.com/@johnvervaeke https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke — Thank you for watching!  

On NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, we love case-of-the-week shows with acronyms for names, from “NCIS” to “Chicago PD” to “Law and Order: SVU.” On this week’s show, we get in on the procedural fun with actors Taran Killam, Mary Elizabeth Ellis, and Anna Konkle. Listen as our guests pitch their own procedurals, and try to solve the crime of bad movies and TV. Guests: Actors Taran Killam (“Saturday Night Live,” “High Potential,” “The Residence,”) Mary Elizabeth Ellis (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “A Man on the Inside,” “Licorice Pizza,”) and Anna Konkle (“PEN15,” “Side Quest,” “Rosewood.”) NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING is a production of The Black List, LAist Studios, and The Ankler. New episodes premiere Tuesdays and you can listen to the show on the radio at LAist 89.3 Saturdays at 7 p.m. and Sundays at 10 p.m. Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is also brought to you by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes L.A. a better place to live.

On NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, we love case-of-the-week shows with acronyms for names, from “NCIS” to “Chicago PD” to “Law and Order: SVU.” On this week’s show, we get in on the procedural fun with actors Taran Killam, Mary Elizabeth Ellis, and Anna Konkle. Listen as our guests pitch their own procedurals, and try to solve the crime of bad movies and TV. Guests: Actors Taran Killam (“Saturday Night Live,” “High Potential,” “The Residence,”) Mary Elizabeth Ellis (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “A Man on the Inside,” “Licorice Pizza,”) and Anna Konkle (“PEN15,” “Side Quest,” “Rosewood.”) NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING is a production of The Black List, LAist Studios, and The Ankler. New episodes premiere Tuesdays and you can listen to the show on the radio at LAist 89.3 Saturdays at 7 p.m. and Sundays at 10 p.m. Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is also brought to you by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes L.A. a better place to live.

On NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, we love case-of-the-week shows with acronyms for names, from “NCIS” to “Chicago PD” to “Law and Order: SVU.” On this week’s show, we get in on the procedural fun with actors Taran Killam, Mary Elizabeth Ellis, and Anna Konkle. Listen as our guests pitch their own procedurals, and try to solve the crime of bad movies and TV. Guests: Actors Taran Killam (“Saturday Night Live,” “High Potential,” “The Residence,”) Mary Elizabeth Ellis (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “A Man on the Inside,” “Licorice Pizza,”) and Anna Konkle (“PEN15,” “Side Quest,” “Rosewood.”) NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING is a production of The Black List, LAist Studios, and The Ankler. New episodes premiere Tuesdays and you can listen to the show on the radio at LAist 89.3 Saturdays at 7 p.m. and Sundays at 10 p.m. Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is also brought to you by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes L.A. a better place to live.

On NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, we love case-of-the-week shows with acronyms for names, from “NCIS” to “Chicago PD” to “Law and Order: SVU.” On this week’s show, we get in on the procedural fun with actors Taran Killam, Mary Elizabeth Ellis, and Anna Konkle. Listen as our guests pitch their own procedurals, and try to solve the crime of bad movies and TV. Guests: Actors Taran Killam (“Saturday Night Live,” “High Potential,” “The Residence,”) Mary Elizabeth Ellis (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “A Man on the Inside,” “Licorice Pizza,”) and Anna Konkle (“PEN15,” “Side Quest,” “Rosewood.”) NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING is a production of The Black List, LAist Studios, and The Ankler. New episodes premiere Tuesdays and you can listen to the show on the radio at LAist 89.3 Saturdays at 7 p.m. and Sundays at 10 p.m. Visit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support for this podcast is also brought to you by Gordon and Dona Crawford, who believe that quality journalism makes L.A. a better place to live.

The latest in business, financial, and market news and how it impacts your money, reported by CNBC's Peter Schacknow

Editor's Summary by Preeti Malani, MD, MSJ, Deputy Editor of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and Anne R. Cappola, MD, ScM, Senior Editor at JAMA, for articles published from May 3-9, 2025.

N Engl J Med 2024;391:1673-1684Background: Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is the most common acute coronary syndrome subtype in adults over 75 years old. However, these patients were underrepresented in landmark NSTEMI trials. Older adults with multiple comorbidities face an increased risk of mortality. While NSTEMI contributes to this risk, they also have competing risks such as advanced age, frailty, and chronic kidney disease. The presence of competing risks means that aggressively managing one condition may have a smaller impact on overall mortality compared to a younger, otherwise healthy adult with myocardial infarction, whose primary risk of death stems from the myocardial infarction itself. Additionally, comorbid conditions like advanced kidney disease and diffuse atherosclerosis can increase the risks associated with revascularization.Cardiology Trial's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.A patient-level meta-analysis of smaller trials, including 1,479 patients, found that in elderly patients with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy reduced myocardial infarction and urgent revascularization but not mortality.The Older Patients with Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Randomized Interventional Treatment (SENRIOR-RITA) trial sought to assess invasive vs conservative management of elderly patients with NSTEMI, in a more pragmatic design.Patients: Eligible patients had to have type I NSTEMI and be 75 years or older.Patients were excluded if they had cardiogenic shock or life expectancy less than 1 year.Baseline characteristics: The trial randomized 1,518 patients from hospitals across England and Scotland – 753 randomized to invasive strategy and 765 to conservative strategy.The average age of patients was 82 years and 55% were men. Approximately 65% had hypertension, 31% had diabetes, 31% had hyperlipidemia, 31% had prior myocardial infarction, 15% had prior stroke or TIA, 21% had kidney disease, 15% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 5% were current smokers.The average Charlson comorbidity index was 5.Procedures: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo invasive or conservative strategy.In the invasive strategy, patients underwent coronary angiogram, and revascularization was performed as appropriate. In the conservative arm, patients were treated (unless contraindicated) with aspirin, a P2Y12 receptor antagonist, statin, beta-blocker and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker. Patients in the conservative arm were allowed to have a coronary angiogram if they had worsening clinical status.Endpoints: The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, subsequent coronary revascularization, hospitalization for heart failure, stroke and bleeding.Analysis was performed based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial aimed to detect a hazard ratio of 0.78, assuming a 20% risk of the primary outcome in the conservative arm. A sample size of 1,668 patients with at least 688 primary outcome events would provide 90% power at 5% alpha, while 520 events would provide 80% power.Results: Among the patient randomized to the invasive arm, 90% underwent coronary angiography and 50% underwent revascularization. The medium number of days from admission to coronary angiography was 5. Among patients randomized to the conservative arm, 5.6% underwent coronary angiography within 7 days. The median follow-up time was 4.1 years.The primary outcome was not significantly different between both groups (25.6% with invasive vs 26.3% with conservative, HR: 0.94, 95%: 0.77 - 1.14; p= 0.53).There was also no difference in all-cause death (36.1% vs 32.3%), cardiovascular death (15.8% vs 14.2%), stroke (4.2% vs 5.2%), hospitalization for heart failure (10.9% vs 10.7%), or major bleeding (8.2% vs 6.4%) “incidence for invasive mentioned first”. Future coronary revascularization was more frequent in the conservative arm (13.7% vs 3.9%). Non-fatal myocardial infarction was significantly lower with an invasive strategy (11.7% vs 15.0%).Procedural related complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients.There were no significant subgroup interactions for the primary outcome.Conclusion: In older patients with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy compared to conservative strategy, did not reduce the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, over a median of 4.1 years.The trial enrolled fewer patients than planned, and the lower-than-expected event rate reduced its statistical power. Additionally, the median 5-day delay before coronary angiography may have biased the results toward the conservative strategy.Despite its limitations, this trial demonstrates that a conservative approach is a reasonable option for selected older patients with NSTEMI. It also highlights that, although enrolling older patients with comorbidities in trials is challenging, it is feasible, and greater effort is needed to include more of this population in future trials.Finally, in this trial of patients with myocardial infarction, about one-third died over a median of 4.1 years, with less than half of these deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease. Even if an invasive strategy had reduced cardiovascular mortality, its impact on all-cause mortality would have been less significant. This concept extends beyond this trial; when interventions are applied to older patients with multiple competing risks, their overall benefit diminishes.Cardiology Trial's Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Cardiology Trial's Substack at cardiologytrials.substack.com/subscribe

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2025/01/29/pope-francis-common-date-easter-east-west-249804  @christianbaxter_yt  Metagelical TLC as Christianity in Transition https://www.youtube.com/live/EEZYsWzamaA?si=oTiMr5NzycuNW1bf https://philosophyportal.substack.com/p/christianity-in-transition-pt-2-28a The Freddie and Paul Show: See you by the Murls Every 3 Months https://youtu.be/JkNJG-0E47w?si=kWyVZt-7A4Nx9in4 https://www.crcna.org/news-and-events/news/response-letters-concerning-us-govt-administration https://www.crcna.org/sites/default/files/To%20CRCNA%20leadership%2C%20March%2010%2C%202025%20%281%29.pdf https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2025/documents/20250210-lettera-vescovi-usa.html  @theeconplayground1193  What is Orthodox Social Thought? - An Interview with Dylan Pahman https://youtu.be/W02z_kCyLPY?si=5X64rWmRdpzflY_3 https://www.adcrucem.news/p/the-eastern-orthodox-hall-of-mirrors  Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Midwestuary Conference August 22-24 in Chicago https://www.midwestuary.com/ https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://calendly.com/paulvanderklay/one2one There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640 https://www.livingstonescrc.com/give  

Senate passes a federal government funding extension to prevent a shutdown tonight; President Trump gives a speech at the Justice Department on 'law and order'; Secretary of State Rubio gives updates on negotiations to end the war in Ukraine and Hamas saying it is willing to release an American hostage; Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator nominee, testifies before the Senate Finance Committee; former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) dies at age 93. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As voted on by our patrons, a new (hopefully) long-running mini-series turning research directly into updated practice: Tutorial! This month, we're looking at research to up your procedural integrity process. Just what should go into your PI checklists? How do you turn your observations into meaningful fidelity data instead of a series of “yeses” and “nos”? And just what good are training manuals, anyway? So, listen in! Your supervisees and clients will thank you. This episode is available for 1.0 LEARNING CEU. Remember, Patrons get access to the video version of this episode AND a free CEU for this episode. Not a patron? Join today! Articles discussed this episode: Bergmann, S., Harman, M.J., Brand, D., & Vladescu, J.C. (2024). A survey of procedural-fidelity data collection in behavior-analytic practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice. doi: 10.1007/s40617-024-00995-1 Morris, C., Jones, S.H., & Oliveira, J.P. (2024). A practitioner's guide to measuring procedural fidelity. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 643-655. doi: 10.1007/s40617-024-00910-8 Al-Nasser, T., Williams, W.L., & Feeney, B. (2019). A brief evaluation of a pictorially enhanced self-instruction packet on participant fidelity across multiple ABA procedures. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12, 387-395. doi: 10.1007/s40617/018-00282-w If you're interested in ordering CEs for listening to this episode, click here to go to the store page. You'll need to enter your name, BCBA #, and the two episode secret code words to complete the purchase. Email us at abainsidetrack@gmail.com for further assistance.

We're cracking the case on why procedural TV shows have kept audiences hooked for decades. From the exciting debut of Watson to the legal drama of Suits LA, we break down what makes this storytelling format so addictive.We uncover the history of procedural television, including the fascinating discovery of the very first procedural TV show, and explore how the format has evolved over time. What makes these shows so binge-worthy? And what are the risks and rewards of telling self-contained stories in a serialized world?Whether it's solving crimes, winning court cases, or unraveling mysteries, procedural TV shows continue to dominate our screens and we're here to explain why.For exclusive bonus podcasts like our Justice League or Teen Titans Review show, GHL Extra & Livestreams with the hosts, join the Geek History Lesson Patreon ► https://www.patreon.com/JawiinGHL RECOMMENDED READING from this episode► https://www.geekhistorylesson.com/recommendedreadingFOLLOW GHL►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/geekhistorylessonThreads: https://www.threads.net/@geekhistorylessonTik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@geekhistorylessonFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/geekhistorylessonGet Your GHL Pin: https://geekhistorylesson.etsy.comYou can follow Ashley at https://www.threads.net/@ashleyvrobinson or https://www.ashleyvictoriarobinson.com/Follow Jason at https://www.threads.net/@jawiin or https://bsky.app/profile/jasoninman.bsky.socialThanks for showing up to class today. Class is dismissed!

Kim went on vacation, Jenn got a haircut and we're back together discussing Babygirl, The Pitt, Noah Wyle, curiosity in midlife, the gym, good decisions, healthy breakfasts and changing up our routines, plus: listener questions and a whole lot more!You can find us on Patreon: patreon.com/everythingisfineYou can find Kim on her Substack: kimfrance.substack.comYou can find Jenn on her Substack: jennromolini.substack.comConcerns? Critiques? Suggestions? Just want to say "hi"? You can email us: everythingisfinethepodcast@gmail.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.