Podcasts about Procedural

Send me feedback!Many people are slamming Rep. Massie as the lone GOP 'no' on HR 7147 (DHS funding). But his vote was a strategic play to block Senate earmarks funding orgs tied to gender-affirming care for kids. Procedural chess, not betrayal. Full breakdownSUPPORT THE SHOWGet a 10% discount by using the code LibertyDad at Black Guns Matter shop.OR, use the referral linkFIND ME ELSEWHERELinktreeSHOW NOTESDHS Appropriations bill (HR 7147)Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (HR 7148)Economic Policy Innovation CenterSupport the show

On November 11, 2013, a motorcyclist riding in a remote stretch of the Mojave Desert came across something that did not belong to the landscape. The area lay north of Victorville, not far from Interstate 15 but far enough that engine noise fades and the wind carries most of the sound. The ground was hard and pale, broken by scrub and scattered rock. In that dirt, the rider saw what appeared to be a human skull. He stopped. He called authorities. Deputies from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department responded. The location was isolated but accessible by dirt road. The initial discovery was small — a skull partially exposed in desert soil — but the scene widened quickly. Deputies secured the area and began a systematic search. Within hours, investigators realized the find was not a single set of remains. Two burial sites were identified. They were shallow. The soil was loose compared to the surrounding terrain, disturbed and then pressed back down. The graves would later be referred to in reports as Grave A and Grave B. In total, four sets of human remains were recovered.  On November 15, 2013, San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon addressed the media. He confirmed that the remains recovered in the desert had been identified as belonging to Joseph McStay, age 40; his wife, Summer McStay, age 43; and their two sons, Gianni, age 4, and Joseph Jr., age 3. The McStay family had been missing since February 4, 2010. For nearly four years, their case had lived in a different category — disappearance, possible voluntary departure, international travel theory, Mexico speculation. The discovery in Victorville ended that ambiguity. The McStays had not relocated. They had not started over. They had not walked across a border and vanished into another country. They had been killed.Sources: https://coronadotimes.com/event/down-to-the-bone-caitlin-rother-and-the-mcstay-family-murders/https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/judge-unseals-court-records-in-mcstay-murder-case/509-5297be95-2f41-4ce7-931e-8c3dc98e0918https://allthatsinteresting.com/mcstay-family-murdershttps://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/missing-mcstay-family-cross-mexico/story?id=10042816https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/mcstay-family-murder-trial-charles-merritt-closing-arguments-jury/159073/https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-mcstay-family-deaths-20190120-story.htmlhttps://www.sbsun.com/2019/03/11/key-prosecution-evidence-flopped-in-mcstay-family-murder-case-defense-contends/https://www.sbsun.com/2019/03/11/key-prosecution-evidence-flopped-in-mcstay-family-murder-case-defense-contends/https://abc7.com/post/mcstay-murders-merritt-attorneys-poke-holes-in-timeline/5190475/https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/justice/mcstay-case-five-questionshttps://press.wbd.com/us/media-release/investigation-discovery/go-inside-controversial-and-shocking-trial-charles-chase-merritt-mcstay-familyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/kinda-murdery--5496890/support.

Job boards have been connecting candidates with employers for over thirty years, but the relationship that made them work is fundamentally breaking down. Candidates are getting frustrated by applying for roles that may already be filled or have been taken off the market, while employers are receiving hundreds of identical, AI-generated applications they can't meaningfully evaluate. The Job Boards sitting between them are trapped in business models that reward volume over quality, which only makes the problem worse. The result is a trust crisis that threatens the entire ecosystem. When neither side believes the process is fair, the whole system starts to unravel. So what would it actually take for job boards to rebuild that trust and stay relevant? My guest this week is Lou Goodman, a job board strategy expert who recently partnered with Jobiqo to produce a major new report on the future of job boards. In our conversation, she explains why the industry is stuck repeating the same patterns, what job boards can learn from other platform businesses, and whether evolution or extinction is the more likely outcome. In the interview, we discuss: Why job boards still matter in today's market The trust crisis threatening the ecosystem. How AI is amplifying weaknesses rather than fixing them Procedural justice and why fairness matters more than outcomes The shift from quantity to quality Where job boards can add value in the process Why short-term fixes become long-term patterns Lessons from other two-sided platform businesses What is the future for job boards? Follow this podcast on Apple Podcasts. Follow this podcast on Spotify.

In this episode, Asim and Sujoy head to the cinema to break down Mardaani 3, talking Rani Mukerji's screen presence, the evolution of the franchise, and why Bollywood struggles to make female-led star vehicles like this anymore.They dig into the film's procedural grit vs masala instincts, the villain problem, the pacing, and whether the third instalment sticks the landing — plus where Mardaani ranks compared to the earlier films. This is a slightly looser, hangout-style episode while Amrita's away — expect honest takes, film nerdery, and a few laughs along the way. Support us on Patreon for a longer, exclusive and video version of this episode → https://www.patreon.com/khandaanpodcast Timestamps 00:00 – Intro & why this is a boys-only episode04:30 – Why Mardaani still feels different12:15 – Rani Mukerji's star power & hero entry22:40 – Procedural crime vs masala thrills32:10 – Villains, performances & what works41:30 – The climax: payoff or missed opportunity?52:45 – Ranking the Mardaani films01:03:30 – Final thoughts & should there be a Mardani 4?

Episode Description Most managers don't avoid tough conversations because they're hard. They avoid them because they're awkward. In this episode of Dental Drill Bits, Dana and Sandy tackle the real-world issues that show up in nearly every dental practice: sloppy scrubs, chronic tardiness, missed clock-ins, appearance concerns, and employees who seemed perfect in the interview but show up very differently on the job. The problem isn't the people. It's the lack of clear expectations. Sandy shares decades of experience helping doctors and managers shift these conversations away from emotion and back to policy, systems, and consistency. Together, they walk through how strong onboarding, written policies, documentation, and leadership modeling prevent most of these issues before they ever escalate. You'll learn how to: Address uncomfortable topics without damaging relationships Keep conversations focused on business standards, not personal judgment Know when to observe, when to remind, and when behavior becomes a performance issue Use documentation to protect the practice and fairly support employees Build a culture where professionalism is expected, not policed If you've ever delayed a conversation hoping the problem would fix itself, this episode will give you the language, confidence, and structure to lead clearly and compassionately—starting from day one. What You'll Learn • Why unclear expectations turn small issues into awkward conversations • How onboarding sets the tone for accountability • Why employees often forget policies—and how to reset them • How to lead correction conversations without emotion or defensiveness • When and how to reference policies effectively • Why consistency matters more than confrontation • How clear expectations protect both leaders and teams Episode Sponsors Identity Dental Marketing Looking to stand out in a crowded market? Identity Dental Marketing builds brands that convert.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 171 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is the president of the German Patent and Trademark Office Eva Schewior! But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you: The US Supreme Court has taken up an important patent law case concerning so-called “skinny labels” for generic drugs. Specifically, the highest US court is reviewing a case in which Amarin accuses generic drug manufacturer Hikma of inciting doctors to use the cholesterol drug Vascepa in violation of patents by providing a limited package insert. In two landmark decisions, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified the criteria for inventive step and essentially confirmed the EPO’s typical “problem-solution” approach (Amgen v Sanofi and Meril v Edwards). However, experts are not entirely sure whether the Court of Appeal’s decisions, particularly those relating to the determination of the closest prior art, deviate from EPO practice. As a result of Brexit, mutual recognition of trademark use between the EU and the UK will cease to apply from January 1, 2026. Use of a trademark only in the UK will then no longer count as use of an EU trademark for the purpose of maintaining rights – and conversely, EU use will no longer count for British trademarks. Bayer is attacking several mRNA vaccine manufacturers in the US (Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, and J&J separately). The core allegation: patent infringements relating to old (Monsanto) patents on mRNA stabilization; Bayer is seeking damages, not sales bans. DISCO Pharmaceuticals from Cologne signs an exclusive license agreement with Amgen (potentially up to USD 618 million plus royalties) for novel cancer therapies targeting surface structures. Relevant from an IP perspective: license scope, milestones, data/know-how allocation. And now let's jump into the interview with Eva Schewior! The German IP System in Transition: Key Insights from DPMA President Eva Schewior In an in-depth conversation on the IP Fridays podcast, Eva Schewior, President of the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA), outlined how Germany's IP system is responding to rising demand, technological change, and a fundamentally altered European patent landscape. The interview offers valuable insights for innovators, companies, and IP professionals navigating patent, trademark, and design protection in Europe. Sustained Demand and Procedural Efficiency Despite the introduction of the Unitary Patent system, national German IP rights continue to see strong and growing demand. According to Schewior, application numbers at the DPMA have been increasing for years, which she views as a strong vote of confidence in the quality and reliability of German IP rights. At the same time, this success creates pressure on examination capacity. The average duration of patent proceedings at the DPMA is currently around three years and two months from filing to grant, provided applicants request examination early and avoid extensions. Internationally, this timeframe remains competitive. Nevertheless, shortening procedures remains a strategic priority. Search requests alone have risen by almost 50% over the past decade, yet the DPMA still delivers search reports on time in around 90% of cases. To better reflect applicant needs, the DPMA distinguishes between two main user groups: applicants seeking a rapid grant, often as a basis for international filings, and applicants primarily interested in a fast, high-quality initial assessment through search or first examination. Future procedural adjustments are being considered to better serve both groups. The Role of Artificial Intelligence Artificial intelligence already plays a practical role at the DPMA, particularly in patent search, classification, and the translation of Asian patent literature. Schewior emphasized that the office is closely monitoring rapid developments in AI to assess where these tools can further improve efficiency. However, she made clear that AI will remain a supporting technology. In public administration, and especially in IP examination, final decisions must always be taken and reviewed by humans. AI is seen as a way to relieve examiners of routine tasks so they can focus on substantive examination and quality. Maintaining and Monitoring Examination Quality Quality assurance is a central pillar of the DPMA's work. Schewior reported consistently positive feedback from users, but stressed that maintaining quality is a continuous task. The office applies systematic double checks for grants and refusals and uses internal quality management tools to randomly review searches and first office actions during ongoing proceedings. External feedback is equally important. The DPMA's User Advisory Board, which includes patent attorneys, startups, and patent information centers, plays a key role in identifying issues and suggesting improvements. Several of its recommendations have already been implemented. Trademark Filings and Bad-Faith Applications The trademark side of the DPMA has experienced particularly strong growth. In 2025, the office received around 95,000 trademark applications, an increase of approximately 18% compared to the previous year. Much of this growth came from abroad, especially from China. While new trademark types such as sound marks, multimedia marks, and holograms have so far seen only moderate uptake, word marks and figurative marks remain dominant. A growing challenge, however, is the rise in bad-faith trademark filings. The DPMA has responded by intensively training examiners to identify and handle such cases. Procedural reforms following EU trademark law modernization have also shifted competencies. Applicants can now choose whether to bring revocation and invalidity actions before the courts or directly before the DPMA. While courts may act faster, proceedings before the DPMA involve significantly lower financial risk, as each party generally bears its own costs. Accelerated Examination as a Practical Tool Despite rising filing numbers, the DPMA aims to avoid significant delays in trademark proceedings. Organizational restructuring within the trademark department is intended to balance workloads across teams. Schewior highlighted the option of accelerated trademark examination, available for a relatively modest additional fee. In practice, this can lead to registration within a matter of weeks, without affecting priority, since the filing date remains decisive. New Protection for Geographical Indications A major recent development is the extension of EU-wide protection for geographical indications to craft and industrial products. Since late 2025, the DPMA acts as the national authority for German applications in this area. The first application has already been filed, notably for a traditional German product. Under the new system, applications undergo a national examination phase at the DPMA before being forwarded to the EUIPO for final decision. Products eligible for protection must originate from a specific region and derive their quality or reputation from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. The EU estimates that around 40 German products may qualify. Outreach, SMEs, and Education Schewior underlined the DPMA's statutory duty to inform the public about IP rights, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. The office has significantly expanded its presence on platforms such as LinkedIn and YouTube, offering accessible and practical IP content. Studies show that fewer than 10% of European SMEs use IP rights, despite evidence that IP-owning companies generate higher revenues. To address this gap, the DPMA is expanding outreach formats, strengthening cooperation with educational institutions, and publishing new empirical studies, including a forthcoming analysis of patenting behavior among innovative German startups conducted with WIPO. Strategic Challenges Ahead Looking forward, Schewior identified several key challenges: insufficient awareness of IP protection among SMEs and startups, a tendency in some sectors to rely solely on trade secrets, and the growing problem of product and trademark piracy linked to organized crime. From an institutional perspective, the DPMA must remain attractive and competitive in a European system offering multiple routes to protection. This requires legally robust decisions, efficient procedures, qualified staff, and continuous investment in IT and training. Careers at the DPMA Finally, Schewior highlighted recruitment as a strategic priority. The DPMA recently hired around 50 new patent examiners and continues to seek experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace, as well as IT specialists, lawyers, and staff in many other functions. She emphasized the DPMA's role as Europe's largest national patent office and a globally significant, stable, and family-friendly employer at the forefront of technological development. German and European Patents as Complementary Options In her closing remarks, Schewior addressed the post-UPC patent landscape. Rather than competing, German and European patent systems complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent alone may be sufficient, particularly where Germany is the core market. At the same time, the possibility of holding both a European patent and a national German patent offers strategic resilience, as national protection can survive even if a European patent is revoked. Her key message was clear: the range of options has never been broader, but making informed strategic choices is more important than ever. If you would like, I can also adapt this article for a specialist legal audience, condense it for a magazine format, or rework it as a thought-leadership piece for LinkedIn or your website. Rolf Claessen: Today's interview guest is Eva Schewior. If you don't know her yet, she is the President of the German Patent and Trademark Office. Thank you very much for being here. Eva Schewior: I'm very happy that you're having me today. Thank you, Mr. Claessen. Rolf Claessen: Shortening the length of procedures has been a stated goal since you took office. What is the current situation, and which measures are in place to achieve this goal? Eva Schewior: First of all, I'm very glad that German IP rights are in high demand. Even though applicants in Europe have multiple options today to obtain protection for their innovations, we have seen increasing application numbers for years at my office, even after the introduction of the Unitary Patent system. I see this as very positive feedback for our work. It is clear, however, that the high number of applications leads to a constantly increasing workload. At the same time, we want to remain attractive for our applicants. This means we must offer not only high-quality IP rights but also reasonable durations of proceedings. Ensuring this remains a central and permanent objective of our strategy. The average duration of proceedings from filing to grant is currently about three years and two months, provided that applicants file an examination request within the first four months after application and do not request extensions of time limits. In other cases, the average duration of proceedings is admittedly longer. With these three years and two months, we do not have to shy away from international comparison. Nonetheless, we strive to get better. In the last few years, we were able to improve the number of concluded proceedings or to keep them at a high level. In some areas, we were even able to shorten durations of proceedings a bit, though not yet to the extent that we would have wished for. Our efforts are often overtaken by the increasing demand for our services. Just to give you an example, in the last ten to fifteen years, search requests increased by nearly fifty percent. Despite this, we managed to deliver search reports in ninety percent of all cases in time, so that customers have enough time left to take a decision on a subsequent application. I have to admit that we are not equally successful with the first official communication containing the first results of our examination. Here, our applicants need a bit more patience due to longer durations of proceedings. But I think I do not have to explain to your expert audience that longer processing times depend on various reasons, which are in no way solely to be found on our side as an examination office. To further reduce the length of proceedings, we need targeted measures. To identify them, we have analyzed the needs of our applicants. It has been shown that there are two main interests in patent procedures. About three quarters of our applicants have a very strong interest in obtaining a patent. They mainly expect us to make fast decisions on their applications. Here we find applicants who want to have their invention protected within Germany but often also wish for subsequent protection outside Germany. The remaining quarter consists of applicants that are solely interested in a fast and high-quality first assessment of the application by means of a search or a first official examination. We observe that these applicants use our services before they subsequently apply outside Germany. This latter group has little interest in continuing the procedure before my office here in Germany. We are currently considering how we can act in the best interest of both groups. What I can certainly say is that we will continue to address this topic. And of course, in general, it can be said that if we want to shorten the duration of proceedings, we need motivated and highly skilled patent examiners. Therefore, we are currently recruiting many young colleagues for our offices in Munich and Jena, and we want to make our procedures more efficient by using new technical options, thus taking workload from patent examiners and enabling them to concentrate on their core tasks and on speedy examination. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much. I also feel that the German Patent and Trademark Office has become quite popular, especially with the start of the UPC. Some applicants seem to find that it is a very clever option to also file national patents in Germany. Eva Schewior: I think you're perfectly right, and I think we will come to this point later. Rolf Claessen: In 2023, you mentioned artificial intelligence as an important tool for supporting patent examiners. What has happened regarding AI since then? Eva Schewior: Of course, we are already successfully using AI at our office. For instance, in the field of patent search, we use AI-based tools that make our examiners' work easier. We also use AI quite successfully for classification and for the translation of Asian patent literature into English. In the meantime, we have seen a rapid development of AI in the market. I think it is strategically imperative to get an overview and to make realistic assessments of what AI is capable of doing to make our procedures more efficient. Therefore, we are observing the market to find out where AI can perform tasks so that we enable examiners to concentrate on their core business. There are many ideas right now in our office where artificial intelligence can help us tackle challenges, for instance demographic change, which certainly also affects our office, and maintaining our quality standards. We will strategically promote new tools in this field to cope with these challenges. But this much is also clear: humans will always stay in our focus. Especially in public administration, I consider it a fundamental principle that in the end, decisions must be taken and reviewed by humans. AI may help us reach our goals in a more efficient way, but it can never replace patent or trademark examiners. Rolf Claessen: You have made quality improvements in patent examination a priority and have already implemented a number of measures. How would you describe the current situation? Eva Schewior: I often receive positive feedback from different sides that our users are very satisfied with the quality of our examination, and I'm very glad about that. But maintaining this quality standard is a permanent task, and we must not become careless here. For years, for instance, we have established double checks for all grants and rejections. In addition, we have introduced a quality management tool that enables us, even during the examination process, to randomly check the quality of first office communications and searches. This helps us detect critical trends and take appropriate countermeasures at a very early stage. What is also very important when it comes to patent quality is to actively ask our customers for their feedback. We do this in different ways. Just to give you an example, we have a User Advisory Board, which is a panel of external experts implemented a couple of years ago. Discussing questions of quality is regularly on the agenda of this board. We carefully listen to criticism, ideas, and suggestions, and we have already implemented some of them for the benefit of the office and our users. Rolf Claessen: The German Patent and Trademark Office, as the largest patent and trademark office in Europe, records very high numbers of trademark applications. What are you currently especially concerned with in the trademark area? Eva Schewior: In 2025, we saw around ninety-five thousand trademark applications. This is an increase of eighteen percent compared to the previous year, and I have to say that this took us by surprise. Especially applications from outside Germany, and above all from China, have risen significantly. It is of course challenging to cope with such a sudden increase on an organizational level. Another challenge is dealing with trademark applications filed in bad faith, which we are currently seeing more and more of. We have thoroughly trained our trademark examiners on how to identify and handle such applications. As regards the new types of trademarks, the rush has been moderate so far. Sound marks, multimedia marks, or holograms are apparently not yet common solutions for the majority of applicants. The key focus remains on word marks and combined word and figurative marks. Nevertheless, I believe that the new trademark types are a meaningful supplement and may play a greater role as digitization advances. The most significant changes, however, concern procedures. Applicants can now choose whether to file revocation or invalidity actions with the courts or with our office. While courts may proceed somewhat faster, the financial risk is higher. Before the DPMA, each party generally bears its own costs, apart from exceptional cases. Rolf Claessen: How does this dynamic filing development impact the duration of trademark proceedings? Eva Schewior: This is indeed a major organizational challenge. For a long time, our trademark department managed to keep durations of proceedings very short, especially with regard to registration. Despite the recent increases in applications, especially in 2025, we hope to avoid a significant extension of processing times. We have restructured the organization of the trademark department to distribute applications more equally among teams. Applicants should also be aware that it is possible to request accelerated examination for a relatively moderate fee of two hundred euros. This often leads to registration within a very short time. The filing date, of course, always determines priority. Rolf Claessen: Since December 2025, the EU grants protection not only for agricultural products but also for craft and industrial products through geographical indications. Has your office already received applications? Eva Schewior: Yes, we have received our first application, and interestingly it concerns garden gnomes. Protected geographical indications are an important topic because they help maintain traditional know-how in regions and secure local jobs. The DPMA is the competent authority for Germany. Applications go through a national examination phase at our office before being forwarded to the EUIPO, which takes the final decision on EU-wide registration. Eligible products must originate from a specific region and derive their quality, reputation, or characteristics from that origin, with at least one production step taking place there. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA has expanded its outreach activities, including social media. What else is planned? Eva Schewior: Raising awareness of IP rights, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises, is part of our statutory duty. We currently use LinkedIn and YouTube to communicate IP topics in an understandable and engaging way. We also plan dedicated LinkedIn channels, for example for SMEs. Studies show that fewer than ten percent of European SMEs use IP rights, even though those that do earn significantly more on average. In 2026, we will further expand outreach activities, cooperate more closely with universities and educational institutions, and publish new studies, including one on the patenting behavior of innovative German start-ups conducted together with WIPO. Rolf Claessen: Where do you see the biggest future challenges in IP? Eva Schewior: Germany depends on innovation, but awareness of IP protection is still insufficient, particularly among SMEs and start-ups. Some companies deliberately avoid IP rights and rely on trade secrets, which I consider risky. Another growing concern is the increase in product and trademark piracy, often linked to organized crime. For our office, remaining attractive and competitive is crucial. Applicants have many options in Europe, so we need fast procedures, legally robust decisions, qualified staff, and modern IT systems. Rolf Claessen: The DPMA is currently recruiting. Which areas are you focusing on? Eva Schewior: Our focus is on patent examination and IT. We recently hired fifty new patent examiners and are particularly looking for experts in fields such as electrical engineering, e-mobility, IT, and aerospace. We are Europe's largest national patent office and offer meaningful, secure jobs with fair compensation and strong development opportunities. Rolf Claessen: Is there a final message you would like to share with our listeners? Eva Schewior: The Unitary Patent system has created many new options. German and European patent systems do not compete; they complement each other. For many SMEs, a German patent may already be sufficient, especially where Germany is the core market. Holding both European and national patents can also be a strategic advantage. My key message is: be aware of the options, stay informed, and choose your IP strategy deliberately. Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Eva Schewior: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.

America is going through a LOT. Our hearts are with the people of Minnesota and we're taking a short break to talk about TV that helps us calm down: THE PITT, INDUSTRY, THE TRAITORS, the fantastic MEL BROOKS DOCUMENTARY, THE NIGHT MANAGER to name a few. Andy comments on the QUEER EYE/Karamo kerfuffle, Diane praises Lisa F--ing Rinna to the skies. So much packed into this half hour!

Understanding the Mechanics of Due Process: A Deep DiveIn this episode of the deep dive, the hosts explore the intricate mechanics of the U.S. Constitution, focusing specifically on the due process clauses found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. He emphasizes the importance of understanding these clauses for law students and bar exam candidates, as they serve as the foundation for constitutional litigation. The discussion begins with a breakdown of due process, highlighting its role as a gatekeeper for government intervention in personal liberties. The hosts elaborate on the distinction between procedural and substantive due process, explaining how each operates within the legal framework and the implications for individual rights.The episode delves into the complexities of procedural due process, detailing the necessary steps for legal analysis, including the Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test. The hosts also address substantive due process, tracing its historical evolution and the criteria for determining fundamental rights. He discusses landmark cases that have shaped the understanding of these rights, such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas, while also touching on the ongoing debate surrounding the interpretation of liberty in constitutional law. The episode concludes with a synthesis of the key concepts, providing listeners with a roadmap for approaching due process issues in legal examinations.In the realm of constitutional law, mastering the intricacies of procedural and substantive due process is essential for any law student or legal professional. This blog post delves into the fundamental aspects of due process, exploring its significance in the US Constitution and its application in legal proceedings.Procedural Due Process: The HowProcedural due process is all about the fairness of the procedures used by the government when it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property. It ensures that individuals receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before any governmental deprivation. The key is to determine whether a protected interest is at stake and what kind of process is required. The Matthews v. Eldridge balancing test is crucial here, weighing the individual's interest, the risk of error, and the government's interest.Substantive Due Process: The WhatSubstantive due process, on the other hand, questions the legitimacy of the law itself. It asks whether the government has a compelling reason to regulate a particular aspect of life. This doctrine has evolved over time, with the court recognizing various fundamental rights related to privacy and personal autonomy. The bifurcated standard of review—strict scrutiny for fundamental rights and rational basis for non-fundamental rights—guides the analysis.Understanding the distinction between procedural and substantive due process is vital for navigating constitutional law. By following the structured framework and applying the appropriate tests, legal professionals can effectively analyze due process issues. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the tension between historical precedent and evolving liberty remains a central theme in constitutional law.TakeawaysDue process is the bedrock of constitutional litigation.The Fifth Amendment applies to federal actions, while the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state actions.Procedural due process focuses on the fairness of the procedures used by the government.due process, constitutional law, Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process, substantive due process, law school, bar exam, legal analysis, fundamental rights

Send us a textWelcome to you heard it here last, where we talk about news you've already heard.Don't worry, there is nothing wrong with your podcast and you don't have to change the dial. This isn't Morning Drive on FM 103 The Wave, it's just Malcolm from the Finding Atoria Podcast stepping in this morning.Say Hello Malcom,[Kick to Malcolm]You know ever since we started chatting, I felt like we had our own Berry White and Isaac Hayes thing going on, so hopefully the listeners can sit back, relax and enjoy.So here is the deal, we are going to break down some recent RPG news and give our opinions, ideas, and feelings on the topic.Our first story comes to us from EN World and its there Most Anticipated RPG of 2026 Fan Vote.https://www.enworld.org/threads/its-time-to-vote-for-your-most-anticipated-ttrpg-of-2026.716726/By now the voting is likely done, but I thought it would be interesting to throw out our votes and get the debate rolling.Malcom, what are your three most anticipated RPG's for 2026?[Kick to Malcolm][Here are my Three, in no particular order; Toon, 2nd Edition from Steve Jackson Games. Procedural from Occupied Hex Games and the mind of Rob Kerkovich. Sisterhood: Nuns with Guns from Parable Games.]https://www.enworld.org/threads/james-ohlen-shifts-from-archetype-entertainment-head-to-creative-consultant-for-tabletop-rpgs-at-wizards.716766/Next up is the announcement that James Ohlen is leaving Archetype Entertainment a Wizards of the Coast video game company and he is being replaced by Blizzard Veteran Paul Della Bitta. This comes as Archetype Entertainment is moving into the final phase of bringing Exodus to release in 2027. But Ohlen isn't leaving Wizards. He is sticking around as a consultant to focus on Table Top Roleplaying Games. This whole thing smells like the fishing docks at low tide to me. What are your thoughts Malcolm?[Kick to Malcolm]And there you have it, all the news, you've already heard.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! In this episode, we explain the legal requirements for marriage formation in the United States. We also cover common law marriage as an exception to the procedural requirements and use hypothetical scenarios to illustrate how these rules apply in practice.   In this episode, we discuss: Defining marriage and legal precedents Procedural and substantive requirements for getting married Common law marriage Two hypotheticals from previous California bar exams Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, July 2002 (https://juraxbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/July-2002-CBX.pdf) California Bar Examination – Essay Questions and Selected Answers, February 2008 (https://nwculaw.edu/pdf/bar/February%202008%20Essays%20and%20Sample%20Answers.pdf) Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3390&context=sdlrev) Loving v. Virginia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395) Obergefell v. Hodges (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/644/) Podcast Episode 41: Tackling an MEE Family Law and Conflicts of Law Essay Question (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-41-tackling-an-mee-family-law-and-conflicts-of-law-essay-question/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-341-listen-and-learn-marriage-formation-and-requirements-family-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Can Therapists Start a Union? The Antitrust Trap, the Shadow Committee, and the Economic Strangulation of American Psychotherapy Analyzing America's Healthcare Regulations and Their Effect on Us: Why the Law Prevents Therapists from Organizing While Allowing a Private Committee to Fix Prices for the Entire Medical System https://gettherapybirmingham.com/can-therapists-start-a-union-spoiler-alert-they-cant/ The Monthly Rage Thread If you hang around therapist forums long enough, you will see it happen. It operates with the regularity of the tides. Someone posts a thread, usually after receiving a contract from an insurance company offering 1998 rates for 2025 work, and asks the obvious question: “We are the ones providing the care. The system collapses without us. Why don't we just all go on strike? Why don't we form a union and demand fair pay?” It is a logical question. In almost every other sector of the economy, workers who feel exploited band together to negotiate better terms. Screenwriters shut down Hollywood to get paid for streaming residuals. Auto workers walk off the line. Teachers fill the state capitol. Nurses at major hospital systems have successfully unionized and won significant concessions. So why, in the midst of a national mental health crisis, does the mental health workforce remain so politically impotent? The answer is not that we lack will. It is not that we lack organization. The answer is that for private practice therapists, forming a union is a federal crime. This is not a political manifesto. It is an analysis of the bizarre regulatory environment that governs American healthcare, a system of antitrust laws, shadow committees, and bureaucratic classifications that effectively strips clinicians of their bargaining power while empowering the corporations that pay them. If you want to understand why corporate tech monopolies are ruining therapy, or why the corporatization of healthcare feels so suffocating, you have to understand the legal straitjacket we are all wearing. And you have to understand the one group that is allowed to set prices, the one group exempt from the rules that bind the rest of us. Part I: You Are Not a Worker, You Are a Standard Oil Tycoon The primary reason therapists cannot unionize dates back to the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to prevent massive corporations like Standard Oil from colluding to fix prices and destroy the free market. It prohibits “every contract, combination… or conspiracy, in restraint of trade.” The law was a response to genuine abuses: companies buying up competitors, dividing territories, and coordinating prices to gouge consumers who had no alternatives. Here is the catch: In the eyes of the federal government, a private practice therapist is not a “worker.” You are a business entity. Even if you are a solo practitioner struggling to pay rent in a subleased office, seeing clients between crying in your car and eating lunch at your desk, the law views you as the CEO of a micro-corporation. You are classified as a 1099 independent contractor, not a W-2 employee, and that distinction makes all the difference in the world. If two workers at Starbucks talk about their wages and agree to ask for a raise, that is “collective bargaining,” which is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. But if two private practice therapists talk about their reimbursement rates and agree to ask Blue Cross for a raise, that is “price-fixing.” It is legally indistinguishable, in the eyes of the Federal Trade Commission, from gas stations conspiring to raise the price of unleaded. It sounds absurd, but the FTC takes it deadly seriously. When independent contractors organize to demand higher rates, when they share information about what they are being paid and coordinate their responses, they are engaging in horizontal price-fixing, one of the most serious violations of antitrust law. The Sherman Act provides for criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment. The law that was meant to break up monopolies is now used to prevent social workers from asking for a cost-of-living adjustment. The irony is crushing. The same regulatory framework that prevents two therapists from discussing their rates allows massive insurance conglomerates to merge repeatedly, concentrating buyer power in fewer and fewer hands. UnitedHealth Group, for example, has acquired dozens of companies over the past two decades, becoming the largest healthcare company in the United States. When they offer a “take it or leave it” contract to providers, they do so with the full knowledge that fragmented, legally prohibited from organizing therapists have no counter-leverage. The antitrust laws, designed to prevent monopoly power, have created a system where sellers are atomized and buyers are consolidated. Economists call this “monopsony,” and it is precisely the market distortion the Sherman Act was supposed to prevent. Part II: The Day the “Learned Profession” Died For a long time, doctors and lawyers thought they were exempt from these laws. They argued that they were “learned professions,” not mere tradespeople, and therefore above the grubby laws of commerce. They believed that their ethical obligations to patients and clients set them apart from the rules that governed steel mills and meatpacking plants. Medicine was a calling, not a business, and surely the government would not regulate the sacred doctor-patient relationship as if it were a commercial transaction. That illusion was shattered in 1975 by the Supreme Court case Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar. The case involved lawyers, not doctors, but its implications cascaded through every licensed profession in America. The Goldfarbs were purchasing a home and needed a title examination. The Virginia State Bar had established a minimum fee schedule for such services, and every lawyer they contacted quoted the exact same price. They sued, arguing that this fee schedule was illegal price-fixing. The Supreme Court agreed. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that professional services, including legal and medical advice, are “trade or commerce” subject to antitrust laws. The “learned profession” exemption, which had been assumed but never explicitly established in law, was declared a myth. “The nature of an occupation, standing alone,” the Court wrote, “does not provide sanctuary from the Sherman Act.” This ruling was intended to lower prices for consumers by preventing lawyers from setting minimum fees, and in that narrow sense it was a good thing. But in healthcare, it had a catastrophic side effect: it made it illegal for doctors and therapists to band together to resist the pricing power of insurance companies. The “learned profession” exemption is dead. We are now just businesses, and businesses are not allowed to hold hands. This creates the illusion of progress: we have “free market” competition among providers, but monopsony power among payers. It is a market where the sellers are forbidden from organizing, but the buyers are allowed to merge until they are too big to fail. The result is not a free market at all. It is a market designed to transfer wealth from one class (providers) to another (insurers and administrators), with the law itself serving as the enforcement mechanism. Part III: The Cartel in the Basement If therapists cannot collude to set prices, surely nobody else can, right? Wrong. There is one group in American healthcare that is allowed to meet in a room, decide what every doctor's time is worth, and set prices for the entire industry. It is called the RUC, the AMA/Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee. And understanding the RUC is the key to understanding why talk therapy is dying in the medical model, why psychiatrists abandoned the couch for the prescription pad, and why your insurance company offers you a ghost network of providers who never answer the phone. The Birth of a Shadow Government To comprehend the current crisis in mental health economics, one must excavate the foundations of the physician payment system. Prior to 1992, Medicare reimbursed physicians based on a system known as “Customary, Prevailing, and Reasonable” charges. Under this system, physicians were paid based on their historical billing charges. It was inherently inflationary; it rewarded those who raised their fees most aggressively and created wide geographic disparities for identical services. In response to spiraling costs, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, mandating a transition to a fee schedule based on the resources required to provide a service. This birthed the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The intellectual architecture for this system was developed by a team of economists at Harvard University, led by William Hsiao. Hsiao's team sought to create a “unified theory” of medical value, attempting to quantify the “work” involved in disparate medical acts, comparing the cognitive intensity of a psychiatric evaluation with the technical skill of a hernia repair. The Harvard study was revolutionary. It promised to level the playing field, suggesting that cognitive services, the thinking and talking that comprises primary care and mental health, were vastly undervalued relative to surgical procedures. Had Hsiao's original recommendations been implemented purely, the income gap between generalists and specialists might have narrowed significantly. But the administrative complexity of assigning values to over 7,000 Current Procedural Terminology codes overwhelmed the Health Care Financing Administration. Into this administrative vacuum stepped the American Medical Association. The AMA, fearing that the government would unilaterally set prices, proposed a “partnership.” They would convene a committee of experts to maintain and update the relative values, providing this labor-intensive service to the government at no cost. The government accepted. Thus, in 1991, the RUC was born, not as a government agency, but as a private advisory body with unparalleled influence over public funds. The Architecture of Control The RUC's claim to legitimacy rests on its status as an “expert panel.” But a structural analysis of its composition reveals a profound bias that mimics the governance of a cartel designed to protect incumbent interests. The committee consists of 32 members, but power is concentrated in the 29 voting seats. Of these, 21 seats are appointed by major national medical specialty societies. The distribution is not proportional to the volume of services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, nor is it proportional to the physician workforce. Instead, it is frozen in a historical moment that favored high-technology specialties. Primary care physicians, who perform roughly 45 to 50 percent of Medicare work, hold approximately 4 to 5 seats, giving them about 17 percent of the vote. Procedural and surgical specialties, including surgery, radiology, and anesthesiology, hold 15 to 18 seats, giving them roughly 60 percent of the vote despite performing only 35 to 40 percent of Medicare work. The American Psychiatric Association holds a single seat. One seat. This lone representative must negotiate with a supermajority of specialists, neurosurgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, radiologists, and ophthalmologists, whose financial interests are often diametrically opposed to the valuation of cognitive work. The cartel dynamic is enforced by a statutory requirement of budget neutrality. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule is a zero-sum game. If the total relative value units projected for a given year exceed the budget, a “scaler” is applied to reduce the conversion factor, effectively cutting everyone's pay. Therefore, any proposal to increase the value of psychotherapy, which would increase the total RVU spend, effectively asks every surgeon in the room to take a pay cut to fund the raise for psychiatrists. Given that a two-thirds majority is required to pass a recommendation, the procedural bloc holds absolute veto power over any redistribution of wealth. The Secret Chamber A hallmark of cartel behavior is the restriction of information. For nearly two decades, the RUC operated in near-total secrecy. While recent years have seen minor concessions to transparency, such as the publication of vote totals, the core deliberative process remains opaque. RUC meetings are private. The public, the press, and even non-RUC physicians are largely barred from attending the deliberations where billions of tax dollars are allocated. Participants, including the specialty advisors who present data, must sign strict non-disclosure agreements. These agreements prevent them from discussing the specific tradeoffs, deals, or arguments made within the chamber. A former RUC participant described these agreements as “draconian,” designed to insulate the committee from public accountability. The Government Accountability Office and the Center for American Progress have noted the inherent conflict of interest. The individuals setting the prices are the same individuals who receive the payments. Unlike a regulatory agency, where officials are salaried and divested of industry assets, RUC members are practicing physicians whose personal incomes are directly tied to the decisions they make. This secrecy serves a functional purpose: it allows for “logrolling.” A representative from Orthopedics might support an inflated value for a Cardiology code in exchange for Cardiology's support on a Knee Replacement code. This “I'll scratch your back” dynamic creates an upward pressure on procedural values that excludes those outside the dominant coalition, specifically primary care and mental health. The Antitrust Shield Why has the Department of Justice not broken up this cartel? The legal shield is the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. This Supreme Court doctrine establishes that private entities are immune from antitrust liability when they are petitioning the government. Because the RUC technically only “recommends” values to CMS (that is petitioning), and CMS “decides” (that is government action), the RUC is protected by the First Amendment right to petition. This legal loophole allows the RUC to operate with monopolistic characteristics without fear of prosecution, provided CMS continues to go through the motions of “reviewing” the recommendations. And CMS accepts those recommendations over 90 percent of the time. Because private insurance companies generally base their rates on Medicare, this private committee effectively sets the price of healthcare for the entire country. If independent therapists did this, if they gathered in a room and agreed on what their services should cost, they would face criminal prosecution. But because the RUC operates under the fiction of “advising” the government, it is protected. The same regulatory framework that criminalizes therapist solidarity provides cover for industry-wide price coordination by the most powerful medical specialties. Part IV: The Mechanics of Suppression To control a market, one must control its currency. In American medicine, that currency is the Relative Value Unit. Every medical service, from a 15-minute therapy session to a heart transplant, is assigned a total RVU value. This value is the sum of three components: the Work RVU, which accounts for physician time, technical skill, mental effort, and judgment; the Practice Expense RVU, which covers overhead costs like rent, staff, and equipment; and the Malpractice RVU, which reflects professional liability insurance costs. The Work RVU, which comprises roughly 50 to 55 percent of the total value, is determined by RUC surveys. When a code is flagged for review, the relevant specialty society distributes a survey to a sample of its members. These respondents are asked to estimate the time and intensity of the service compared to a “reference service.” This methodology violates several principles of statistical validity. The surveys are voluntary and distributed by the specialty societies themselves. The respondents are typically those most active in the society and most invested in maximizing reimbursement, advocates rather than neutral observers. The sample sizes are often shockingly small; RUC surveys frequently rely on fewer than 50 or 70 respondents to set the price for services performed millions of times annually. A sample of 30 orthopedic surgeons might determine the value of a procedure costing Medicare billions. The Time Arbitrage The most critical variable in the RUC equation is time. The Work RVU is conceptually derived from the formula: Work equals Time multiplied by Intensity. Therefore, inflating the time estimate is the most direct route to inflating the price. Independent studies by RAND and the Urban Institute, often using objective data like Operating Room logs, have consistently shown that the RUC overestimates the time required for surgical procedures. A procedure valued by the RUC as taking 60 minutes may, in reality, take 30 minutes. This creates an arbitrage opportunity. If a gastroenterologist can perform a “60-minute” colonoscopy in 20 minutes, they can effectively perform three procedures in the time allotted for one. They bill for three hours of work in one hour of real time. This “efficiency gain” is captured entirely by the physician as profit. Psychotherapy cannot utilize this arbitrage. CPT codes for psychotherapy are explicitly time-based in their definition. Code 90832 requires 16 to 37 minutes. Code 90834 requires 38 to 52 minutes. Code 90837 requires 53 minutes or more. A psychiatrist cannot perform a 60-minute therapy session in 20 minutes; doing so constitutes fraud. Therefore, the revenue of a psychotherapist is capped by the linear passage of time. They can sell, at maximum, roughly 8 to 10 units of labor per day. A proceduralist, aided by RUC-inflated time assumptions, can sell 20 or 30 units of “RUC time” in the same day. This structural discrepancy creates a widening income gap that no amount of “hard work” by the therapist can close. It is not a market failure. It is market design. The “Thinking” Penalty The RUC's bias is not merely structural; it is philosophical. The committee, dominated by surgeons and proceduralists, consistently values “doing things to people,” cutting, scanning, injecting, far more highly than “talking to people,” diagnosing, counseling, managing complex chronic conditions. This creates a regulatory environment that functions as a de facto wealth transfer from cognitive care to procedural care. In 2013, a major revision of psychiatry codes exposed this bias in stark relief. Previously, psychiatrists used codes that bundled the medical evaluation with the psychotherapy. The new system required psychiatrists to bill an E/M code for the medical management plus an “add-on” code for psychotherapy. While intended to improve transparency, this change exposed psychotherapy to the raw mechanics of the RUC's valuation bias. By isolating the “therapy” component, the committee could subject it to rigorous cross-specialty comparison. And the committee, dominated by surgeons, views “talking to a patient” as low-intensity work compared to “operating on a patient.” The economic signal was clear. This created the 15-minute med check culture not because psychiatrists stopped caring, but because the regulatory environment made relational care financial suicide. It effectively “illegalized” the practice of deep, slow psychiatry for anyone who wanted to take insurance. Part V: The “Messenger Model” and Other Legal Fictions When therapists ask about collective bargaining, lawyers will often point them to the only legal loophole available: the “Messenger Model.” In this model, a third party (the messenger) acts as an intermediary between a group of providers and an insurance company. The messenger takes the insurance company's offer and conveys it to each therapist individually. Each therapist must then make a unilateral, independent decision to accept or reject it. The messenger is strictly forbidden from negotiating. They cannot say, “The group rejects this.” They cannot say, “We want 10% more.” They cannot advise the therapists on what to do. They can only carry messages. This is why “Independent Practice Associations” are often toothless. In the 2008 case North Texas Specialty Physicians v. FTC, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that if an IPA actually tries to leverage its numbers to demand better rates, it violates antitrust laws. If it follows the messenger model, it has no leverage. It is a “heads I win, tails you lose” regulatory structure designed to protect payers, not providers. The only exception is “clinical integration,” where providers genuinely merge their practices, share infrastructure, and accept joint financial risk. But this requires substantial capital investment and essentially means ceasing to be an independent practitioner. It is a legal pathway available mainly to large physician groups and hospital systems, not to solo therapists working out of rented offices. Part VI: Market Distortions and the Flight to Cash When a cartel sets a price below the market equilibrium, suppliers exit the formal market. This is precisely what has happened in psychotherapy. Mental health providers generally have lower overhead than surgeons. They do not need MRI machines or sterile surgical suites. And they face high consumer demand; the national mental health crisis ensures a steady stream of people seeking services. This gives them an “exit option” that proceduralists do not have. They can refuse to accept insurance and operate as cash-only businesses. The statistics are stark. Nearly 50 percent of psychiatrists do not accept commercial insurance, compared to less than 10 percent of other specialists. A 2023 survey indicated that 64 percent of private practice therapists planned to increase their cash-pay rates. Research published in Health Affairs Scholar found that patients are 10.6 times more likely to go out-of-network for mental health care than for medical/surgical care. This mass exodus is a rational economic response to RUC-suppressed rates. If the RUC says an hour of therapy is worth $100 via the RVU-to-dollar conversion, but the market demand is willing to pay $250, the provider will leave the RUC-controlled sector. They are not abandoning their profession; they are abandoning a pricing regime that values their work at less than half its market rate. Ghost Networks The RUC's pricing failure creates “Ghost Networks,” directories filled with providers who are ostensibly “in-network” but are functionally inaccessible. They are either full, not accepting new patients, retired, have moved, or simply do not respond to inquiries from insurance-based patients because the administrative burden of prior authorizations and clawbacks outweighs the suppressed fee. This is not a “shortage” of providers in the absolute sense. There is no shortage of therapists in private practice. There is a shortage of therapists willing to work at the RUC-determined price point. The insurance directories are graveyards of phantom availability, creating the illusion of access where none exists. The Cost Paradox The central thesis of the RUC's defenders is that they “control costs.” By strictly managing RVUs, they claim to save taxpayer money. In psychotherapy, this logic backfires catastrophically. By suppressing reimbursement rates to a level that drives providers out of the network, the RUC forces patients into the cash market. The theoretical in-network cost might be a $20 copay with the insurer paying $100. The actual out-of-network cost is $250 cash out-of-pocket, paid in full by the patient. Thus, the “cost of therapy” for the consumer skyrockets. Therapy becomes a luxury good, accessible only to those with disposable income. For the poor and middle class, the “cost” is effectively infinite, because the service becomes inaccessible. The RUC's cost-control measure for the system becomes a cost-multiplier for the patient. It shifts the financial burden from the risk pool, where it belongs, to the individual, where it causes maximum harm. The Signal to Students The RUC sends powerful economic signals to medical students making career decisions. When a student observes that a dermatologist or radiologist can earn $500,000 working regular hours, while a psychiatrist earns $240,000 handling emotional trauma and on-call emergencies, while a primary care doctor earns even less, the choice is clear for those motivated by financial security. The undervaluation of cognitive codes discourages the best and brightest from entering mental health and primary care. The cartel's pricing structure creates a perpetual labor shortage in the fields most needed for public health, while creating a surplus in high-margin procedural specialties. We then wonder why there are not enough psychiatrists, why primary care is in crisis, why mental health access is collapsing. The answer is in the price signal, and the price signal is set by a committee of proceduralists meeting behind closed doors. The Hands Are Tied The question “Why can't therapists start a union?” is not just a labor question. It is a window into the broken soul of American healthcare. We have built a system where a secret committee of proceduralists can legally fix prices to favor surgery over therapy, but a group of social workers cannot band together to ask for a living wage. We have utilized laws meant to break up Standard Oil to break up the solidarity of caregivers. The same regulatory framework that criminalizes therapist coordination provides legal cover for industry-wide price coordination by the most powerful medical specialties. The result is a regulatory environment that drives doctors crazy, burns out therapists, and leaves patients navigating a fragmented, assembly-line system that was never designed to heal them. It was designed to process them. Until we confront the legal architecture of this system, the RUC, the Sherman Act, the 1099 trap, we will remain powerless to change it. And the reality of therapy is that quick fixes, whether in treatment or in policy, usually end up costing us more in the end. Some states are beginning to push back. New York and California have implemented strict network adequacy standards requiring mental health appointments within 10 business days. These regulations force insurers to expand their networks, which means they must attract providers, which means they must raise reimbursement rates above the RUC/Medicare floor. It is effectively a state-level override of the RUC cartel, forcing capital back into the mental health labor market. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has long advocated for stripping the RUC of its power, proposing the use of empirical data, tax returns, payroll records, practice invoices, to set values automatically. But these are patchwork solutions to a systemic problem. The fundamental issue remains: we have created a healthcare system that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. We have engineered a system where the only way to survive is to stop acting like a healer and start acting like a factory. And we have wrapped this system in a legal framework that criminalizes resistance while protecting the status quo. The hands are tied. But at least now we can see the ropes. Bibliography For those interested in the primary sources and legal texts that underpin this analysis, the following external resources provide high-trust verification of the claims made above: Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975): The Supreme Court decision that ended the “learned profession” exemption from antitrust laws. Read the Oyez Summary. The Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7): The foundational text of US antitrust law prohibiting restraint of trade. Read the Document at the National Archives. North Texas Specialty Physicians v. Federal Trade Commission (5th Cir. 2008): A key ruling establishing that independent physicians cannot collectively bargain on fees without financial integration. Read the Court Opinion. FTC/DOJ Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (1996): The federal guidelines explaining the “Messenger Model” and the narrow exceptions for clinical integration. Read the Guidelines (PDF). The RUC (AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee): The AMA's own description of the committee structure and its role in valuing physician work. Visit the AMA RUC Page. “Special Deal” by Haley Sweetland Edwards (Washington Monthly, 2013): An investigative deep-dive into how the RUC operates and its impact on primary care vs. specialty pay. Read the Investigation. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): The law governing the right to unionize, which specifically excludes independent contractors. Read the NLRA. Laugesen, Miriam J. Fixing Medical Prices: How Physicians Are Paid. Harvard University Press, 2016. The definitive scholarly analysis of the RUC's history, structure, and influence on American healthcare pricing. Government Accountability Office. “Medicare Physician Payment Rates: Better Data and Greater Transparency Could Improve Accuracy.” 2015. GAO's critical analysis of RUC methodology and conflicts of interest. Center for American Progress. “Rethinking the RUC.” 2015. Policy analysis of the RUC's structural bias against primary care and cognitive services. Health Affairs Scholar. “Insurance Acceptance and Cash Pay Rates for Psychotherapy in the US.” 2023. Empirical research on out-of-network utilization in mental health care. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). “Report to the Congress: Medicare and the Health Care Delivery System.” 2024. Annual policy recommendations including proposals for reforming physician fee schedule methodology. Joel Blackstock, LICSW-S, is the Clinical Director of Taproot Therapy Collective in Hoover, Alabama. He specializes in complex trauma treatment and writes at GetTherapyBirmingham.com.  

In this episode we discuss Maddy's medical credentials, all the classic medical archetypes, the hit piece by Ashley Tisdale that's rocking the nation, the irksome nature of Hil Duff singing about bj's, having a "face for medicine", the freakishness of a man with a full head of hair, how nurses are the backbone of society, doctors salaries in the 90s, wanting a doc with a perma-iced coffee in hand, the fear of having your jeans cut off in front of your co-workers and SO MUCH MORE!!! Thanks for listening and we'll catch you on the flip-phone!

Understanding the Foundations of Criminal Procedure: A Deep DiveThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, detailing the flow of the justice system from investigation to post-conviction relief. It emphasizes the balancing act between societal needs and individual rights, the role of the prosecutor, and the complexities of federal habeas corpus. The discussion highlights key procedural rules, the importance of constitutional protections, and the challenges faced by defendants in navigating the legal system.Imagine standing at the crossroads of law and liberty, where every decision shapes the balance between societal safety and individual rights. This is the realm of criminal procedure, a complex yet fascinating field that defines how justice is administered.The Structure of Criminal Procedure:Criminal procedure is the backbone of the justice system, dictating how the government can investigate, arrest, and prosecute individuals. It is built on constitutional principles and court rules, ensuring that every step from investigation to conviction respects individual rights. The process begins with the investigation phase, where law enforcement must determine if a crime occurred and identify the perpetrator, all while adhering to constitutional safeguards.Key Components:Searches and Seizures: Governed by the Fourth Amendment, this aspect addresses when and how the government can intrude on personal privacy. Interrogations: The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, ensuring individuals are aware of their rights through the Miranda warning. Identifications: Procedures like lineups and DNA testing must meet due process standards to avoid unfairness.The Role of the Prosecutor:The prosecutor wields significant power, deciding whether to charge an individual based on the evidence. This decision initiates the judicial process, where the accused is formally charged and advised of their rights.The Judicial Process:From the first court appearance to the trial, each stage is designed to uphold constitutional rights. The preliminary hearing offers a glimpse into the prosecution's case, allowing the defense to strategize effectively. The trial itself culminates in a verdict, leading to sentencing and potential appeals.Criminal procedure is a delicate balancing act between enforcing the law and protecting individual freedoms. It is a testament to the complexity of justice, where every rule and decision shapes the landscape of liberty.Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest in legal insights and justice system developments.TakeawaysCriminal procedure is about the structure that defines liberty.The investigation phase is governed by constitutional rules.The prosecutor has immense power in the charging decision.Preliminary hearings provide critical insights for the defense.The federal system of courts operates in a hierarchical structure.Incorporation applies most rights in the Bill of Rights to the states.State constitutions can offer more protections than federal law.Habeas corpus serves as a last resort for state prisoners.Procedural hurdles can bar federal claims if not properly navigated.Actual innocence is a procedural tool, not a substantive right.criminal procedure, investigation, prosecution, trial, habeas corpus, constitutional rights, legal process, justice system, appeals, law students

The American Criminal Justice System: A Deep Dive into Failure and ReformThis conversation delves into the foundational issues of the American criminal justice system, focusing on over-criminalization, plea bargaining, and the systemic failures that lead to a net loss of liberty. It critiques the current practices and proposes a liberty balancing approach to restore fairness and individual rights. The discussion highlights the coercive nature of plea deals, the implications of proxy crimes, and the challenges posed by procedural barriers and the presumption of regularity. Ultimately, it questions the efficacy of the jury trial system and the concept of legal formalism in ensuring justice.In today's exploration, we delve into the intricate and often flawed mechanisms of the American criminal justice system. This isn't just about the high-profile trials that capture public attention; it's about the underlying structures and procedures that shape outcomes long before a jury is seated.The Systemic Failures: The American criminal justice system is plagued by over-criminalization and a reliance on plea bargaining, which bypasses the constitutional design of our courts. With 95% of felony convictions resulting from guilty pleas, the adversarial trial system is more theoretical than practical. This administrative workaround, driven by overwhelming caseloads and limited resources, raises ethical and constitutional concerns about coercion and fairness.The Liberty Balancing Approach: A proposed reform is the Liberty Balancing Approach (LBA), which seeks to redefine criminal laws as protectors of fundamental rights and liberties. This framework demands rigorous scrutiny of laws that restrict freedom, ensuring they are justified and proportionate. The LBA aims to narrow the application of criminal law, focusing on preserving individual liberties.The Role of Proxy Crimes: Proxy crimes, such as illegal firearm possession, serve as placeholders for more serious offenses. These laws often lead to intrusive enforcement methods that infringe on individual liberties, particularly in marginalized communities. The effectiveness of these laws in reducing crime is questionable, with evidence suggesting they may even increase violence by shifting conflict resolution to unregulated channels.The Burden of Proof: The allocation of the burden of proof in criminal procedure is inconsistent, creating disparities in constitutional protections. The presumption of regularity, which assumes public officials act legally, shifts the burden to defendants to prove misconduct. This presumption is often factually unsupportable, particularly in the context of indigent defense and racial bias in prosecutorial decisions.Conclusion: The American criminal justice system is at a crossroads, with systemic pressures threatening its foundational principles. Reforms like the Liberty Balancing Approach and a reevaluation of proxy crimes are essential to restoring balance and protecting individual liberties. As we navigate these challenges, the question remains: do we have the political and institutional will to enact meaningful change?Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest discussions and reforms in the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe American criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed.Over-criminalization affects 70% of Americans.Plea bargaining is a coercive mechanism in the justice system.The liberty balancing approach seeks to restore individual rights.Proxy crimes create legal traps for marginalized communities.Procedural barriers often prevent justice from being served.The presumption of regularity shifts the burden unfairly to defendants.Jury trials are declining, impacting democratic justice.American criminal justice, over-criminalization, plea bargaining, liberty balancing approach, proxy crimes, procedural barriers, jury trials, legal formalism, presumption of innocence

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Greg Lois delves into the intricate world of New York Workers' Compensation, focusing on critical decisions and procedural aspects. Whether you're an attorney, claims adjuster, or employer, this course equips you with essential knowledge to navigate the complexities of workplace injury claims. How to attend these webinars live and ask questions Join us for our monthly webinars on New York and New Jersey workers' compensation law. Register for a New York Workers' Compensation Webinar Register for a New Jersey Workers' Compensation Webinar Schedules and Information Handout materials are provided in advance of each session. The webinar courses follow the "life cycle" of a claim and correspond to chapters in the Workers' Compensation Handbooks offered by the Firm. Disclaimer This webinar is not legal advice! The materials presented by this webinar/podcast and any affiliated website are for informational purposes only and are not offered as legal advice as to any particular matter. No viewer/listener/reader should act on the basis of these materials without seeking appropriate professional advice as to the particular facts and applicable law involved. The materials are not represented to be correct, complete, or up-to-date. Opinions presented by this video/podcast are the opinions of the author. Neither the use of this web site nor the transfer of information to or from this web site shall create or constitute an attorney-client relationship between Greg Lois, the presenter in the video/podcast, or LOIS LAW FIRM LLC and any person. You should not send any confidential information to this web site until after you have entered into a written agreement for the performance of legal services.

Holdups remain for quick movement on a Senate spending package. A GOP health bill is headed for the House floor, though it doesn't extend ACA credits. The Senate is set to vote on the NDAA today. Kristina Karisch has your CQ Morning Briefing for Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2025.

In this episode of Tea with Dr. D, host James Q. Del Rosso, DO, is joined by Gary Goldenberg, MD, for an in-depth discussion on integrating procedural dermatology, particularly regenerative treatments for hair loss, into a busy private practice. Together, they explore considerations for patient selection and the clinical value these procedures bring to aesthetic and medical dermatology settings. The conversation begins with an overview of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including its evolution in the US and the growing body of evidence supporting its role in androgenetic alopecia, telogen effluvium, alopecia areata, and scarring alopecia. Dr Goldenberg outlines PRP as a regenerative therapy rather than a hair-specific treatment, describing how growth factors help stimulate dormant follicles and prolong the anagen phase. He reviews the preparation process, ideal candidates, contraindications, and why early intervention yields the best outcomes. Procedural videos throughout the episode illustrate PRP techniques, from multi-needle mesotherapy devices to targeted injections with a 30-gauge needle, and demonstrate approaches to analgesia and treatment tailoring by pattern of loss. The discussion extends to the role of exosomes in regenerative dermatology. Dr Goldenberg explains their mechanism, the distinction between human- and plant-derived products, and his rationale for combining exosomes with PRP when feasible. Additional videos highlight injection and microneedling-based delivery methods, offering insight into how these modalities complement each other in alopecia. Tune in to the full episode for expert guidance

In this week’s Crime Roundup, Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer Break down the federal hearing surrounding Luigi Mangione, the suspect accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December of 2024. What began as a five-day manhunt has become a master class in what not to do, with missed warrants, coached testimony, and evidence on the verge of being thrown out. Sheryl and Joshua examine how procedural missteps could weaken a potential death penalty case and why “get a warrant” isn't just good advice; it's the foundation of justice. They then turned their attention to Massachusetts, where the trial of Brian Walshe, who is accused of killing and dismembering his wife, reveals how arrogance, lies, and a trail of Google searches can expose a killer's truth. Highlights: • (0:00) Welcome to Crime Roundup with Sheryl McCollum and Joshua Schiffer • (0:15) "99 percent of the time, you need a warrant... it won’t hurt your case if you get one and don’t need it.” • (4:00) Coached testimony and the danger of tailoring officer statements for admissibility • (7:30) What happens when training, procedure, and pressure collide in the courtroom • (9:00) How early media leaks and “pre-trial publicity” can poison a case before it begins • (10:30) The potential collapse of key evidence and its impact on death penalty eligibility • (12:15) The rules of criminal procedure and what it means when they don’t apply equally • (17:15) The defense’s dream scenario: getting the weapon suppressed because of a“bad stop” • (17:45) The Brian Walshe trail and the anatomy of a cover-up • (19:30) Walshe’s “woke up and she was dead” defense and why it’s collapsing in court • (21:45) The digital trail: how Google searches reveal motive, method, and mindset • (23:00) Closing thoughts: why “get a warrant” isn’t optional, it’s the rule of law About the Hosts Joshua Schiffer is a veteran trial attorney and one of the Southeast’s most respected legal voices. He is a founding partner at ChancoSchiffer P.C., where he has litigated high-stakes criminal, civil rights, and personal injury cases for over two decades. Known for his bold courtroom presence and ability to clearly explain complex legal issues, Schiffer is a frequent media contributor and a fearless advocate for accountability. Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a Metro Atlanta Police Department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, earned her an Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023. Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Lessons in Life,Justice, and Joy from a Forensic Scientist, releasing May 2026 from Simon and Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Swans-Dont-Swim-in-a-Sewer/Sheryl-Mac-McCollum/9798895652824 Stay Connected Subscribe using your favorite podcast platform and leave a review to support the show. Have acase or topic you’d like Sheryl and Joshua to cover? Email coldcase2004@gmail.comFollow the Hosts: • Sheryl on X: @ColdCaseTips • Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum • Joshua on X and Instagram: @lawyerschiffSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlNavigating the Complexities of Constitutional Law: Federalism and State SovereigntyThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of critical constitutional law doctrines that define the relationship between state and federal powers. It covers foundational concepts such as due process, preemption, the anti-commandeering doctrine, the dormant commerce clause, and the Pike balancing test, while also addressing modern challenges in federalism and state taxation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these doctrines for legal education and exam preparation.In the realm of constitutional law, the tug-of-war between federal and state powers is a perennial topic of debate and analysis. This dynamic is vividly illustrated in the doctrines of anti-commandeering and the dormant commerce clause, which serve as critical tools for understanding the balance of power in the United States.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Protecting State SovereigntyThe anti-commandeering doctrine is a cornerstone of state sovereignty, ensuring that the federal government cannot coerce states into enforcing federal regulations. This principle was solidified through landmark cases such as New York v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA, which underscore the importance of political accountability and the prevention of federal overreach. By prohibiting the federal government from commandeering state resources, this doctrine maintains a healthy balance of power and protects the autonomy of state governments.The Dormant Commerce Clause: Ensuring a Unified National MarketOn the flip side, the dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting protectionist measures that could fragment the national market. This doctrine is crucial for maintaining economic unity across state lines, as seen in cases like City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey. The Pike balancing test, a key component of this doctrine, evaluates whether a state's regulation imposes an excessive burden on interstate commerce relative to its local benefits. This nuanced analysis is essential for preserving the delicate equilibrium between state interests and national economic cohesion.Modern Implications and ChallengesRecent cases, such as the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, highlight the ongoing relevance and complexity of these doctrines. The Supreme Court's decision in this case reflects the challenges of applying centuries-old principles to contemporary issues, particularly in an interconnected economy. As states continue to assert their regulatory powers, the balance between federal oversight and state autonomy remains a dynamic and evolving landscape.Understanding the interplay between federal and state powers is crucial for navigating the complexities of constitutional law. As these doctrines continue to shape the legal landscape, they offer valuable insights into the ongoing dialogue between national authority and state sovereignty. For students and practitioners alike, mastering these principles is essential for engaging with the ever-evolving field of constitutional law.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest developments in constitutional law and deepen your understanding of the intricate balance of power in the United States.TakeawaysGovernments can't deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.Procedural due process focuses on fair procedures for deprivation.Substantive due process protects fundamental rights from government interference.Federal law preempts contrary state law, with express and implied preemption.The anti-commandeering doctrine prevents federal government from forcing states to enact laws.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from discriminating against out-of-state commerceConstitutional Law, Federalism, Due Process, Preemption, Anti-Commandeering, Dormant Commerce Clause, Pike Test, State Taxation, Supreme Court, Legal Education

In this episode of Room to Grow, Curtis and Joanie reconsider the balance of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency in math instruction. Although this topic has been discussed before, our hosts acknowledge that there is great nuance and many considerations in considering these two ideas in the teaching and learning of mathematics.Curtis and Joanie discuss how inquiry-based, discovery-style learning opportunities are more open ended, are student centered, and are less teacher directed. They support these types of lessons in math instruction while recognizing that there are times when an explicit approach where teachers are sharing important information also has a place. Additionally, our hosts consider that teaching procedures and algorithms also provides and opportunity to cultivate conceptual understanding. When teachers help student find the  conceptual understanding within the procedures, they engage in mathematical reasoning. This type of reasoning through concepts and procedures contributes to a broader and more robust understanding of meaningful mathematics. Additional referenced content includes:·       NCTM article From Rules That Expire to Deeper Mathematical Thinking. Mathematics Teacher: Learning & Teaching PK-12 Volume 118 Issue 4. April 2025. (Membership required).·       NCTM article Teaching Is a Journey: From Rules That Expire to a Journey Aspired. Mathematics Teacher: Learning & Teaching PK-12 Volume 118 Issue 4. April 2025. (Membership required).·       Robert Kaplinski's website and Open Middle websiteDid 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. 

Join the clubrightbrainresetters.comGet 20% off your first orderhttps://addednutrition.comIn this episode, Stephen Martin discusses nine signs of dyslexia that are often overlooked. He explores how dyslexia affects memory, creativity, and sleep, providing insights into the unique challenges faced by individuals with dyslexia. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these signs to better support those who may be struggling with dyslexia.TakeawaysFatigue from reading and writing is common in dyslexia.Left and right confusion can be a daily struggle.Rote memory often fails without visual or emotional connections.Procedural memory issues can make following steps difficult.Creativity in dyslexia may manifest in unique problem-solving ways.Pronunciation challenges can lead to anxiety in social situations.Verbal working memory chaos can disrupt conversations.Dyslexics often excel in divergent thinking and creativity.Sleep issues are prevalent among dyslexics, affecting daily life.Awareness of these signs can help others understand dyslexia better.Dyslexia, signs of dyslexia, memory challenges, creativity, sleep issues, left-right confusion, verbal working memory, divergent thinking, fatigue, procedural memory, ADHD, adults with dyslexia, support for adults.If you want to find out more visit:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠truthaboutdyslexia.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join our Facebook Group⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠facebook.com/groups/adultdyslexia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

Show Notes: The Ethics of TriageEpisode Summary:In this episode of the Emergency Management Network, hosts Todd DeVoe and Dan Scott dive into the ethical dimensions of triage decision-making in emergency management. When resources are scarce and lives hang in the balance, how do practitioners decide who receives what—and when? They explore the moral, operational, and community implications of triage: from the utilitarian drive to save the most lives to justice, equity, and the dignity of every individual. The discussion moves beyond clinical mass-casualty triage into the broader realm of emergency management: how we allocate responders, infrastructure support, and logistics under constraint.Topics Covered:* The concept of triage in disasters: not just medical, but resource and operational prioritization.* Ethical frameworks in triage: utilitarianism (greatest good), justice/fairness, respect for persons.* Application for emergency management: when first responders, shelters, infrastructure, and logistics compete for scarce resources.* Procedural and decision-making ethics: transparency, criteria, fairness, documentation, moral burden.* Scenarios and case reflections: mass-casualty incidents, pandemic strains, infrastructure failures, evacuation dilemmas.* Practical guidance: building ethical triage protocols in EM, training for moral stress, community engagement, and after-action review of ethical decisions.* Questions for reflection: How do you build trust when triage decisions must be made under pressure? How do you integrate equity and fairness? How do you support decision-makers facing moral injury?Quotable Moment:“Triage isn't just who goes first — it's who we decide we can't help right now, and that decision carries ethical weight for the entire system.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit emnetwork.substack.com/subscribe

OPINION: Media, misinformation and the politics of procedural illiteracy | Nov. 20, 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.

Description Join host and HRS Digital Education Committee Chair Michael S. Lloyd, MD, FHRS and his guests Miguel A. Leal, MD, FHRS, and Jason T. Jacobson, MD, FHRS, live at HRX 2025. In this prospective series of 12 device-naïve patients (median LVEF ~30%), the authors attempted permanent implantation of a single-coil DF-4 ICD lead into the left bundle branch area (LBBA). They achieved successful implantation with adequate sensing and pacing in 75% of patients, and during short-term follow-up the lead and RV parameters remained stable; minor complications occurred in ~25% of patients (lead micro-dislodgment and septal perforations). The authors conclude that LBBA ICD lead implantation is feasible with current tools and acceptable short-term outcomes, but note the higher-than-expected minor complication rate and emphasize the need for dedicated toolkits, higher operator volume, and a procedural learning curve. Learning Objectives Describe the procedural feasibility, safety considerations, and short-term outcomes associated with left bundle branch area (LBBA) DF-4 defibrillator lead implantation. Identify key technical caveats and patient selection factors relevant to adopting this emerging pacing strategy in clinical practice. Article Information Permanent Left Budnle Branch Area DF-4 Debibrillator Lead Implantation Feasibility, Procedural Caveats, Safety, and Follow-Up Article Authors Anindya Ghosh, Chenni S. Sriram, Nibin Manu, Mullasari Ajit Sankaradas, Gaurav M. Upadhyay, Ulhas M. Pandurangi  Podcast Contributors Michael S. Lloyd, MD, FHRS  Jason T. Jacobson, MD, FHRS  Miguel A. Leal, MD, FHRS  All relevant financial relationships have been mitigated. Host Disclosure(s): M. Lloyd •Speaking/Teaching/Consulting: Medtronic, Arga Medtech, Circa Scientific   •Membership on Advisory Committees: Boston Scientific   ​Contributor Disclosure(s):    J. Jacobson •Stocks, Privately Held: Atlas 5D •Honoraria/Speaking/Teaching/Consulting: Zoll Medical Corporation, Vektor Medical, Inc. •Research: Abbott Medical, CardioFocus, Inc. M. Leal •Speaking/Teaching/Consulting: Medtronic   Staff Disclosure(s) (note: HRS staff are NOT in control of educational content. Disclosures are provided solely for full transparency to the learner): S. Sailor: No relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose.

You know that moment when your players spend ten minutes searching a room, roll a 5, and you sigh before saying, "You find… nothing"? Yeah, we're done with that. In this episode, the RPGBOT crew grabs the Dungeon Master's Guide by the binding and asks the real questions: Why are searches so boring, and why do your players keep looting every chair leg like it's the Ark of the Covenant? It's time to make treasure exciting again — and maybe throw in a cursed spoon or two for good measure. Show Notes In this episode of the RPGBOT.Podcast, the hosts dive into using random treasure and how to make it fun. Not ready for the burden of homebrewing every magical baubel the players find? Still want treasure to feel cool and exciting instead of handing out 2d4 silver pieces? Grab a random treasure table and listen in. They cover: How to curate random treasures so rewards feel tailored, not tacked on. Procedural generation and OSR-style loot tables for DMs who want surprise without chaos. The psychology of reward design—why a potion of healing can feel more exciting than a +1 sword. How Pathfinder 2e's treasure parcel system solves common D&D loot issues. Turning random loot into story hooks that feed back into your worldbuilding. Whether you're running a gritty hexcrawl, a dungeon delve, or a modern urban fantasy, you'll walk away with tools to hoard of treasure hoards and make every treasure feel earned. Key Takeaways Roll less, describe more. Replace meaningless Perception checks with interactive exploration and sensory clues. Random doesn't mean meaningless. Curate your treasure tables around your campaign's themes. Passive Perception is your pacing tool. Use it to keep exploration snappy without robbing players of agency. Economy matters. Gold, consumables, and downtime rewards all affect campaign health. Player engagement > item rarity. Surprise players with creativity, not just loot value. Procedural tools save prep time. Random tables and generators can be incredible when you understand their purpose. Reward discovery, not just dice. Make your players feel clever when they find something hidden — even if you planned it all along. If you've ever caught yourself saying "You find nothing," it's time to level up your DM game. Head to RPGBOT.net for guides on treasure design, reward pacing, and exploration mechanics, and don't forget to subscribe to the RPGBOT.Podcast on your favorite platform. Rate and review to help other GMs find the show — and maybe, just maybe, help us all stop handing out 17 identical potions of healing. Welcome to the RPGBOT Podcast. If you love Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, and tabletop RPGs, this is the podcast for you. Support the show for free: Rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any podcast app. It helps new listeners find the best RPG podcast for D&D and Pathfinder players. Level up your experience: Join us on Patreon to unlock ad-free access to RPGBOT.net and the RPGBOT Podcast, chat with us and the community on the RPGBOT Discord, and jump into live-streamed RPG podcast recordings. Support while you shop: Use our Amazon affiliate link at https://amzn.to/3NwElxQ and help us keep building tools and guides for the RPG community. Meet the Hosts Tyler Kamstra – Master of mechanics, seeing the Pathfinder action economy like Neo in the Matrix. Randall James – Lore buff and technologist, always ready to debate which Lord of the Rings edition reigns supreme. Ash Ely – Resident cynic, chaos agent, and AI's worst nightmare, bringing pure table-flipping RPG podcast energy. Join the RPGBOT team where fantasy roleplaying meets real strategy, sarcasm, and community chaos. How to Find Us: In-depth articles, guides, handbooks, reviews, news on Tabletop Role Playing at RPGBOT.net Tyler Kamstra BlueSky: @rpgbot.net TikTok: @RPGBOTDOTNET Ash Ely Professional Game Master on StartPlaying.Games BlueSky: @GravenAshes YouTube: @ashravenmedia Randall James BlueSky: @GrimoireRPG Amateurjack.com Read Melancon: A Grimoire Tale (affiliate link) Producer Dan @Lzr_illuminati

You know that moment when your players spend ten minutes searching a room, roll a 5, and you sigh before saying, "You find… nothing"? Yeah, we're done with that. In this episode, the RPGBOT crew grabs the Dungeon Master's Guide by the binding and asks the real questions: Why are searches so boring, and why do your players keep looting every chair leg like it's the Ark of the Covenant? It's time to make treasure exciting again — and maybe throw in a cursed spoon or two for good measure. Show Notes In this episode of the RPGBOT.Podcast, the hosts dive into using random treasure and how to make it fun. Not ready for the burden of homebrewing every magical baubel the players find? Still want treasure to feel cool and exciting instead of handing out 2d4 silver pieces? Grab a random treasure table and listen in. They cover: How to curate random treasures so rewards feel tailored, not tacked on. Procedural generation and OSR-style loot tables for DMs who want surprise without chaos. The psychology of reward design—why a potion of healing can feel more exciting than a +1 sword. How Pathfinder 2e's treasure parcel system solves common D&D loot issues. Turning random loot into story hooks that feed back into your worldbuilding. Whether you're running a gritty hexcrawl, a dungeon delve, or a modern urban fantasy, you'll walk away with tools to hoard of treasure hoards and make every treasure feel earned. Key Takeaways Roll less, describe more. Replace meaningless Perception checks with interactive exploration and sensory clues. Random doesn't mean meaningless. Curate your treasure tables around your campaign's themes. Passive Perception is your pacing tool. Use it to keep exploration snappy without robbing players of agency. Economy matters. Gold, consumables, and downtime rewards all affect campaign health. Player engagement > item rarity. Surprise players with creativity, not just loot value. Procedural tools save prep time. Random tables and generators can be incredible when you understand their purpose. Reward discovery, not just dice. Make your players feel clever when they find something hidden — even if you planned it all along. If you've ever caught yourself saying "You find nothing," it's time to level up your DM game. Head to RPGBOT.net for guides on treasure design, reward pacing, and exploration mechanics, and don't forget to subscribe to the RPGBOT.Podcast on your favorite platform. Rate and review to help other GMs find the show — and maybe, just maybe, help us all stop handing out 17 identical potions of healing. Welcome to the RPGBOT Podcast. If you love Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder, and tabletop RPGs, this is the podcast for you. Support the show for free: Rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any podcast app. It helps new listeners find the best RPG podcast for D&D and Pathfinder players. Level up your experience: Join us on Patreon to unlock ad-free access to RPGBOT.net and the RPGBOT Podcast, chat with us and the community on the RPGBOT Discord, and jump into live-streamed RPG podcast recordings. Support while you shop: Use our Amazon affiliate link at https://amzn.to/3NwElxQ and help us keep building tools and guides for the RPG community. Meet the Hosts Tyler Kamstra – Master of mechanics, seeing the Pathfinder action economy like Neo in the Matrix. Randall James – Lore buff and technologist, always ready to debate which Lord of the Rings edition reigns supreme. Ash Ely – Resident cynic, chaos agent, and AI's worst nightmare, bringing pure table-flipping RPG podcast energy. Join the RPGBOT team where fantasy roleplaying meets real strategy, sarcasm, and community chaos. How to Find Us: In-depth articles, guides, handbooks, reviews, news on Tabletop Role Playing at RPGBOT.net Tyler Kamstra BlueSky: @rpgbot.net TikTok: @RPGBOTDOTNET Ash Ely Professional Game Master on StartPlaying.Games BlueSky: @GravenAshes YouTube: @ashravenmedia Randall James BlueSky: @GrimoireRPG Amateurjack.com Read Melancon: A Grimoire Tale (affiliate link) Producer Dan @Lzr_illuminati

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.

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

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

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

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

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.