Podcasts about Prohibition

Settle in for a tale of passion, jealousy, corruption, and the lady killers who entranced 1920s America. Grab your gun, your best fur coat, and a flask of bootleg gin. Let's go traveling. You can now buy my ladycentric timelines, maps, and art prints at the Exploress shop. Also, did you know I've got a novel out? NIGHTBIRDS is a 1920s-tinted fantasy about girls who will gift their magic with a kiss...for a price. I think you might like it. You'll find show notes for this episode at my Exploress website. If you want to support the show, you can do so over on Patreon.  

Still stuffed from Thanksgiving, Karen opts to skip the kitchen in this episode and discuss various foods she enjoyed over the holiday. She describes the Pilgrim sandwiches that were her favorite meal. Anne unwinds the twisted case of the demise of Iron Mike Malloy, the man who wouldn't die. The case occurred during the Great Depression and Prohibition in a dirty speakeasy in Bronx, NY. Mike thought his life had taken a lucky turn, but his friends had other plans. In desperate times when money is scarce, desperately nefarious deeds unfold.   Indie Podcast Spotlights: The Movie Wire Show - Justin reviews the hottest films in theaters and streaming and gives them his verdict Brutal, Bizarre, and Boozy Podcast - a mother and son duo add boozy cocktails to their discussion of brutal crimes and bizarre happenings #Thanksgiving #leftovers #pilgrims #poison #prohibition #speakeasy #sandwiches

Thank God for wine. No, really! Wine has always played a part in the culture of the church. It's what Jesus drank at the last supper, priests bless it during Catholic mass, and if you drink enough of it you might start having visions of the divine. But in the early 20th century, this millenia-old church culture was under threat. The temperance movement ushered in an era of prohibition. Wine barrels were cracked open with axes. The streets and sewers ran red, white, and sparkling. And in Southern California, winery owners like Santo Cambianica were given little choice but to shut down. As an Italian immigrant and a Catholic, prohibition wasn't just a response to the rise of alcoholism, it was an attack on his culture and religion. But a little known exemption in the prohibition laws was about to change that. Instead of shutting down, Santo's winery boomed. In fact, he did better business during prohibition than before it. All thanks to the holy loophole. Hosted by Claudia Hanna Episode Guests: Santo Riboli (President, San Antonio Winery, Los Angeles, CA) Father Gregory Elder (Historian and Pastor, Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Palm Desert, CA) Recipe: Wine Pairings from Season One Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Bar on Healthcare – November 2023: The ACA and Employer Sponsored Plans Welcome back to the Bar! This month, J.D. and Kerri widen the lens to take a look at how healthcare coverage purchased through the ACA exchanges has affected employer sponsored plans. We also discuss changes to the Medicare trust fund. And in Last Call, J.D. eschews sports references for a story about a library book that was due during Prohibition.

Alcohol was originally considered a medicine, Indeed, during Prohibition one of the most reliable places to get your hands on a bottle of liquor was the pharmacy. So with that — and everyone's general health and well being in mind — we present the Penicillin. With fresh ginger, lemon and a healthy dose of Scotch, this little wonder, invented by Sam Ross in 2005, does indeed have an ineffable healing quality. And in the amount of time it takes sing an average Scottish folk song, Dan reveals all about the drink. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Study of the book Tanbeeh Al-Gaafileen by Imam Abu Al-Layth Al-Samarqandi on the chapter of The Reconciliation and Prohibition of Animosity or Enmity. Part 3

Study of the book Tanbeeh Al-Gaafileen by Imam Abu Al-Layth Al-Samarqandi on the chapter of The Reconciliation and Prohibition of Animosity or Enmity. Part 4

Study of the book Tanbeeh Al-Gaafileen by Imam Abu Al-Layth Al-Samarqandi on the chapter of The Reconciliation and Prohibition of Animosity or Enmity. Part 5

Timestamps(00:00:02) Introduction (00:01:01) Healthcare Risk Management Experience (00:02:18) Fair Housing Act Explanation (00:08:15) Prohibition of Disability Discrimination (00:15:57) Understanding Essential Requirements (00:23:15) Rules Around Common Accommodations (00:29:42) Risks & Fair Housing Marketing (00:34:55) Legalities for Assisted Living Services (00:40:17) FSA & Housing Education (00:43:22) Rules Disregard in Senior Living (00:47:41) Risk Tolerance Discussion (00:49:06) Risk Management in Senior Living  So as you mentioned, I did medical malpractice defense for a number of years in New York,and then I moved to Pennsylvania because I was getting married and my husband was fromout of state.And when I moved, I decided to switch hats, and I decided to do healthcare risk management.So I was tasked with starting up a risk management program for FSA.At the time, we started with 12 organizations, nonprofit, faith-based communities, generallyin the Philadelphia area.Since then, we've expanded quite a bit, and we now have 37 sites in six states.And so I give guidance and consultation on risk management issues.So today, we are going to talk about marketing risks, but I'm going to talk about it frommy perspective, you know, from a risk management perspective and a fair housing perspective.Okay.So thanks for that background.So let's get right into it.What is the worst-case scenario if someone says, you know, I'm going to market howeverI want to market?I'm going to say what I want to say, do what I want to do.What have you seen as like a worst-case scenario of someone has done this and this horribleoutcome has happened?Great question.Nothing like the fear factor right from the beginning.So what I'm going to preface that question with is an explanation of why there are risksin this venue, in this area.And so in 1968, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act, which was what I like to callthe third leg of the stool for civil rights litigation, legislation rather.And so we had the Civil Rights Act, then the Voting Rights Act. And then in 1968, they passed the Fair Housing Act.And that precluded discrimination in housing choices and lending based upon what we callthe protected class status.So started out with race, religion, national origin, color, gender, which now includesgender identity and sexual orientation, and national origin.In 1988, Congress amended the act to include two additional protected class categories.Familial status, meaning that you are not supposed to be able to discriminate againstfamilies with children.And of course, there is a carve-out for our senior living settings.And the one for purposes of our discussion today, which will be very pivotal, is it sayshandicapped, but it's what we would refer to as disability.So you have now protections under the Fair Housing Act, and we just call it FHA for boththe Amendments Act and the original act for all those protected classes, which actessentially as a floor, not a ceiling.So state and local jurisdictions can also add an additional protected class categories,like, for example, maybe marital status, saying that, you know, you can't discriminateagainst somebody because they're unmarried or, you know, because they cohabitatetogether, for example, or source of income is another one that's fairly common.So I think for a lot of senior living communities, they don't necessarily recognizethat they are covered by this act as a housing provider, because I think for a lot ofcommunities, they say justifiably, well, we're not a housing provider because we do somuch more than that. And you do.However, in the eyes of the government, you are a housing provider and you are subject tothe Fair Housing Act.And so there are lots of risks that come along with that.Now, if you choose as an organization just to decide that you're going to market any wayyou want to and you're not going to pay attention to various marketing risks, includingfair housing risks, what's the worst case scenario?The worst case scenario is that you end up being in litigation, sued by potentially afederal government. So it's now the United States of America versus, you know, seniorliving community, A.B.State. You are in litigation with the government.You are being sued for housing discrimination.Almost always that ends very badly for the community.Almost always winds up in a monetary settlement.Many times there is also a settlement compensation fund where the community has toadvertise in multiple places for people that have been subject to what they've just beenfound by the government to be illegally doing.Let's just say discriminating against those with scooters, for example.And so they would have to advertise for anyone that's been impacted by that to give themmoney. In addition, there's almost always what we call a consent decree that comes withthat. It's sort of, if you're familiar with the world of compliance, it's similar toa CIA or a corporate integrity agreement whereby the government puts you into thisconsent decree.And the consent decree not only sets out the exact amount of money that you're going tohave to pay and how you would advertise to those who have been subject to yourdiscriminatory practices to give them money.But there's also usually quite onerous burdens that are placed on the community,including things like they get to and the government will review your actions for aperiod of time. Usually it's about five years.And so they will oversee and have to approve the policies, put policies in place forwhatever the particular topic is, change contracts, sometimes hire a fair housingofficer to perform acts to training and education for the staff on an ongoing basis.And again, being overseen by the government for a period of time.In addition, I would also say that you don't want to be the poster child for that.So again, I happen to mention scooters.And one of the pivotal cases in the world of, you know, communities that have been suedfor improper restrictions on scooters is a community called Twining Village.And I don't like to use them, you know, but that that case is out there and everybodyknows about it. So you don't want to end up having the reputational damage in our worldof, you know, senior living where it's like, oh, that's the Twining Village case.And so, you know, everybody knows based on that case, you know, some of the policiesthat you have to have in place and the no-nos, the things that you shouldn't be doing.You don't want to become the poster child for that, which can very easily happen.Well, so a couple of questions.Thank you for that. I mean, that's quite an overview.So it were someone to actually go ahead and let me just back up.So you're saying that there's the fair housing law, which puts nursing homes together inthat category. So therefore, they have these discrimination laws like you've outlined.So is this, first of all, is this specific to marketing?Are we talking about someone denies a patient because we don't take we don't want patientswith scooters because patients with scooters are dumb or whatever.Yeah. So I'm speaking broadly about senior living communities.Right. So it's anywhere that a person lives.Okay. So if you are running a short term rehab only, then potentially you are excluded fromthe Fair Housing Act because that's not someone's home.The intention is to treat them for a brief period of time with the intention to dischargethem. However, it does apply clearly.All the case law is very clear on this.It does apply to settings like CCRC, independent living, assisted living, personal care,long term care. So all of those things, you know, adult foster care, it does apply to allthose settings. It is questionable whether it would apply in the context of a short termrehab strictly.Okay. So let's back up.If I don't have if I have a regular store and I sell chocolate and desserts and flowers andwhat else? I can discriminate all I want?No. There are other laws.There are other laws that prohibit you from from doing that, that we're not necessarilyspeaking about today. But again, when it comes to housing, we are under the auspices ofmultifamily housing specifically, which means four or more people in a unit or, you know,four or more units, I should say, not four more people.Then you are subject to the Fair Housing Act.So. Okay.So the Civil Rights Act says that you can't discriminate.Right. Suggested.I understand that. So my point is that you have extra laws when it comes to if you'remanaging or you own a home that has multiple families, say for like you said, four unitsor more. So then you have you have extra focus.So now let's assume someone has an assisted living facility, a long term care facility,really can be an apartment building, too.But we're saying even senior living facilities and they're going to and then theydiscriminate against someone.So does that mean that they refuse admission to someone?Okay. So that's a great question.So discrimination can take multiple forms.It can be just as you said, refusal of admission or refusal to someone, an applicant tobe denied admission.That can be a form of discrimination.It can also be a form of discrimination, which is very common.Probably the most common form of discrimination is the refusal to grant what we call areasonable accommodation for disability.And that's where the scooters would come in, for example.So if I was disabled and I had a mobility impairment and I required a scooter to enableme to get around and to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy.And you, as the provider, refuse to allow me to have that scooter or, for example, thatservice animal, like you have a no pet policy and I wanted to come in with a serviceanimal. Well, that's not a pet, that's a service animal.That's for my disability. That's a reasonable accommodation.So you can refuse and then you could again potentially be sued for that.But in addition to also refusing to admit somebody, which is a form of discrimination,there are a multitude of other forms of discrimination under the act.And it can be I come in and I'm able bodied when I come in.And after I'm a resident at your community for some period of time, I now becomedisabled. And again, I've asked for reasonable accommodation, whatever that may be.And you now refuse to give me that reasonable accommodation or you are discriminatingagainst me and saying, because let's say I had a let's say I had a fall.I lived in independent living and I had a fall.And you say, well, now you're not independent anymore.And so you need to move to assisted living because you had a fall.You can't from a legal standpoint, from a fair housing standpoint, they'd have to be waymore to it than just forcing me to move up through the continuum for something like whatI just described. And then additionally, I would also say that, you know, there areagain, just treating that it's essentially under the Fair Housing Act, we don't want totreat anyone worse, which is the more common thing to do.We also can't treat anyone better because of their protected class status.So if so, again, we serve primarily faith based communities.So if I had a community that was, for example, a Quaker community and they said, becausewe are a Quaker community, we want to give preferential treatment in admission to Quakers.You don't have to meet the same kinds of financial requirements as we require from everybodyelse. You can't do that either.Right. So, again, it's admission, but it's also discriminating against somebody oncethey're there.OK, so there's also what's the line?And I guess this is where the gray area comes in between providing reasonableaccommodations in this type of living setting versus we have a noscooter policy, let's say, because of a certain maybe safety concern that we have due toour building. Or maybe we don't allow service animals, even though it's not a pet, becausewe have residents with advanced dementia and they view service animals as monsters.They're going to eat them up or any other sort of reason, assuming that it's trueor even if it's not true.I mean, you get a good attorney to make something up, but the reasonable accommodationsversus actual practical reasons why that it's not discrimination, but there's anactual ramification of being, you know, let's see your example.Someone was in an independent living and suffered from a fall and now can no longerambulate safely in that setting.And they want to say, OK, now you have to move on.You know, CCRCs, you have to move on to the assisted living.Like, I don't want to go to the assisted living.Well, over here, you can't take a shower.You can't, you know, prepare your food.You physically can't do any more.We're not discriminating because we don't like people who fall, people who are old orpeople who are weak.We're just saying that we feel that this is not appropriate.So is that where, and obviously the other side is that, no, I'm fine.It's just because I fell.Don't tell me I need to move on.Let me get some therapy.Let me go to the doctor.Let me let this thing heal and I want to stay where I am.So is that where, is that why people like you have jobs?Right.So, yeah, perhaps that's why people like me have jobs.But what I would say to you is, you know, there are parameters around certain things.So let's talk a little bit about that.So, again, when we talk about disability, we, there is a requirement under the law thatsays that in order to live someplace, whether that's just in the community at large, youknow, an apartment building or in a senior living setting, the tenant or the residenthas to meet what we call the essential requirements of tenancy, no matter what.Disability, no disability, you still have to meet the essential requirements of tenancy.So what are those?First and foremost is paying your rent and fees on time.Number two is keeping your unit in a safe, clean and sanitary condition.Now, you know, I think that reasonable people may differ as to what's safe, clean andsanitary. Right.Also obeying the reasonable community rules.Okay. Unless, of course, there has to be an exception made because of the reasonableaccommodation because of somebody's disability.But again, generally speaking, you should have a set of reasonable community rules becausepeople have to obey those rules.You also cannot have excessive damage to the unit.Okay. Normal wear and tear is okay.If I scrape the walls because of my scooter, that's okay.But if I decide to, you know, take a hammer and make holes in the walls, that's not normalwear and tear. Also not unduly disturbing the peace and tranquility of others.Okay. And the last one, which is very important, is not being a direct threat to thehealth and safety of others.Now, in my opinion, and this is not in the law, this is not in the essential requirementsof tenancy. When you are in a senior living community, I feel that it is reasonable tosay you cannot be a direct threat, a direct threat.That's very important language.Not speculative, a real direct threat to your own health and safety.Okay. So, but that's not been tested in the courts yet.That's Christina's theory.But I think it's a good one.And so.Hold on, let me talk about that for a second.If someone's, and they're a threat to themselves, and certainly if they're a threat tothemselves, even if they're not, if they're trying to physically harm themselves, they'retrying to slit their wrists, they're trying to jump out a window, they're trying to, Idon't know, whatever, anything else that's unsafe.And the facility has done everything that they can to prevent, stop, intervene, assist.So there's a question, there are those who say that, no, you cannot, let's say, Section12, you cannot send them out to the hospital because that would be discrimination.Is that even a possibility?Well, no, under the scenario that you just described, you're not evicting them.You're not getting them out permanently.You're just sending them out.So I would say, no, that's reasonable.But there have been situations, I like the examples that you use because they are extremeexamples. And I would argue, if I was a provider, that there is no reasonable accommodationthat will diminish that threat.But that's always going to be a question because tying in with meeting the essentialrequirements of tenancy, which everyone has to do no matter what, that's where thereasonable accommodations come in.So if I have a disability and I ask for a reasonable accommodation or you become awarethat I need a reasonable accommodation, then it should be granted because the reasonableaccommodation is generally what's going to help me meet those essential requirements oftenancy. Now, going back just to the example that you used.Someone who's suicidal or homicidal, even.The, you know, I could say I can't handle, I don't have, I'm not equipped to handlepsychiatric issues and I certainly can't, you know, protect my other residents from thishomicidal individual or I can't protect them from themselves because there's so manyways that they could attempt suicide.And so they are not meeting the essential requirements of tenancy because they are adirect threat. There have been occasions and there have been some cases.Where in circumstances like that, the courts have said, well, and it's not specific tosenior living, it's just general housing.Well, you should try a reasonable accommodation first.So, for example, if you send that person out, you know, to be involuntarily, you know,incapacitated in a psych facility for a period of time.And let's say that they have been given medication that would, you know, presumablycontrol their behaviors.Then the resident or the tenant in this case would be able to say, well, my reasonableaccommodation and I should be allowed to stay because I can remain on this medicationregimen and then my behaviors are controlled.But I know of a case from a number of years ago, multifamily housing out in Connecticut,and an individual had psychiatric issues and actually went after the landlord with a bigbutcher knife and threw him down to the ground and started to stab him.That gentleman was arrested and then the landlord sent notice, you know, you're herebyevicted. You know, after he got out of jail, after he spent some time in jail and cameback, he realized that he couldn't come back to the apartment because he had beenevicted and he sued and he said, you're discriminating against me.And the court in that case actually said, well, you have to try.Let him have his reasonable accommodation.And, you know, but I think that's not, in my view, that wouldn't be a reasonableaccommodation. It's not reasonable to allow someone who has, you know, extremebehaviors like that, you know, again, that's a direct threat that we can't keep otherpeople safe or that even that resident, we can't keep them safe.So that's the extreme example.But, you know, most cases are not as extreme and most cases you're going to have to trythe reasonable accommodation and sometimes multiple reasonable accommodations beforeyou would say you're violating the terms of the resident contract or the lease or theagreement, whatever it is that we have.And now you're going to have to leave or move up to a higher level of care.You're going to have to try a few different reasonable accommodations to be safe beforeyou can generally do that or you'll risk potentially a fair housing claim.Well, that's very messed up, just to realize that for everybody, because to see thatsomeone who physically attempted to murder their landlord was jailed for it and nowevicted, reasonable accommodation, that sounds crazy.But I agree with you on that.I wholeheartedly agree.I think that's fair.But I just felt like I, you know, I had to, you know, kind of raise that to say it's notnecessarily a slam dunk.But generally speaking, yeah, when somebody is a direct threat and it's not speculative,it's not fear that something might happen, it's something did happen.Right. So I want to be clear about something.When it comes to reasonable accommodations, as a provider, you can and should haverules. You don't have to make it willy-nilly, but you are allowed to have reasonable rulessurrounding common accommodations, reasonable accommodations.So, for example, let's use the scooters again.It would be probably very high risk if you just said we don't allow scooters.But it's OK if you said we allow scooters, but we have these rules.A rule, I always encourage my communities to have reasonable rules.A rule might be that you have to sit with therapy and review the rules of the communityto use a scooter first.You know, get educated on it and then sign off that you're agreeing, you understand allyour questions have been answered and you agree to abide by the rules.And those rules might be things like you can only drive your scooter as fast as anon-disabled person can walk.You don't have the right to drive your scooter around like Speed Racer.Right. It may say you have to have a horn and lights if you're going to drive outside.You have to obey the rules of the road on campus.You have to have a flag.You can't park and block fire exits.You can't block mailboxes.If you're going to drive into the dining room, you have to have room.And I want to touch on something that you mentioned a few moments ago, saying mycommunity is older and it's not equipped for these big SUV scooters that people havenow. Under the ADA, which also sometimes can tie in with the Fair Housing Act, thereare also construction requirements.So the ADA went into effect in March of 1991.So did those construction requirements.So if you have construction that occurred after March of 1991 or if your building isolder than that, but you've done any kind of a renovation on your building and the termrenovation is pretty flimsy and loose.It could be even like redecorating can be considered a renovation.You then have to comply with the dictates of the ADA in terms of the physicalrequirements. Like so, for example, it talks about thresholds.You can't have, you know, a big where someone can't come up on the scooter, you know,because of the thresholds or, you know, with their walker, that's an issue.Thresholds, grab bars, lowering cabinets in handicap accessible units.A certain number of your units should be made handicap accessible.That depends on how many units you have.It's a percentage.And simple things like aisles wide enough for people to use their scooters.And arguably in our setting, you know, knowing that many, many people do have mobilityimpairments, it's even more important, you know, to make sure that your community hasabided by the rules and the Department of Justice, you know, and lots of fair housinggroups. And HUD also has put in a tremendous amount of money to talk about people'sfair housing rights and to make sure that providers and architects and contractors areaware of what the physical requirements are for spacing and things like that andthresholds. And they've spent a tremendous amount of money talking about that andmaking sure that people are aware.So it becomes very challenging in these days.Every month a case will come out at least once a month on, you know, again, the ownerof multi-family housing, the owner of senior housing, a municipality, you know, manydifferent types for failing to construct their buildings in accordance with therequirements of the ADA.So you have to be careful about that.But there are reasonable rules.So have them about service animals.You know, you can have about scooters, you know, any other kinds of reasonableaccommodations. You should have, you know, rules around the private duty aides.They're another reasonable accommodation that you should have rules about.Got it. Sometimes we see this, the application of these rules, you know, don't seem soreasonable. I know a particular construction project that was not required to have anelevator, but was required to have handicapped accessible bathrooms on the secondfloor. Go figure.Right. Right.I don't know how, you know, somebody who's disabled, you know, then they would have tohave the right amount of housing on the first floor, you know, handicapped accessible.It wasn't a housing project per se.But, you know, we do see things like that sometimes, but that doesn't negate the rules.But if we can focus the conversation from a marketing standpoint.OK.We want to, you know, we titled this the do's and don'ts of nursing home marketing.So I know that there are things that we cannot say.For example, the nursing homes can't say that they're dementia units because there arelaws. This has nothing to do with Fair Housing, but this is the Department of PublicHealth. They haven't clearly defined a lot of regulations for what's qualified as adementia unit. And there's a whole process to go through.So you can call it memory here.You can call it a lot of other things.They can't call it by that name.I've actually walked in one of the nursing homes I was managing, at least in Massachusetts.I worked with the gentleman whose name is Dr.Paul Rea, and he's the one who wrote the regulations for what's called a dementia unit.And we were thinking of maybe turning one of our units, our memory, our unit thoughanyway was a dementia unit, to just make it an official one.And the cost and just the work that it would take, not just money, but also theinconvenience and the downtime that it would take to get it in compliance just didn'tmake sense. And we changed the wording in our marketing materials and we had the sameresult. So instead, we just decided, you know, it was a company decision, you know,should we do it, should we not do it, so how extensive it was didn't make sense.So question for you is what is the absolute, give me a great example of someone that didsomething horrific in their marketing or something that someone can do like really badin their marketing. And like, I guess I'm a worst case scenario person.And what happened as a result or what could happen as a result?So let me give you some examples of things that are risks in marketing when it comes tofair housing. And I've jotted a few of these down so that, you know, I cover everything.So the first one that I would talk about is models, models or people in your marketingmaterials, photographs of individuals, right?That can be problematic because, for example, we talked about the protected class of race,right? So if you only have photographs, they want to see, the government wants to seediversity. So if you have, you know, all Caucasian individuals, that could be a risk foryou because where are the people of color?You're not allowed to discriminate based on someone's color.What if everybody in your marketing materials is running, jogging, biking, doing yoga?Where are all the people that are on scooters, in wheelchairs, with walkers?So models can be potentially problematic.Another issue would be problematic language in your materials.Another one could be potentially, I know a lot of times marketing, especially in the CCRCsetting, will do what's called a targeting marketing campaign, right?So they want it, they're targeting to a particular income level.All right. And they're sending the materials out to that, to the people in a particulargeographic area that meet those income requirements.Well, there have been cases where that's been considered to be a discriminatory practice.Why? Because you're only sending all your marketing material specifically to potentiallyjust white people.Okay. And you're excluding and you may not have any discriminatory intent with that, butthat's the way it comes out.And in the Supreme Court has decided that in fair housing, there is something calleddisparate impact.It doesn't have to be that you purposely discriminate against somebody, but there is anactual disparate impact.So that's an area that you want to be careful about.Lack of an improper, lack of the fair housing logo, it's the little house, or having thelogo, but it's minuscule.You can't see it. If you have the logo and you should have the logo, the fair housinglogo, it's put out by the government.If you have one for leading age and you have one for, you know, whatever local societiesyou belong to and they're all of a certain font and your fair housing is teeny tiny inthe bottom, that's problematic.There is no requirement, by the way, on font, which makes it a little bit more complicated.But you want to make sure that it's the same size as everything else.Exclusionary practices for admission.Again, we don't let people in with scooters or we don't let people in with serviceanimals. Problematic applications, asking lots of, again, this is for independent living,not for nursing or, you know, assisted living or personal care.Asking medical questions, if you're not a type A community, that can be potentiallyproblematic. Asking intrusive questions, asking them to undergo a physical exam.If you don't have, you know, a guarantee of moving through the continuum of care, thatcan be highly problematic.Improper. Oh, I mentioned the improper request of physical exams.Steering, which is a term of art in the fair housing world.Steering means that I come in and I either and government, by the way, and so do fairhousing groups, send testers in to ask these questions and try if they think there'sdiscrimination going on, they will send somebody in who pretends to be an applicant oris looking for housing for their loved one and ask the questions to see what the answersare. Steering means that I come in and I say, hey, you know, my mom is looking forindependent living.She uses a scooter.She needs some help with her medication management.You know, she sometimes gets a little bit confused.And, you know, if you were to say to me, well, you know, she might feel a lot morecomfortable if she goes over into assisted living.That might be a better place for her.We don't really like those kinds of people in independent living.We don't want to look like a nursing home.That's steering. And that is illegal under the Fair Housing Act.Discriminatory denial of reasonable accommodations.And again, being aware of the state and local laws that expand upon the protected classesand making sure that you are not, again, discriminating against additional protectedclasses that your local jurisdiction or state may have in place.So those are a whole series of marketing risks that I would tell you you have to becareful of. Got it.So let's say I have an assisted living and I am targeting a certain group because this isthe group that actually needs the service, can afford the service, will maybe want theservice. Is there no legal way to target that group?If I'm going to put people, let's say, let's see an example of models or even, you know,language. If I'm going to put words on there or pictures or other things that don'tresonate with them, then they're obviously much less likely to, you know, to respond.It doesn't mean that these are the only people that are marketing to.I may have a separate brochure and a separate marketing plan for, you know, for adifferent ethnic group or a different protected class.But right now I want to focus on these people.You know, an open invitation is no invitation.Come over to my house any night you want for a barbecue.That means you're not invited. I'm not even telling you my address.But if I say Tuesdays at 4 p.m.having a barbecue, you know, please bring over, bring over your family.Here's my address. Then you're invited.Right. So the point is, people will resonate to marketing material if they will act on itresonates with them. So if it's, you know, if it's tailored to them, then it'll work.Can I? Is there no legal way to do that?There, you know, well, first of all, I want to be clear.I'm not giving legal advice here.I'm giving you advice from a risk management standpoint.And so, you know, listen, everything that we do is associated with a risk benefit analysis.Right. So I want to be clear about that.So a community can make a determination.What is their risk tolerance?If they really want to market and target towards a particular, you know, group because oftheir income. And it turns out that that they feel like we could be accused ofdiscriminatory behavior because it's going to go to, you know, all white people.That is a question.If you still want to market to that group, I'm not here to say you can't do it or youshouldn't do it. I'm just saying, be aware that that's a risk.Right. So anything that you market on could be a risk.But if you think that the benefit of targeting a particular group of people is going to,you know, bring in the people that you want or that you think would benefit from yourservices, then that would be your assessment of and that would be a risk tolerance toyour community. Right.Got it. Who are the discrimination police that are going to bring this case in front of,you know, they're going to get, you know, secret people coming in undercover and askingfor service.So the DOJ has testers that work for them in the Civil Rights Division.Now, who brings it to their attention so that someone would want to come down?Yeah. So I'm going to tell you, there are a lot of fair housing advocacy groups outthere. There are a lot of law school clinics that also have fair housing, you know,clinic that are staffed by law students.The government gives money.They're like quasi-public, private, public government entities.They get money from the government in recognition of their work and they get money fromthe government to do that.So they are there to enforce fair housing rights.Usually the way it would work is if I am an individual, many times this is how ithappens. I'm an individual.I go, I apply for residency at a particular community.I feel that I've been discriminated against for whatever reason that, you know, mydisability, my religion, the color of my skin, whatever it is.I go to a fair housing group and I make a complaint.If they, they will then investigate my complaint.If they feel that there is some validity to that, they will do their own research.They will start their own investigation.They will have testers.They will go out. They then turn it over usually to HUD.With their findings, if they feel that there is what we call a pattern or a practice ofdiscrimination, they will send it to HUD.If HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Office of the government, feels that it risesto a certain level and they think that there is a discriminatory pattern and practice goingon, then that gets referred over to the Department of Justice.So the lawsuit can either be me, Wildrick versus ABC Senior Living.If I feel that I've been discriminated against individually, I can sue you instate court or federal court.If it's a fair housing group, then a lot of times, you know, that fair housing groupwill bring it on my behalf.So it would be Wildrick and the Fair Housing Alliance versus if it goes to HUD, itwould be, you know, HUD, Housing and Urban Development v.the housing community.And again, in the worst case scenario, it rises up to the level of the DOJ, theDepartment of Justice, and they will bring the claim and it will then be the UnitedStates of America. It will be in federal court and it will be brought against you.So there are they are essentially what you're referring to as the police.They are the enforcers.They are bringing them. But private claims can be brought by individuals or by privatehousing groups. And there are loads of them out there or the government can do it.Well, so now on a professional standpoint, where do you come in the business thatyou're involved in? Which piece of this?Are you the police? Are you the defendants?Are you just educating people to stay away from the cops?Right. So my job as the risk manager for FSA, for the communities that we work with, webring we do lots of education.We do lots of fair housing education, both for marketing and admission staff, as well asstaff within the community that is responsible to move people through that continuum ofcare. So we do loads of education for them.We also come in many times and we do education for the residents themselves.We have meetings with residents.Sometimes residents, for example, may say, you know, things that we feel areinappropriate, like why is so and so in the dining room?She's in a wheelchair and and she's totally out of it.And I don't want to look at that when I'm eating and, you know, or asking questions.Why is this person living in independent living?This person doesn't belong here.She's not like the rest of us.She should go into assisted living.You know, we have a problem with it.We're here to educate the residents on their rights as residents, as well as, you know,what the Fair Housing Act says and why we're not going to share any details andinformation with them about other residents and what we're doing with them and forthem as far as reasonable accommodations or any any other way that we're working withthem. So we like to educate the residents.We also work specifically with marketing teams.We help them with, again, do's and don'ts in their marketing materials, language thatthey should have on all of their websites, on their brochures, on anything that they'redoing. We help them with information on, you know, things to share and not share duringtours. So, you know, we're here and we develop all kinds of templates for policiesand procedures and things of that nature.We also work with the risk management committees to review all of the marketingmaterials and the website before they actually go live and before anything's printed tomake sure that everything is, you know, on the up and up, both from a fair housingstandpoint and a general risk management standpoint.We don't want people over promising that, you know, it's all about for us settingrealistic expectations.So we're here at FSA to help our communities understand what it is, understand therisks, and also develop policies, procedures, rules, guidance.So we talk about rules and we have templates for rules for service animals, rules forscooters, rules for private duty aid, hold homeless agreements, indemnificationagreements when somebody does want to hire a private aide to make sure that theyunderstand that we're not responsible for, you know, what they do or what they doincorrectly or what they fail to do.So those are all things that we do at FSA in our risk management program to assist theorganizations that we work with.Fascinating.We've gone a little bit later because you're sharing, you're dropping all the jewelsthere. But the question for, is there anything, it may not be necessarily fair housingrelated, but if there are residents in a senior living setting that completelydisregards all discriminatory laws and regulations, to have some people that justdon't care anymore and they'll say things to the staff about their religion, aboutthe color of their skin, about the country that they come from, about their accent, andthey'll, they have nothing to lose.Is there any recourse, and you can educate them, but they don't care.Is there any recourse that providers can do to help really prevent their staff, notprotect their staff, or the residents from each other, when you have residents thatcompletely ignore all the rules that we're discussing?Well, that would be a topic for an entire other podcast.But what I will say is what you're describing for your employees is a hostile workenvironment. And even if you cannot stop the resident from saying, you know, thebigoted, you know, racist kinds of things that you're describing, you cannot, as aprovider, throw your hands up and say, oops, sorry.You know, in one particular case that was, it's a fairly recent case that was broughtfor a hostile work environment.The CNA was being, you know, spoken to in that manner that you just said, and alsosexually harassed, groped, touched, you know.And the administrator in that case, the language that she used was, put your big girlpanties on and deal with it.OK. And they got hit with a massive verdict.So you don't want to do that.But so, again, there are things that you should and can do to mitigate the harm thatcomes to employees. So, you know, for example, you might want to switch staffingpatterns around. You might, if it's somebody that is, you know, touching inappropriately,then you might want to use, you know, a male caregiver or you might send that person inwith a second caregiver at all times.Or you might, again, like in the case of the CNA that I was just talking about, she hasto be moved to a different wing away from that resident.And that's when the administrator said that to her.So, again, you want to look, there's all different things that you can do.But what you shouldn't do is to basically throw your hands up and say, there's nothingthat I can do about that.No, of course not. No, the question is not about the staff, but the question is, is thereanything that can be done to, I guess, to encourage or force the people who live inthat setting not to engage in those practices?Well, other than what you just described, you know, like the education, and obviouslyit's going to depend on the, you know, on the competency of that individual.If that individual has intellectual disabilities and or dementia, right, right.But if they don't have those things, then, you know, and they're not abiding by therules, then there may have to be, you know, after you've spoken to them, anddocumentation is key, you have to be documenting everything you're doing, everyeffort you're making, every conversation that you've had.And if that resident is refusing, then there may have to be a discharge in that casebecause you're not able to care for them anymore.Got it. Got it.Fascinating.If people want to learn more about the topics that we're discussing or learn moreabout you and your company, where's a good resource, where's a good place to send themto?Our website, FSAinfo.org, is a good place, and it has, you know, a number of theresources that we have on there.We, you know, we provide a lot of different services in addition to risk management.Awesome.Okay.FSA, what is it, FSAinfo?Yeah, FSAinfo.org.Okay.We'll include that in the show notes.I'm going to take a little peek.All right.Any final thoughts before we let you go for today?Again, I think it's really important that you recognize and discuss, you know, whatyour risk tolerance is because the message that I want you to take is, yeah, there area lot of fair housing rules and the advocacy groups really, you know, they take a verystrong position pro-tenant, pro-resident.You know, myself, you know, representing providers and on the, you know, trying tokeep providers out of trouble, I might take a more restrictive view of it, but it'sreally be aware of what the risks are and then make informed decisions about your riskbenefit analysis and what your risk tolerance is.Sometimes it might be better to decline admission to somebody, you know, and risk afair housing claim than to take somebody in that, you know, is not appropriate andit's going to struggle in a particular level of care, you know, and it's going to, youknow, be really a massive burden to you.You might choose to take the risk of potentially a discrimination fair housing claimthan to take somebody in that, you know, is going to be incredibly problematic andpotentially present you with a negligence action.Got it.Got it.Okay.I'm just going to, wait, you just want to unmute.I know you didn't, I'm sorry.I'm looking at the wrong place here.That's my bad.But there's just one comment here from Hannah.It says, thank you, Christina, for sharing your expertise as a marketing professional.Christina living in organizations is very interested in to think through the risks,which is definitely true.And there's something that you brought to us.Thank you very much, Christina, for joining us today and for sharing everything that youshared over here on the show.It definitely has been very informative just about, like you said, knowing the risks, whento take them, when not to take them.Right.Okay.You're welcome.Thank you for having me.

In the 1930s we didn't know that drinking alcohol during pregnancy could affect the health of a baby. David Jacks of the National University of Singapore has used the repeal of Prohibition to investigate the impact on the long-term health of adults who were in utero when some mothers could drink alcohol, and some could not. 

Study of the book Tanbeeh Al-Gaafileen by Imam Abu Al-Layth Al-Samarqandi on the chapter of The Reconciliation and Prohibition of Animosity or Enmity. Part 2

You are invited to join the Global Day of Action Against Nuclear Weapons on Sunday, November 26 th at 2 pm on the Santa Fe Plaza. Come with your friends, family and colleagues and call for an end to nuclear weapons by bringing attention to the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the TPNW. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ccnsupdate/support

NH #648: TPNW SPECIAL: UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Hotseat Looks Back – Alice Slater, Heidi Hutner, Alicia Sayres-Zakre, Susi Snyder This Week’s TPNW SPECIAL: Nuclear Hotseat producer/Host Libbe HaLevy will be in New York next week for the United Nations’ 2nd Meeting of States Parties on the Treaty on the...

Have you ever felt an eerie chill run down your spine when you've ventured into a place with a dark past? Embark on an unforgettable exploration of the supernatural world of St Augustine, the oldest town in America. We recount the town's intriguing history, ghostly tales, and unexplained phenomena that have left guests and residents puzzled for centuries. From the tragic love story of two star-crossed lovers at the St Francis Inn to the strange sightings at the Castillo de San Marcos, we bring alive the hair-raising stories that makes St Augustine a hotbed of supernatural activity.Do you dare to step into the haunted Casablanca Inn or eat at Harry's Seafood? With each story, we pull you deeper into the chilling mysteries that surround these places. Discover the dark past of the Casablanca Inn's former owner, who made a fortune bootlegging during Prohibition, and the eerie presence that haunts Harry's Seafood. Whether you're a history buff or a supernatural enthusiast, you're in for a treat as we discuss the peculiar occurrences that have left tourists and locals equally spooked.Before we wrap up, we take you to the haunted St Augustine Lighthouse. Hear the captivating tales of the lighthouse keeper's two daughters' tragic accident, the mysterious cigar smoke, and the ghostly apparitions. We don't just stop at the stories; we dive into a lively debate about whether St. Augustine is truly haunted based on the evidence, stories, and our personal experiences. Ready for a rollercoaster ride of a lifetime? Tune in to our podcast and join us on this spine-chilling journey. Don't say we didn't warn you!Buzzsprout - Let's get your podcast launched! Start for FREESupport the showIf you want to try Dubby products please go to https://www.dubby.gg/ and when you're ready to check out in the code area punch in "ISTHISREALPC" for 10% off your entire order!

In March 1929, the US Coast Guard cutters Wolcott and Dexter pursued and subsequently sank the bootlegging schooner I'm Alone, touching off an international incident and legal battle that would outlast the Prohibition laws that led to it in the first place.Sources:The American Council on Addiction & Alcohol ProblemsHagen, Carrie. "The Coast Guard's Most Potent Weapon During Prohibition? Codebreaker Elizebeth Friedman." Smithsonian Magazine, 28 Jan 2015. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/coast-guards-most-potent-weapon-during-prohibition-codebreaker-elizebeth-friedman"Prohibition: Legislating Alcohol in America." The National WWI Museum and Memorial. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/prohibitionRicci, Joseph A. "Use All Force!" Naval History Magazine, vol. 27, no. 3, May 2013Saharay, H. and A. Pal. "Hot Pursuit in Self-Defence." Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 3, no. 29, 20 July 1968, pp. 1145 - 1146Skoglund, Nancy Galey. "The I'm Alone Case: A Tale from the Days of Prohibition." University of Rochester Library Bulletin, vol. 23, no. 3, Spring 1968Check out our Patreon here!Support the show

Study of the book Tanbeeh Al-Gaafileen by Imam Abu Al-Layth Al-Samarqandi on the chapter of The Reconciliation and Prohibition of Animosity or Enmity. Part 1

Isadore Blumenfeld, a.k.a. Kid Cann, is the arguably biggest name in the criminal history of Minneapolis. He earned millions as a bootlegger during Prohibition and soon became a powerbroker in the city's corrupt political system. He was accused of many crimes -- which garnered big headlines in local papers -- but almost always beat the charges. Reporter Andy Mannix joins host Eric Roper to discuss his Curious Minnesota profile of Blumenfeld. How did Kid Cann become Minneapolis' most infamous gangster? (September 2023 Curious Minnesota article) Was organized crime behind the demise of streetcars in the Twin Cities? (December 2021 Curious Minnesota podcast)

#KurtZauer #Comics #BooktubeKurt Zauer joins the podcast once again to talk about his latest series Ruxy The Vampire. We talk about Kurt having fun with this new series, and doing something a little different. We talk about prohibition, Al Capone, famous gangsters in that era and we talk about breaking the writing slump, and working with Mog Park. Kurt Zauer is always a pleasure to talk to, and this conversation is no different. Check it out, and follow the Kickstarter. Kurt ZauerKickstarterWebsite SponsorsThe Corruptor - A hitman gets more than he bargained for after he dies. He is recruited on the side of evil to corrupt the souls he can, all the while the two sides are in eternal conflict. Set in the world of The Immortal Era, Edward Davis writes about the conflict of souls and where they go before death is taken away. Click on the link to support the kickstarter. SupportPatreon - Wondering where Just Joshing is going to go after episode 1000? It has already started. I've recorded new kinds of podcasts that are available now on the patreon. You can join in and see where the show is going months before anyone else, see episodes ahead of schedule, and interact with the podcast in whole new ways as I travel on the adventure I'm heading into. Click the link to join.ServicesAdvertising Services - Let me create your advertising for your next book or campaign. If you're a creative wondering how to create your advertising for your next project, I can create video, audio, written and graphics. Let me help you get your story, and your best story, out there.Available Now:Alice Won? - Available now. Alice escaped the asylum and pursues the Queen of Hearts to the Greek Labyrinth in the underworld, there she must engage in a game of croquet unlike any other, against Jason of the Argonauts. Illustrated by Kenzie Kats, written by yours truly.Support And Subscribe:Buy my MerchBuy Me A CoffeeNewsletterTwitchYoutube

Unearth the profound layers of cannabis policy reform with a veteran reformer, Morgan Fox of NORML, guiding us through the vast landscape of change that has occurred since 2008. Witness how racial and economic disparities in cannabis prohibition enforcement ignited an enduring advocacy movement and learn the strategic game of engaging with congressional staffers on Capitol Hill. This journey underlines the potency of steady, pragmatic steps in transforming policy, presenting you with a fresh perspective on the evolution of this reform over the past 15 years.As we traverse further, the conversation veers towards the blossoming CBD market and the often-overlooked environmental benefits of hemp-based products. Get a grasp on the growth of the unregulated intoxicating cannabinoids market, and understand the potential of hemp as a formidable substitute for petroleum-based plastics. We delve into the dire need for public education and streamlined regulations for hemp products. Finally, we touch upon the pivotal role of citizen-led activism in spurring cannabis policy reform, highlighting the synergy needed between public will and political action to shape a more equitable and sustainable future. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the intricate world of cannabis policy reform.Guest Bio: Morgan Fox: Morgan Fox is the Political Director at NORML, focusing on congressional lobbying and changing federal cannabis laws. As a professional cannabis policy reform advocate since 2008, Morgan has been directly involved in dozens of successful state ballot initiative campaigns to establish medical and adult-use cannabis programs, as well as legislative victories at the local, state, and federal levels. He has been featured in hundreds of print, radio, television, and online publications. Morgan was most recently the Media Relations Director and chief spokesperson for the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) before joining NORML, and spent nearly a decade at the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) prior to that. He lives in Washington, DC, and when he's not working to end prohibition and repair the damage it has caused, he can usually be found exploring the numerous parks and playgrounds of our nation's capital with his children.Support the showThanks for listening to another episode. Follow, review, and share to help Consciously Clueless grow! Shop my fav conscious brands. Click here for information on how to work with me.Join the conscious community on Patreon. Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn | Youtube | Tiktok Music by Matthew Baxley

Wie schon gestern, bleiben wir mit unserer Textauswahl auch heute im Südosten von Groß-Berlin, wenden uns von Friedrichshagen, wo die Niederbarnimer Zeitung erschien, allerdings ein paar Kilometer nach Westen, der Cöpenicker Zeitung und deren Kurznachrichtendienst zu. Dort finden wir einige interessante Nachrichten, die den zurückliegenden Putsch in München betreffen, allen voran eine von der Festnahme ihres wichtigsten Rädelsführers. Daneben erhalten wir unter anderem aber auch Kunde von fortgesetzten und beendeten Streiks in In- und Ausland, von den jüngsten Ergüssen aus dem Hause Wagner und den verbotenen Genüssen im amerikanischen Zeitalter der Prohibition. Kurz: die ganze bunte weite Welt in wenigen Zeilen, die man sich am 13. November 1923 in Köpenick für schlappe 70 Milliarden Mark nach Hause holen konnte. Für uns tut dies Frank Riede.

► Kindly, leave us a good review if you enjoyed the episode!► More from PIF: https://linktr.ee/practicalislamicfinanceThe Secret Wisdom Behind the Prohibition of Riba (interest) in IslamIt's important to understand the wisdom behind the prohibition of Riba in Islam. Here are 10 reasons why Riba is prohibited in Islam:1- It's an unfair agreement2- Economic Inequality3- Social Harmony4- Money is directed to the most promising projects first5- Emancipating the Slaves6- Moral and Ethical Development7- Discourages Speculative Bubbles 8- Encourages Savings and Investments 9- Promotes Transparency and Honesty10- Economic StabilityCONTACT USsalam@practicalislamicfinance.comABOUT OUR PODCASTOur podcast is about helping people ethically build wealth. We cover a broad range of topics including stock and crypto investing, product reviews, and general financial well-being.DISCLAIMERAnything you hear in this video is an opinion. It is not personalized financial advice. Make sure you do your due diligence before making any investment decisions.

The Whiskey Chicks (Alleah and Paula) join us for a tasting of the latest expression in MGP's Remus Repeal Reserve collection of excellent blended whiskeys. Series V was one of the best whiskeys we'd ever had. Series VI made it to the finals of last year's Whiskey Madness tournament. And now here we have Series VII. Does it hold up to the previous versions? Or does it fall flat, like Prohibition did on Repeal Day, December 5, 1933? Press play to find out! Music Credits: Freedom courtesy of Choc Mic McNeil | Link: https://soundcloud.com/chocmic/freedom • Five Card Shuffle by Kevin MacLeod | Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/3763-five-card-shuffle | License: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

Episode 209: RADIUM GIRLS: THE GLOWING '20s RADIUM GIRLS: THE GLOWING '20s | The 1920s were some wild times! Prohibition, Flappers, Women's Suffrage, & Radiant Beauty. A dark time in our history when radium was a household product. Come join the Rad Bros as they converse about the Radium Girls. Secrets, corporate cover ups, slut shaming, & death, what more could you ask for  from the "Most Entertaining" radiology podcast in the world.  Also, do not forget to subscribe to the channel and get notified for new episodes.Buy Us A Drink!

Steve runs through a flight of four whiskeys from old distilleries including some released before Prohibition. TBD music is by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com).   Important Links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theabvnetwork Check us out at: abvnetwork.com. Join the revolution by adding #ABVNetworkCrew to your profile on social media.

From Monday, November 27 th to Friday, December 1 st , the States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will meet at the United Nations in New York to review progress on the treaty's implementation and agree on further action to strengthen it. This will be the second meeting of the States Parties. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ccnsupdate/support

James is joined by Chris Colby of beerandgardeningjournal.com as they taste their Smoked Rotbier and formulate a recipe for a long lost American style.

This episode is a look at how in the early to mid 1900's the abolitionist laws banning the production and consumption of alcohol played a majorly significant role in the creation of what, today, is a veritable institution of the American South, NASCAR.-------------------Please support me on Patreon for just $2 a month: patreon.com/foodhistorypod-------------------Sources for this episode's research:https://winstoncupmuseum.com/nascar-and-prohibition/#:~:text=Across%20the%20country%2C%20bootleggers%20had,cases%20of%20liquor%20as%20possiblehttps://www.history.com/news/how-prohibition-gave-birth-to-nascarhttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/how-moonshine-bootlegging-gave-rise-nascar-180962014/https://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/history/nascar-bootleggers.htmhttps://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/nascar-moonshinehttps://www.ranker.com/list/ways-people-hid-alcohol-during-prohibition/kellen-perry?utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=weirdhistory&utm_campaign=wh_active&utm_content=%7Bdate%28%27yyyyMMdd%27%29%7Dhttps://www.ranker.com/list/facts-about-early-american-booze-consumption/rachel-souerbry?utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=weirdhistory&utm_campaign=wh_active&utm_content=%7Bdate%28%27yyyyMMdd%27%29%7Dhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MayflowerThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3591729/advertisement

Our interview with Larry Smith and Melanie Abrams challenged our assumptions as we explored the many conceptions and misconceptions of cannabis use. Their new book, The Joy of Cannabis, is an attempt to clear up misunderstanding and describe the how and why of safely availing ourselves of the benefits. In the 1930s with the wane of Prohibition the commissioner of the Federal Bureau Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, attempted to retain personal relevance with racist and xenophobic fear mongering and criminalizing marijuana. Now, with no personal financial interests in a dispensary, Smith and Abrams hope to reset perceptions and normalize the discussion by reassessing the merits. They know the research and call for more. They discourage use before the age of 25 to allow full development of our frontal lobes. Not all weed is created equal, so they are pragmatic about finding what's right for you. With much greater safety and effectiveness than alcohol, most importantly they point to how small amounts responsibly administered deliver outsized benefits of pain management, focus, flow, creativity, connection and even orgasm. The tidal wave of legalization is based on reclaiming the virtues. Join us to find out what you might not know.

Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and Eric Bland discuss Dick and Jim's latest attempt to blow up the system on behalf of Alex Murdaugh, the murderer, liar and thief.... and much more!  First, thank you to everyone who joined the Talk Shop Live virtual event on Monday - Jenny Fisher and Mandy sold out signed copies, but don't worry if you missed it, we are adding a few more for anyone that could not make the live broadcast.  We have a really great episode for you today. We are angry. We are disgusted. And — though we disagree on some of the finer points on the effect of what's happening. We're going to be talking more about their judicial terrorism on True Sunlight this week, but for today we discussed the core effect of the Writ of Prohibition they filed late last week with the Supreme Court in their attempt to have Judge Clifton Newman removed from all of Alex Murdaugh's cases moving forward. Also today we talk about a very important hearing this week — the hearing to qualify Prosecutor David Miller as a candidate for circuit court judge. David Miller is who cut that sweet deal for accused rapist Bowen Turner. That hearing is set for Wednesday at 3:45pm and we'll do our best to broadcast it, but we're learning that it might be held behind closed doors. We'll share all we can on social media and unpack it on True Sunlight this Thursday.  It's important that every member of the JMSC know we're watching. Let's get into it. On the horizon, we hope that you consider attending some of these great in-person, virtual and hybrid events... check lunasharkmedia.com/events for the most current schedule.  USC event in Columbia, SC on Monday, November 13th - with special guests announced this week! Book signing on launch day at Barnes & Noble Hilton Head on Nov 14th Or our special Premium Members only event in Bluffton, Sc on Nov 16th - with special guests announced this week! Luna Shark Premium Members get access to searchable case files, written articles with documents, case photos, episode videos and exclusive live experiences with our hosts on lunasharkmedia.com, Discord and YouTube LIVE through Lunashark.supercast.com. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3BdUtOE. We now offer ad-free listening on Apple Podcasts through a subscription to Luna Shark Plus on the Apple Podcasts App. SUNscribe to our free email list to get alerts on bonus episodes, calls to action, new shows and updates. CLICK HERE to learn more: https://bit.ly/3KBMJcP Mandy's new book, Blood on Their Hands arrives November 14th but pre-sales are so important. Go to www.bloodontheirhandsbook.com to learn more. Stay tuned for a big announcement for all Premium Members who purchase a copy soon! Find us on social media: Twitter.com/mandymatney - Twitter.com/elizfarrell - Twitter.com/theericbland https://www.facebook.com/cupofjustice/ YouTube *The views expressed on the Cup of Justice bonus episodes do not constitute legal advice. Listeners desiring legal advice for any particular legal matter are urged to consult an attorney of their choosing who can provide legal advice based upon a full understanding of the facts and circumstances of their claim. The views expressed on the Cup of Justice episodes also do not express the views or opinions of Bland Richter, LLP, or its attorneys. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This summer, we spent some time in upstate New York in the Finger Lakes. The Finger Lakes are a group of 11 long, narrow, roughly north–south lakes located directly south of Lake Ontario in an area called the Finger Lakes region in New York, in the United States.A pre-Prohibition wine region, the first vines were planted in Hammondsport, New York in 1829. By 1900, more than 50 wineries were established along the lakes. The Finger Lakes AVA was established in 1982 and boasts two sub-AVAs, the Cayuga Lake and Seneca Lake AVAs, both established in 1988. Today, the region is home to almost 150 wineries and 11,000 acres of vineyards and produces about 54,600 tons of grapes.In addition to wine, the Finger Lakes boasts a strong history, including Seneca Falls, the birthplace of the women's rights movement in America (and you know we're all about that). We stayed at Glen Hollow and learned about all the local history and wine. Hosts Chris and Lisa were so gracious, and showed us all around the beautiful region. Tune in to learn more about what Glen Hollow, and the region, has to offer.

In this installment of our Haunted Boozy Places series, we're covering a Tudor-style tavern on Florida's Atlantic coast. Known today as Ashley's Restaurant and Bar, the establishment first opened as Jack's Tavern shortly after the Prohibition era. Folks have long reported paranormal experiences in the building. Lights will turn on and off. People will feel pushed on the stairs. And some have even reported seeing the apparitions of a young woman and a small girl. Many believe the ghost of Ethel Allen, a fun-loving and independent 18 or 19-year-old who was killed nearby in 1934, haunts the building. In this episode, we explore Ethel's story, her potential connection to the tavern and the many other supernatural goings on at the location.But first, Zoey is here with her Something Southern: the legend of the Candy Lady.Sources: https://hauntedhospitality.wordpress.com/2023/10/31/ep-135-the-apparitions-in-the-tavernVisit us on Social Media! Stay Spooky!

Happy Halloween! We're celebrating with two twisted local tales that date back to the Prohibition era. First, folklorist and historian David Rotenstein breaks down the myths behind a Northside spot known as “America's Most Haunted House” and shares what really happened at the site. Then, Print editor and writer Jan Kurth investigates the unsolved mystery of who is actually buried in William Beck's grave in Smithfield East End Cemetery. You can find Jan's story in NextPittsburgh. Want some more Pittsburgh news?  Make sure to sign up for our daily morning Hey Pittsburgh newsletter. We're also on Instagram @CityCastPgh! Not a fan of social? Then leave us a voicemail at 412-212-8893. Interested in advertising with City Cast? Find more info here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nelson's Green Brier Distillery was once Tennessee's largest distillery in pre-Prohibition times. The great-great-great grandsons of Charles Nelson revived the family business in downtown Nashville, and have been making Tennessee whiskey along with sourced Bourbons and now, a Rye Whiskey. The distillery underwent a major expansion recently, and we'll talk with co-founder Andy Nelson on this week's WhiskyCast In-Depth. In the news, time is running short to avoid a return to Europe's import tariffs on American whiskies, while a new Wild Turkey Bourbon features something different…three generations of Russells on the label. 

Get Tickets to "I Was A Teenage Anarchist" book launch/meet and greet here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/i-was-a-teenage-anarchist-book-launch-partymeet-and-greet-tickets-739577424987?aff=oddtdtcreator   Jason sits down with professor and author Ben Fong to discuss his latest book on Verso: Quick Fixes: Drugs in America From Prohibition to the Great Binge.   Get Ben's book here: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/2981-quick-fixes   About TIR   Thank you for supporting the show! Remember to like and subscribe on YouTube. Also, consider supporting us on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents   Check out our official merch store at https://www.thisisrevolutionpodcast.com/   Also follow us on... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolu... Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland   Follow the TIR Crüe on Twitter: @TIRShowOakland @djenebajalan @DrKuba2 @probert06 @StefanBertramL @MarcusHereMeow   Read Jason: https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/...   Read Pascal: https://www.newsweek.com/black-politi...

Congress got serious about Prohibition on this day in 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bill Owens established Buffalo Bill's Brewery as the first brewpub in America since Prohibition on August 2, 1983. His book How to Build a Small Brewery (1993) opened the door to the brewpub movement and he kind of reinvented Pumpkin Ale. Owens sold Buffalo Bill's in 1994 continuing to publish American Brewer Magazine which he sold in 2001. Owens used the proceeds from the magazine's sale to photograph America and this journey planted the seeds for his next venture, the American Distilling Institute, and Distiller Magazine. ADI was established in 2003 as a professional membership organization and publishing house to promote the art of craft distilling. Artifacts from Buffalo Bill's Brew Pub were acquired by the Smithsonian Institute and sit alongside Owens' photographs previously collected by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. He has received a Guggenheim Fellowship and two National Endowment for the Arts grants. Bill's current book is The Delco Years, a dystopian novel of life after a pandemic kills everyone but people who drink unpasteurized beer. He is also working on his memoir and a book of his collected poetry...

Welcome to Oklahoma Odyssey, a captivating podcast series produced by Ashley Bender and Michael Olson from Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform. In this episode, we take you on a thrilling journey through the pages of Deborah Blum's masterpiece, exploring the riveting tales of poisonings, investigations, and scientific breakthroughs that shaped the evolution of forensic science in the United States during the Prohibition era. Each episode delves into the real-life mysteries detailed in "The Poisoner's Handbook," unraveling the scientific methods, historical context, and criminal intrigues that marked this transformative period in American criminal justice.

Quarter-Arsed History presents: Al Capone, the infamous Mafia boss whose legendary fame during the Prohibition era has had a huge influence on the popular conception of gangsters to this day. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Balak (1), discusses the laws relevant to the prohibition of Setam Yenam – drinking the wine of non-Jews. To emphasize the severity of this prohibition, the Ben Ish Hai makes reference to an incident recorded in the book "Ayuma Ka'nidgalot" (p. 24) that demonstrates the gravity of this violation and its potential repercussions. The story involves eleven prominent Rabbis whom the king summoned to his palace. The king described the great respect and admiration he felt for them, and expressed his desire to have them reciprocate and demonstrate their respect for him. To that end, the king asked that the Rabbis do one of three things: eat pork meat, drink his wine, or have relations with non-Jewish women. The Rabbis asked for three days to evaluate the options and reach a decision. Three days later, they returned to the palace and informed the king that they were prepared to drink his wine. They decided that whereas partaking of pork and having relations with gentile women constitute Torah violations, the prohibition against Setam Yenam was enacted by the Sages and should therefore be treated less stringently. Of the three possibilities, they concluded, the least severe transgression would be drinking non-Jewish wine. The king was overjoyed, and immediately had his guests seated at the round swivel table in the royal dining room. The Rabbis were served kosher meat, whereas the others at the table ate pork. The king ordered his servants to bring the choicest wine from the royal wine chest, and the Rabbis drank. The wine was very strong, and they became moderately inebriated. Without them realizing it, the king had the table turned, such that the Rabbis ate the pork meat that was on the plates of the people sitting next to them. After the meal, the king said to the Rabbis, "You must be tired. We have special suites here on the palace where you can sleep, and we brought your wives here so you could be with them." The Rabbis agreed to sleep in the palace, but, in their intoxicated state, they did not realize that the officials had brought prostitutes – not their wives – to the rooms. They thus spent the night with these non-Jewish women. In the morning, they realized who had been with them in their rooms, and the king showed them that their kosher meat from the previous evening had not been touched, indicating that they had eaten pork meat. They had thought that by agreeing to drink the king's wine they would commit the least grievous of the three prohibitions, but as it turned out, by drinking the wine they ended up committing all three sins. The eleven Rabbis accepted upon themselves measures of repentance, but they all died an unnatural death within the year. This demonstrates that although the prohibition of "Setam Yenam" was enacted by the Sages, and does not constitute a Torah law, it is nevertheless very severe. One who breaches this enactment of Hazal potentially exposes himself to many severe Torah violations. Indeed, the Zohar comments that one who transgresses the prohibition of Setam Yenam forfeits his share in the world to come. We must therefore exercise extreme care with regard to the wine we drink, and ensure that it meets all Halachic qualifications, so that we do not violate this grave prohibition.

In 1931, San Diego's idyllic image as a beach town with peaceful suburbs concealed a harrowing reality: a series of unsolved crimes targeting women, fueling fear and vulnerability. MONSTERS ON THE LOOSE tells the tragic and true stories of three women murdered early that year: Virginia Brooks, Louise Teuber, and Hazel Bradshaw.Local law enforcement, out-of-town criminologists, and investigators from what would become the FBI pursued hundreds of leads. Statewide, newspapers covered every angle and clue and sometimes played a role in the investigations. Yet, the killer(s) were never identified and brought to justice.In MONSTERS ON THE LOOSE, award-winning author and historian Richard L. Carrico pieces fragments of evidence together for three cold cases, shedding light on a dark chapter in San Diego's history.More than ninety years after the murders, Carrico emerges as an advocate for the victims, meticulously reconstructing their stories. Immersed in dusty files, long-forgotten oral histories, and newly discovered investigation records, his primary objective remains unwavering: to seek justice for the three young women. With no witnesses to the crimes, the significance of circumstantial evidence and speculation, both then and now, became paramount. And he may have even solved one of the murders. MONSTERS ON THE LOOSE: The True Story of Three Unsolved Murders in Prohibition era San Diego-Richard L. CarricoThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/3269715/advertisement

The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Balak (1), discusses the Halachot relevant to the prohibition against drinking the wine of non-Jews (listen to audio recording for precise citation). He writes that according to Torah law, the only wine that is forbidden is Yayin Nesech, meaning, wine that was used as part of an idolatrous religious service. The Torah compares wine poured for a pagan deity to a pagan sacrifice, and it is therefore forbidden just like something that was offered as a sacrifice to an idol. The Ben Ish Hai emphasizes that Yayin Nesech is forbidden both for drinking and for any other kind of benefit. The Sages, however, expanded this prohibition to include Setam Yenam, any wine owned by gentiles. Furthermore, they forbade even Jewish wine that was touched by a gentile. The reason given for these enactments is that the Sages wanted to prevent Jewish men from engaging in close social contact with gentile women, which could lead to promiscuity or even intermarriage. However, the Ben Ish Hai writes, this is not the primary reason for the prohibition of Setam Yenam. The real reason, he asserts, involves deep Kabbalistic concepts that the Sages understood with their keen spiritual insight. According to Kabbalistic teaching, there is something inherent in the wine of non-Jews that renders it forbidden for Jews, and this is the primary reason for the prohibition. The Sages chose not to disclose the Kabbalistic origins of this Halacha, and so they instead gave a simple reason that even the unlearned masses could understand – the interest in avoiding close social contact with gentile women. For this reason, the Ben Ish Hai adds, the prohibition of Setam Yanam will always apply, even if the stated reason becomes irrelevant. If, at some point, circumstances arise that obviate the concern of close social contact, it would nevertheless still be forbidden to partake of the wine of non-Jews. The prohibition of Setam Yenam applies to both drinking and deriving other kinds of benefit from the wine of non-Jews. However, when it comes to non-Jews who are not idolaters, their wine – or the wine of Jews that they touch – is forbidden only for drinking. Other forms of benefit are not forbidden unless the gentile who owns or touched the wine worships idols. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai writes, it is permissible to derive benefit from the wine of Moslems, who, as the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) ruled in one of his responsa, are not considered idolaters. Moslems believe in a single Creator, and are therefore not considered idolaters. Wine that they own or touched is thus forbidden only for drinking; other forms of benefit are permissible. The Ben Ish Hai notes that this is also the position taken by the Arizal (Rav Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572). The Ben Ish Hai discusses in this context the status of non-Jews who bow before articles in their houses of worship, and notes that they are considered idolaters, and their wine is forbidden for any kind of benefit. The concept of God's unity in their thought is not pure unity, and rather constitutes "Shituf" (the belief in a "partnership" of deities), and they are thus considered idolaters with respect to the laws of Setam Yenam. Therefore, all kinds of benefit are forbidden from wine owned or touched by a believing idolaters. The Ben Ish Hai in this context emphasizes the severity of this prohibition against partaking of the wine of gentiles. He makes reference to work on this topic called Yayin Ha'meshumar, a 19th-century work by Rav Natan Shapiro, and says that a person's "hair stands up" when he reads in this book of the unique gravity of this prohibition. The Ben Ish Hai also mentions the work "Ayuma Ka'nidgalot" which (on p. 24) tells a frightening story of the grave consequences of violating this Halacha. This prohibition is so severe, the Ben Ish Hai writes, that a person who violates this law "uproots his soul from the place where it is rooted, and he has no share in the world to come." Furthermore, there are some authorities who maintain that a person must avoid the wine of non-Jews even at the risk of death. According to this view, if a doctor advises a Jewish patient that he must drink a certain wine to save his life, he should surrender his life rather than drink the wine. It does not appear that Halacha follows this opinion, but the fact that some authorities issued such a ruling demonstrates the severity with which this prohibition is treated. Summary: It is forbidden to drink wine that is owned by a non-Jew, or that was touched by a non-Jew. If the non-Jew is somebody who has the status as an idolater – such as one who bows before an article in their house of worship – then the wine is forbidden for drinking and for any other kind of benefit.

The prohibition of "Bishul Akum" forbids partaking of food cooked by a gentile. Even if all the ingredients are perfectly Kosher, the food is forbidden by virtue of the fact that it was cooked by a non-Jew. Sephardic custom is more stringent than Ashkenazic practice with regard to this Halacha. Ashkenazim allow eating food cooked by a gentile if a Jew participated in any capacity at any point in the cooking process, even if he simply kindled the flame or turned on the oven. Sepharadim, however, forbid food cooked by a non-Jew unless a Jew played some active role in the process of cooking, such as by pouring the ingredients into the pot or mixing the food. The question arises as to whether this Halacha will affect the status of canned tuna fish, which undergoes a cooking process before it is canned. In Israel, it is likely that the ones pouring the fish into the steamer are Jewish, or that a special Mashgiah (supervisor) is hired to do so, so that all the fish is cooked by a Jew. In the United States, however, it is unrealistic to expect that only Jews pour the fish into the steamer at the factory. Some brands of tuna are marked as "Bishul Yisrael," stating that they were cooked by a Jew, but this means only that a Jew turned on the steamer. As mentioned, this suffices to avoid the prohibition of "Bishul Akum" only for Ashkenazim, but not Sepharadim. Some allowed eating tuna fish in light of the fact that the "Bishul Akum" prohibition applies only to food that is not customarily eaten raw. Sushi, or raw tuna, is a delicacy in the Far East, and we might therefore claim that tuna is not subject to the prohibition of "Bishul Akum." It would seem, however, that since sushi is not so common here in the United States, we cannot classify tuna as a food that is customarily eaten raw, and thus we cannot rely on this argument. In any event, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that canned tuna does not fall under the prohibition of "Bishul Akum" for an entirely different reason, namely, that Halacha does not equate smoking with cooking in this respect. "Bishul Akum" does not apply to foods that were smoked or steamed by a gentile, and thus tuna is not subject to "Bishul Akum" despite the fact that it is steamed during its production process. Hacham Ovadia notes that a number of earlier authorities held this view, including the "Darcheh Teshuba" and "Serideh Esh." Although others disagreed, we may rely on this lenient position to allow the consumption of tuna fish. Other suggested a different basis for allowing tuna fish, namely, the Halacha that restricts "Bishul Akum" to foods that are worthy of being served to noblemen and dignitaries ("Oleh Al Shulhan Melachim"). Fresh tuna might be served to kings and princes, these authorities claimed, but canned tuna is not respectable enough to be brought before men of royalty. For this reason, too, the prohibition of "Bishul Akum" should perhaps not apply to tuna. It should be noted that other complex issues are involved regarding the Halachic status of tuna fish. Our discussion here related only to the particular issue of "Bishul Akum," and we concluded that this prohibition does not apply to tuna fish. Other important issues, however, must also be considered in determining the permissibility of tuna fish. Summary: The prohibition of "Bishul Akum," which forbids partaking of food cooked by a non-Jew, does not apply to smoking or steaming, and, as such, this prohibition does not apply to tuna fish.

The Ben Ish Hai (Rabbi Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Parashat Hukat (Shana Sheniya, 9), discusses the concept of "Bishul Akum," the prohibition enacted by the Sages forbidding the consumption of certain foods prepared by a gentile. He emphasizes that this prohibition does not relate to the Kashrut status of the food. Even if the food is inherently kosher and the gentile prepared the food using a Jew's utensils in a Jew's kitchen, one may nevertheless not partake of this food because it was prepared by a non-Jew. The Ben Ish Hai explains that this Rabbinic enactment was motivated by two different concerns. Firstly, the Sages enacted this law as a safeguard against intermarriage. Once Jews are forbidden from eating food cooked by a gentile, they are less likely to engage in close social interaction with gentiles, and it is thus less likely that Jews and gentiles will marry one another. Secondly, the Rabbis were concerned that if Jews partake of food prepared by gentiles, they might eventually come to partake of non-kosher food, as well. By forbidding even kosher food prepared by non-Jews, the Sages sought to lessen the possibility of Jews eating non-kosher food. This prohibition, as the Ben Ish Hai discusses, is subject to two conditions. Firstly, it applies only to foods that are not generally eaten raw. A food that is commonly eaten uncooked may be eaten even if a gentile cooked it. Secondly, this prohibition is limited to foods that are "Ole Al Shulhan Melachim," meaning, worthy of "being brought upon the table of kings." This refers to foods that wealthy and prominent people would normally be served. Foods that are not deemed worthy of being served to such people are not under the prohibition of "Bishul Akum." The Ben Ish Hai lists a number of common foods that are subject to this prohibition, including rice, truffles and eggs. Even though one could drink an egg yolk without cooking it, nevertheless, since people normally cook eggs, it is included in this prohibition. Thus, one may not allow his non-Jewish housekeeper, for example, to prepare scrambled eggs for him, even if she uses his utensils and prepares the eggs in his kitchen. Similarly, at catered affairs, gentile employees should not prepare omelets and the like for the Jewish guests. The Ben Ish Hai then proceeds to record a debate concerning the status of coffee with respect to the prohibition of "Bishul Akum." He records that the Arizal (Rabbi Yishak Luria, 1534-1572) forbade drinking coffee prepared by gentiles, whereas others maintained that this is permissible, and the prevalent practice in Baghdad was to allow drinking coffee prepared by gentiles. The Ben Ish Hai concludes that a "Ba'al Nefesh" (somebody who wishes to be especially meticulous in Halachic observance) should be stringent in this regard, but those who are lenient certainly have authorities on whom to rely. In particular, he adds, people who must meet with prominent officials should, in fact, drink the coffee served to them in the interest of good manners and courtesy. Certainly, however, one should preferably not allow his non-Jewish housekeeper to brew his coffee, and should instead brew it himself. The Ben Ish Hai mentions that a Jew may eat food prepared by a gentile if a Jew took part in the cooking process. Even if the Jew cooked the food only slightly, and the gentile then completed the process, the food is permissible for consumption. It should be noted, however, that Sephardic custom requires that the Jew participate in the actual process of cooking. It does not suffice for a Jew to simply kindle the flame or turn on the oven; only if the Jew took part in the actual cooking does the food remain permissible despite the gentile's involvement. Ashkenazim generally follow the view that one may partake of food prepared by a gentile if a Jew kindled the flame used for cooking. According to this view, kindling the flame is considered involvement in the cooking process, and once a Jew is involved in this process, the food is permissible. Sepharadim, however, do not follow this view, and require that the Jew be involved in the actual cooking. This poses a problem for a Sepharadi who wishes to eat in a restaurant under Ashkenazic Kashrut supervision. Generally, these restaurants rely on a Jew's kindling of the flame, and allow gentiles to perform all the cooking. A Sepharadi who eats in such a restaurant should request that a Jew be involved in the actual cooking of the food he orders. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in his work Yehaveh Da'at, rules that if this is not possible, then the Sepharadi may nevertheless partake of food in the restaurant. Summary: One may not partake of food prepared a gentile, even if the food is perfectly kosher. This applies to all foods that are not generally eaten raw and that are deemed respectable enough to be served to wealthy aristocrats. This includes many common foods, including rice and eggs. The authorities are in disagreement as to whether coffee is included in this category, and it is therefore preferable to be stringent. This prohibition does not apply if a Jew participated in some stage of the cooking process. A Sepharadi who eats in a restaurant under Ashkenazic Kashrut supervision should preferably ask that his food be cooked by a Jew, as Sepharadim, unlike Ashkenazim, do not eat food prepared by a gentile over a fire kindled by a Jew. Nevertheless, if this is not possible, the Sepharadi may eat in that restaurant.

Originally drafted in 1939, the Prohibition-era gangster novel The Girl by Meridel Le Sueur remained unpublished for nearly 40 years. Le Sueur used the intervening decades to transform her work into a beautifully-written, powerful narrative, focusing on the lives of marginalized women in Depression-era America. Joining us is Dr. Rosemary Hennessy, a Professor of English at Rice University, whose most recent book, In the Company of Radical Women Writers, rediscovers the political commitments and passionate advocacy of seven writers, including Le Sueur. Discussed:Meridel Le SueurThe Girl by Meridel Le Sueur“Women on the Breadlines” by Meridel Le Sueur“The Dread Road” by Meridel Le Seur“Annunciation” by Meridel Le Sueur“Women Know a Lot of Things” by Meridel Le SueurThe Grapes of Wrath by John SteinbeckWomen Talking novel by Miriam ToewsWomen Talking film by Sarah PolleyKansas City by Robert AltmanBadlands by Terrance Malick“Getaway Car” by Taylor Swift“My People are My Home” film by Meridel Le SueurLost Ladies of Lit episode No. 106 on Dirty Helen Cromwell's Good Time Party GirlJohn Crawford and West End PressWorkers AllianceFor episodes and show notes, visit: LostLadiesofLit.comDiscuss episodes on our Facebook Forum. Follow us on instagram @lostladiesoflit. Follow Kim on twitter @kaskew. Sign up for our newsletter: LostLadiesofLit.com Email us: Contact — Lost Ladies of Lit Podcast

The international rules of war, also known as the laws of armed conflict or international humanitarian law, are a set of regulations and principles designed to mitigate the impact of armed conflict on civilians and combatants and promote humanitarian treatment during times of war. These rules are primarily outlined in four key sources:The Geneva Conventions (1949): The four Geneva Conventions are at the core of international humanitarian law. They provide protections for wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians in times of armed conflict. They establish rules for the humane treatment of individuals who are no longer taking part in hostilities.Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977): These two protocols, known as Protocol I and Protocol II, expand upon and update the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Protocol I relates to international armed conflicts, while Protocol II relates to non-international armed conflicts.Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907): These conventions focus on the means and methods of warfare, including restrictions on the use of certain weapons and tactics. They also address the treatment of civilians and combatants who fall into the hands of an enemy.Customary International Humanitarian Law: This body of law consists of long-standing practices and customary rules that have evolved over time and are considered binding on all parties in armed conflicts.The fundamental principles of the international rules of war include:Distinction: Parties to the conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and only target combatants and military objectives. Indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause excessive harm to civilians are prohibited.Proportionality: The use of force must be proportionate to the military objective. Excessive or disproportionate force that harms civilians or their property is illegal.Precaution: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes giving advance warnings of attacks when possible and taking care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.Prohibition of Certain Weapons: The use of certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, and cluster munitions, is restricted or banned under international law.Treatment of Captured Combatants: Captured combatants must be treated humanely, without torture or cruel treatment. Prisoners of war must have their rights protected, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.Protection of the Wounded and Sick: The wounded and sick must receive medical care and protection, regardless of their affiliation. Medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected.Protection of Civilians: Civilians must be protected from harm, and attacks on civilian populations are prohibited.Accountability: Violations of the international rules of war can lead to legal consequences for individuals and states responsible, including prosecutions by international tribunals.(commercial at 10:09)To contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

The international rules of war, also known as the laws of armed conflict or international humanitarian law, are a set of regulations and principles designed to mitigate the impact of armed conflict on civilians and combatants and promote humanitarian treatment during times of war. These rules are primarily outlined in four key sources:The Geneva Conventions (1949): The four Geneva Conventions are at the core of international humanitarian law. They provide protections for wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians in times of armed conflict. They establish rules for the humane treatment of individuals who are no longer taking part in hostilities.Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977): These two protocols, known as Protocol I and Protocol II, expand upon and update the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Protocol I relates to international armed conflicts, while Protocol II relates to non-international armed conflicts.Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907): These conventions focus on the means and methods of warfare, including restrictions on the use of certain weapons and tactics. They also address the treatment of civilians and combatants who fall into the hands of an enemy.Customary International Humanitarian Law: This body of law consists of long-standing practices and customary rules that have evolved over time and are considered binding on all parties in armed conflicts.The fundamental principles of the international rules of war include:Distinction: Parties to the conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and only target combatants and military objectives. Indiscriminate attacks and attacks that cause excessive harm to civilians are prohibited.Proportionality: The use of force must be proportionate to the military objective. Excessive or disproportionate force that harms civilians or their property is illegal.Precaution: Parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes giving advance warnings of attacks when possible and taking care to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties.Prohibition of Certain Weapons: The use of certain weapons, such as chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel landmines, and cluster munitions, is restricted or banned under international law.Treatment of Captured Combatants: Captured combatants must be treated humanely, without torture or cruel treatment. Prisoners of war must have their rights protected, as outlined in the Geneva Conventions.Protection of the Wounded and Sick: The wounded and sick must receive medical care and protection, regardless of their affiliation. Medical personnel and facilities must be respected and protected.Protection of Civilians: Civilians must be protected from harm, and attacks on civilian populations are prohibited.Accountability: Violations of the international rules of war can lead to legal consequences for individuals and states responsible, including prosecutions by international tribunals.(commercial at 10:09)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

Tickets for Ben's debate in LA with Siaka Massaquoi on October 22nd:https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/09005F42FFCD2E9BHamas and the Israeli state escalated this weekend into all-out war. We start with some thoughts on that from Ben Burgis and the GTAA crew, and then go to Ben's conversation with his fellow Ben, Benjamin Fong, about Fong's book "Quix Fixes Drugs in America from Prohibition to the 21st Century Binge." In the postgame for patrons, Ryan Zickgraf talks about the Trump trials, the end of hyperpolitics, Taylor Swift, and more.Order (other) Ben's book from Verso:https://www.versobooks.com/products/2981-quick-fixesFollow (our) Ben on Twitter: @BenBurgisFollow GTAA on Twitter: @Gtaa_ShowBecome a GTAA Patron and receive numerous benefits ranging from patron-exclusive postgames every Monday night to our undying love and gratitude for helping us keep this thing going:patreon.com/benburgisRead the weekly philosophy Substack:benburgis.substack.comVisit benburgis.com

It's This Week in Bourbon for September 29th 2023. Buffalo Trace unveils the Prohibition Collection, Wyoming Whiskey has two new releases, and Chattanooga Whiskey releases their Bottled in Bond Vintage Series Fall 2019Show Notes: River Roots Barrel Company opens for business Avalon Spirits has acquired Whiskey Row Bourbon Are you passionate about distillation and looking for a new role? Check out the ADI Job Board Buffalo Trace unveiled the Prohibition Collection Wyoming Whiskey has two new releases FEW Spirits and Alice In Chains announce All Secrets Known Bourbon RY3 Cask Strength Cigar Series Still Austin Whiskey Co. Bottled in Bond spirit: High Rye Bourbon TINCUP Fourteener Bourbon Whiskey Chattanooga Whiskey Bottled in Bond Vintage Series: Fall 2019 @riverrootsbarrelco @buffalotracedistillery @wyomingwhiskey @fewspirits @stillatx @tincupwhiskey @chattwhiskey Support this podcast on Patreon