Podcasts about Rhode Island

BachelorClues and PaceCase return from a double-recap marathon to break down a packed news cycle: Ashley Iaconnetti's historic jump to The Real Housewives of Rhode Island, the stacked cast and premiere date for Traitors US Season 4, Bachelorette Taylor Frankie Paul's explosive “baby daddy” call-out during filming, Becca Kufrin and Thomas Jacobs' adorable baby #2 announcement, and Hannah Brown's reveal of her third romance novel. The Pit also crowns its latest parasocial champions—including TFP's four-part Instagram takeover from inside production—and delivers three unhinged Screams from the Pit, featuring parasocial collisions, Spirit Halloween prophecies, and the hosts' surreal appearance on Almost Famous.__Join the Pit on Patreon for more exclusive content and shows! : / gameofroses__Want coaching tips? email gameofrozes@gmail.com__Follow us on TikTok: @gameofrosesFollow us on Instagram-Game of Roses: @gameofrosespodPacecase: @pacecaseBachelor Clues: @bachelorclues Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The newest member of the Savannah Bananas Trystan Levesque joins Dylan Campione & Nicho Fernandez to discuss his baseball journey. From playing five years at the University of Rhode Island to the Savannah Bananas' draft process this summer, Trystan takes us through it all. Plus, Trystan explains why he's so excited to play for the Bananas and the impact he hopes to bring to the team's atmosphere. Thanks so much to Trystan for joining us and looking forward to following along with his journey in 2026!  To let us know who you want to hear from next, let us know at SideRetiredPod@Gmail.com or DM us on Instagram, Tik Tok or X (Twitter) @SideRetiredPod 

Now that season 2 of “Golden Bachelor” is safely in the books, Mel and his final choice Peg have been making the rounds. We get into their magazine interviews and Bachelor Happy Hour episodes, all of which are drenched in his trademark defensiveness and disdain for quitters. Plus, we discuss some Bachelor Nation news and gossip, including leaked tidbits and photos about Taylor Frankie Paul's season of “The Bachelorette,” which is currently filming, and the confirmation of Ashley I.'s role on “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island.” To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Our conversation with Chad Kultgen and Lizzy Pace (from the Game of Roses podcast and authors of “How to Win The Bachelor”) continues! We explore if Ashley would have ever graced the shores of Love Island and what we can expect from her on The Real Housewives of Rhode Island! Plus, what do our Bachelor game experts think about Taylor Frankie Paul???See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dominique is back! Dominique took some time off over the summer. Now she is back and full of enthusiasm for the recent Equiosity conversations she's been listening to. In this episode we revisit the conversation we had with Rick Hester, Amy Schilz and Lucy Butler. Rick is the Curator of Behavioral Husbandry for the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado. Amy is in charge of the giraffe at the zoo. Lucy Butler and her husband own the River Haven Animal Sanctuary in Rhode Island. With Dominique we revisit the four operant freedoms, and we consider the parallels between the way zoo animals are managed past and present and the way we keep horses. There is so much we can learn from modern zoo keepers. As Dominique says at the start of the conversation, she's been looking through some of the traditional horse training books she owns and they just seem so out of date especially when she compares them to the work that Rick and Amy talk about. Her takeaways from their interview make for a lively conversation.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Richard Culatta, a global education innovator and leader who notably served as the first Chief Innovation Officer for the State of Rhode Island from 2016 to 2017. He is a Rhode Island native and currently serves as the CEO of ISTE+ASCD Support the show

If you live in Rhode Island, you've heard of Roger Williams. But do we really know what our founder was like? Roger Williams University History Professor Charlotte Carrington-Farmer is out with a new book exploring his story through his own writings and what other people wrote about him. She's also the force behind a new exhibit about his wife, Mary. She joins host Edward Fitzpatrick to dig into what she's learned about Rhode Island's first couple. Tips and ideas? Email us at rinews@globe.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Tamra and Dolores are home from BravoCon and recapping the whole weekend! Who was their favorite Bravolebrity to meet? What’s the truth behind Tamra and Scheana’s run in? Plus, Dolores tells us ALL about the Real Housewives of Rhode Island! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Wampanoag were the Native American people who lived along the coast of what is now Massachusetts and Rhode Island. In 1620, the Pilgrims arrived from England and built a colony called Plymouth. The Wampanoag helped them survive by teaching them how to grow corn, catch fish, and live through the harsh winters. In 1621, the Pilgrims and Wampanoag shared a harvest meal that many people later called the First Thanksgiving.

Marlena Sarunac is a first generation American, her family being from Croatia. She started her career at Mastercard, left to travel around Europe (before it was cool to do so), and then came back to join her first startup. During her travels, she figured out that she was truly an American, as she prefers the entrepreneurial pace of life. Her path has been in marketing, but she also has an engineering degree, which gives her a unique edge. Outside of tech, she is married to a chef, with a 2 year old daughter and a rescue dog. They live in Rhode Island, in the Bristol area.Marlena and her now co-founder met at a prior company, and worked well together promoting that brand. The built a playbook, and always dreamed of starting their own thing to push those playbooks. The stars aligned later in life, and they decided to give it a go.This is the creation story of The Company Advice.SponsorsEquitybeeAlcorLinkshttps://www.thecompanyadvice.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/marlenasarunac/Our Sponsors:* Check out Incogni: https://incogni.com/codestory* Check out NordVPN: https://nordprotect.com/codestorySupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/code-story-insights-from-startup-tech-leaders/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Rich DiMare called into the show to finally let us know he will be in the new season of The Real Housewives Of Rhode Island! Roblox just had a major update and we have a PSA for parents. Listen to Billy & Lisa weekdays from 6-10AM on Kiss 108! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textFollow us on Social Media: @pvdhorror Instagram, X, TikTok, FacebookWatch us on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@pvdhorrorSpecial thanks to John Brennan for the intro and outro music. Be sure to find his music on social media at @badtechno or the following:https://johnbrennan.bandcamp.com

We are joined this week by Chris Revill, a podcaster who has been around Chuck and Brad for many, many years.Chris, Chuck and Brad delight in talking about the New England punk and ska scene, the proliferation of independent punk rock directors, and Revill's (as well as Chuck's) adventures in Rhode Island media.Video edit by Craig Depina@funbearablepod / funbearablepod.com / patreon.com/funbearablepod#ri #rhodeisland #punk #ska #newengland #podcast

Katelyn talks with Erica Jackman as she prepares to host her first ever chapter of Rucksgiving in Providence, Rhode Island! Listen to Erica and Katelyn talk about the importance of supporting local food banks and giving back to communities. Erica shares tips about Rucking and even gives a sneak peak into the velcro patch for completing this 9 mile rucking event! Be sure to check out her rucksgiving event or a more local one to yourself and consider supporting in whatever way you can! Start – 3:32 – Intro 3:32 – 9:10 – Quick News 9:10 – 10:16 – Content Preface 10:16 – 32:33 - Erica Jackman Interview 32:33 – End – Outro Next weekend we will hopefully be having an ultra OCR athlete on the show who was away from the sport but recently made a return! ____ News Stories: Charity Borne's Cleaning Business Emma Cook-Clarke Married Isaiah Vidal Baby Kay Nickerson Engaged Dave Robinson Pregnant Melissa Sharkbait Hysterectomy Boston DEKA FIT Manchester DEKA FIT, Ultra, and Ruck Spartan Medals and Hex System Gym Daughter Secret Link Stunt Birthday Secret Link Strava Praise Secret Link No Chill Secret Link Deadly Octopus Secret Link ____ Related Episodes: 240. Ruckfest Beta Event with Mark Jones and Brandon Welling! 253. Ruck: Beta Trail and Games with Interviews! 294. RuckFest Trail and Games with Elites and Mark Jones! 462. Mark Jones on DEKA Ruck, Oscar Mike, and 24 Hour Rucking World Record! ____ The OCR Report Patreon Supporters: Jason Dupree, Kim DeVoss, Samantha Thompson, Matt Puntin, Brad Kiehl, Charlotte Engelman, Erin Grindstaff, Hank Stefano, Arlene Stefano, Laura Ritter, Steven Ritter, Sofia Harnedy, Kenny West, Cheryl Miller, Jessica Johnson, Scott "The Fayne" Knowles, Nick Ryker, Christopher Hoover, Kevin Gregory Jr., Evan Eirich, Ashley Reis, Brent George, Justin Manning, Wendell Lagosh, Logan Nagle, Angela Bowers, Asa Coddington, Thomas Petersen, Seth Rinderknecht, Bonnie Wilson, Steve Bacon from The New England OCR Expo, Robert Landman, Shell Luccketta and Jules Estes. Sponsored Athletes: Javier Escobar, Kelly Sullivan, Ryan Brizzolara, Joshua Reid, and Kevin Gregory! Support us on Patreon for exclusive content and access to our Facebook group Check out our Threadless Shop Use coupon code "adventure" for 15% off MudGear products Use coupon code "ocrreport20" for 20% off Caterpy products Like us on Facebook: Obstacle Running Adventures Follow our podcast on Instagram: @ObstacleRunningAdventures Write us an email: obstaclerunningadventures@gmail.com Subscribe on Youtube: Obstacle Running Adventures Intro music - "Streaker" by: Straight Up Outro music - "Iron Paw" by: Dubbest

Dan Morrison and Lauren Downie are covering everything Bravocon, from the non-RHONY announcement, to Vicki Gunvalson's RHOC return and unpacking the Real Housewives of Rhode Island trailer or twin island as they can't tell these women apart. Dan and Loz unpack Real Housewives of Salt Lake City's plane ride from hell with Meredith in a xanax'd haze berating poor Britani, the latest Potomac served up some Shayo from Stacey and some amazing one-liners from Wendy, and the Orange County reunion continues on against our wishes. Dan and Loz also touchdown on Selling The OC (who are these people) and Secret Lives of Mormon Wives and the chaos that continues to be served (add gasp!). Follow Gasbagging on⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ &⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

"Virtual Reali-Tea" co-hosts Danny Murphy and Evan Real break down their 2025 BravoCon experience including all of the exclusive interviews. The Page Six Radio hosts chatted with the VRT Award winning "Hot-Tea of the Year" Andy Cohen about Teresa Giudice and Melissa Gorga's reconciliation. They also caught up with Robyn Dixon who shared her thoughts on Dr. Wendy Osefo's fraud arrest and Carole Radziwill who responded to 'RHONY' return rumors. Of course we couldn't recap BravoCon without touching on some of the biggest moments such as the "Real Housewives of Rhode Island" trailer, Sai de Silva vs Madison LeCroy and more. Check out the full episode for all the tea! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Juliet and Callie break down the news coming out of BravoCon 2025, starting with 'Bachelor' Nation's very own Ashley Iaconetti being a part of ‘The Real Housewives of Rhode Island' (01:06)! They talk about who else they would like to see from the 'Bachelor' franchise in the Bravo world and share their disappointment in the lack of 'RHONY' and 'RHONJ' updates. They begin their ‘Secret Lives of Mormon Wives' recap with a conversation about why they continue to enjoy watching Taylor Frankie Paul despite her controversies (12:57). After, they discuss Episodes 1-3 of Season 3 of ‘Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,' which centered around Jessi's affair with Marciano Brunette, a Z-list ‘Vanderpump Villa' cast member. Next, they get into Mel's snoozefest ‘Golden Bachelor' finale, where Cindy self-eliminates, and we are saved by a brief update from the filming of the next 'Bachelorette' season (41:28). Finally, Juliet is joined by ‘Squid Game: The Challenge' showrunners Nicola Brown and Nia Yemoh (52:58)! They answer all of her production questions, including how you mic 456 players, what the casting process is like, and what you do when the players surprise you. Hosts: Juliet Litman and Callie Curry Guests: Nicola Brown and Nia Yemoh Producer: Olivia Crerie Theme Song: Devon Renaldo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week we are joined by Mr. Tio Kleberg and hear about the history of the legendary King Ranch in South Texas. We learn about how it was acquired and assembled to the over 825,000 acres today, and that it is actually larger than the state of Rhode Island.  We also learn about all the wildlife that abounds, and how through visionary management that was occurring before anyone else was thinking about managing wildlife assets, the King Ranch was actually leading the way. We also learn about the Kleberg Wildlife Foundation and its research. It's truly a fascinating discussion that anyone who loves wildlife and land management will appreciate. Its chock-full of surprises — like the origins of duck stamps, hiring the first private biologists, consistently killing 160 typical bucks and for releasing Nilgai. Listen, Learn and Enjoy. Send a text message to the show! Support the showStay connected with GameKeepers: Instagram: @mossyoakgamekeepers Facebook: @GameKeepers Twitter: @MOGameKeepers YouTube: @MossyOakGameKeepers Website: https://mossyoakgamekeeper.com/ Enter The Gamekeeper Giveaway: https://bit.ly/GK_Giveaway Subscribe to Gamekeepers Magazine: https://bit.ly/GK_Magazine Buy a Single Issue of Gamekeepers Magazine: https://bit.ly/GK_Single_Issue Join our Newsletters: Field Notes - https://bit.ly/GKField_Notes | The Branch - https://bit.ly/the_branch Have a question for us or a podcast idea? Email us at gamekeepers@mossyoak.com

Send us a textProvidence Council President Rachel Miller joins Bill Bartholomew to discuss the impact of Providence's noise ordinance on venues that host live and ambient music. Support the show

Flopcast episode 706! When our favorite 1980s soft rock band comes to the town where we spent the 1980s, you know we’ll be there. And so Kevin has a report from the sold out Air Supply concert at the Stadium Theatre in Woonsocket, Rhode Island! (We were front row center. Close enough to catch an […] The post Flopcast 706: This Girl Loves Her Air Supply appeared first on The ESO Network.

Today on Coast To Coast Hoops Greg recaps Monday's results, talks to Ben Stevens of VSIN about the high scoring games we are seeing to start the season, the start to the season the Big Ten has had, & Tuesday's games, & Greg picks & analyzes EVERY Tuesday game!Link To Greg's Spreadsheet of handicapped lines: https://vsin.com/college-basketball/greg-petersons-daily-college-basketball-lines/Greg's TikTok With Pickmas Pick Videos: https://www.tiktok.com/@gregpetersonsports?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pcPodcast Highlights 2:31-Recap of Monday's results14z:47-Interview with Ben Stevens34:23-Start of picks Michigan St vs Kentucky36:30-Picks & analysis for Princeton vs Iona38:59-Picks & analysis for St. Peter's vs Delaware42:07-Picks & analysis for Old Dominion vs Xavier44:51-Picks & analysis for Hampton vs Boston College47;11-Picks & analysis for UT Martin vs Florida St50:00-Picks & analysis for East Carolina vs UNC Wilmington52:38-Picks & analysis for Towson vs James Madison55:23-Picks & analysis for East Michigan vs Detroit57:42-Picks & analysis for Georgia Southern vs Georgia Tech1:00:30-Picks & analysis for Abilene Christian vs Texas St1:03:19-Picks & analysis for UT Arlington vs Evansville1:05:55-Picks & analysis for Rhode Island vs Yale1:08:26-Picks & analysis for Little Rock vs Murray St1:10:55-Picks & analysis for Northern Illinois vs Northern Iowa1:13:23-Picks & analysis for Montana vs Texas A&M1:16:05-Picks & analysis for SE Missouri St vs Iowa1:18:36-Picks & analysis for Kansas vs Duke1:20:35-Picks & analysis for Monmouth vs Syracuse1:23:19-Picks & analysis for Rider vs Texas1:25:45-Picks & analysis for Fort Wayne vs Utah1:28:02-Picks & analysis for Wichita St vs Boise St1:30:27-Picks & analysis for UC Riverside vs Cal Baptist1:33:22-Picks & analysis for Louisiana vs Stanford1:35:46-Picks & analysis for UC Davis vs Nevada1:38:18-Picks & analysis for Idaho St vs Santa Clara1:40:43-Picks & analysis for Troy vs San Diego St1:43:14-Picks & analysis for Sacramento St vs UCLA1:45:28-Start of extra games American vs Rutgers1:47:44-Picks & analysis for Vermont vs Buffalo1:50:16-Picks & analysis for Boston U vs Columbia1:53:13-Picks & analysis for North Carolina A&T vs Morgan St1:55:44-Picks & analysis for IU Indy vs Charleston So1:59:01-Picks & analysis for Radford vs South Carolina2:01:48-Picks & analysis for St. Francis PA vs Lehigh2:04:27-Picks & analysis for Holy Cross vs Brown2:06:55-Picks & analysis for Jacksonville vs George Mason2:09:17-Picks & analysis for NJIT vs Drexel2:11:49-Picks & analysis for Maryland Eastern Shore vs Longwood2:14:20-Picks & analysis for Navy vs North Carolina2:16:48-Picks & analysis for Eastern Kentucky vs Kent St2:19:28-Picks & analysis for New Hampshire vs Providence2:21:43-Picks & analysis for New Haven vs Seton Hall2:23:50-Picks & analysis for Chicago St vs Minnesota2:25:48-Picks & analysis for Arkansas PIne Bluff vs SMU2:28:12-Picks & analysis for WInthrop vs Arkansas2:30:24-Picks & analysis for Austin Peay vs Ole Miss2:32:40-Picks & analysis for Army vs Cornell2:34:56-Picks & analysis for Gardner Webb vs DePaul2:36:23-Picks & analysis for Alcorn St vs LSU2:39:38-Picks & analysis for New Orleans vs Pepperdine2:42:02-Picks & analysis for Stephen F Austin vs Fresno St2:44:14-Picks & analysis for Southern vs Washington2:47:05-Picks & analysis for Northwestern St vs San Francisco2:49:32-Picks & analysis for Presbyterian vs California2:51:45-Picks & analysis for Grambling vs San Diego Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Wex and AC return from the weekend to dicuss the Texans win over the Titans, despite needing a game-winning field goal to decide the outcome against the worst team in the NFL, along with the Rockets' comeback win over the Magic! So, where do each team go from here? And is C.J. Stroud out for another week? 

BravoCon, BravoCon, BravoCon! What. A. Weekend. Even if you weren’t there in real life, it was just as entertaining to experience it through your phone… and through Reality With The King ;) Jersey reconciliations, Real Housewives of Rhode Island, and Carlos reveals who he wants on the new road-trip show!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Electrocution can be silent and sudden, leaving few external signs and limited clues without careful investigation. This week on Pathology with Dr. Priya, a Zone 7 series, Sheryl McCollum and Dr. Priya Banerjee explain how electrical current travels through the body, why the heart can stop in an instant, and what pathologists look for at the entry and exit points of a shock. They discuss real-world risks, from downed power lines to home repairs, and the safety measures that can prevent fatal accidents. Highlights • (0:00) Sheryl welcome listeners and introduces the topic of electrocution deaths • (2:00) Entry and exit points: irregular burn and blister patterns on hands, feet, or other points of contact • (3:30) How electrical current disrupts the heart’s rhythm and can lead to sudden death • (6:00) Who is more vulnerable: pre-existing heart conditions and age can increase susceptibility to fatalarrhythmia • (8:15) Storm damage, downed lines, and why no one should move live wires • (10:45) “Weekend warrior” risks and everyday household hazards • (15:15) What electrocution looks like internally: tissue damage, muscle breakdown, and organ findings • (17:30) Seasonal reminders: holiday lights, wet environments, and the importance of hiring professionals forelectrical work About the Hosts Dr. Priya Banerjee is a board-certified forensic pathologist with extensive experience in death investigation, clinical forensics, and courtroom testimony. A graduate of Johns Hopkins, she served for over a decade as Rhode Island’s state medical examiner and now runs a private forensic pathology practice. Her work includes military deaths, and high-profile investigations. Dr. Priya has also been featured as a forensic expert on platforms such as CrimeOnline and Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. She is a dedicated educator, animal lover, and proud mom. Website: anchorforensicpathology.com Twitter/X: @Autopsy_MD Sheryl McCollum is an Emmy Award–winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnline, and the Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. She works as a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department and is the co-author of the textbook Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute (CCIRI), a nationally recognized nonprofit that brings together universities, lawenforcement, and experts to help solve unsolved homicides, missing persons cases, and kidnappings. Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter/X: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast If this episode provided clarity on electrocution deaths and scene safety, share it with a friend and leave areview. Your support helps others discover the science, the stories, and the heart behind Pathology with Dr. Priya | A Zone 7 Series.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

(00:00) Get ready for The Real Housewives of Rhode Island!(17:50)(32:03) MIKE REISS covers the New England Patriots for ESPN and joins the show for his weekly segment during the NFL season. Please note: Timecodes may shift by a few minutes due to inserted ads. Because of copyright restrictions, portions—or entire segments—may not be included in the podcast.CONNECT WITH TOUCHER & HARDY: linktr.ee/ToucherandHardyFor the latest updates, visit the show page on 985thesportshub.com. Follow 98.5 The Sports Hub on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Watch the show every morning on YouTube, and subscribe to stay up-to-date with all the best moments from Boston's home for sports!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

We visited renowned architect Bernard Khoury in his studio in Karantina, who offered a critical, unvarnished look at the reality of practicing architecture in Lebanon, contrasting it with the sugarcoated story of the "Phoenix coming out of its ashes". He discusses his career beginnings, the 2020 Beirut port explosion, and how his first project—the infamous B018 nightclub—was a radically specific and necessary response to the city's complex, macabre history and unstable political and economic context. Khoury shares his philosophical approach to architecture, which rejects stylistic gestures in favor of an obsession with specificity and a direct confrontation with Beirut's explosive nature, arguing for a practice that produces honest, if sometimes "sour" meaning in the present rather than succumbing to toxic simplifications. 00:00 The Sourness and Complexity of Beirut01:23 Bernard Khoury's Karantina Studio and the Beirut Explosion03:12 His First Project: B018 in Karantina04:01 The Illusion and Disillusion of the Post-War Era05:42 An Architect's Dilemma: Designing for an Expiry Date12:56 Solidere, Immaterial Ownership, and a New Urbanism15:44 The Cultural Significance of B01817:05 B018's Site: A Macabre History19:40 From Furniture Factory to Architecture Practice22:52 Khalil Khouri: Modern Architect with Certainties27:23 A Generational Difference in Practice28:57 Rejected Labels: What Bernard Khoury Hates to Be Called...31:41 Style vs. Specificity 36:00 Estrangement and Addiction to a Very Intense Environment42:00 Bernard Khoury's Criticism of Solidere's Historical Narrative Born in Beirut (1968), Bernard Khoury studied architecture at the Rhode Island school of Design (BFA 1990 / B.Arch 1991) and Harvard University (M.Arch 1993). He was awarded by the municipality of Rome, the Borromini Prize honorable mention given to architects under 40 years of age (2001), the Architecture + Award (2004), the CNBC Award (2008) and nominated for several awards including the Aga Khan award (2002 / 2004/ 2021), the Chernikov prize (2010) and the Mies van der Rohe Award (2021). He co-founded the Arab Center for Architecture (2008), was a visiting professor in several universities including the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne and L'Ecole Spéciale d'Architecture in Paris. He has lectured and exhibited his work in over 150 institutions, including solo shows at the Aedes gallery in Berlin (2003), the Spazio per l'architecttura Milano (2016) and numerous group shows including YOU prison at the Fondazione Sandretto in Torino (2008), the opening show of the MAXXI museum in Roma (2010), the Frac Architecture Biennale in Orleans (2018), the Oris House of Architecture in Zagreb (2020) and the Architecture Biennale of Seoul (2021). He was the architect and co-curator of the Kingdom of Bahrain's national pavilion at the Venice Architecture Biennale (2014). Over the years he has developed an international reputation and a diverse portfolio of projects in over fifteen countries. Khoury was nominated by the French Ministry of Culture Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres (2020) Connect with Bernard Khoury

Send us a textBill Bartholomew podcasts live from an outdoor igloo at acclaimed Narragansett restaurant The Coast Guard House with Bob Leonard (Co-Owner, Manager) and Elisa Wybraniec (Wine Director)Support the show

The Riverhounds beat Rhode Island 1-0 to win their first ever Eastern Conference Championship and advance to the league final next week against Tulsa! Total scenes around Highmark Stadium, we break down all of the sites and emotions as we look forward to "one more effing game"! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

EPISODE 628 - Nicholas Casbarro - Vitalerium, A novel was written at 36,000 feet - the narrative of Roman MatthewsWelcome to the Vitalerium UniverseA Sci-Fi Series By Nicholas Keating CasbarroA dark, thrilling odyssey that will challenge everything you think you know about humanity's future. Seven centuries from now, the stars are both a refuge and a battlefield, where ambition, deception, and survival collide.Hailed as a critically acclaimed sci-fi epic, Vitalerium – Descent into the Void delivers a relentless adventure filled with political intrigue, forbidden power, and cosmic mystery. Will you uncover the secrets that lie beyond the void—or be consumed by them?Nicholas CasbarroBorn in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1990. He attended Northeastern University's Doctor of Physical Therapy Program in Boston, class of 2013. Though he never practiced, he maintained his curiosity and love for the sciences. After college, he worked in the medical device field with a specialty in wound-healing and burn treatment. In 2021, he joined a regenerative medicine company where he would spend five days a week on a plane, traveling the country to work with burn surgeons and victims. While flying, he experienced a spark of inspiration, and decided to follow the thread. Since childhood, he had a deep love for science fiction, growing to appreciate the greats in sci-fi like Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov, and many others. Nicholas used his time on countless flights to create the Vitalerium Series and its universe. The majority of the Vitalerium novel was written at 36,000 feet. He has seven books planned in the Vitalerium Series and continues to craft the narrative of Roman Matthews.https://vitaleriumseries.com/Support the show___https://livingthenextchapter.com/podcast produced by: https://truemediasolutions.ca/Coffee Refills are always appreciated, refill Dave's cup here, and thanks!https://buymeacoffee.com/truemediaca

For her 47th birthday, my wife Christine is in studio talking birthday, getting older, growing up in Rhode Island, her new hobby, and more.

A new report shows that NO cities in Rhode Island contain affordable housing for people living on the median income of the state. More Cape Cod and Island towns are pushing for a “seasonal communities” designation. And how a man in Vermont ended up with Jeffrey Epstein's address book – yes, THAT Jeffrey Epstein. It's our regional news roundtable!

When our favorite 1980s soft rock band comes to the town where we spent the 1980s, you know we'll be there. And so Kevin has a report from the sold out Air Supply concert at the Stadium Theatre in Woonsocket, Rhode Island! (We were front row center. Close enough to catch an official Air Supply guitar pick? You bet.) Also: The Mayor of Chickentown joins the Early Birds Club! Kevin accidentally runs a half marathon! And Finnish nannies sing Badfinger! Next week we'll have some holiday stuff. This week we're just being goofy. The Flopcast website! The ESO Network! The Flopcast on Facebook! The Flopcast on Instagram! The Flopcast on Bluesky! The Flopcast on Mastadon! Please rate and review The Flopcast on Apple Podcasts! Email: info@flopcast.net Our music is by The Sponge Awareness Foundation!   This week's promo: Cosmic Pizza!    

A musician in a historic Arkansas home thinks his mom just walked past his door—until he finds her fast asleep and the “elderly lady in a nightgown” fits a dead neighbor's description. Years later, as he clears out the place, thunderous boots charge both ends of the house and an attic door hammers itself—right up until police arrive and watch it open, pause, and lock. Up in Rhode Island, a grand old mansion shows its teeth: a plaid-shirted workman with a hammer crosses the hall, cards blast off a kitchen table, and an appliance pops itself open hard enough to throw dinner across the room. And in Ontario, a listener learns the basement boy's name—Carter—then stops chatting with him. That's when a small, furious silhouette waits on the stair landing… and a black-and-white dream suggests Carter's era might not be ours. They asked to be left alone. The house had other plans. #RealGhostStories #HauntedHouse #HistoricHomes #Apparition #Poltergeist #AtticDoor #DisembodiedFootsteps #HauntedMansion #ShadowFigure #ChildSpirit #GhostDreams #ParanormalPodcast Love real ghost stories? Don't just listen—join us on YouTube and be part of the largest community of real paranormal encounters anywhere. Subscribe now and never miss a chilling new story:

In Lonely Crowds (Little, Brown and Co., 2025) Ruth, an only child of recent immigrants to New England, lives in an emotionally cold home and attends the local Catholic girl's school on a scholarship. Maria, a beautiful orphan whose Panamanian mother dies by suicide and is taken care of by an ill, unloving aunt, is one of the only other students attending the school on a scholarship. Ruth is drawn forcefully into Maria's orbit, and they fall into an easy, yet intense, friendship. Her devotion to her charming and bright new friend opens up her previously sheltered world. While Maria, charismatic and aware of her ability to influence others, eases into her full self, embracing her sexuality and her desire to be an artist, Ruth is mostly content to follow her around: to college and then into the early-nineties art world of New York City. There, ambition and competition threaten to rupture their friendship, while strong and unspoken forces pull them together over the years. Whereas Maria finds early success in New York City as an artist, Ruth stumbles along the fringes of the art world, pulled toward a quieter life of work and marriage. As their lives converge and diverge, they meet in one final and fateful confrontation. Ruth and Maria's decades-long friendship interrogates the nature of intimacy, desire, class and time. What does it mean to be an artist and to be true to oneself? What does it mean to give up on an obsession? Marking the arrival of a sensational new literary talent, Lonely Crowds challenges us to reckon honestly with our own ambitions and the lives we hope to lead. Stephanie Wambugu was born in Mombasa, Kenya and grew up in Rhode Island. She lives and works in New York. Stephanie is an editor at Joyland magazine. Recommended Books: Do Everything in the Dark, Gary Indiana Sula, Toni Morrison Chris Holmes is Chair of Literatures in English and Professor at Ithaca College. He writes criticism on contemporary global literatures. His book, Kazuo Ishiguro Against World Literature, is published with Bloomsbury Publishing. He is the co-director of The New Voices Festival, a celebration of work in poetry, prose, and playwriting by up-and-coming young writers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Lonely Crowds (Little, Brown and Co., 2025) Ruth, an only child of recent immigrants to New England, lives in an emotionally cold home and attends the local Catholic girl's school on a scholarship. Maria, a beautiful orphan whose Panamanian mother dies by suicide and is taken care of by an ill, unloving aunt, is one of the only other students attending the school on a scholarship. Ruth is drawn forcefully into Maria's orbit, and they fall into an easy, yet intense, friendship. Her devotion to her charming and bright new friend opens up her previously sheltered world. While Maria, charismatic and aware of her ability to influence others, eases into her full self, embracing her sexuality and her desire to be an artist, Ruth is mostly content to follow her around: to college and then into the early-nineties art world of New York City. There, ambition and competition threaten to rupture their friendship, while strong and unspoken forces pull them together over the years. Whereas Maria finds early success in New York City as an artist, Ruth stumbles along the fringes of the art world, pulled toward a quieter life of work and marriage. As their lives converge and diverge, they meet in one final and fateful confrontation. Ruth and Maria's decades-long friendship interrogates the nature of intimacy, desire, class and time. What does it mean to be an artist and to be true to oneself? What does it mean to give up on an obsession? Marking the arrival of a sensational new literary talent, Lonely Crowds challenges us to reckon honestly with our own ambitions and the lives we hope to lead. Stephanie Wambugu was born in Mombasa, Kenya and grew up in Rhode Island. She lives and works in New York. Stephanie is an editor at Joyland magazine. Recommended Books: Do Everything in the Dark, Gary Indiana Sula, Toni Morrison Chris Holmes is Chair of Literatures in English and Professor at Ithaca College. He writes criticism on contemporary global literatures. His book, Kazuo Ishiguro Against World Literature, is published with Bloomsbury Publishing. He is the co-director of The New Voices Festival, a celebration of work in poetry, prose, and playwriting by up-and-coming young writers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Lonely Crowds (Little, Brown and Co., 2025) Ruth, an only child of recent immigrants to New England, lives in an emotionally cold home and attends the local Catholic girl's school on a scholarship. Maria, a beautiful orphan whose Panamanian mother dies by suicide and is taken care of by an ill, unloving aunt, is one of the only other students attending the school on a scholarship. Ruth is drawn forcefully into Maria's orbit, and they fall into an easy, yet intense, friendship. Her devotion to her charming and bright new friend opens up her previously sheltered world. While Maria, charismatic and aware of her ability to influence others, eases into her full self, embracing her sexuality and her desire to be an artist, Ruth is mostly content to follow her around: to college and then into the early-nineties art world of New York City. There, ambition and competition threaten to rupture their friendship, while strong and unspoken forces pull them together over the years. Whereas Maria finds early success in New York City as an artist, Ruth stumbles along the fringes of the art world, pulled toward a quieter life of work and marriage. As their lives converge and diverge, they meet in one final and fateful confrontation. Ruth and Maria's decades-long friendship interrogates the nature of intimacy, desire, class and time. What does it mean to be an artist and to be true to oneself? What does it mean to give up on an obsession? Marking the arrival of a sensational new literary talent, Lonely Crowds challenges us to reckon honestly with our own ambitions and the lives we hope to lead. Stephanie Wambugu was born in Mombasa, Kenya and grew up in Rhode Island. She lives and works in New York. Stephanie is an editor at Joyland magazine. Recommended Books: Do Everything in the Dark, Gary Indiana Sula, Toni Morrison Chris Holmes is Chair of Literatures in English and Professor at Ithaca College. He writes criticism on contemporary global literatures. His book, Kazuo Ishiguro Against World Literature, is published with Bloomsbury Publishing. He is the co-director of The New Voices Festival, a celebration of work in poetry, prose, and playwriting by up-and-coming young writers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literature

As resale sites grow in popularity, Second Serve Resale, based in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, is standing out. Not only is it connecting customers with gently loved designer offerings, but owner Amy Hebb is taking it one step further: customers choose which charity receives 85% of the purchase price, ranging from local food banks to international women's organizations! Amy talks about her efforts, and sustainable fashion, with Nichole on this week's episode.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Tim Draper, Senior Vice President, Navigant Credit Union Charitable Foundation to discuss their Season of Giving initiative.Support the show

In this episode of the Small Town Summit Podcast, we share a breakout session from our 2024 Rhode Island summit led by Shane and Kara Carvalho. In this breakout, the Carvalhos give essential wisdom on how to reach Gen Z with the gospel. If you would like to learn more about Small Town Summits, please visit: www.smalltownsummits.com

Belleview Avenue was the Millionaire's Row of Newport. The avenue was lined with Gilded Age summer cottages built by wealthy industrialists. Those "cottages" were actually palatial estates and many of them still stand today and are run as museums or are privately owned. Several of them are haunted. These include Belcourt Castle, Seaview Terrace, The Breakers and Rough Point. Join us as we explore the history and haunts of these summer cottages to the rich and famous in Newport, Rhode Island! This Month in History features the first deep level electric tube. Check out the website: http://historygoesbump.com Show notes can be found here: https://historygoesbump.blogspot.com/2025/11/hgb-ep-611-haunted-newport-mansions.html      Become an Executive Producer: http://patreon.com/historygoesbump Music used in this episode: (This Month in History) "In Your Arms" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Music: Silent Movie 49, produced by Sascha Ende Link: https://ende.app/en/song/12467-silent-movie-49

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore for a conversation on election integrity, Rhode Island's "250" celebrations, his political future, youth sports and much more. Support the show

Rhode Island is the only state with its own official coral. Astrangia poculata, also known as Northern Star Coral, isn't like those colorful reefs down in the tropics, but it might play an important role in protecting its more vibrant cousins. To find out more, host Edward Fitzpatrick met with Roger Williams University Professor Koty Sharp, a champion of using Rhode Island's official state coral for marine research. Tips and ideas? Email us at rinews@globe.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes Sarah Goodyear and Doug Gordon of the hit podcast "The War on Cars" for a conversation on multimodal transit, building better communities and their upcoming Providence Streets Coalition-sponsored live podcast taping on December 2nd at The Uptown Theatre in Providence. Support the show

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Second in Command Podcast, guest host Sivana Brewer sits down with Dr. Melonie Boone, Chief Operating Officer of Edesia Nutrition, a Rhode Island–based nonprofit on a mission to end childhood malnutrition worldwide.Dr. Boone shares her inspiring journey from corporate HR and executive consulting to joining a purpose-driven organization where every product saves lives. She opens up about leaving her consulting career to relocate her family and help Edesia scale globally while staying rooted in its humanitarian mission.Together, Sivana and Melonie explore what it means to lead in a business where the stakes are life and death, balancing operational excellence with empathy, trust, and resilience. From creating healthy CEO-COO dynamics to rebuilding confidence after crisis, she offers grounded advice for leaders who want to make impact and results coexist.Timestamped Highlights[00:02:31] – Dr. Boone explains Edesia Nutrition's mission to eradicate malnutrition and how each box of product saves a child's life.[00:04:29] – The personal loss that inspired her to pursue work with deeper purpose.[00:06:27] – How consulting for Edesia's CEO turned into a full-time COO opportunity.[00:08:09] – Combining her lifelong drive to lead with her mother's legacy of service.[00:10:14] – What challenges she was first hired to solve and how her HR and strategy background helped.[00:13:13] – Transitioning from consultant to COO and setting early “ground rules” for success.[00:15:00] – Dividing responsibilities with the founder and managing blurred lines gracefully.[00:16:20] – Facing two major business disruptions in her first six months on the job.[00:18:47] – Learning to adapt her leadership style during crises and rebuild trust.[00:20:18] – The power of transparency and “fighting together” with the CEO.[00:22:29] – How her four academic degrees shaped her approach to leadership.[00:24:08] – The lesson behind “anyone can show the numbers, but what do they mean?”[00:26:05] – Knowing which “Melonie” to bring into each meeting—coach, operator, or psychologist.[00:27:28] – How she keeps the pulse across 14 departments with weekly updates and morale checks.[00:31:29] – Using technology and HRIS tools to streamline communication and one-on-ones.[00:34:18] – Building cross-functional buy-in before making any system change.[00:36:50] – Tracking team morale and staying intentionally visible to every shift.[00:38:42] – Leading with authenticity as an introvert in a people-driven culture.[00:41:26] – Creating connection and fun through culture rituals, bingo, and bagel Tuesdays.[00:44:43] – What's ahead: a 100,000 sq ft expansion, global growth, and personal goals for joy and balance.[00:47:00] – Her advice for aspiring COOs, current operators, and CEOs hiring their “number two.”Resources & MentionsEdesia Nutrition Plumpy'Nut® – Edesia's flagship product saving children worldwideChildren Can't Wait Campaign – Donate HEROic Leadership by Dr. Melonie BoonePaycor HRIS – Tool for one-on-ones, performance, and team engagementAbout the GuestDr. Melonie Boone is the Chief Operating Officer of Edesia Nutrition, a global...

This episode isn't focused on a single topic or text, but rather just wanting to have a wide-ranging conversation with our guest, Peter Beinart, editor-at-large of Jewish Currents and author of the recent book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning. We start by discussing the appalling wave of Islamophobic attacks against Zohran Mamdani during the last weeks of his victorious mayoral campaign, the short-sighted embrace of such bigotry by too many American Jews and Jewish institutions, the current iterations of anti-semitism roiling the right, religious tradition and progressive politics, changing your mind, and more.Listen again: "Elon Musk, the Jews, and the ADL" (w/ Mari Cohen, Alex Kane, & Peter Beinart), Sept 26, 2023Sources:Zohran Mamdani, "My Message to Muslim New Yorkers—and Everyone Who Calls This City Home," YouTube, Oct 24, 2025Peter Beinart, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza: A Reckoning (2025)Mark Mazower, On Antisemitism: A Word in History, (2025)Arwa Mahdawi, "Mamdani's Mayoral Race was Marred by Unhinged Islamophobia. It's Not Going Away Soon," The Guardian, Nov 6, 2025Romanus Cessario, O.P., "Non Possumus," First Things, Feb 1, 2018George Washington, "To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island," August 18, 1790...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

Election night was not the only wipeout of Trump and MAGA, as his DOJ suffered an epic losing streak just this week alone of 8 different losses in 7 different courts.  Michael Popok breaks down the emergency restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, permanent injunctions, jury verdicts, and compel orders issued from Sea to Shining Sea, or at least from Rhode Island to Oregon, with stops in Virginia, DC, South Carolina, Illinois and Oregon. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to New England Legends From the Vault – FtV Episode 140 –   Jeff Belanger and Ray Auger visit Chestnut Hill Cemetery in Exeter, Rhode Island, in search of the mortal remains of Mercy Brown. Mercy died of Consumption on January 17, 1892. Three months later, her father had her heart and liver removed from her corpse so he could burn them to ashes and feed those ashes to his dying son. Why? Because some suspected Mercy was a vampire. This episode first aired March 28, 2019    Listen ad-free plus get early access and bonus episodes at: https://www.patreon.com/NewEnglandLegends 

Trump's callous attack on the poor, and his failed economy have been brought into stark relief by the Shutdown. And as Trump makes clueless statements about a “golden era” for the economy, the voters know better.  That attack on struggling Americans and those that oppose his policies made their way into Federal Courts across America this past week, as Trump and his DOJ suffered losses in 9 cases in 8 courts from Rhode Island to Oregon.  Michael Popok solo hosts the Legal AF Podcast tonight to brief the audience on critical developments you need to know about at the Supreme Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and Federal Courts in Oregon, Rhode Island, DC, Virginia, South Carolina, and Chicago. Support Our Sponsors: 
 IQ Bar: Get 20% off all IQBAR products. Text LEGALAF to 64000. (Message and data rates may apply)
Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets.
Veracity: For up to 45% off your order, head to https://VeracitySelfCare.com and use promo code: LEGALAF
Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF.

Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane
 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices