Podcasts about resources institute

Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. argued before Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Greg Gerard Guidry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech) and Cory R. Liu (on behalf of J.R. Johnson, et al.). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech website: Texas law prohibits corporations—including nonprofits—from making “in-kind contributions” to candidates and political committees. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) recently interpreted this ban to extend to pro bono litigation services, even when such services aim to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the TEC commissioners and executive director over this ban on pro bono legal services. This law stops organizations like IFS from advocating for the civil rights of Texas candidates and political committees in court. It imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties for violations. The lawsuit argues that the TEC's interpretation of the Texas Elections Code violates IFS' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The TEC's reading of the law prevents IFS from representing potential clients like Chris Woolsey, a city councilmember in Corsicana, and the Texas Anti-Communist League PAC, headed by Cary Cheshire, both of whom want to contest a state law that compels speech on political signs. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Institute for Free Speech press release Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief  Complaint  The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Since 2002, Patient Safety Awareness Week (PSAW) aims to promote patient safety throughout healthcare. This week the Divas share four key patient safety strategies for every practice and the three "A's" of patient safety and more.Resources:Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) - https://bit.ly/4icWtdLIHI - Patient Safety Essential Tool Kit - https://bit.ly/429jmZPUniversity of the Pacific Dugoni School of Dentistry - health history forms in multiple languages -  https://bit.ly/45Yd0g5 https://www.thecompliancedivas.com

This week, Jake and Bob are joined by Duane and Carrie Daunt to discuss what living out our identity of father or mother can look like as a biological parent. Duane and Carrie share the challenges and joys of parenting a large family and the role sacrifice plays in creating a strong and loving home. They also talk about how their own woundedness has impacted their parenting journey, the role of community, and what to do when spouses disagree.   Key Points: Duane's sacrifice and willingness to put the needs of his family above his own is an essential aspect of creating a loving home. Community and mentorship play a crucial role in raising children and passing on the faith. Parenting a large family comes with unique challenges but also brings great joy and fulfillment. Our own woundedness and past experiences can impact our parenting journeys. It is important to seek healing and restoration in those areas. We are human and will make mistakes. Seeking to reconcile with your children afterwards is important for healing and repair.   The Pillars of Duane and Carrie's Parenting Style: Be conscious of the parenting you received growing up and how that has affected you The husband sacrificing creates the foundation of a loving home Both spouses should have vision and alignment Support from the community is necessary The Catholic faith is the centerpiece of life Do what it takes to be involved in your children's lives You may never see the fruit of your parenting efforts, but that doesn't matter Be open to feedback Be Holy Spirit led The messages your kids are hearing explicitly and implicitly matter and be attentive to them Pray for the Holy Spirit to fill your inadequacies as a parent Always attempt to repair  Root your kids in the truth   Resources: Institute for Priestly Formation Duane and Carrie's books: Beloved Daughter by Carrie Daunt Undone by Carrie Daunt Man Your Post by Duane and Carrie Daunt JPII Healing Center Retreats (specifically the Unveiled couples retreat and the Undone women's retreat)   Connect with Restore the Glory:  Instagram: @restoretheglorypodcast  Twitter: @RestoreGloryPod Facebook: Restore the Glory Podcast Never miss out on an episode by hitting the subscribe button right now! Help other people find the show and grow in holiness by sharing this podcast with them individually or on your social media. Thanks!

In today's episode we dive into Meta's earnings report — what is working out for it and what's not. And in our second segment we look at how the plastic treaty discussions in Canada are progressing. What are the anticipated roadblocks and what kind of policies do we need to have for effective plastic waste management. Our guest for this episode is  Suneel Pandey, Director & Senior Fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute. Stay tuned till the end of the episode!Episode Credits:The episode was researched, written by Shorbori Produced by ManaswiniEdited by Venkat AnanthMastered and mixed by Yash Hirave

About the Guest(s): Jim Newheiser is an experienced figure in the field of Christian counseling, currently serving as the director of the Christian Counseling program at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina. This program is grounded in biblical counseling principles. With a history of engagement in the field since the mid-1990s, Newheiser has also played a pivotal role in the Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship (IBCD), serving as its executive director for 17 years. Additionally, he contributes his expertise as an ACBC fellow and as a member of the Biblical Counseling Coalition. His personal life includes over four decades of marriage and raising three adult sons. Episode Summary: In this episode of Renewal Cast, Coalt Robinson invites counselor and educator Jim Newheiser to delve into the intricate process of personal change and the nuances of parenting in a Christian context. The discussion opens with an exploration of why individuals often struggle with transformation despite recognizing the need for it. Jim shares his insights, drawing from his extensive experience in biblical counseling and pastoral ministry. The conversation moves towards the critical role that the gospel plays in facilitating authentic change, highlighting the need for a balance between understanding divine grace and exercising personal responsibility in sanctification. The practical issues in parenting are addressed, noting that the application of scriptural principles varies significantly depending on the child's stage of faith. Interwoven with Newheiser's theological stance are the challenges and humbling experiences that come with striving to guide children towards a Christ-centered life. Key Takeaways:Transformation often involves a long-term process rather than instantaneous change, and individuals should align their expectations with the principles of progressive sanctification.A secure standing with God through Christ is the foundation from which genuine change and pursuit of holiness emanate, and this assurance is essential for combating doubts and fostering spiritual growth.Gratitude for God's grace can significantly motivate obedience, but this is just one aspect of multifaceted motivations that also include discipline and a recognition of God's love.Parenting is an area where law and gospel both play crucial roles, and biblical principles must be applied with awareness of a child's spiritual condition and individual needs.It is important for parents to recognize their limitations in changing their children's hearts and to understand that ultimately, it is God who regenerates and sanctifies.Notable Quotes:"The Bible teaches Philippians 1:6, He who began a good work in you will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.""If salvation is God's work, then it will progress beyond conversion, and you began the good work, will continue to perfect it. No one will snatch you out of the father's hands.""The gospel empowers obedience rather than discouraging it.""We will not save our children through being perfect parents. Even if there was a law of parenting, we could not keep it.""Being a believer in a fallen world […] it gives me compassion for people who struggle in different ways, including in this way [parenting]."Resources:Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship (IBCD): IBCD WebsiteACBC (Association of Certified Biblical Counselors): ACBC WebsiteBiblical Counseling Coalition: BCC WebsiteDive into the full episode to gain a deeper understanding of the transformative power of the gospel and to hear Jim Newheiser's insightful perspectives on change and parenting within the Christian faith. Stay tuned for more thought-provoking episodes from Renewal Cast.

After tuning into this episode with the fascinating back-and-forth between Ira Wolfe, Gad Levanon, and Chris Borick, here are ten eye-opening takeaways about the future of work, AI, jobs, the economy and the 2024 election. The job market's super tight and there aren't enough new workers coming in – so, what's that going to mean for our paychecks and work life down the road?  AI is taking over jobs quicker than ever, and it's not just cashiers and assembly line workers feeling the heat—white-collar pros, watch out too!  The rise of AI could mean even folks with fancy degrees might find themselves struggling to keep up in the job market if they're not careful.  Everyone's trying to figure out how to deal with all the new AI tech stuff without causing a mess, especially in jobs and schools The job shifts that AI is causing could mix up who votes for whom, making for some unexpected political mash-ups.  The image of which political party is ‘for the people' and which is ‘for the elite' is getting a complete makeover, and that's changing game plans across battleground states like Pennsylvania. Depending on where you live, you might see the economy totally differently. Some places are booming, while others feel like they're on a never-ending downslide.  With all this AI-generated fake news, it's getting trickier to figure out what to believe, and that's a big deal for anyone trying to take the temperature of public opinion.  Even though the US economy looks like it's on fire with growth, it's not as simple as good news equals happy voters—there's a lot more going on beneath the surface.  The chat on the podcast drives home the point that we need to live the future on a swivel, being able to go with the flow, constantly learning new stuff, and not being constrained by the past. Resources: Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College: https://www.muhlenberg.edu/aboutus/polling/ Dr. Christopher Borick: https://www.muhlenberg.edu/academics/polisci/ourfacultystaff/christopherborick/ Burning Glass Institute: https://burningglassinstitute.com Gad Levanon: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gad-levanon-3b9b933/  

One of the major themes of India's G20 presidency, which concludes later this year, has been the advancement of an ambitious green transition for the 21st century.If the world's hopes of accelerating a clean, sustainable, just, affordable, and inclusive energy transition are to come to fruition, ensuring the spread of solar power—especially to the poorest parts of the globe—will be essential. Milan's guest on the show this week is tasked with doing exactly this.Dr. Ajay Mathur is the Director General of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), a relatively new international consortium of more than 120 countries. ISA's overarching objective is to foster the efficient consumption of solar energy to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels.Dr. Mathur was formerly the Director General of The Energy and Resources Institute and the Director General of India's Bureau of Energy Efficiency. He and Milan discuss the explosive growth in solar power and what that means for India—and the world. They also talk about the promise of green hydrogen, the impediments to solar adoption, and the expansion of mini-grid technology.Episode notes:1. Ajay Mathur, “International finance must take a lead in mobilising solar investments,” Business Standard, September 7, 2023.2. Ajay Mathur, “Here's how solar can help triple renewable energy by 2030,” World Economic Forum, August 14, 2023.3. “What COP26 Means for India—and the World,” (with Navroz Dubash), Grand Tamasha, November 17, 2021.4. “How India Can Get to Net Zero Emissions,” (with Jayant Sinha), Grand Tamasha, October 13, 2021.

Charles Darwin University Energy and Resources Institute的王皓老师称，火蚁进攻性强、危害大，还喜欢往人多的地方去，有免疫应激的人士被咬后恐有生命危险。欢迎点击收听。

Srujana Kaddevarmuth began her career near Bangalore, India after completing her master's degree in engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological University. She has had a successful career in the tech industry and currently holds the position of senior director at Walmart's Data and Machine Learning Center of Excellence.In her role as senior director at Walmart, Srujana leads the AI portfolio for various aspects of the company's retail business, including omni retail, new and emerging businesses in the consumer and tech space, data monetization, and membership. Her primary responsibility is to drive innovation and promote the democratization of data and AI, aiming to create value for consumers, associates, and the business as a whole.Despite coming from an academic family, Srujana chose to pursue a career in the corporate sector rather than academia. After obtaining her bachelor's degree in engineering, she gained real-world exposure to data science and AI while working at the Energy and Resources Institute. This experience fascinated her, leading her to pursue a master's degree in engineering with an emphasis on operational research and data science.She then started her career as a data scientist at Hewlett-Packard, where she worked on market mix models in the consumer and marketing domain. Later, she led the big data analytics center of excellence at Hewlett-Packard and went on to work at Accenture, where she led a partnership with Google, developing various models for consumer hardware products before joining Walmart.Entering the corporate world after graduation, Srujana was surprised by the importance of collaboration in data science. She realized that building excellent algorithms alone is not enough; teamwork and collaboration are essential, particularly in applied data science.As a leader, Srujana prioritizes assigning projects to data scientists and AI experts based on their individual interests to keep them intellectually stimulated. She also empowers her team to make informed decisions based on available data. Her team is trained to use AI responsibly, with a focus on explainability, transparency, fairness, and bias elimination.With the increasing delegation of decision-making to algorithms, from trivial choices to significant ones in immigration systems, legal sentencing, and healthcare, it becomes crucial to protect consumer privacy and eliminate unintended consequences. Srujana explains that responsible generation and consumption of algorithms and data are paramount.One of Srujana's major challenges lies in creating proofs-of-concept that effectively translate into tech products and developing unbiased algorithms. “When we deploy these machine learning algorithms, many people fail to understand that these algorithms are the statistical representation of the world that we live in, and they may not necessarily be perfect and interpretable at times, as we have seen certain racist comments unleash on social media sites.” Addressing these issues, according to Srujana, requires eliminating signals of bias through careful data curation and training algorithms to avoid institutionalizing bias associated with certain data sets.Srujana is excited about the diverse advancements in data science, particularly in space exploration, healthcare, and agriculture. In addition to her work with Walmart, Srujana serves on the board of the United Nations Association, San Francisco chapter, where she utilizes data science to drive meaningful decision-making for the protection of our ecosystem.When asked what advice she would give her 18-year-old self, she responds that she would encourage herself to be open to the emerging field of data science and embrace its opportunities. Her advice for other data science enthusiasts is similar: “We have just started to open some new realms in the domain of data science and AI with generative algorithms as well as quantum computing, so I would just urge data science enthusiasts to be open to where this domain takes them.” RELATED LINKSConnect with Srujana Kaddevarmuth on LinkedInFind out more aboutWalmartLearn more about the United Nations Association San Francisco ChapterConnect with Margot Gerritsen on Twitter (@margootjeg) and LinkedInFollow WiDS on Twitter (@WiDS_Worldwide), Facebook (WiDSWorldwide), and Instagram (wids_worldwide)​Listen and Subscribe to the WiDS Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher

In the past few days, Mumbai has recorded the worst air pollution ever. City's air quality level has surpassed the alarming level recorded in the country's capital, Delhi. This led to India being ranked 8th spot of the most polluted country in the world. The research was conducted by a Swiss company IQAir. To discuss this, our host Sidharth Bhatia talks to Dr. Anju Goel on The Wire Talks. An expert in Air Quality Management at the Tata Energy and the Resources Institute in  Delhi. She is a fellow in TERI's Earth science and climate change; she studied at IIT Delhi and also has a PhD in her respective field. She is currently leading Clean Air Project focusing on 4 cities along with a team of 15 researchers.  During her conversation, Anju takes us through the techniques, measurements taken by other nations to control pollution, how not just urban but rural areas in India too faced pollution issues, will government's moves help reduce this ever-increasing pollution in the country and more.  Follow Dr. Anju Goel on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anju-goel-341a7060/ To know more about Neeraj Kumar follow him on Twitter @neerajkumarexcpFollow Sidharth Bhatia on Twitter and Instagram The Wire Talks is a weekly podcast, in which each week host Sidharth Bhatia, Founder Editor of The Wire, will chat with guests on politics, society and culture. The guests may or may not be in the headlines, but they will definitely have a lot of interesting things to say. With a running time of 30 minutes and maybe more, these chats will not be like much of the mainstream media today, or like the instant gratification provided by social media. You can listen to this show on The Wire's website, the IVM Podcasts website and all audio streaming platforms.Disclaimer: The views, opinions, and statements expressed in the episodes of the shows hosted on the IVM Podcasts network are solely those of the individual participants, hosts, and guests, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of IVM Podcasts or its management. IVM Podcasts does not endorse or assume responsibility for any content, claims, or representations made by the participants during the shows. This includes, but is not limited to, the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information provided. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. IVM Podcasts is not liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages arising out of or in connection with the use or dissemination of the content featured in the shows. Listener discretion is advised.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This month the Maharashtra government relaxed its almost non-existent four-year ban on single-use plastic. Using disposable items and containers made of compostable material has been permitted with immediate effect. Can the economic benefit of using plastic be greater than the environmental benefits of shunning it? Host Kalpana Pathak talks to Lalit Gandhi, President, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture, Nadiya Sarguroh, Principal Associate, MZM Legal and Dr Suneel Pandey, Director, Environment and Waste Management Division, The Energy and Resources Institute or TERI.You can follow our host kalpana Pathak  on his social media:Twitter - https://twitter.com/PathakKalpanaLinkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/kalpana-pathak-40395012/ Catch the latest episode of ‘The Morning Brief' on ET Play, The Economic Times Online, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Amazon Music and Google Podcasts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

To break down all of the news from the 2022 election, Crystal Fincher welcomes political strategist Robert Cruickshank back to the show! They review key results from the election, starting with the race for Congress in Washington's 3rd Congressional District where Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez currently leads MAGA Republican Joe Kent in a race that's still up in the air, and the blueprint this race provides for Democrats for winning in rural areas while maintaining their values. Our co-hosts discuss the King County voters repeated rejection of punitive-punishment based measures, and the clear mandate from voters for action on comprehensive public safety reforms and alternate responses that address the root causes of crime with Leesa Manion's decisive victory over the punitive "law-and-order" candidate Jim Ferrell in the King County Prosecuting Attorney race, and the comprehensive public safety and alternative response measures passed in Redmond and Shoreline. They follow with a look at the Oregon gubernatorial race where Democrat Tina Kotek beat a well-funded Republican opponent in a close race, as well as a review of key Democratic legislative victories in swing districts across Washington by candidates who are younger and more diverse, and who leaned into strong progressive messages instead of being hesitant to talk about them. They discuss the results of King County even-year election vote and Seattle's opportunity for Ranked Choice voting reform in the near future if it doesn't prevail in its current close race. After breaking down the incredibly successful Raise the Wage Tukwila campaign, Crystal and Robert end the show by predicting how the resounding success of progressive Democrats this year will impact next year's Seattle City Council races and beyond.  As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Follow us on Twitter at @HacksWonks. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Robert Cruickshank, on Twitter at @cruickshank. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Institute for a Democratic Future 2023 applications are live! The final application deadline is November 13th. Hacks & Wonks is hosting a Post-Election Roundtable this Tuesday, November 15th at 7:30pm! Stream it live on our Twitter, Facebook or Youtube account.  “Gluesenkamp Perez, Schrier maintain leads in WA congressional races” by Jim Brunner from The Seattle Times  “$19 is the new $15: Lessons from Tukwila's Minimum Wage” by Katie Wilson from The Stranger   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we're continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a co-host. Welcome back to the program, friend of the show and today's co-host: Chair of Sierra Club Seattle, longtime communications and political strategist, Robert Cruickshank - hey. [00:00:55] Robert Cruickshank: Good morning, Crystal. Thank you for having me on again. [00:00:57] Crystal Fincher: Good morning. Excited to have you on again in this election week 2022. We have a lot to cover. Before we get into that, I just want to give a couple reminders. We've talked about the Institute for a Democratic Future before - how it's been instrumental to my career in politics - just a great education and network. The deadline for applications is this Sunday, November 13th, so we'll include links to the website information about applying in the program if you are interested. And feel free to reach out to me directly on Twitter, via email if you have any questions about the program. I also want to mention that we are having a Hacks & Wonks Post-Election Roundtable - a live show Tuesday - this coming Tuesday, November 15th at 7:30 p.m. We're going to be streaming live on all platforms. It's going to include Dujie Tahat, Kelsey Hamlin, and Djibril Diop, who is the Director of Government Relations for Washington Education Association and played a very consequential role in a number of the elections and battleground districts around the state - just breaking down the results of this year's general election - expanding upon the conversation that we're going to have today from consultants' point of view and the view of people who were involved in the work being done. So please tune in Tuesday, November 15th at 7 30 p.m. - Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, all of the platforms - we'll share that information in the show notes. So now getting into election results - there was a lot that happened. We will go through a number of them. I think I want to start off talking about the Third Congressional District. What happened in this race, Robert? [00:02:56] Robert Cruickshank: So this is a fascinating, and I think potentially really important, race where we started off with the incumbent Jaime Herrera Beutler, one of the few Republicans to vote for Trump's second impeachment, and that made her a target. Joe Kent, a openly fascist Trump supporter, declared his intention to run against her and take the Republican nomination away from her. In response to that, we had Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, who is a rural working class Democrat. She and her husband own a auto repair shop, they live in rural Skamania County in a house they built themselves. She's been active in Democratic Party politics as someone who wants to bring rural working class folks back into the party. And she saw, with increasing alarm, Joe Kent getting traction, getting support down there in Southwest Washington. And she decided she would step up and run, especially since it looked like the National Democratic Party wasn't going to take this very seriously, wasn't going to do much. And so she did step in and she and Joe Kent made it through the primary. And now, as of Friday - at least Friday morning - she's leading Joe Kent by a margin of just about 51% to 48%. She, depending on - today's ballot drop may be the final decider as to whether she hangs on and actually wins. And this would be a big victory not just to stop Joe Kent, which is important in and of itself. But Marie is a really smart, sharp person who's been working hard to bring, a populist, working class, rural voice back into the Democratic Party and do it in a way that's also economically progressive and socially progressive. And seeing the campaign she ran, the ads she ran, I think potentially point to a direction forward for Democrats as they really try to figure out what do they do about rural America. She's winning right now because she has a huge lead in Clark County by double digits, but she's holding her own in the rural parts of the county. She's at 45-46% in Kelso-Longview area out on the rural Washington coast. She's not going to win this race without running up decent numbers in the rural parts of the district. And so I think there's a lot Democrats can learn from here. [00:05:16] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And really cannot be overstated how almost miraculous it is for a Democrat to be leading in any situation in this district, given what you just talked about in some of those rural areas - that's better Democratic performance than we have seen in I don't know how long. I don't know that we have. And so even accounting for the fact that Joe Kent is a fascist, not in touch with reality, completely taken with conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, all of that stuff, she did have to run a positive campaign. It wasn't enough for Joe Kent to be bad. We saw candidates across the country who sounded like him, some of whom won. And we didn't see that here because she was such a strong candidate. She did connect with voters throughout the district in both rural and suburban areas. And it really does seem like it points to the path to victory. First of all - showing up, having a belief that you can, being willing to talk to all kinds of voters, but really connecting the issues that she's talking about - the issues that are important to people in their everyday lives - to the progressive values that actually do improve things materially on the ground and for those families. Just really, really exciting to see. I do hope that as votes continue to come in, she does hang on. We are recording this before we're receiving results on Friday, but I think it is fair to say that the Joe Kent race - if they're hanging their hopes on a comeback, was certainly hoping to see returns that would have been more in their favor yesterday than they actually were. So that is pointing to some signs of hope. We won't know until we see results today, but the ballots did not trend as hard right as they certainly could have yesterday. [00:07:21] Robert Cruickshank: That's correct. And what Marie has done is, in some ways, reclaimed Southwest Washington. There were Democrats representing it in Congress off and on. At the state level, Southwest Washington used to be more reliably Democratic than King County, for example. Like in 1980, Ronald Reagan carried King County, Jimmy Carter carried a lot of Southwest Washington - those old school, rural, logging Democrats, Union democrats had been abandoned by a large swath of the Democratic Party who just gave up. And that outraged Marie. And I know that because I've worked with her personally before within the Democratic Party. And she was one of these leaders who stepped up and said, we can win these places back, but we have to win with authentic values that are rooted in these communities. She ran ads talking not just about working class values, about inflation - she also talked about abortion without hesitation, talking about how important reproductive rights were. And you would hear from Democratic consultants around the country that - oh, if you're in a district like this, you probably shouldn't be doing that. She proved them completely wrong. Even if she narrowly loses at the very end, the fact that she made it this far, that she made it close, and potentially even wins - proves her theory of change in rural America correct. And I think Democrats going forward need to listen to Marie and people from her campaign and people like her about how we reclaim these districts. Again, she may win ultimately based on votes in Vancouver and Vancouver suburbs, but she's not going to be close without running up some good numbers in rural parts of the district. Democrats like John Fetterman in Pennsylvania did the same thing. There's a model here that the party needs to learn from. [00:09:12] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And as you alluded to, this has impacts potentially down the ballot. We are seeing super close races in the 17th and 18th Legislative Districts. These are areas that are potentially in play for Democrats, if they do invest in expanding on the strategy that Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has started. These areas are ready to vote for Democratic policies if people just connect with them and talk with them, listen, and understand how to communicate how these values can be helpful. I certainly hope to see much more Democratic investment, Democratic engagement on the ground next year in the off year, the year beyond, in the next cycle - these are areas that we can win if we put in the effort and if we put in the resources. And so I am certainly excited and anticipating a significant effort to continue to turn Clark County and beyond blue. [00:10:18] Robert Cruickshank: I would hope so. That's going to take the established structures of the party to take it seriously. Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has had to do this without that support - the Democratic campaign structures of the House didn't show up, they put in maybe a small token amount of money towards the end. But Marie built this herself with a great campaign team around her. This is not something where DC consultants parachuted themselves in. In fact, they've tried that in this district before in the recent past and lost. So I think another key piece of this is that those party leadership, those folks in leadership from Pelosi on down need to do a better job of listening to the voices of Democrats on the ground who know how to win, know how to win without compromising our values. That's, I think, one of the most important things Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez has shown - we can win on our values with authentic voices, especially authentic working class Democratic voices in the rural parts of the country. May not win everywhere, but if you run up some better numbers, you make a lot of things possible. [00:11:23] Crystal Fincher: There were a number of other races that we saw - races that people were expecting to be close. Of course, Patty Murray versus Tiffany Smiley was not at all close. We saw some polling results that a number of people doubted and cast some doubt on. One polling firm had this polling on a one-point race a week before the election, which just never passed the smell test, and they certainly have a lot of answering to do. But this was a race where Tiffany Smiley and the case she was trying to make was pretty soundly rejected. And certainly, I think Republicans - I know Republicans genuinely thought they had a message that was resonating, particularly with suburban voters. And wow - suburban voters just flatly rejected just about everything they were throwing out - from the fearmongering about crime that was not at all attached to reality or evidenced-based practices about what actually does make streets safer, to the economy, to health care, and absolutely with abortion. That affected the Kim Schrier versus Matt Larkin race. Several races here where it just seems that what they had fell flat. And so just a pretty sound drubbing by Democrats to Republicans across the board - certainly in the Senate and in many of the Congressional races that were originally anticipated to be close. Now, the King County Prosecutor race is another interesting one. What did you see here? [00:13:14] Robert Cruickshank: Again, this is another one of those races that - going into the election - if you listen to some of the observers in the media, was expected to be very close, expected to be an example of backlash to efforts to reform criminal justice. Jim Ferrell, very much running on the Ann Davison platform of cracking down on crime and homelessness and things like that. Leesa Manion, running not as a bold reformer, but running certainly as a reformer - someone who wants to do criminal justice correctly and certainly better than it's done now. And the assumption was that Jim Ferrell would either make it very close or win outright. That's not what happened. Leesa Manion has won convincingly, and won throughout King County. This is not just a Seattle victory. Her victory is countywide. And I think that's a pretty big rebuke to the "law and order" politics that someone like Jim Ferrell has been running on, that The Seattle Times has been trying to push hard, that KOMO has been trying to push hard. King County voters aren't there - that's not what they're looking for in terms of how we address public safety. [00:14:20] Crystal Fincher: That's not at all what they're looking for. And once again, we saw a sound rejection countywide - certainly not limited to the City of Seattle - in every corner of the county, saying that, no, we don't want these punitive politics, punishment that is not at all connected to public safety, making the streets safer, reducing the amount of people who are victimized. And that really is the ultimate goal. There's a lot of talk about punishment. There was a lot of support from very conservative forces, a lot of talk about - hey, we need to enforce the law and put these people in jail and calling into question bail reform, any kind of criminal justice reform, any kind of alternative response that does not include police. We saw police unions rally around this campaign and really see this as a vehicle for increasing their footprint and moving away from some of the things that have been asked for for voters for quite some time. In 2020, we saw with the King County Charter Amendments that - once again, countywide - voters want accountability in terms of public safety. Voters want to address the root causes of crime. They understand that even those who are saying, hey, I'm fine with the amount of police that are there, I have no issue with increasing the amount of police, but we know they can't do everything. We know they don't have the tools to address homelessness. We know criminalizing homelessness doesn't make the problem any better. We've seen them try and fail repeatedly. It's time to do things a different way that actually do have a shot at making this issue better. We know that police don't have the tools to address behavioral health issues, mental health issues - and those services are too hard to find, completely underfunded, and not at all in the shape that they need to be to adequately address this problem. We need to invest in and expand those services and the availability of that. We know that simply throwing people in jail, especially when the issues are poverty, their health, they're related around education - that that doesn't help them and it doesn't help the community. It doesn't reduce the chance that they're going to commit another crime or that people are going to be victimized. We need to do the things that reduce the likelihood of those things happening. We need to do the things where there is evidence and data to show what the path forward is. We've seen plenty of examples of those in pilot programs in Seattle and in King County and have been promised that that was the way things are going - to only see, especially with recent administrations, including the current ones, moving in the opposite direction. And not only in King County, but we also saw propositions in Redmond, in Shoreline that also reinforced that people want accountability and investing in root causes and responses to issues that do need help, issues that do need intervention. If someone is having a behavioral health crisis, if someone is out on the street, that absolutely needs intervention - but by someone who can address the issue. And that's not a policeman in those situations. And so we need mental health professionals, we need service providers, we need all of those. We saw both in local initiatives in Seattle suburbs throughout the county and countywide that this is what voters want. I really hope that our leaders listen this time. I really hope that our media listens this time. And we stop having this conversation that is such a disservice to voters and members of this community that simply focuses on - are we recruiting, are we hiring, are we doing policing? Policing is not the whole picture of public safety. We have to address those other issues. We've seen many cities increase funding and address policing, but have left everything else unaddressed. And voters are practically begging our leaders to take action on a holistic view of public safety to keep us all safer where we all benefit. And I really do hope we start seeing coverage of what's going right, of what voters are saying - beyond whatever police union has the bully pulpit for the day. Talk to people on the ground. Voters are in a much more nuanced place in this than we hear in a lot of the public rhetoric and media. It is, certainly for me, been a source of frustration that this has been pretty obvious for a while and we keep not listening as a whole. I hope finally people will start to listen to what voters keep trying to say. [00:19:24] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think what you said resonates with voters, Crystal. It's also something we've seen in the election results. When you were talking, I was thinking of the signs I saw from a Republican candidate in the 32nd Legislative District up in Shoreline that said - at the top of her signs - Make Crime Illegal Again. She got a whopping 18%. You talk about the public wanting investment in alternatives - I think of a young man named Kenneth Mejia who ran for Los Angeles City Controller. He put up billboards all over LA and very prominent places showing with bar charts how much money was being spent on the police and how much was being spent on things like mental health services, and how the police were overfunded yet no one was feeling safe. And he ran against a conservative law and order type guy, and won by 20+ points. The public is making it very clear - they do want crime addressed, but they want violent crime to be addressed through solutions of root causes as well as an officer showing up in the right appropriate moment. And the public recognizes that sending a officer with a gun to a mental health crisis is not the right answer. Sending an officer with a gun because someone's in a tent somewhere is not the right answer. There are other solutions we need to be looking at and the public wants those. I think also what we're seeing is that candidates who address this issue, who don't try to duck it and hide from it, do better. Again, Fetterman was a good example of this. But we saw Leesa Manion here as well and we can even look at Oregon. When Democrats start talking about this, the public will listen. When they address it and say, yeah, I hear you and here's a solution, we're not going down this ridiculous law and order path that hasn't worked. Here's what we're going to do instead, and the data shows this works and this matches our values. Democrats do pretty well. And I think that's a lesson for Democrats in local state and federal races going forward. [00:21:22] Crystal Fincher: We also saw, in a neighbor of ours, down in Oregon a really interesting race for governor. How did this shape up? [00:21:31] Robert Cruickshank: It was a race that was dominated by conversation about crime, homelessness - Portland got hit harder by the pandemic and certainly by Trump than we did in Seattle. Whereas we had a short amount of protests here in the city, Portland was where Trump sent in the Department of Homeland Security, picked people up off the streets, there's reports that he was trying to manufacture terrorism cases, working with local officials. They had 100+ nights of battles with protesters and police in the streets. What this led to was - you go to downtown Portland today and it's taking a lot longer to recover than downtown Seattle. There are real issues with folks living unhoused and not getting support services they need. And Republicans, who have come close to winning the Oregon governor's race in the past, thought they could capitalize on this. And certainly didn't hurt that Republicans had Phil Knight, the Nike founder and billionaire, funding them to the tune of millions of dollars. And Tina Kotek, who was the Democratic Speaker of the House from Portland, was being blamed for this. And the media and the Republicans and Phil Knight were all saying - it's your fault, Tina, that all these awful things are happening in Portland. Portland is dying. And what Tina did was she turned into it and said, here's actually what we're going to do, here are the solutions we're going to talk about. Yeah, we're going to get everybody housed and we're going to get everyone's needs met, because that's what Oregon is and that's what we do in Oregon. And she pulled out a victory. She won Multnomah County, which is where Portland is. She won Washington County, which is where the most populous suburbs of Portland are. It was called the day after the election. People thought that Kotek would lose outright or win very narrowly. She's won fairly, by a wider margin than people thought. Another example right there of - when Democrats take this stuff seriously, don't hide from it, but turn and talk about it and root it in our values, they can win. So I think looking at that victory there in Oregon with someone who has been very progressive as a Speaker of the Legislature in Oregon, who'll be a great governor, who's done a lot on housing policy, a lot on other issues as well. Tina's going to be a great leader for the West Coast - something we can learn from in Washington as we have our own governor's race coming up in two years. [00:23:49] Crystal Fincher: Now locally in Seattle, there was an issue on the ballot about how Seattle is going to vote. There was also an issue in King County on the ballot for how King County is going to vote. What is going to happen with how Seattle and King County run their elections? [00:24:06] Robert Cruickshank: We can start with the clearest outcome, which is King County. King County has very clearly - it's settled - voted to move elections for the King County Council and the King County Executive to even-numbered years - that'll start in 2026 - rather than having them in odd-numbered years. And what this will do is increase turnout. City of Los Angeles did this a few years ago - this was the first even year that their mayoral election happened and turnout is significantly higher. Higher turnout means more voters are involved in the process. Candidates have to speak to more voters. They can't just go talk to the old white folks who always vote. They got to talk to everybody. So that's good for democracy right there. In Seattle, the vote came down to a decision between approval voting and ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting is the clear preference with 75% support. But the first question that got asked is, do you want to change anything at all? No is very narrowly leading on that. I think that's partly due to - voters are still learning about things like ranked choice voting. You also have both The Seattle Times and The Stranger recommend a No vote for different reasons. The Stranger said they support ranked choice voting, but they wanted a different process to get there. But I think coming out of this, there is a very clear mandate from Seattle voters. We want ranked choice voting. The Legislature needs to figure it out, City Hall needs to figure it out. And in next year's legislative session, they're going to need to give not just Seattle, but other jurisdictions, more freedom and leeway to do something like that. [00:25:40] Crystal Fincher: This is coming, in one way or another, to the City of Seattle, clearly. That is a very clear message sent by the voters. Now, I do think there is a fair point to be made about the process by which it happens, just having some more time to really educate and give information about it - I think that's going to be helpful. But really figuring out the how of the implementation to make sure that it's smooth, to make sure there is sufficient outreach and education for voters beforehand, and to make sure that the voters are able to vote in a way that is fair, that there is a - with the Secretary of State - that they're adequately supporting Seattle and any other jurisdiction that wants to make this change and to help make these implementations consistent and successful. So I'm looking forward to seeing how this proceeds. I'm really looking forward to even-year elections. The difference that this makes in turnout is so clear and obvious. Again, you brought up Los Angeles. We are seeing the difference that that is making - so many more people are engaged in elections down there. Even in the primary, so many more people have been engaged and it has shown. And candidates who are not engaging with the public and relying simply on the old tried and true way of just speaking to a narrow slice of special interest supporters and having a big war chest of finances are not having the time that they thought they were. They're actually struggling in this election, and those candidates who have engaged with a broader selection of the public are much more successful this cycle. So I also think this is a positive thing just in terms of not just turnout, but in how candidates need to engage with the public and need to be accountable to their constituents. I think this is a very positive development that we've seen in Los Angeles, and I am excited to see it implemented here with county races and really hope that it expands. There's a bill also to do this in the Legislature. I hope we see that the success of this, and just the very wide margin of passage and support for this, really does help this get through in the State Legislature statewide. [00:28:03] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think it's a pretty strong mandate from King County to the Legislature as well - that we want that bill to pass to give local jurisdictions the ability to move their elections to even years. One thing you see in some of these small cities around even King County, going into the late 2010s - you had a lot of right-wingers controlling these city councils - Tukwila, Burien, SeaTac had Trump supporters sitting on their city councils in 2017, 2018, even as late as 2019. And even-year elections help mitigate against that because you get more people involved in the process. That's good for small D democracy. I think it'll also make the outcome more progressive, which is good for those who care about that. There's no guarantee that that happens. Ultimately, candidates have to speak to more people, and that's always a good thing. [00:28:53] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, absolutely. And in Los Angeles, we are seeing a very, very close mayoral race. As you said, this doesn't guarantee the progressive outcome, but there are a lot more people engaged. Turnout is increased - it's taking time to count those votes, but we'll stay tuned on what's happening there. Also here, we saw across the state, legislative races in these battleground districts turn out, frankly, much better than initially anticipated. For a midterm year, it's not just in Congress where the party in power traditionally struggles. And we just did not see the outcome that many feared at the start of this cycle. There were people wondering across the board, both in political circles and outside - are Democrats going to maintain the majority in both chambers of our legislature? And the resounding answer is yes. What did you see in a number of these races? I'm thinking of the 26th Legislative District, which is a district that is absolutely a battleground district - progressive senator there with Emily Randall, but who has been constantly under attack by extreme Republicans. The 42nd Legislative District in the north part of Washington, the 47th Legislative District where - full disclosure, we did work in that race - but here in King County, in one of the most diverse areas of the county, but one which is a purple district that has elected both Republicans and Democrats. What were your takeaways and what did you see in these races? [00:30:38] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think we're seeing Washington become a more stable blue state. And I think the Republican Party is in a permanent downward trend - doesn't mean they'll never win again. I want to make that clear. But right now, the fundamental trends favor Democrats, especially in the entire Puget Sound region. You mentioned the 42nd District way up in Whatcom County, all the way down to the South Sound - Democrats are winning consistently, and it's not just a rejection of the far right. You saw people like Chad Magendanz, who used to be a more moderate-ish Republican State Representative in Issaquah, in the 5th District. He wanted his seat back. And so he ran against Lisa Callan, thinking there's a Democratic woman I can easily beat her. No, you can't. He's losing by 10 points. He had the Seattle Times endorsement. The Seattle Times endorsed another fairly moderate-ish Republican to take on Manka Dhingra in the Redmond area - Manka's winning by a huge margin. You mentioned the 47th District, where Claudia Kauffman is winning against a more moderate Republican. And Republicans even got bounced out of the open State House race there. Federal Way is becoming much more safe for Democrats when it wasn't that long ago - 2014, 2015, 2016 - the most expensive races in the state for Legislature were happening in Federal Way - it was that close. You look at Emily Randall, who's done a great job representing the Kitsap Peninsula and that part of Pierce County out there - Gig Harbor area - really responsive to constituents, running on an unabashedly progressive agenda and winning. It's close, but she's got a pretty strong, stable lead. I think what you're seeing here is a Democratic party that is increasingly responsive. The people who are filling these seats are increasingly younger, more diverse, more representative and inclusive. And I think it is giving Democrats a more stable majority. Republicans are having a really tough time right now - finding a path to a majority. Now, that means Democrats have to deliver. They keep getting these victories at the State Legislative level, and then they fall a little short delivering on things. They did great stuff on climate, they had some good reforms on policing in 2020, which they then stepped back from the next year, which was a big problem. But there's a lot that they need to do on housing, right? Housing legislation died in the 2022 session - that's going to have to come up. We may be entering a recession and they're going to have to solve taxes. I think honestly, one of the most important victories is Noel Frame becoming State Senator. She's a huge upgrade over Reuven Carlyle. Reuven Carlyle spent his time working behind the scenes to undermine or kill progressive priorities left and right to help corporate power. Noel Frame, on the other hand, is leading the way to fix our broken tax code. And I think 2023 is the year finally for Democrats to fix that broken tax code. Now Senator-elect Frame has been leading the Tax Structure Working Group - they're expecting a report on what a new structure for the state could look like that's more progressive and brings in a bit more money. 2023 is the year to get it done - because going into a presidential election year, Democrats are not going to have a whole lot of seats at risk if they do something big in 2023. And given the fiscal forecast, they're going to have to. We have schools that need more funding, school mental health services that need more funding, a healthcare system in crisis. The Legislature needs to step up. Democrats now have majorities where they're not going into each election worrying about whether they're going to lose those majorities. They can keep them if they deliver. And now I think it's going to be on the rest of us who aren't in the Legislature, who are advocates and representing communities, to speak up and organize and make that Democratic legislature deliver in 2023. [00:34:25] Crystal Fincher: And I think you're right on - in addition to just one, being elected and having those majorities - Democrats have a mandate. We saw to a degree that we haven't before - to your point earlier - that Democrats ran hard on their values. And those who did and talked about a holistic view of public safety and bringing comprehensive public safety, who talked about housing being a human right, who talked about the absolute need to expand healthcare coverage, to house people - not simply temporarily shelter, but get people into housing reliably, to control out-of-control housing costs across the board - that these are things that Democrats across the state in battleground districts ran on and won handily on these things. Where there was some question - I know from some consultants, from some Democrats even in leadership - whether they did have a mandate to act on that, whether the public would support those things. We heard a resounding yes from voters. We saw candidates who pledged to take action on these things succeed. And we have leaders who are ready to take on progressive revenue that's going to be necessary to address all of these other issues, particularly in the event of an economic downturn, in the event of budgets going in the other direction. And I do think that we have a helpful blueprint here in the City of Seattle, who recently did implement new progressive revenue with the JumpStart Tax - that is now being used by people who originally opposed that to bail out the City from the consequences of an economic downturn, from budget shortfalls. That is actually providing the necessary revenue, providing stability throughout this downturn period. Progressive revenue really is the key to make sure that the City can continue to deliver services, to make sure that the City can continue to provide residents with the support and assistance needed, to handle infrastructure, to really start to address homelessness in a way that solves this problem, that gets people housed and doesn't just move them from place to place like sweeps do. Progressive revenue really is the stabilizer and the responsible way to handle this. And what I was gratified to see was that opponents, prior opponents of this have now come around and are embracing the JumpStart Tax, are embracing progressive revenue, and recognizing that this is a necessary element of budgets moving forward. I think that there's a lesson to be learned here, as we look at the county budget and as we look at the state budget, that progressive revenue really is the stabilizer here. [00:37:32] Robert Cruickshank: It is. And I think we can also add in the capital gains tax, which the Legislature finally got done last year. And Republicans and their billionaire friends thought, first, that they could repeal it at the ballot box. So that fizzled out. It became really clear, both in terms of their slow going in terms of signature gathering, as well as the polling - no, the public supports taxing the rich to fund education and other priorities. The Democratic elected officials who voted for it haven't paid any price for it. Why would they? The voters want that. They support that. So now you have going into the 2023 session, where they're going to have to figure out how to fund programs and add more funding for things like public education, solve health care problems, and deal with overall budget - the public supports wealth taxes. Senator-elect Frame had a wealth tax proposal that she proposed in 2021 and 2022 - that should be a centerpiece of the discussion in 2023 and her larger Tax Structure Workgroup solution. There is no political downside to making this tax code more progressive. The public wants it. The public supports it. Democrats will face no political cost for doing it. They have no excuse for failing to act. And I think what you point out about Seattle is even people who were skeptical or opponents now understand this is a popular and useful source of revenue that can help solve some problems. [00:38:54] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. And I'm definitely looking forward to this coming legislative session and seeing people take action. And I also just want to call out that we saw more diversity in all kinds this past cycle in winning candidates. There has been lots of chatter that I've heard over the years, and even in this past cycle, talking about ideal candidates and candidates who fit their district - even by Democratic consultants. And usually that has been code for - this is an older white male who is a business owner, or a veteran, or previously a police officer. And really it sounds like code for - this is someone who Republicans can like, this is someone who looks like a Republican. And really if we focus on who looks like the community, who is in the community, who reflects the full diversity of the working class, who can speak to and connect with those issues. And we saw younger candidates. We saw candidates of various ethnicities. We saw candidates of various sexualities. We saw people who can speak to the communities of today who are not stuck in some of the old paradigms that are just not fruitful or productive and haven't been for anyone. If we don't make a case on what we need to do when we're running for election, we can't then govern on that. We can't then pass that legislation. And I think we have seen in prior sessions that being a sticking point and a barrier to governing. Yeah, you can have a Democratic majority, but if it is full of people or has enough people who oppose progressive revenue, who oppose comprehensive public safety, healthcare, education funding that's adequate and appropriate - all of these issues that we're facing - then we have just as much of a barrier than if we elected people from the other party. You have to build a coalition around the action that you need to take. You have to build the case for that action in campaigns. I'm so glad that we saw that done by so many candidates who were successful across the state, and that this can then motivate action on the mandate that they've been handed. [00:41:25] Robert Cruickshank: I think that's right. And I think we may and I think we need to see a reckoning within the Democratic caucuses in Olympia on this. The Democratic caucuses have often been led by mostly older white men or older white folks, who have a lot of privilege and who spend their time telling these newly elected legislators who represent their communities more authentically and look like those communities, telling them - no, fall in line, you have to do what we say, you can't deliver on your promises. And that's been, frankly, a source of a lot of toxicity. You saw Kirsten Harris-Talley step away from being in the Legislature after only a single term and wrote a public letter in the South Seattle Emerald saying that the leadership lacked integrity. You've seen others like Jesse Johnson step away, Emily Wicks step away - but more folks keep coming in who represent those communities, who look like those communities, who aren't the older white folks of the past. And I think we who are outside of Olympia need to do everything we can to help change that dynamic, put the pressure on leadership - the old ways of standing on the tracks and saying, no, isn't going to work anymore. We've delivered the votes. We've delivered stable majorities. Now you have to deliver. We are not accepting no for an answer. [00:42:43] Crystal Fincher: Now there is another local race that we've talked about on the show before that is absolutely exciting and an example of what true grassroots organizing, true connection to the community, and what direct action and community action can do. And that's the Raise the Wage Tukwila campaign that was wildly successful. We have not seen a minimum wage initiative be this successful yet here in this state. This was something that included leaders from the business community in Tukwila, labor leaders in Tukwila, the Transit Riders Union leadership, and just a bunch of people who are really passionate about making sure that workers get paid fairly. What happened that you saw in this race? [00:43:43] Robert Cruickshank: I think what we see is that, again, King County - and it's not just Seattle - strongly supports higher wages for workers. You see worker organizing from Starbucks to Amazon is popular and people get it. Working folks are struggling. They're struggling before pandemic, struggling before inflation. And those two factors have made it only more important and more popular to raise the wage. And it's interesting that we've almost come full circle here. I think the national Raise the Wage movement took off in SeaTac in 2013, and grassroots organizations got the $15 an hour minimum wage passed there. And it was a very close vote. That was not a resounding victory by any means. And then grassroots folks led by Kshama Sawant and others in Seattle went 15 Now. And they got that done in part by gathering signatures to say - we don't have a solution that we like - we'll take you to the ballot and we'll win. Now what you're seeing - going to Tukwila - saying, 15 was a good start. It's not enough. We need to keep raising that wage. And voters are responding very, very strongly. And you can see this across the country now, even in deep red states like Arkansas, Missouri - initiatives to raise the minimum wage pass pretty easily. Voters understand that the wages are too low, that people need to be paid better for the work that they're doing, especially those in what have often been underpaid service sector jobs. The public is there. The public wants it. And again, here's another place where Democratic majorities should act. You look at the federal minimum wage, which has not budged since 2009, it's still stuck at $7.25. If Democrats hang on to the House and hang on to the Senate, one of the first things they do in 2023 should be to raise that wage. [00:45:27] Crystal Fincher: It absolutely should be. And it's something that they should move to advance, even if they don't take control of the House. Because to the point that you just made, we saw in a deep red state this year and on the ballot box, just this week, a minimum wage increase pass. We've seen these pass in deep red states. Progressive policy is actually popular with workers. It does materially improve the wages and the lives, living conditions of working people - regardless of what their political ideology is. And they recognize that and they support these things. If Republicans were smart, they would see that their voters, their constituents that they need to win, support this and they should also. And if not, then once again, they're going to be voting against the will of their constituents and something that could materially improve their lives immediately. So this is something that should be ripe for action from Democrats across the country in every state legislative house, every state legislative chamber, every - in Congress - just people from far and wide, from cities and counties on up. We need to see action on this. It's time. The federal minimum wage is pathetically and shamefully low. We can't support anything on that. It's at this point of poverty wage, and we need to do all that we can to move people out of poverty. We need to stop this exploitation at a time when we see record corporate profits with so many corporations and organizations. There is no excuse to be paying workers poverty wages at all. And communities agree. I also just want to call this one out because sometimes these efforts are kicked off and started in coalition with some really heavily moneyed interests that have positive change in mind. But sometimes they come with - it's a small group of people, the same group of people here and some individual interests doing this kind of across the board. This, to me, was really inspiring because we really saw this generate from the ground up. We really saw community activists, people with an interest in Tukwila, people who lived in Tukwila, people who worked in Tukwila deciding to do this, making sure that it worked for everyone in the community, all of the different stakeholders, really doing the work in canvassing and talking to voters. And that is critically important, and I think helped this initiative and is why we see it being so resounding - is having those one-on-one conversations with people at doors makes the biggest difference that can be made. This was a very intentional campaign. They knew that they had to do that work, planned to do that work, executed that work well, and it showed and it paid off. And so I certainly hope to see this model replicated across the state for a variety of things. My goodness, we can run initiatives to build sidewalks for people to be able to get around their communities, to advance transit, to take climate action, to address healthcare, alternative response public safety. These are all things that we can move on on the ballot box locally with initiatives. And what a great blueprint to be able to study and follow. And I really hope people do that. [00:49:19] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think Transit Riders Union and other folks who did a lot of that work in Tukwila really pointed the way forward for a lot of different types of organizing. Hats off to them for stepping up and getting this done. [00:49:31] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely. I'm just absolutely inspired and thrilled. And again, hope people really take a look at the work that was done, the planning that was done, and how they executed it - because that's the way to get it done. Okay, so overall, we saw Democrats have just a really successful cycle here in 2022 in Washington. My goodness, Republicans are struggling. What does this mean for both parties as they move forward? [00:50:06] Robert Cruickshank: I think what we're seeing is potentially a light at the end of the tunnel out of 12 years of the Tea Party/MAGA/Trump movement - this huge backlash to progressive policy, a backlash to a Black President, a backlash to a woman presidential nominee, a backlash to social change. We may be starting to see the other side of that. Democrats picking up seats in places like Ohio is promising. There's still a lot to be done. Things didn't go well in Texas. Things went really badly in Florida for Democrats. New York was a problem, but that's also partly because of the Democratic Party structure there that's ossified and really problematic. But the United States is a center-left country, but we have a Republican Party that is trying to use the laws and the courts to undermine that through things like gerrymandering, undermining voting rights, things of that sort. And it's really a problem. And I think if we're able to have a center-left majority represented in this country - now's a good time for Democrats, especially in Congress, to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, to step up and make sure the right to vote is protected, that gerrymandering is ended. Because what you can do with that then is have a stable Democratic majority in the Congress. We can keep the Tea Party, MAGA, Trump movement at bay and finally start to make some movement on the political, social, economic challenges of this country. So I look at this election as a really hopeful moment. I know a lot of us went into it with a lot of anxiety. I know I did. Coming out of it, I think we should feel hopeful about the possibilities that exist. There's still a ton of work ahead. Maybe we turned a corner - I don't know. We'll see. Trump may announce he's running for president next week, but I feel more hopeful right now about the direction of the country than I felt in a little while. I think that's a positive outcome. [00:52:12] Crystal Fincher: I also think it's a positive outcome. I do also see cause for hope. Obviously, we can't, we don't know what's going to happen with control of the House or Senate yet. We don't know what is in store there. But we did see a sound rejection of people who are that extreme. We did see a sound rejection by voters of some of the most extreme policies there. And so let's take that as a starting point and understand that entertaining those, entertaining any of that kind of talk, painting any of that as a both-sides issue, just doesn't work and is not acceptable. I think from the media to different candidates, we don't have to treat that as valid and reasonable at all. We saw a lot of that in the lead up to this election. And I hope that one of the lessons that we learned is that it's just absolutely unacceptable. So given all of the election information that we saw, with everything that happened in these races, what does this mean for 2023 races, particularly in the City of Seattle? [00:53:31] Robert Cruickshank: There are folks out there from the mayor, to The Times, to other observers and consultants who think that 2023 is going to be a more conservative year in terms of City Council elections. I think these election results challenge that. I think you can see that - even in Seattle, where in a place like Northeast Seattle, the 46th district - Darya Farivar, the more progressive candidate, is winning and winning clearly over her more conservative opponent. You see The Stranger's endorsed candidates winning all throughout Seattle legislative races. I think that what this suggests is that voters going into 2023 are not in the same place they may have been in 2021. I think that you're going to see voters want solutions on criminal justice, on public safety, on homelessness that are responsive, holistic, that treat people as whole human beings - not law and order politics. It's not going to be a year where Ann Davison clones are going to do well. I also think there are other issues that are going to come to the fore - you see Darya, Emily Alvarado doing really well because in part, they're strong supporters of building new housing and solving the housing crisis. Someone like Alex Pedersen in District 4 is going to have a real problem - a district that overlaps the 46th - Alex Pedersen being a hardcore NIMBY, deep opponent of new housing, opponent of bike infrastructure, opponent of transit. He's going to have his hands full in 2023. You have an open seat potentially if Debora Juarez retires in District 5. I think even Dan Strauss is going to have to figure out whether he wants to be more progressive or more conservative with his new district. And you see pundits say, oh, it's going to be more conservative district. Will it? That is potentially an open question. I think that going into 2023, there's an opportunity for progressive Seattle here to lay out solutions that the public wants, that are responsive to engage on these issues - not hide from them, but tackle them all directly, and speak directly to voters' concerns, and point the way forward to building a better city that we all know we can have. Some of these races may be very close, but then Alex Pedersen very narrowly won in 2019. If I'm progressive Seattle, I'm looking at 2023 as an opportunity, not as a time to have to play defense, but a time to go on offense and show voters what we have to offer. [00:55:57] Crystal Fincher: I think that is absolutely correct. And I think you're right to point to the 46th Legislative District results as a perfect example of why. This is a district in Northeast Seattle that a lot of people considered to be one of the most moderate in the City of Seattle, to be a NIMBY stronghold, to be the place where - other places in Seattle, other districts in Seattle, other areas may elect Kshama Sawant, may elect more progressive candidates, but that doesn't work north of the Ship Canal. That doesn't work in those areas where we have more established, higher income, single-family neighborhoods, and they don't want that to be destroyed. There have been a small number of very loud voices that have come from those neighborhoods traditionally. And we have seen in this election, really, a sound rejection of the arguments that they were advancing. We saw that rejection on all levels, from legislative races to the county races to the Senate races - the types of arguments and the type of change that they have said was going to be damaging, that they directly took on in these races, just did not land with the voters. And voters sent a clear message that they want to move forward in a different way. Absolutely a message to both progressives and moderates that this is a different day. And it's not good enough to just say, you know what, I want to listen to everyone, bring everyone together. We just need not to be divisive. We don't need to do anything big or dramatic. Let's just stay the course. No one is happy with the course that we're on. No one is happy with continued inaction on housing while prices continue to just escalate and rise to levels that people can't afford. Everyone is being affected by this in one way or another. We're seeing the symptoms of inaction and I think people are recognizing that. And so people who are building a strong case for what action needs to be done and saying - I'm going to be willing to do the hard work in getting this passed and getting this through - are going to be successful. The role of progressive revenue in these races and seeing forces who fundamentally don't want taxation for extremely high income earners, whether it's landlords or people who are making money in speculative gains, to the heads of these major corporations, to the corporations themselves that have reaped windfall profits especially through the pandemic and beyond. And their workers are still struggling or they're battling unionization efforts. Seattle and these districts are on the side of the workers conclusively. They're on the side of our community. And I think there needs to be a broader recognition of that across the board - from leaders to current politicians to our media - and really get connected with what voters are saying today. It's different. And so I'm really interested to see how these 2023 races shape up. I'm frankly interested to see what even the mayor of Seattle takes away from these elections, because he had previously said in some different venues, some in some leaked commentary that he's recruiting against these candidates. He signaled that he wanted to and was aligned with a more punitive punishment approach, that he was skeptical of some of the things that passed without any kind of controversy in this past election by voters. And so is he reconsidering the direction he's taking? Is he reconsidering those candidates who he is setting up to run, perhaps with platforms and advancing policies that were just soundly rejected? And is he reconsidering how he is aligning and allocating his budget that is currently being discussed now - from the sweeps that we're talking about to asking for frontline service workers' compensation to be reduced to just a variety of different things here - is he reconsidering that? It looks like he did start to reconsider progressive revenue, because he certainly relied on that to bail out parts of his budget and to keep it from being underwater and in a deficit. So it looks like there is acknowledgement that that was the right way to go and that we're going to have to rely on that revenue for stability. Hopefully he sees that moving forward. But I'm really interested to hear what our local leaders and existing leaders' takeaways are from this also. [01:00:53] Robert Cruickshank: Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. And the public wants homelessness solved - people in a tent are our neighbors - they need help, need housing, not punitive solutions. People want crime addressed, but they don't want it addressed with punitive hardcore law and order solutions. Sometimes that may be necessary here or there, but they want the root causes addressed. And I think that this is not a year, and next year will not be a year where sort of Eric Adams-style approach is going to work in Seattle. I think it's a real opportunity for progressives. If they speak directly to the issues, hear people's concerns, and show that we have better answers. And I think certainly comes down to questions of police accountability as well - SPOG contract is becoming an important issue that will come up very soon. And I think you're going to have to see candidates declare themselves. Are they going to be for tough reforms on the police department that hold them accountable? Or are they going to try let them off the hook? And I don't think voters want to see the police let off the hook in terms of them doing their jobs and doing their jobs responsibly, constitutionally, and with accountability. [01:02:06] Crystal Fincher: And with that, we thank you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on today, Friday, November 11th, 2022. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler. Our assistant producer is Shannon Cheng, and our Production Coordinator is Bryce Cannatelli. Our insightful co-host today is chair of Sierra Club Seattle, a long time communications and political strategist, an excellent political mind, Robert Cruickshank. You can find Robert on twitter @cruickshank. You can follow Hacks & Wonks on Twitter @HacksWonks. You can catch Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get all of our shows. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.  

In this week's Immigration Law for Tech Startups podcast, I am joined by Jamais Cascio, a futurist and distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future, a nonprofit group based in Palo Alto, California. In his work, Jamais determines plausible outcomes for the future. He's also a writer who focuses on the intersection of emerging technologies, environmental dilemmas, and cultural transformation. Jamais was also here back in Episode 103 where we talked about his BANNI framework (brutal, anxious, anxious, nonlinear, and incomprehensible), which is an alternative framework to see the world compared to the VUCA framework. Today, we talk about immigration and climate change, the metaverse and the future of work. Please share this episode with companies, HR and recruiting professionals, startup founders, international talent, or anyone who can benefit from it. Sign up for the Alcorn monthly newsletter to receive the latest immigration news and issues. Reach out to us if we can help you determine the best immigration options for yourself, your company, your employees or prospective employees, or your family whether in the U.S. or abroad. In this episode, you'll hear about: An overview of the BANNI framework The history of the metaverse An equalization of income: is this possible? The future of global migration Looking at the world beyond technology What it means to be in a nonlinear world Don't miss my upcoming conversations with top Silicon Valley venture capitalists, startup founders, professors, futurists, and thought leaders on Immigration Law for Tech Startups. Subscribe to this podcast here or on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or whatever your favorite platform is. As always, we welcome your rating and review of this podcast. We appreciate your feedback! Resources: Institute for the Future https://www.iftf.org/home/  Alcorn Immigration Law: Subscribe to the monthly Alcorn newsletter Immigration Law for Tech Startups podcast: Episode 103: A Futurist's Lens on Immigration – Future of Work, Climate Change, and More with Jamais Cascio Episode 63: Immigration, Global Mobility, Working from Home, and the Future of Work Episode 56: Global Innovation with Tim Draper Immigration Options for Talent, Investors, and Founders Immigration Law for Tech Startups eBook Extraordinary Ability Bootcamp course for best practices for securing the O-1A visa, EB-1A green card, or the EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card—the top options for startup founders. Use promotion code ILTS for 20% off the enrollment fee.

On this Hacks & Wonks week-in-review, Crystal is joined by former Seattle mayor and current Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. The show starts with a plug for the Institute for a Democratic Future (IDF) graduation party in Seattle this Saturday, 6/18, to celebrate its Class of 2022 completing a program focused on recruiting, training, and promoting the next generation of Democratic civic leaders, and extends an invite to others interested in the program Crystal credits with starting her political career. On the topic of civic leadership, Mike and Crystal note that primary ballots are a month out from arriving in mailboxes and discuss what they each look for in a candidate: where they lie on the urban vs suburban spectrum, whether they hedge or make strong statements on policy, how they demonstrate living the values they espouse, what kind of campaign they run, and a demonstration of being strong in tough scenarios before they are elected. The two then wrap up with a look at the opportunity voters have on the November ballot to make changes to future elections with Seattle set to vote on approval voting and King County Council moving a ballot measure on even-year elections forward. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal Fincher, on Twitter at @finchfrii and find today's co-host, Mike McGinn, at @mayormcginn. More info is available at officialhacksandwonks.com.   Resources Institute for a Democratic Future: ​​https://democraticfuture.org/   IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://www.facebook.com/events/677339030035686   RSVP for IDF Class of 2022 Graduation Party: https://secure.anedot.com/idf/graduation   “What's The Difference Between Candidates in the 36th Legislative District?” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/17/75176294/whats-the-difference-between-candidates-in-the-36th-legislative-district   “Voters Could Change How And When We Vote This November” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/news/2022/06/15/75135178/voters-could-change-how-and-when-we-vote-this-november   “Election Nerds Feud Over Whether or Not Approval Voting Violates Voting Rights” by Hannah Krieg from The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2022/03/01/67571578/election-nerds-feud-over-whether-or-not-approval-voting-violates-voting-rights   @GirmayZahilay - Twitter thread on even year vs odd year elections: https://twitter.com/GirmayZahilay/status/1537124459080929280   Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington State through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Today, we are continuing our Friday almost-live shows where we review the news of the week with a cohost. Welcome back to the program: friend of the show, super popular cohost, activist, community leader, former mayor of Seattle and Executive Director of America Walks, Mike McGinn. [00:00:57] Mike McGinn: Glad to be here - again - thank you. [00:01:00] Crystal Fincher: Glad you are here - always a fun time when you are here. So I wanted to start off just by mentioning - we've talked about the Institute for a Democratic Future before, which is pretty much responsible for my political career and the careers of so many people in politics and policy in Washington State and DC. This year's class is actually graduating tomorrow - super proud of all of them. That is actually a public event that people can attend - tickets are on sale and you can attend, so if you're free Saturday, June 18th, in the evening - check out the Institute for a Democratic Future website for tickets - democraticfuture.org. We'll also put a link in the show notes and it'll be available on the website - or just hit me up on Twitter, whatever - would love to see you there, meet some of you. I'll be there. Look forward to that and seeing this current class graduate and a great opportunity just to learn more about the program - see if you might be interested in doing it. Also, ballots arrive in a month for the primary election. Things are coming in quick, time evaporates really quickly. And so lots of people are trying to figure out who's who, what's differentiating the candidates. The Stranger had an article come out this morning talking about - what's the difference between candidates in the 36th? So starting off, Mike, as you evaluate - how do you evaluate how candidates are different, how are you going to be making the decision about how to vote and who to support? How do you go through it? How do you recommend voters go through it? [00:02:48] Mike McGinn: Yeah, now this is such a great question in Seattle elections, right? Because one of the real, and we could carry on about this at length, one of the things about Seattle is - Seattle is, by comparison to national politics, a very progressive place. You find that 90+ percent voted for Biden in this city - I think was the number, if you go back. So it's pretty clear - some people will try to make it "what flavor of progressive are you," but everybody's gonna work to sound like they're progressive. And occasionally we'll see - for some reason, we seem to get this more from the Seattle Times and the more right side of the spectrum - "but they're all really the same, aren't they?" And I'll warn you about something - that that's not always the case, or they try to claim it - that well, one side is more ideological and the other side is more pragmatic or reasonable - something like that. But there is, in fact, a dividing line in Seattle politics that I'd ask people to consider and maybe about where they fit on that dividing line. So nationally, the ends of the spectrum are urban versus rural. In a city like Seattle, I'd suggest to you that it's urban versus suburban and the attitudes that accompany those. Now, of course, Seattle has areas that are suburban in nature - single-family homes on nice, quiet, tree-lined streets and a fair number of the voters come from those precincts. But they have indeed chosen to live in a city, so they're not - there are progressive sensibilities there. And urban is a catchall that could cover a lot of things. But let me see if I can dig into this just a little bit. Housing and zoning - a suburban approach would be single-family houses are great, an urban approach would be we should have lots of different kinds of housing. Policing - a suburban approach might be how do we keep bad people out of the neighborhood and how do we patrol the neighborhood to prevent folks from getting here. And a more urban approach might be - well, bad things are gonna happen. How do we make sure that the police can work effectively with the community and treat 'em fairly? So you see an urban versus suburban divide there. Homelessness - suburban mentality is can we give them a bus ticket to the city - this is an overstatement. An urban mentality is - well, we're gonna have homeless people, what are we gonna do? So I think on every issue that we look at - where do they fit on that spectrum is a way to look at it. And candidates - we already saw it in that article you showed about the 36th - what would you do about single-family zoning - a couple of whom were hedging, were hesitant. Bruce Harrell, as mayor, when he ran was hesitant - I'm not sure, we shouldn't just rezone the whole City. And then when you look at where they get the votes from, they tend to get the votes from the folks who are more resistant to building more housing and more different types of housing in the exclusive or exclusionary neighborhoods of Seattle. So that would be the first thing I'd look at in candidates - is where do they fit on that divide, and how to ask some hard questions to get at it. Like really pin 'em down - 'cause everybody's for more housing, everybody's for affordable housing - but would you upzone single-family neighborhoods is a hard question. You could ask 'em about what laws they might change in the State Legislature to make it easier to hold police accountable - see where they fall on that. There's a whole bunch of different places you can go to try to pin 'em down on something. So that's my first cut. I have a second cut on that, but Nicole - not Nicole - Crystal! I know you have answers to that one. [00:06:50] Crystal Fincher: That's so funny - you called me Nicole. My name is Nicole, but yes - [00:06:56] Mike McGinn: Is it really? [00:06:58] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, my family's called me Nicole my entire life - that's my middle name. So yes, lots of people call me Nicole. I don't know if you heard someone call me that, but anyway - [00:07:05] Mike McGinn: No, I think it's just that Nicole - it's been on my brain from prior discussions. [00:07:10] Crystal Fincher: Anyway, I think that's good - certainly, housing affordability, the approach to getting people housed - basically, whether you're looking to take a housing first approach and house people primarily. Or if people think the problem is visible homelessness - always a red flag to me when I hear people characterize the problem as visible homelessness - the visible is not the problem, the homelessness is the problem. And a lot of times the characterization of visible homelessness positions people who witness homelessness, or have to see it, as the victims - are somehow harmed - when clearly the harm is absolutely being done mainly to the person who doesn't have a house and who is out there in the elements with no shelter, much more likely to be a victim of crime than most other people in the community. And so that's always something to me. And are we okay with sweeping, even if we don't have shelter available. Or is it - hey, we need to find places for people to stay, we need to create places for people to stay. Are we satisfied with shelter, congregate shelter, which we now have so much data showing that it's really counterproductive in some situations - absolutely as emergency shelter, and some situations better than being on the street and some situations it's actually not. So are we providing people with rooms with a bathroom, a door that locks - somewhere where people can stabilize. Just especially in these Seattle elections - where they are D versus D races - we can have a lot richer conversations. And frankly, be pickier about who we decide to support. This is not a situation where the choice is between a Democrat and a Republican who is denying the 2020 election, who doesn't prioritize democracy and one person, one vote, who wants to end abortion protections, and all of that - where it's almost a - it's a harm reduction approach at minimum to vote for a Democrat, but the consequence is horrible. So you stop quibbling on issues and policy and we're talking really broad strokes. That's not the case in Seattle. You can make a choice for a progressive person or someone who is aligned with you on policy. There isn't something as - well, we don't know if we can elect a progressive in Seattle. We absolutely can. People can make that choice. And so one, drilling down further to see - are people hedging? Are they willing to answer strongly? Are people trying to not take a position? Are they saying - this is where I am, and trying to make the case for bringing other people along with them. I think that's a big thing. Another thing I would say is - working in politics for a while - campaigns are actually horrible job interviews for governing. The skills and the stuff that you use on a campaign - lots of them do not translate to governing, and it's just so interesting that we go about things like this. There's a saying that - Hey, we have the worst system except for all the other ones. Who knows, but I do think that there - one thing that I've seen that has been a consistent transfer is, what are the decisions that people make in their campaigns? How are they choosing - they may not have been in a situation where they were in control of a budget before. They may not have been in a situation where they were making hiring decisions and staffing decisions. Well, now that they are - what are they doing? Are they making decisions in alignment with their values and how they're talking? Are they working with people who are aligned with them, or who are aligned with folks who are doing things very different than what they say they anticipate doing? How are they living their values in this situation, in a campaign, where they are the ones making the calls and making the decisions? How are they using their resources? Just things like that are - you can see how someone is processing information. You can see - hey, you talk about workers - are you paying your campaign staff? Everyone has volunteers, but your campaign manager, other people involved - do you have a diverse staff? Lots of people have pictures with lots of diverse people in them. Who are the people that they're paying. It is a question - [00:12:17] Mike McGinn: That's such a great observation. Everybody's got the right pictures. [00:12:21] Crystal Fincher: Yeah. How are they investing their resources? And that, to me, consistently translates into the decisions that they make when they're elected and how they choose to allocate resources. And so look at their campaigns, see what they're doing, what kinds of decisions they're making, who they're hiring. I think who you hire, a lot of times, speaks a lot more than who you work for. Lots of times people are trying to pay their bills, all that kind of stuff. So - hey, I work for - people, I certainly have lots of issues with Amazon, but am I gonna take issue with someone who works for Amazon? Absolutely not. It's hard to pay bills, it's hard to find a job that - so do that, but once you're doing the hiring, that's a different story. Who are you choosing? How are you going about that? How are you living your values? What have you done that gets away from the rhetoric and more to - are you walking your talk? That is how I look to candidates and campaigns and decisions. I'm looking - this is me, obviously - I'm looking at PDC expense reports to see who they're working with, to see how they're being a steward of the resources in their control. So that would be my recommendation - look and see how they're living the values that they say they're living. That's a good indication of what they're gonna do when they're elected. [00:13:56] Mike McGinn: Those are all great points. So let me see, I'll come around for my second cut and I'll hit some of the ones you hit too. How they run their campaign - are they - is it a top-down campaign which is money and some consultants, or are they really showing the ability to engage and draw volunteers? 'Cause that gives you a sense of how they will operate in office - who's part of their coalition. That's - I think the next one is endorsements matter and they don't matter. I wouldn't - a lot of the endorsing organizations may be trying to figure out who's gonna win as well as their values. But if you look at their money and everybody's gonna have some - everyone's gonna have a mix of checks, but where's the weight of the money coming from? 'Cause the reality is most people, once elected, are gonna serve the base that got them elected. So where's the political base as can be told from looking at all of the data around endorsements and dollars and then again, how they're running the campaign. So does it appear to be a campaign that's built upon a broad coalition of community members volunteering, or is it being financed by certain industries or sectors of the economy? That'll tell you who they'll speak to. So that's worth looking at. Your comments reminded me of two other things. One question I asked, and this is now coming from a Sierra Club background and we interviewed people for endorsements. And again, everybody came in, everybody knew what the right answer was for Seattle politics, and people would hedge a little bit - but this is expanding on one of the things Crystal said. And by the way, your LinkedIn is Crystal Nicole Fincher, so I - [00:15:51] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, I usually put all three names. [00:15:53] Mike McGinn: Nicole is there in a lot of places, so maybe that was there, maybe it was there in my head somewhere. The question is - I would ask - tell me about a time you did something for the environment. Not what's your position on clean air, or what's your position on walking and biking - but tell me about a time you took action because you cared about the environment. And some people have great answers and some people have no answers - and if the answer is, well, I recycle regularly - well, so that's Seattle, right? But if your answer was - oh, I took a summer to volunteer at an animal rescue center or something - okay, this person in their heart really feels something about the world around them. And you could ask that in any number of contexts - tell me a time when you acted on this impulse. The other question I love to ask people and - 'cause people still come to me and ask me for endorsements - and I say, tell me about a time you did something in your life or career that was hard and maybe even unpopular - the time that you had to have some guts and courage. And the reason is 'cause if you don't show guts or courage before you take office, you are not gonna show it once you take office. [00:17:13] Crystal Fincher: That is the truth. [00:17:15] Mike McGinn: This is - yeah, because the dynamic, once you're in office, is really pushing you to not take chances, to go with the flow, to not stand out too much - it's the safer place to be. And those forces only get harder and harder, which is why you end up with elected officials who just - you feel like after a few terms, they don't really seem to be doing anything anymore because it's been taken out - [00:17:43] Crystal Fincher: Ground out of them? [00:17:44] Mike McGinn: Ground out of them, man - it's like a tea bag that's been dipped into the hot water too many times - there's just not much flavor left after they're in for a long time. So that's my thing - tell me about a time you did something hard, unpopular, tough, but you did it anyway. And why you did it 'cause you do want somebody who's gonna be willing to step up on a hard issue and take a chance. My 2 cents - when we're looking at the challenges we face, incremental changes to the status quo in the face of all the challenges we face - you'd like to see people step up and do something hard and take a risk politically for the right thing. And that's what I'd like to see in a candidate too. [00:18:27] Crystal Fincher: That's so good. That's absolutely true. I definitely tell candidates and have conversations with lots of people. To your point, it gets harder after you get elected. There's pressure on candidates sometimes to - well, don't offend these people, you might lose this, don't say this, don't say that don't. And the mindset is almost - well, if I just get elected - I just need to get elected and then I can really do the thing I really wanna do. It does not work like that - it gets harder - the stakes are higher, actually. And so you have to be willing to stand by what you believe before you're elected. If, when it comes down to a negotiation and you're going back and forth on - and we're talking about legislative races - with your colleagues on - well, we can keep this in, I'll agree to keep this in if you take that out. What are the things that aren't going to be compromised on, what are the things that you know you can count on them to say I'm a No vote without this. And that's a big deal. The other thing that I think is really useful and that candidates have to do - they have to be out talking to voters. They have to be out in the community. They have to be knocking on doors. They have to be talking to regular people who are not hacks and wonks, who are not insidery insiders - who are saying this is what I'm dealing with, what are you gonna do about it? And who - you have to talk to them about - I hear you, this is what I think will help - go back and forth, get their feedback on it. Most candidates who are talking to voters regularly - you can tell. And to me, that's the difference between someone who is coming from a philosophical or purely ideological point of view, they may be very online - but you have to engage with your constituents, you have to hear tough feedback, you have to talk to people who are going through rough moments, and you have to see what you can do to help, and explain to them and bring them along with you. You have to actually build a coalition to govern. You have to bring people along to your side. If you want to change policy, you're going to have to change people's minds. And if you don't have practice doing that, if that's not a habit of yours, then it's not gonna happen after you get elected. The pressures to do that lessen after you get elected - schedules get busier. You have to prioritize engaging with people in your district from all different backgrounds, all different walks of life, viewpoints. And if you aren't comfortable with that, if you haven't done that in all of those situations - it does not serve you well as a candidate or as someone who's elected. [00:21:33] Mike McGinn: It's super hard as a candidate too, 'cause candidates - new candidates, in particular, and I'll toss myself - I was pretty engaged in civic affairs before I ran for mayor, but there were still big chunks of issue areas that I was not terribly sophisticated in my thinking on. And so I may have been better than your average new candidate in some areas, but compared to somebody who'd been in office - and so this is one of the traits you see of someone who's been in office for a while - they've got their talking points on every issue, they know where the safe space is on each one. So there's this learning process that occurs when you're running as well. And going back to your point about talking to people, you're not gonna learn if you're not talking to people. So I do like to see that too. It's funny - we're talking about somebody who can hold their principles, but you also want somebody who can be educated by the people they speak to and begin to understand the complexities of the issues. But also understand what really matters to people, and your point is really a strong one. And then be able to say, 'cause if you're running, you're saying you're the best person for the job. If you don't think you're the best person for the job, you shouldn't be in the race. Well, if you think you're the best person for the job, you're gonna have to start challenging yourself to answer the questions in a way that demonstrates that you're capable of making some forward progress on that issue. And I hold new candidates, at the beginning of that race, to a pretty low bar - because they're learning and you're allowed to say - well, I'm learning more about the - I don't recommend any candidates say that in any endorsing interview or to anybody - when you run, you're supposed to have all the answers. It's terrible. And then when you're elected, you're supposed to listen to everybody 'cause you shouldn't have all the answers. So that's another dynamic of running and winning. But when you're running, it is okay to keep learning and I see candidates learn and progress. So that's the other thing I look for in a candidate - just is, are they - what their ability to take up issues, identify, and attach a philosophy to it, and actually start making real recommendations, as opposed to simply talking points. And by talking points, I mean - one of the things to look for is - when you're talking to a candidate, are they just giving you value statements? "Affordable housing is really important. We need to care for every person in our community that's homeless." That's a value statement and it's good - I'm glad to hear people's values - but somebody can say, "We need to fight crime and we need to hold the police accountable." Okay, what's your plan? What's your plan to hold police accountable? How far would you be willing to go, or how far is too far for you as a candidate, and what do you think should be done differently to fight crime? What would you support? So, in a way it's the actual taking a position on an issue. And I also get super suspicious of candidates who don't take a position - who wanna, and I recommend this to candidates too - the way I phrase it now is, if you win votes, sometimes you have to lose votes. If somebody is afraid of losing a vote in the way they talk to you - it's in a way - it's a little bit taking the voter for granted if you're just trying to tell everybody what they want to hear and never take a hard position. Voters can - and I experienced this as a candidate and as a mayor - people will sometimes, people can disagree with you on things and still vote for you. If they like what you say on other issues, or if they like your approach, or if they just think you're coming from the right place, they're gonna work hard to get the right answer even if they don't like your answer then. So don't get hung up on - take a position, particularly on the things that really matter to the voters, so that you can give them some direction. There is a candidate - this is the thing, though - there is a candidate that can get through without taking positions. And this is why I think voters should be suspicious of those candidates. Those candidates can get through without taking a position, 'cause often they're the anointed candidate in the race. Races tend to end up with only one anointed candidate - that's why they're anointed - sometimes you see multiple people fighting for it. And the anointed candidate is the candidate who's wrapping up all the endorsements from the political insiders and the interest groups and the campaign funders. And with those dollars, and then usually with the support of the Seattle Times - in those races, everybody will say what a wonderful person this candidate is. And they will reflect on that person's personal characteristics. And their goal, their way of getting through the campaign is to present themselves to the world as - well, I'm clearly the best person for the job, look at my resume and my wonderful personality. And they don't wanna take a position, 'cause they're gonna count on that to get 'em over the top. The problem with that candidate is they are so beholden to the interests that helped elect them, that they'll never take a hard stance. Now, if you're not the anointed - a lot of candidates make the mistake, then, of trying to be the anointed candidate - getting all the endorsements and not taking a position, 'cause they look at that candidate and they go - so many of those candidates succeed, that's my path too. But there can only be one of them in a race. So what I'd be looking for in a race is who's somebody who's running on something. This is my personal experience, this is my lived experience, these are the things I've thrown myself into, this is the thing I wanna change in the world. Let me tell you how I'm gonna change it. And then evaluate - are they working on the right thing? Does their plan have a good likelihood of success? And that person at least will be willing to take some risks on change. If you want the status quo, elect the anointed candidate. If you think there are problems and unique change, look for the candidate who's willing to take some risks and potentially lose some votes, but hopefully they're gonna win votes because - hopefully the City believes that there are problems that need to be solved and we should elect problem solvers and not defenders of the status quo. [00:27:58] Crystal Fincher: I completely agree. Take a stance. You have to know where people stand - your point about value statements, it's so interesting being in a lot of situations where I'm watching how people and audiences react to things or - hey, this person said "Housing is a human right." I believe housing is a human right. Okay, done. And it's like okay, but have they explained how they're going to house people, what they're willing to do and what they're willing to not do, what their priority is, what they will prioritize funding? What are the details of that? What will you actually do? And there also is sometimes a plague of people, a type of candidate, whose priority is to get elected and who doesn't necessarily understand the type of office that they're running for. 'Cause running - what you can do as a legislator is very different than what you can do as a King County Councilmember or Port Commissioner, it's different than a city councilmember or a mayor - those are all very different things, very different jurisdictions. Your levers of power, your tools of change are very different. So do you understand the jurisdiction that you're running for? Or are you running for Legislature, like you're a mayor or a city councilmember? Those are very different things. And even the conversation on public safety is very different - and what they can do and how they can engage with that - or homelessness is different based on what you're running for - what you can actually do and what you can't do is different based on the jurisdiction. Has someone even engaged with that yet? Or are they just - this is me, I've always wanted to be elected, this open seat popped up, and so I'm running for it. This is not a commentary on anyone who's running right now. That was an example - I'm not referencing anyone specific, but that is a thing that I see often, that I see every cycle. And it's just - this person wants to be elected, they don't actually wanna make change. [00:30:08] Mike McGinn: So the - yeah, this is - you're reminding me of one of my other favorite sayings - is the candidate - do they wanna be somebody or they wanna do something? And it's a little unfair, 'cause nobody's a 100% one or the other. Like I definitely thought - I was running to do stuff, but it is fun to have people call you mayor, so I'm not immune to that. And I even think the people who I look at and go - oh, they just wanna be somebody, they've just been positioning themselves for the last 15 years to get an elected office, and spent so much time positioning that they haven't actually gotten anything done - they still have a beating heart and there's still things they wanna do. I think it's a mix of both, but where on that spectrum are they - of wanna be somebody or want to do something. And one of the best ways you can tell if they're people who want to do something is the questions we asked earlier - have they made, have they taken hard choices and taken some hits as a result of it? Have they thrown themselves into a cause to try to make change, even if there was no personal gain attached to it or status attached to it. And those can help answer that question of whether they want to do something or just be somebody. [00:31:22] Crystal Fincher: Makes sense. Well, this - a lot of times Fridays are Weeks In Review, but we have a unique opportunity here, when we're speaking with Mike McGinn, who has so much experience in activism, as an executive of one of the largest cities in the country. And so I do think this is a helpful conversation, as we're going to begin to hear a lot more from candidates - as candidates are gonna be communicating with voters, and your mailbox is about to fill up, and they're gonna be commercials and videos that you see - all that. But looking beyond that, this is always such an interesting conversation. As a political consultant, I'm involved in doing all of that - to be clear - but if you actually do care about this stuff, you actually want it to be with good people. I'm extremely picky about who I work with for that reason, this cycle I'm working with one person - working for other causes and in support of things, but when it comes to working with a candidate, I want a candidate that I know is in it to create change, has a history of walking their talk, is doing those things. And so - I'm working with Melissa Taylor in the 46th legislative district - there are lots of great candidates everywhere. I also still volunteer for candidates, because it's important who we elect to do that. And it is heartening - I see so many leaders who pass progressive policy, which is a distinction from people who just label themselves as progressive. That's more of a verb - it should be a verb - but it actually matters who we elect and we do have the opportunity in Seattle to not settle because we're scared of how horrific the opponent can be. We have better choices, so let's not settle for the status quo in so many situations - let's move forward, but do it in a way that just applies a little bit more discernment. And I appreciate having this conversation with you, 'cause I think it's really hard for people to figure out how to make this decision. [00:33:41] Mike McGinn: This will be the final point on this that I'll make, which is - I worked on endorsements within the Sierra Club for 10 years or so, I'm asked for my personal endorsement, I've run for office, gone through everyone else's endorsement processes multiple times. But let me just say - in doing endorsements for the Sierra Club, we got tricked more than once. It's hard. Somebody came in, they said all the right things, they seem to be the right person - but then, and it's really hard in this progressive versus progressive space, and then they get into office and you discover that they're not really with you. And it happens. And so, if you're trying to figure it out, and you find it hard, and you make a mistake, you're not - I can assure you - you're not alone here on this. So we're just trying to give you the best tools we can give you to make what can often be a very hard choice. [00:34:38] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, it is - I get it - it's actually a big reason why I do this show - to try and - I've seen people in the candidate stage, I've seen 'em in policy, I've seen the intentions of policy and things that seem good and things that I thought were good. And then seeing, time after time, it go through the legislative process and how it ends up. Or, hey, this type of person or this type of profile does well in an election, and this is how it usually turns out when they govern. And you just start to see the patterns. I think it's hard, if you aren't watching this all the time, to pick up on those patterns. And I think that is helpful in trying to determine who actually does - who actually can make change. And a lot of things go into that - having the right principles, but also understanding how to work productively with your colleagues - balancing that line between yeah, absolutely standing by your principles and listening - and that helping to develop your policy. And testing what you're saying - yeah, this is what I believe - and if you encounter something that challenges that, you have to contend with that, you can't just ignore it - does that mean that your policy needs some tweaking or something - all those things. I just hope to contribute to that conversation, to contribute to help people figure out - what's happening, why it's happening, and what they can do about it - who they can vote for to do something about it. But I really appreciate having this conversation. I'm fine with this being this conversation instead of a Week In Review, because hopefully - and there's just tons of news and sometimes - [00:36:30] Mike McGinn: Well, we gotta bunch of races coming up. Speaking of races, we have different voting methods coming up about or under debate right now. One of the things we've seen is that approval voting will be on the ballot this November. And we also see an effort in King County to move King County elections from odd years to even years, which are big, significant changes. [00:37:01] Crystal Fincher: Big significant changes - we've talked about even year elections, just the difference - King County Councilmember Girmay Zahilay tweeted actually this week - just a chart of voter turnout and it just looks - it's high, low, high, low, high, low, high, low - such a stark difference. And it's just even year, odd year, even year, odd year - 53%, 36%, 83%, 54%, 65%, 47%, 84%, 50% - that's the difference between even years and odd year elections. 2021 turnout was 44%, 2020 was 87%. And you're like - okay, well that was a presidential year, maybe that was the reason why it was different. 2019 was 49% - still less than half. 2018 - 76% - every single year - 2017 was 43%, 2016 - 82%. You're, in some years, almost doubling the amount of people who participate in that. To make an argument that we're okay with the amount of people being half that participate in our elections just does not make sense. And in this situation, I think we need to do all we can to help make sure everyone can vote. Speaking as someone who works in politics, you certainly see this yourself. It is tough, especially with how much local media has disappeared, how comparatively thin the resources are stretched now than they were 20 years ago - to just let people know that they're - forget a general election in an odd year - a primary election, it's rough and you basically have to pay to communicate with people and let them know. That's part of what drives up the cost of elections. There is almost no way for you to reach a large chunk of the voters without paying to send the mail, paying to target communication at them - that's the only way to let them know you exist. If you are someone who's a non-incumbent or challenging someone, your biggest opponent isn't your opponent, actually. It's just being known, period. So moving these to even years will just do a lot more and hopefully reduce the amount that needs to be spent on elections 'cause they are too expensive. The race I'm working in has - there's a ton of money in this race, which - okay, this is what it takes to win this race, unfortunately now - congressionally. We need to change the system to get some of the money out of it. And it's a tough go, especially for someone who's standing by their principles, not accepting corporate donations - it's rough to be able to try and afford and do those things. And we need to make it easier for people to get engaged without having to pay so much money to make that happen. [00:40:12] Mike McGinn: Well, if you believe in voter turnout - if you believe democracy is better when more people vote, then conversation should be over for you. But it turns out that there are some people who would prefer that fewer people vote. And so, it was not unanimous on the King County Council. And it goes back to that comment I was making earlier 'cause what we know is - when voter turnout is higher, you tend to have greater, more diverse representation in the voting pool. Similarly, you tend to have more people of lower incomes in the voting pool in high turnout years. More renters, more apartment dwellers, so it's more representative of the population as a whole in high turnout years. And low turnout years are less representative of the population as a whole. It tends to skew older, whiter - which then means also more single-family home ownership. We were talking earlier about the suburban or urban approach to city issues. Well, that's the - this is a difference between a more urban voting bloc, or one that trends towards the more suburban sensibilities about how cities should work. And, it's funny - I've used this line before - we talk about urbanists, but trust me, there are suburbanists in the City of Seattle that run for office and win. And that's challenging when you're trying to make sure you have enough housing for everybody, or that you want progressive policies towards - more progressive policies towards policing and the like. So, there are people who will argue - well, this enables more focus on the races and people can make more informed decisions, but it's a smaller pool of people. So they're really arguing for a smaller, less representative pool of people. And if you wanna put this in a national frame - the people arguing for odd year elections, because it does allow for a greater focus - it has the same effect as people who think the electoral college is good because it gives rural voters more say - without them - it's false to say that the electoral college is meant to protect small states and rural voters. Well, the electoral college has the effect of giving voters from smaller states an undue influence in the course of the country, right? The majority of the country believes certain things and that's not reflected in what the majority of the US Senate is, or what a majority of the electoral vote would count. Same thing happens in local elections held in odd years. The people who participate in the elections and the people who get elected don't actually represent the sentiment of the City as a whole, or the county district that they're running in. So moving to even year elections is just the right thing to do if you believe in democracy. And try to come up with a system to reduce turnout or to favor one population or over another - well, that's pretty anti-democratic, so honestly hope no one would speak up for it, but watch what would happen. I'll make you a bet that if Seattle had the opportunity to do it, state law would have to change. You'd see a whole lot of interests arise to argue that it's wrong, because they're used to helping shape and influence and anoint candidates - we talked about this earlier - their ability to anoint the candidate and push 'em through would be lost in a year in which there was bigger turnout than when holding these in low turnout elections. [00:43:46] Crystal Fincher: I agree with that. And especially with the momentum that ranked choice voting, which is not on our ballot in King County, at least this year, but there's a lot of support and momentum for here and across the state. It looks like they've actually seen this coming, that they've seen the momentum behind even year elections, ranked choice voting and have launched a preemptive strike in the form of this approval voting initiative, which will land on ballots in the City of Seattle in November. Now Hannah Krieg wrote a story about this and ran into a signature gatherer who told her - hey, ranked choice voting and approval voting are the same thing. That's not true, they're very different. And there's a reason why some of the folks who are supporting the main organization who's supporting this look like it would - this approval voting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. It's not - hey, this is my first choice, second choice, third choice. So that if your first choice doesn't make it, at least you can get your second choice in. And that makes a lot more sense in crowded primaries. This is - just vote for everyone who you like, just vote for everybody - which, in a situation where money counts, pretty much guarantees that the most well-funded candidates will make it through. And I think people have seen a gathering threat, especially in districted elections, and saying - okay, well, hey, the recall against Sawant didn't work, we're seeing these progressives being elected in all these different areas, let's make sure they get through. I am extremely suspicious of approval voting, especially with some of the misrepresentations that some of the signature gatherers have been making. It just strikes me as a preemptive strike against some of these other measures that do seem to be, that do seem like they'll have the result of increasing the amount of people who are engaged in voting these elections. [00:46:03] Mike McGinn: Well, I may have a slightly different view on this than you. I think that there are people who are totally into what's the best election system, 'cause I've gone down that rabbit hole and people have really strong views about that. I have to say, I think that approval voting has some positives to it, and which are - first of all, I know how I'm going to vote - if I have a clear winner, I'm gonna vote for the person I really like. You only have to vote for one person in approval voting, but boy, I've had races where I would've gladly voted for two or three people and said they're okay, just to show my support for 'em. Particularly they - 'cause here's what we know in Seattle - here's the counterargument for it. And by the way, I like ranked choice voting more than approval voting, but ranked choice voting has to be approved by the State, and it's probably gonna take a few years before we get there in Seattle - and we can always go there. But right now in Seattle, we tend to end up almost exclusively with candidates that are either endorsed by the Seattle Times or The Stranger. So I kinda like the ability of approval voting to get somebody, to give somebody else the possibility to get through. And I can think of races where I would've voted for more than one person in the race, rather than have to pick The Stranger or Seattle - and by the way, I almost, I pick The Stranger - cards on the table - between The Stranger and Seattle Times, I pick The Stranger. But I looked at these other candidates and said - boy, I'd really love one of them to get through, but they just don't really stand a chance. And I think approval voting would lead to The Stranger having to identify more than one candidate. They don't have to - they could, like me, identify one candidate they approve, but they might also be able to identify two or three that they approve. And I think that might yield better outcomes in terms of the candidates we get. [00:48:03] Crystal Fincher: It's an interesting argument. One thing - does approval voting, approval voting, does ranked choice voting need to be approved by the State? I don't think it needs to be approved by the State, does it? There are initiatives on the ballot for ranked choice voting in Clark County and maybe one other county right now. [00:48:24] Mike McGinn: I think counties are different. I think counties are different than cities in what people can do. I think that there's a - and same thing is true of the district election, excuse me, not district elections, odd year versus even year elections. Right now, the voting system for cities - there's a state statute that says what system you must follow, and when you must vote. And I think counties have greater flexibility, for whatever reason, under state law. So you need a law to give cities the authority to choose ranked choice voting and/or move into even years. And there have been efforts to do both in the legislature, both of which I support. [00:49:10] Crystal Fincher: So I just texted someone for clarification, really - the answer given to me via text, we can obviously clarify this at a further time - speaking from a county point of view, for non-charter counties, they can implement it. As you just said, for charter counties need - should be able to implement county-level, or charter counties should be able to implement it. Non-charter counties can't. Cities - question marks. You probably you're - yeah, I guess I didn't realize that. You probably dealt with this. [00:49:48] Mike McGinn: I'm pretty sure of this because I've worked on promoting the state legislation that would give authority for this. [00:49:54] Crystal Fincher: So how can we get approval voting? [00:49:58] Mike McGinn: Approval voting - just it, that one, I guess, just works differently. It's a good question, but I think it just works differently in the top-two primary system. I don't have legal analysis for you, but I'm sure if somebody did the legal analysis and concluded that it fit under the statutory system in a way that ranked choice voting did not. Yeah. [00:50:20] Crystal Fincher: Well, very interesting. I'm always learning here, I'm learning every week. [00:50:26] Mike McGinn: Oh, I was all ready to collect signatures for moving Seattle elections to even years until I discovered the State prohibition. So Mia Gregerson has legislation in the State Legislature. I actually think that a lot of the organizing that was done around odd year, even year elections has helped influence the County. In fact, when I met with Girmay, when he was running for office, I now recall this - I told Girmay - hey, by the way, win or lose, I hope you could support an effort to move elections to even years. We'll see if Girmay remembers the conversation the same way - that was at The Station up on Beacon Hill, at The Station coffee house. And he said, absolutely, I'd be all in for that. So Girmay, thank you for being - not just saying it, but doing it. So really cool - really cool to see the leadership he's showing on the King County Council. [00:51:25] Crystal Fincher: I would - back to our prior conversation - I would put Girmay in the category of doers. He wants to do something, is not primarily motivated by being someone. So, I appreciate this conversation. Always an interesting conversation with you, former Mayor Mike McGinn, now Executive Director of America Walks - you talked about your Sierra Club days, your City days, just all of it. And just talking about growing over time - look, I'm one of the people who you have convinced on some policies - back when - when you were "Mayor McSchwinn" - [00:52:08] Mike McGinn: Oh my goodness. And I never even owned a Schwinn - why would they say that? Yeah. [00:52:16] Crystal Fincher: Oh my gosh. Yeah, I have certainly learned a lot, continue to learn a lot - but, and it's one of those hallmarks of someone who is willing to engage in conversations. We've had conversations about policy - I'm like, red, and you're like, blue - and it's well, you know what? [00:52:35] Mike McGinn: Well, you've changed my mind, Crystal - [00:52:37] Crystal Fincher: He's making sense. [00:52:37] Mike McGinn: You changed my mind on things too, for what it's worth. You've absolutely changed my mind. [00:52:42] Crystal Fincher: Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate all of you for listening to Hacks & Wonks on this Friday, June 17th, a month out from when we get our ballots and can start voting in this primary election. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler, assistant producer is Shannon Cheng - Dr. Shannon Cheng is a United States orienteering champion - once again, we've talked about this a little bit before - she is just dominating in every where and every way, and is just extremely amazing and incredible. With assistance from Bryce Cannatelli - also, Bryce is just so great. Bryce is a newer addition to our team here and just oozes competence and is a delight. The Hacks & Wonks team is absolutely a team, I just wanna reinforce that again - you hear my voice most of the time with a guest, but this does not happen without these other people. It would be impossible to get one show a week done, let alone two - the amount of editing, preparation, just everything from soup to nuts - I am eternally grateful to Lisl, Shannon, and Bryce. You can find Mike McGinn on Twitter @mayormcginn, you can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, and now you can follow Hacks & Wonks wherever - wherever podcasts are, Hacks & Wonks is. Be sure to subscribe to get the full versions of our Friday almost-live show and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the podcast episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - talk to you next time.

“We're never lost. The GPS of our true self is ALWAYS there.” Through childhood programming and traumatic imprinting, we develop all sorts of limiting beliefs rooted in scarcity. As a trauma informed Mind & Body Master Coach and breathwork facilitator, Amie Barsky knows the secrets to BREAKING FREE from the outdated narratives holding us back. We share our personal journeys healing from sexual abuse, including how we took our power back by the grace of forgiveness. Listen in and learn why wellness is a PRACTICE, how to vanquish low self-worth, and why acceptance is an INSIDE GAME! HIGHLIGHTS: [03:52] Why no amount of material possessions can make you happy. [08:43] How did adults imprint scarcity minded beliefs onto a young Amie? [13:12] Can the body differentiate between the magnitude of traumatic events? [18:09] How transformational work led to Denise rediscovering her voice. [20:22] Are we ever truly lost? How can we remember our true selves? [24:13] How breathwork experiences can lead to massive breakthroughs. [29:43] Why your brain will never give you more than you can handle. [33:11] How Denise and Amie have learned and healed from sexual trauma. [37:40] Why the concept forgiveness is often misunderstood - it's an INNER RELEASE! [43:24] How can Amie support you in your healing and growth journey? Drop a review and share the love! RESOURCES: Institute for Integrative Nutrition: Evolved and Reimagined Holistic Health, Nutrition, and Coaching Curriculum CONNECT with Denise and Dessert With D: Instagram || @1denisechavez Facebook || Denise Chavez Website || Elevatevision.com Twitter || @1denisechavez LinkedIn || Denise Chavez CONNECT with Amie Barsky: Website || Work 1 on 1! Amie offers single breathwork sessions, 3-4 month coaching programs, and more! Instagram || @amiebarsky

Divorce is an emotional process. A process that requires you to make important decisions that will impact the rest of your life.    And even if you're savvy with money, it's easy to make mistakes that adversely affect your financial security.   So, where can you go for support with financial planning in the divorce process?  Jennifer Merida is a Financial Advisor and Certified Divorce Financial Analyst (CDFA) with The Tranel Financial Group. She has 20 years of experience in financial services, serving as Retail Vice President at First Security Bank and Premier Banker at BMO Harris before joining Tranel in 2019. Jennifer is dedicated to helping people gain clarity and control over their finances before, during and after a divorce.  On this episode of Wickedly Smart Women, Jennifer joins Anjel to describe the financial mistakes she made in her own divorce and discuss how the experience inspired her to become a CDFA.  Jennifer shares the four things she wishes she'd known during her divorce, challenging us to set financial goals and build the right team to support us through the divorce process.  Listen in for insight on the free resources available to organize your finances and learn how a CDFA like Jennifer can help you achieve financial security after divorce.  What You Will Learn  The financial mistakes Jennifer made in her own divorce  How giving up marital assets affected Jennifer and her children    What it takes to become a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst   The role a CDFA plays in helping people achieve financial security after divorce  How a CDFA helps you answer the question, ‘Can I get divorced?'  Why it's crucial for divorcing couples over 50 to make informed financial decisions  The free resources Jennifer offers to help you get organized for divorce  How Jennifer helps people navigate the emotional aspects of divorce  The value of setting financial goals and building the right team  How Jennifer serves women and men virtually or in-person  Connect with Jennifer Merida The Tranel Financial Group  Resources Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts  Connect with Anjel B. Hartwell Wickedly Smart Women Wickedly Smart Women Facebook Community Wickedly Smart Women on TeePublic Wickedly Smart Women on Clubhouse The Wealthy Life Mentor The Wealthy Life Mentor on Facebook The Wealthy Life Readiness Quiz Anjel on Twitter Anjel on Instagram Email listeners@wickedlysmartwomen.com  Leave Us A Message On Our listener line:   540-402-0043 x4343

Join Caroline and Sandra Eskew Capps of IP Collaborative for a discussion on advocating for what matters and Age Friendly Health Systems. Sandy is a physical therapist and educator based in Augusta, GA, who shares her depth of personal and professional experience with us in today's episode.    Resources: Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Catholic Health Association (CHA) Medicare Learning Network (MLN) Cancer Chameleon by Andrew Trice   Connect with Sandy: sandy@ipcollaborative.com   Connect with Caroline: caroline@morrisclinic.com https://carolinemorris.com Twitter, LinkedIn, FB: @carolinehmorr   *Free Vision Exercise* https://carolinemorris.com/vision

36. Rediscovering Greek Medicine: Wisdom from the Hidden Manuscripts and Texts This week Professor Alain Touwaide, of the Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions, gives us a rare glimpse at ancient manuscripts in libraries worldwide, revealing truths of Greek Medicine. Professor Alain Touwaide carefully researching book of ancient Greek   Today's Lexi:  Βιβλιοθήκη — Vivliothíki (Library) Ancient preserved book of Greek medicine   In this episode:  Greek Medicine is traditionally considered as the source of modern medicine and, more recently, also of the Mediterranean diet.  Though essentially correct, this idea hides more than it tells about Greek Medicine.   Today, Professor Alain Touwaide of the Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions joins the Kefi L!fe audience to tell some of what he discovered during his research for ancient Greek manuscripts in libraries worldwide.   Alain carefully researches book of ancient Greek medicine You'll learn more about how daily health and life bring on new meaning with the return of antiquity to present day.  Discover where pepper originates. Why are medical manuscripts in a monastery of Patmos, Greece?  What type of paper were these ancient manuscripts written on? How does equilibrium link a person to wellness? This episode is fascinating, don't miss it!    Alain & Emanuela researching manuscripts   Today's Ola Kala Moment: Today's Ola Kala Moment returns to ancient practices and brings them to modern day.   Ancient medical wisdom on original papyrus Resources: Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions on Facebook INSTITUTE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MEDICAL TRADITIONS INC GreekMed.org ByzantineMedicine.org DigitalHippocrates.org Emanuela Appetiti on LinkedIn Patmos - MeanderTravel.com Ancient manuscripts Credits: Music: Spiro Dussias Graphic Designer: Susan Jackson O'Leary   Please be sure to follow the Kefi L!fe podcast to ensure that you are Ola Kala in mind, body and soul.  Insta: kefilife365 For a natural and uplifting support with your health and wellness connect with Kiki to discover the beauty of essentials oils. My.doterra.com/kefilife   This episode made possible in part by: The Law Offices of Liston & Tsantilis —  Ranked #1 https://www.ltlawchicago.com and Kingdom Farms Whole Sale Meats https://www.kingdomfarms.com   This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. None of the information should be construed as medical advice. Users are encouraged to seek professional medical assistance for any significant health-related matters.

Kristin Johnson, MSW interviews Professor Daniel Berry to explore the interactions between genetics and the environment on a child's brain development. RESOURCES: Institute of Child Development: https://icd.umn.edu/ Childrens Emotional Development is Built into the Architecture of Their Brains https://cascw.umn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Childrens-Emotional-Development-Is-Built-into-the-Architecture-of-Their-Brains.pdf

Lindsey Bonadonna is a mom of 2 girls, ages 8 and 4. After the birth of her 2nd daughter, she was working tons of hours and dealing with a lot of stress. When she started experiencing symptoms that she couldn't ignore and quickly realized she needed to make her health a priority. She was diagnosed with Rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren's syndrome, and Hashimoto's disease.  Now Lindsey is the founder of Kale and Cake LLC, a thriving business that incorporates all her passions and allows her to make a generational impact in the lives of other women. To top it all off, she is able to work from home and build her work schedule around her life as a a single mom. This is the continuation of the interview I did with Lindsey in Episode 13. If you haven't listened to that episode yet, you'll want to go back and listen.  In today's episode, Lindsey talks about: -The importance of tuning into and listening to your body -Why we need to honor where we're at -The amount she invested to start her business -What she did to figure out how much to charge -How she landed her very first client Connect with Lindsey: https://www.lindseybonadonna.com/ Use the code GIVELOVE for a FREE Virtual Yoga Class with Lindsey Schedule a 60-minute complimentary get-to-know-you call  Instagram: @lindseyloveswellness Resources: Institute for Integrative Nutrition Stacy Kessler, Business Strategist Book: Thinking Like A Boss by Kate Crocco Connect with Capital Mom Podcast If you're feeling stuck, scared or unsure about what to do next and just want to talk to a real person, I'd love to chat. I know what it's like to need money now and feel like my only option would be to go back to the workplace. Send me an email at stephrbrinkley@gmail.com or schedule a call with me here. I'm not an expert, but I can relate to the doubts and fears of wanting to stay home with my baby but not knowing how it would be able to work out financially.

Host: Dawn Berndt, DNP, RN, CRNI® – INS Clinical Education and Publications Manager Guest: Dan Degnan, PharmD, MS, CPPS, FASHP – Clinical Research Associate, Regenstrief Center for Healthcare Engineering; Clinical Assistant Professor of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy Purdue University Pump programming errors that occur when administering intravenous medication and fluid therapies often present grave consequences for the patient, which may result in the disruption of therapeutic regimen, over- or under-dosing leading to loss of intended therapeutic effect, debilitating injury, or even death. Many components are necessary for developing an organizational infrastructure that promotes safe patient care through the application of smart infusion pump technology and utilization of pump generated data. Listen as Dan Degnan and Dawn Berndt discuss what makes smart pumps so smart and the data that can save your patient's life.  Resources: Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP). ISMP Guidelines for Optimizing Safe Implementation and Use of Smart Infusion Pumps; 2020.  Guidelines for Optimizing Safe Implementation and Use of Smart Infusion Pumps | Institute For Safe Medication Practices (ismp.org)

Lindsey Bonadonna is a mom of 2 girls, ages 8 and 4. After the birth of her 2nd daughter, she was working tons of hours and dealing with a lot of stress. When she started experiencing symptoms that she couldn't ignore and quickly realized she needed to make her health a priority. She was diagnosed with Rheumatoid arthritis, Sjogren's syndrome, and Hashimoto's disease.  Now Lindsey is the founder of Kale and Cake LLC, a thriving business that incorporates all her passions and allows her to make a generational impact in the lives of other women. To top it all off, she is able to work from home and build her work schedule around her life as a a single mom. In this episode, Lindsey talks about: -How she helps women develop fun-size habits for a healthy, sustainable life -Her journey to becoming a healthy habits coach and working from home -They symptoms she experienced before she was diagnosed -What she did to start feeling better -How she became a health coach and a Yoga teacher  -The importance of asking for and accepting help Connect with Lindsey: https://www.lindseybonadonna.com/ Instagram: @lindseyloveswellness Resources: Institute for Integrative Nutrition Stacy Kessler, Business Strategist Connect with Capital Mom Podcast https://capitalmom.ck.page/podcast Join the Capital Mom Facebook group!

4 people have drowned in Sandy River in the last month. Portland pays $600,000 to family of man who was shot and killed by police in 2017. Norman Powell will become free agent. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Dhanasree Jayaram joins host Hamsini Hariharan on episode 87 of States of Anarchy to discuss India's approaches to climate diplomacy and the international climate order.If you have questions about international relations or foreign policy, send them to us via email at ivmstatesofanarchy@gmail.com, DM us on Twitter @HamsiniH (https://twitter.com/omeriHamsini) or on Instagram @statesofanarchy (https://www.instagram.com/statesofanarchy/). Your question will be featured on the new QnA segment of States of Anarchy which appears every fortnight!Kartikeya Reddy did some background research for this episode.Reading List:1) Books by Subhash C Kashyap: (https://amzn.to/3iFzXhG)2) Books by Lavanya Rajamani (https://amzn.to/3iSAmxt)3) World Resources Institute (https://bit.ly/3cHpQVD)4) Center for Science and Environment (https://www.cseindia.org/)5) The Energy and Resources Institute (https://www.teriin.org/)6) Sujata Byravan (https://www.epw.in/author/sujatha-byravan)7) Lydia Powell (https://www.orfonline.org/people-expert/lydia-powell/)You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app.You can check out our website at http://www.ivmpodcasts.com/

Join Jay as he speaks with CEO and adjunct professor Clinton E. Day as he discusses his work with veteran entrepreneurs, making the move from entrepreneur to educator, and creating a lean startup.

One key to a construction conversation, is to be genuinely curious about the other person's experience.  Otherwise, we are just debating conclusions and never learning how we came to such different conclusions. Resources Institute of Cultural Affairs Focused Conversation Method The Art of Focused Conversations Book

The Energy and Resources Institute is a research institute in New Delhi that specializes in the fields of energy, environment and sustainable development. Established in 1974, it was formerly known as the Tata Energy Research Institute. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rahul182/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rahul182/support

In this episode, you'll learn: Who I am and how I got here Why I created my signature transformative group coaching program for women, Mindset Makeover What has impacted my journey and how I've used my struggles as a source of strength  What I hope to share with you in upcoming episodes   Resources Institute of Integrative Nutrition Sample Class  For more insight and inspiration on becoming radically fulfilled, follow me @stormybarbara on Instagram and be sure to check out www.stormybarbara.com

One key to a constructive conversation, is to be genuinely curious about the other person’s experience.  Otherwise, we are just debating conclusions and never learning how we came to such different conclusions. Resources Institute of Cultural Affairs Focused Conversation Method The Art of Focused Conversations Book

Podcast episode description: Dr Sarah E J Arnold is a Senior Lecturer in Insect Behavior and Ecology at the Natural Resources Institute (NRI), University of Greenwich, UK, primarily focusing on pest behavior, chemical ecology, and ecosystem services.After completing her PhD in sensory ecology in the Chittka Lab at Queen Mary, University of London, Dr. Arnold joined the University of Greenwich in 2010. Since joining NRI (a specialist research, development and education organization of the University of Greenwich), she has continued to develop her interest in pollinators, studying different aspects of how their environment may influence their behavior and health. She has published in areas including the role of pollen composition and nectar chemistry in pollinator performance, the importance of environmental characteristics of farms in affecting pollinator populations, and different aspects of their foraging and flower-finding behavior. She is particularly interested in how farms and other habitats can be managed to support pollinators’ needs better. As she works on both pest and beneficial insects, she rears various species of insects in the laboratory to explore their behavior and life history. Her work has appeared in international peer-reviewed journals, including papers on flower color evolution, insect ecology, and pollinator and storage pest behavior, and is one of the developers and managers of the Floral Reflectance Database (FReD). One of her latest projects, involving Caribbean fieldwork in conjunction with the University of Trinidad and Tobago and the Cocoa Industry Board of Jamaica - both areas with low yields of high quality fine flavor cacao - investigated the possibility of optimized production of Theobroma cacao via pollination by various Ceratopogonid species. Read on at the project website CocoaPop. More about Dr. Arnold’s work and projects can be accessed here. Podcast RSS Dr. Sarah Arnold. Photo uploaded with permission from Dr. Sarah E J Arnold Themes discussed in this episode:- What pollinates a cacao flower? - Midges are part of the Ceratopogonidae family, a group of of flies measuring 2-3 mm long- Ecology of midges; difficulties of breeding and physical discovery - Pollinator behavior according to country/landscape of origin- Attributes of a good pollinator; pick up the pollen, move to another flower (perhaps on another tree) - Cacao self-incompatibility; meaning it prevents itself from self-fertilization- Shape, odor, and complexity of the cacao flower; appeal for both humans and insects - Diverse family genus of flowering plants, Malvaceae, includes: durian (pollinated by bats), cotton, okra - Plant plasticity - Cacao in greenhouses and botanical gardens; at Kew Palm House in the UK, Theobroma cacao has successfully grown there, pollinated either by midges or another species;“It seems like the (cacao) tree needs the midges much more than midges need the tree.”- Questions she asked in her research: what pollinators are present? How does this population change over the year? And how that might match when the crop is in peak flower? - Samantha Forbes; a colleague from Australia, who was helpful in studies regarding rearing cocoa midges over generations in a laboratory setting. —> For their project, it was the first known time midges from a cacao plantation were bred for months at a time, running over multiple generations. Previously eggs and larvae had been captured and raised to adulthood. - Complications of recreating the bacterial conditions of the farm environment in a lab; mimicking banana pseudostem - Pollinator life-cycles; midges lay their eggs in rotten material, generally the detritus of cacao pods- Pollination rates of the midges; ~5% of the cacao flowers will be successfully pollinated. While they are present, their numbers are not abundant in the wild, however they are apt at transmitting pollen, generally in 1-2x visits to the flower. “...working out the perfect level of pollination to optimize yield and optimize it sustainably from a cocoa farm, is an area of continuing research that is very important at the moment.” - Hand-pollination. Is it viable? - Effect of climate change on biodiversity in pollinators; potential population loss due to drought and heat waves.- Farmers and pollinators — offering habitats, working together - Methodologies for obtaining lab results for odor compounds; most drawing on studies from almost 40 years ago. - Professor David Hall, Professor of Chemical Ecology , and general expert on all things involving the chemistry of scents. - Testing natural floral odor versus a synthetic blend for attractiveness to pollinators. Additional: If research continues — Dr. Arnold says, it will be interesting to see if wild flowers have evolved differently; might they be more disease resistance? Produce higher yields, or will flavor develop distinctly? These things will greatly inform future breeding programs. Dr. Sarah Arnold on a field research trip in a cacao grove. Photo credit: Dr. Sarah E J Arnold

Favorite quotes of the episode: “What does stress have to do with my gut? It’s everything!” “You have got to learn to prioritize yourself.” “Happiness is enjoying life, no matter what’s thrown at you.” “What you eat matters, even if it’s not in the now.” Episode Overview In this episode, I talk with Kira Whitham. She holds a Master’s in Health and Nutrition Education from Hawthorn University, as well as additional training through the School of Applied Functional Medicine, Metabolic Healing Institute, and IFM. She combines the principles of holistic nutrition and functional medicine to help people bring their bodies back to their intended state of wellness. She is a firm believer in the healing power of food and works hard to help her clients improve their relationship with food while gaining an understanding of what nourishes and depletes the body. TOPICS -    Your Career Path and the genesis of your company. -    Gut health, the ties between gut health and anxiety. -    Are we truly allergic to all of these foods? Or do we just have a leaky gut? -    How do you go about healing the gut? -   How to find a functional nutritionist? 5 Questions Segment Q1. We know that the most successful and happy people have a morning routine, what do you do each morning or evening that sets your day up for success? I have a morning gratitude practice, I set my intentions for the day, and a morning meditation practice (ideally) and in the evenings there is an evening meditation and a little more gratitude. Q2. What's your definition of Success? Is giving 110% at everything I commit myself to. Q3. What's your definition of Happiness? Enjoying life no matter what’s thrown at you. Q4. What do you know now that you wish you would have known 10 years ago? What you eat matters, even if it’s not in the now. Q5. What do you think is the biggest issue facing busy professionals today? Not prioritizing themselves. RESOURCES Institute of functional medicine www.ifm.org Connect with Kira at www.anourishedlifenutrition.com or on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/anourishedlifenutrition/ Angela's favorite books will be raffled off to those who leave a review! Angela will raffle off, 1 book each week for every 5 new podcast reviews. After you've submitted your review, send an email to angela@pawsconsulting.com, include where you left your review, and the username you left the review under so we can read your review on a special podcast episode and communicate with you to ship out books to our winners! Join our email list at https://www.pawsconsulting.com/shownotes Sign up for a free High Performance Strategy Session at https://www.pawsconsulting.com/podcast  Connect with Angela at www.pawsconsulting.com or on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram @DemareeDVM. How to leave a review on iTunes: Go to https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/beyond-the-stethoscope/id1354281411 or open iTunes. Click 'View in iTunes' (or maybe you are already there)                   Click 'Subscribe' Then Click 'Ratings and Reviews' Then Click 'Write a Review'  

Texas+Water Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Todd Votteler, talks with Dr. Rosario Sanchez, who is a Senior Research Scientist and Associate Graduate Faculty in the Texas Water Resources Institute (TWRI) at Texas A&M University. She is the Principal Investigator of the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act Program funded by the USGS. Her work is to integrate, develop and create research and data on transboundary aquifers between Mexico and the United States, particularly with Texas. She has 15 years of academic and work experience on transboundary issues between Mexico and the United States and has been working and publishing on transboundary water issues at international and binational level since 2006. Her work has been cited by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in 2016 and 2018. She has recently published the only complete study on transboundary aquifers between Mexico and Texas that has deserved recognition by state and federal agencies from both sides of the border. She is now working on developing models for cooperation and management of transboundary aquifers between Mexico and the United States.

In this episode, Jen Mons tells us all about the purpose of her podcast and some of her life story. Then, she reveals how her daughter's premature birth caused Jen's pregnancy induced HELLP syndrome. After years of survival mode, Jen decided to trust in holistic wellness, acupuncture, and energy medicine. After getting her degree from the Institute for Integrative Nutrition, Jen experienced her second health crisis. This crisis led Jen to reduce the stress in her life and find a connection to her soul. Integrating life and health coaching together is what changed her story forever. Enjoy the show! Show Notes: [00:30] About the podcast [03:00] About Jen Mons [04:30] Life Threatening Pregnancy induced HELLP syndrome [06:15] Holistic wellness and health coaching [07:30] Jen's second health crisis to heal heart and soul [09:00] Integrating intuitive and spiritually focused life and health coaching Resources: Institute for Integrative Nutrition Quotes: “I believe as spiritual beings we have some self-responsibility to embody and nourish ourselves on every level.” “My beautiful and brilliant daughter decided to come two months early.” “We had a very challenging quality of life.” “I want people to know that they didn't have to be sick and tired of being sick and tired.” The post The Embodied Healing Self with Jen Mons – The Wholistic Coach appeared first on Jennifer Mons Coaching.

**TERI** (The Energy and Resources Institute) encourages the work related to Environment. An article about the awards TERI presented to different people and institutions. Article by **Srushtidnyan Science magazine**.  Narrated by **Asawari Doshi**. **Our website**: [http://www.booksthatspeak.com/](http://www.booksthatspeak.com/) **Listen to the podcast**: iTunes: [http://apple.co/2fVfELt](http://apple.co/2fVfELt) Stitcher: [https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/books-that-speak](https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/books-that-speak) Player.fm: [https://player.fm/series/books-that-speak-childrens-stories-in-marathi-hindi-and-gujarati](https://player.fm/series/books-that-speak-childrens-stories-in-marathi-hindi-and-gujarati) audioBoom: [audioboom.com/channel/books-that-speak](audioboom.com/channel/books-that-speak) **Watch Videos:** YouTube: [http://bit.ly/2x4LIGX](http://bit.ly/2x4LIGX) **Twitter**: [https://twitter.com/booksthatspeak](https://twitter.com/booksthatspeak)

Today on What the Fat, Dr. Ryan Lowery talks with Dr. Will Cole about his life as a Ketotarian.    "It's a balancing act as a parent to not be dogmatic, but to coach them." Dr. Will Cole   Like the podcast? Subscribe on iTunes or Overcast   Timestamps:   2:00      Functional Medicine   4:30      Preaching to the Children's Choir   8:30      Arrival into Keto 15:10      Noticeable Changes with Keto 17:00      Will's Why   Resources Institute for Functional Medicine Connect with Dr. Will Cole:    Instagram Website Connect with Ryan Lowery: Facebook Instagram Ketogenic.com

Pulitzer Prize-winning Author Foreign Affairs columnist for The New York Times Thomas L. Friedman is an internationally renowned author, reporter, and, columnist—the recipient of three Pulitzer Prizes and the author of six bestselling books, among them From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World Is Flat. He was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and grew up in St. Louis Park. His most recent book is Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Acceleration. Friedman attended the University of Minnesota and Brandeis University, and graduated summa cum laude in 1975 with a degree in Mediterranean studies. During his undergraduate years, he spent semesters abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the American University in Cairo. Following his graduation from Brandeis, Friedman attended St. Antony’s College, Oxford University, on a Marshall Scholarship. In 1978, he received an M.Phil. degree in modern Middle East studies from Oxford. That summer he joined the London Bureau of United Press International (UPI) on Fleet Street, where he worked as a general assignment reporter. Friedman has won three Pulitzer Prizes: the 1983 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Lebanon), the 1988 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting (from Israel), and the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary. In 2004, he was also awarded the Overseas Press Club Award for lifetime achievement and the honorary title Order of the British Empire (OBE) by Queen Elizabeth II. In 2009, he was given the National Press Club’s lifetime achievement award. Friedman was a member of both the Brandeis University Board of Trustees and the Pulitzer Prize Board, but has since retired from both. He was a visiting lecturer at Harvard University in 2000 and 2005. He has been awarded honorary degrees by Brandeis University, Macalester College, Haverford College, the University of Minnesota, Hebrew Union College, Williams College, Washington University in St. Louis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Technion, the University of Maryland at Baltimore, Grinnell College, the University of Delaware, Tulane, The Energy and Resources Institute in India and Hasselt University in Belgium. Friedman and his wife, Ann, reside in Bethesda, Maryland.  

ON THE STREET WITH DARIEL FERNANDEZ---MANAGEMENT RESOURCES INSTITUTESubscribe to THE TRUE SHOW WITH DARIEL FERNANDEZ on Soundwise

NOTA MANAGEMENT RESOURCES INSTITUTE MIAMI-2013Subscribe to THE TRUE SHOW WITH DARIEL FERNANDEZ on Soundwise

Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Director General, Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi Mary Nichols, Chair, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Ray Lane, Managing partner of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Greg Dalton, Commonwealth Club Vice President, founder of The Club's Climate One Initiative PANEL: Leading a transformation to a global low-carbon economy Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Mary Nichols and Ray Lane will address questions concerning California’s leading role in the fight against dangerous climate change. What is the state of science on the causes and impacts of global warming? Can California consumers, corporations and policymakers facilitate systemic change and spur others to act? What are the costs and what are the opportunities? What role does innovation play? “California's culture of innovation is helping to drive the world towards more sustainable ways of producing, consuming and being,” comments Greg Dalton, Club VP and Director of The Club’s new Climate One Program, who orchestrated the program. “The changes are profound and promising. And yet leading environmental scientists such as R.K. Pachauri say we all need to do more, much more.” Pachauri, chair of the IPCC since 2002, is also the director general of the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, devoted to researching and promoting sustainable development. Selected by The United Nations Development Program as a Part Time Adviser in the area of Energy and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, Pachauri holds an M.S. in industrial engineering, a Ph.D. in industrial engineering, and a Ph.D. in economics from North Carolina State University. Nichols, appointed chair of CARB by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, also served as CARB chair under Governor Jerry Brown. Her history includes serving as assistant administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air and Radiation, Secretary for California's Resources Agency, and Director of the University of California, Los Angeles Institute of the Environment. Considered one of California’s first environmental lawyers, Nichols has paved the way for greater air quality. She has her Juris Doctorate degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor’s degree from Cornell University Lane, Managing Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, has sponsored several investments for the firm in clean and alternative energy including Ausra (solar concentrator), Fisker Automotive (plug-in hybrid car), Th!nk NA (electric car), Luca Technologies (biologically enhanced gas recovery from fossilized hydrocarbons). Before joining KPCB, Lane was President and Chief Operating Officer of Oracle Corporation, the second-largest software company in the world. Lane received a Bachelor's degree in mathematics and an honorary Ph.D. in Science from West Virginia University (WVU).

This episode of Inside Muskegon features an interview with Dr. Alan Steinman, Director of the Grand Valley State University Annis Water Resources Institute, a commentary on the interview, listener feedback and information on contacting Inside Muskegon. Hosted by Jason Piasecki. For more information visit www.insidemuskegon.com.