Podcasts about Rhode Island

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.

Spokane Spuk für die Hearts  Die Hearts of Pine spielten in den Playoffs gegen den Vizemeister Spokane. Anne und Wulf fassen das brisante Spiel zusammen. Spätes Ende für NCFC  North Carolina FC spielte ihr letztes Spiel und spielte gegen Rhode Island. Das Spiel war anfangs ausgeglichen, bis Dikwa zwei Tore erzielte. Anne und Wulf berichten. Skurrile Tore in der Super League  Die Super League ist wie üblich für kuriose Dinge gut. In der Partie von Dallas Trinity, hatte die Keeperin einen schlechten Tag. Darüber müssen Anne und Wulf reden. Leider. Um den USL Podcast noch besser und interessanter zu machen, freuen wir uns natürlich sehr über Rückmeldungen, ...Dieser Podcast wird vermarktet von der Podcastbude.www.podcastbu.de - Full-Service-Podcast-Agentur - Konzeption, Produktion, Vermarktung, Distribution und Hosting.Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen?Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich.Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.

Spokane Spuk für die Hearts  Die Hearts of Pine spielten in den Playoffs gegen den Vizemeister Spokane. Anne und Wulf fassen das brisante Spiel zusammen. Spätes Ende für NCFC  North Carolina FC spielte ihr letztes Spiel und spielte gegen Rhode Island. Das Spiel war anfangs ausgeglichen, bis Dikwa zwei Tore erzielte. Anne und Wulf berichten. Skurrile Tore in der Super League  Die Super League ist wie üblich für kuriose Dinge gut. In der Partie von Dallas Trinity, hatte die Keeperin einen schlechten Tag. Darüber müssen Anne und Wulf reden. Leider. Um den USL Podcast noch besser und interessanter zu machen, freuen wir uns natürlich sehr über Rückmeldungen, ...Dieser Podcast wird vermarktet von der Podcastbude.www.podcastbu.de - Full-Service-Podcast-Agentur - Konzeption, Produktion, Vermarktung, Distribution und Hosting.Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen?Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich.Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.

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

The Outer Realm welcomes back Laura DiDio Date: November 13th, 2025 EP: 641 TOPIC: Laura DiDio returns for PT 2- The 52 year anniversary of the DeFeo Murders. She was the News Reporter who was brought in by the Lutzes and given full access to the house, she will discuss never before shared or disclosed information. If time allows she will share some of her paranormal experiences at the Conjuring House and more! - -Broke “The Amityville Horror” story obtaining the exclusive interview for Channel 5's 10 O'clock news and produced the pieces on the séance with numerous psychics including Ed and Lorraine Warren and later, separately with the late Hans Holzer. Contact for the show - theouterrealmcontact@gmail.com Michelle Desrochers and The Outer Realm :https://linktr.ee/michelledesrochers_ Please support us by Liking, Subscribing, Sharing and Commenting. Thank you all !!! About Laura DiDio: • Experienced in researching news and feature television, radio and print articles on wide range of psychics, mediums, paranormal investigators and hauntings. Worked extensively with and interviewed a wide range of paranormal investigators including Dorothy Allison, Uri Geller, Hans Holzer, Ethel Johnson Meyers, Vicki Monroe, Shawn Robbins and Ed and Lorraine Warren. • Award winning Reporter, Producer and Researcher. • Broke “The Amityville Horror” story obtaining the exclusive interview for Channel 5's 10 O'clock news and produced the pieces on the séance with numerous psychics including Ed and Lorraine Warren and later, separately with the late Hans Holzer. Also worked with the Warrens investigating the paranormal events experienced by the Perron family at their Rhode Island farmhouse, which served as the basis for the 2013 movie, “The Conjuring.” • Reporter and Co-Producer of “My Amityville Horror” documentary released in 2013. • Reporter and Producer of numerous series on psychic phenomenon, paranormal experiences and mediums for CNN and Channel 5's 10 O'clock News. • Well versed in interviewing, background research, locating and booking interview subjects, setting up location shoots, copyediting, transcription/editing of interviews and proofreading. • Objective, impartial reporting and analysis of events with strong commitment to absolute accuracy while getting the story. • Familiar with all aspects of production. Strong technical command of the English language; familiarity with news, documentary and feature writing styles; serious commitment to excellence in the televised and published word. • Frequent radio and TV guest subject matter expert on paranormal events. When not investigating paranormal events, Laura DiDio is an investigative reporter who has extensive experience uncovering corruption. She has also spent over 20 years as a high technology reporter and industry analyst covering firms like Apple, IBM, HPE, Lenovo, Microsoft, Oracle and others. If you enjoy the content on the channel, please support us by “Liking, Subscribing, Sharing and Commenting: Thank you All A formal disclaimer: The opinions and information presented or expressed by guests on The Outer Realm Radio are not necessarily those of the TOR Hosts, Sponsors, or the United Public Radio Network and its producers. We will however always be respectful and courteous to all involved. Thank you, we appreciate you all!

Veterans Affairs Director Kasim Yarn talks about the services available for our veterans.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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, the students sit down with local Rhode Island journalist and videographer David Lawlor, also known as Filmmaker Dave. Dave emphasizes a gritty, fast-paced style that often involves getting "in the mud" or shooting in abandoned places to capture authentic stories. He details how modern filmmaking and storytelling are revolutionary, leaning into the fast, engaging "Tik Tok format".Filmmaker Dave shares the story behind his biggest viral success: a video about marbles. He explains how the industrial history of these marbles is connected to the creation of fiberglass, which was used in NASA spaceships, and suggests there's a one-in-four chance the flag on the moon originated in Rhode Island, all thanks to this local history.The conversation dives deep, touching upon the realities of the media hustle, the debate surrounding AI usage in art, and the importance of networking and building your reputation. Dave offers concrete advice for aspiring young creators, encouraging them to use their cell phones (even in RAW mode), write down ideas, talk to mentors, and always find a historical hook or relevance to engage their audience.Students also ask about the dangers inherent in "run and gun" exploration, leading Dave to share harrowing tales of going to abandoned places, including nearly getting stuck in the Ashton Mill arches and encountering serious risks for the sake of the shot.Finally, Dave reveals his unique creative outlet: a personal superhero persona named Marble, who was born out of a disaster caused by mill owner negligence at the Owens Corning fiberglass site. This hero serves as a deeply artistic alter-ego, mirroring Dave's own path as a photographer/storyteller.Tune in to hear how this self-described passionate journalist navigates the challenges of building a career, the power of local history, and the profound journey of confronting his own adoption story.#FilmmakerDave #SteamboxVS #RunningGun #RhodeIslandHistory #LocalJournalism #AbandonedPlaces #PhotographyTips #TikTokFormat #Storytelling #MarbleStory #YouthPodcast #CreativeHustle

This week on Better Buildings for Humans, Joe Menchefski explores the evolving world of K-12 design with Cory Boudreau, architect at SLAM Collaborative. From a Lego-loving kid to a leader in educational design, Cory shares how his winding career path—from healthcare megaprojects to transformative school campuses—shaped his belief in architecture's power to influence learning and well-being. In this episode, Cory dives into how modern school design embraces daylighting, outdoor learning, flexible spaces, and even VR labs to create environments where students thrive. He also unpacks how sustainability goals, trauma-informed design, and community needs are reshaping the way we think about the places where our kids learn and grow. Whether you're a designer, educator, or parent, this episode will make you see schools—and architecture—in a whole new light.More About Cory BoudreauCory Boudreau is a Project Architect and Associate at the SLAM Collaborative in Providence, RI. He has over 12 years of experience designing educational, civic, and community-focused spaces. He is licensed in RI, MA, NC, and SC.  Cory began his design career in Rhode Island, earning his undergraduate degree from the New England Institute of Technology. He then earned his Master of Architecture at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, where he was part of an interdisciplinary  art community that broadened his creative perspective.After working at a few firms in Rhode Island, Cory sought larger, more complex projects and relocated to Charlotte, NC. There, he joined McMillan Pazdan Smith Architecture, where he was involved in projects of significant scale and complexity across various practice areas. K-12 design became a particular passion of his, and he later became a thought leader and lead designer for the K-12 Team in Charlotte.Cory is also committed to advancing the architectural profession. He contributes through mentorship, technical leadership, and active involvement in organizations such as A4LE, AIA, NCARB, and the ACE Mentor Program. After nearly six years in the Carolinas, he returned to Rhode Island to be closer to his family. Now part of SLAM's Providence team, continuing to work on K-12 schools throughout New England.Contact:https://www.linkedin.com/in/coryboudreau/ https://slamcoll.com/ Where To Find Us:https://bbfhpod.advancedglazings.com/www.advancedglazings.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/better-buildings-for-humans-podcastwww.linkedin.com/in/advanced-glazings-ltd-848b4625https://twitter.com/bbfhpodhttps://twitter.com/Solera_Daylighthttps://www.instagram.com/bbfhpod/https://www.instagram.com/advancedglazingsltdhttps://www.facebook.com/AdvancedGlazingsltd

Ken Pfeifer is the MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) State Director for Vermont and Rhode Island plus the Assistant State Director for MUFON New Jersey. Ken is also MUFON International Director for Portugal, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Israel, China, Mongolia, and Brazil. Ken is also the publisher and editor for World UFO Photos and World UFO Photos and News. A former USAF Desert Storm Veteran and a private pilot, he has investigated over 1,100 MUFON Case Files, has had 7 UFO sightings and a strange Close Encounter at Area 51. Air Force Desert Storm veteran and Private pilot. Over 1,100 case files investigated and 7 UFO sightings and a strange Close Encounter at Area 51. Visit www.kenpfeiferdiscoveries.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-x-zone-radio-tv-show--1078348/support.Please note that all XZBN radio and/or television shows are Copyright © REL-MAR McConnell Meda Company, Niagara, Ontario, Canada – www.rel-mar.com. For more Episodes of this show and all shows produced, broadcasted and syndicated from REL-MAR McConell Media Company and The 'X' Zone Broadcast Network and the 'X' Zone TV Channell, visit www.xzbn.net. For programming, distribution, and syndication inquiries, email programming@xzbn.net.We are proud to announce the we have launched TWATNews.com, launched in August 2025.TWATNews.com is an independent online news platform dedicated to uncovering the truth about Donald Trump and his ongoing influence in politics, business, and society. Unlike mainstream outlets that often sanitize, soften, or ignore stories that challenge Trump and his allies, TWATNews digs deeper to deliver hard-hitting articles, investigative features, and sharp commentary that mainstream media won't touch.These are stories and articles that you will not read anywhere else.Our mission is simple: to expose corruption, lies, and authoritarian tendencies while giving voice to the perspectives and evidence that are often marginalized or buried by corporate-controlled media

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!

On this episode, Sam and Zach discuss:-3 Game Balls and a Flag from Week 11-USD, Mercer, Lamar, YSU, and NDSU all pick up wins in ranked matchups-Playoff scenarios for teams and conferences, and how some Week 12 games impact the postseason picture-Notable games include No. 14 Illinois State at No. 16 South Dakota State, No. 19 Lamar at No. 15 Stephen F. Austin, No. 17 South Dakota at No. 21 Southern Illinois, No. 9 UC Davis at No. 3 Montana State, and No. 11 Rhode Island at MaineThe podcast is presented by HERO Sports and BetMGM. Visit HERO Sports for FCS coverage and BetMGM for online betting odds.

Send us a textBill Bartholomew welcomes acclaimed director Ivy Meeropol for a conversation about her film "Ask E. Jean", which screens at Avon Providence Thursday 11.13, presented by newportFILM.ASK E. JEAN is the thrilling story of E. Jean Carroll's life, from her early days as Miss Cheerleader USA to her rise as a trailblazing journalist, author, and beloved advice columnist. Carroll broke barriers as the first female editor at Esquire, Playboy, and Outside, helping to redefine women's roles in media with her sharp wit and fearless voice. In recent years, she reignited public discourse by standing up to power, becoming the only woman to beat Donald Trump twice in court, and sparking a national conversation about truth, accountability, and resilience. This film is a portrait of an indomitable woman who proved it's never too late to reclaim your voice, rewrite your story, and change the world. Support the show

Red seaweed has been washing up on Rhode Island beaches for years, but what is it? This week on Possibly we explain what's causing this red seaweed to appear, how it's different from harmful “red tides” and how it might help the planet.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to block a Rhode Island judge's order requiring full SNAP payments for November. The decision could impact 42 million Americans relying on food benefits as shutdown negotiations continue in Washington. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Listen to JCO's Art of Oncology article, "The Man at the Bow" by Dr. Alexis Drutchas, who is a palliative care physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. The article is followed by an interview with Drutchas and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Dr. Drutchas shares the deep connection she had with a patient, a former barge captain, who often sailed the same route that her family's shipping container did when they moved overseas many times while she was growing up. She reflects on the nature of loss and dignity, and how oncologists might hold patients' humanity with more tenderness and care, especially at the end of life. TRANSCRIPT Narrator: The Man at the Bow, by Alexis Drutchas, MD  It was the kind of day that almost seemed made up—a clear, cerulean sky with sunlight bouncing off the gold dome of the State House. The contrast between this view and the drab hospital walls as I walked into my patient's room was jarring. My patient, whom I will call Suresh, sat in a recliner by the window. His lymphoma had relapsed, and palliative care was consulted to help with symptom management. The first thing I remember is that despite the havoc cancer had wreaked—sunken temples and a hospital gown slipping off his chest—Suresh had a warm, peaceful quality about him. Our conversation began with a discussion about his pain. Suresh told me how his bones ached and how his fatigue left him feeling hollow—a fraction of his former self. The way this drastic change in his physicality affected his sense of identity was palpable. There was loss, even if it was unspoken. After establishing a plan to help with his symptoms, I pivoted and asked Suresh how he used to spend his days. His face immediately lit up. He had been a barge captain—a dangerous and thrilling profession that took him across international waters to transport goods. Suresh's eyes glistened as he described his joy at sea. I was completely enraptured. He shared stories about mornings when he stood alone on the bow, feeling the salted breeze as the barge moved through Atlantic waves. He spoke of calm nights on the deck, looking at the stars through stunning darkness. He traveled all over the globe and witnessed Earth's topography from a perspective most of us will never see. The freedom Suresh exuded was profound. He loved these voyages so much that one summer, despite the hazards, he brought his wife and son to experience the journey with him. Having spent many years of my childhood living in Japan and Hong Kong, my family's entire home—every bed, sheet, towel, and kitchen utensil—was packed up and crossed the Atlantic on cargo ships four times. Maybe Suresh had captained one, I thought. Every winter, we hosted US Navy sailors docked in Hong Kong for the holidays. I have such fond memories of everyone going around the table and sharing stories of their adventures—who saw or ate what and where. I loved those times: the wild abandon of travel, the freedom of being somewhere new, and the way identity can shift and expand as experiences grow. When Suresh shared stories of the ocean, I was back there too, holding the multitude of my identity alongside him. I asked Suresh to tell me more about his voyages: what was it like to be out in severe weather, to ride over enormous swells? Did he ever get seasick, and did his crew always get along? But Suresh did not want to swim into these perilous stories with me. Although he worked a difficult and physically taxing job, this is not what he wanted to focus on. Instead, he always came back to the beauty and vitality he felt at sea—what it was like to stare out at the vastness of the open ocean. He often closed his eyes and motioned with his hands as he spoke as if he was not confined to these hospital walls. Instead, he was swaying on the water feeling the lightness of physical freedom, and the way a body can move with such ease that it is barely perceptible, like water flowing over sand. The resonances of Suresh's stories contained both the power and challenges laden in this work. Although I sat at his bedside, healthy, my body too contained memories of freedom that in all likelihood will one day dissipate with age or illness. The question of how I will be seen, compared to how I hoped to be seen, lingered in my mind. Years ago, before going to medical school, I moved to Vail, Colorado. I worked four different jobs just to make ends meet, but making it work meant that on my days off, I was only a chairlift ride away from Vail's backcountry. I have a picture of this vigor in my mind—my snowboard carving into fresh powder, the utter silence of the wilderness at that altitude, and the way it felt to graze the powdery snow against my glove. My face was windburned, and my body was sore, but my heart had never felt so buoyant. While talking with Suresh, I could so vividly picture him as the robust man he once was, standing tall on the bow of his ship. I could feel the freedom and joy he described—it echoed in my own body. In that moment, the full weight of what Suresh had lost hit me as forcefully as a cresting wave—not just the physical decline, but the profound shift in his identity. What is more, we all live, myself included, so precariously at this threshold. In this work, it is impossible not to wonder: what will it be like when it is me? Will I be seen as someone who has lived a full life, who explored and adventured, or will my personhood be whittled down to my illness? How can I hold these questions and not be swallowed by them? "I know who you are now is not the person you've been," I said to Suresh. With that, he reached out for my hand and started to cry. We looked at each other with a new understanding. I saw Suresh—not just as a frail patient but as someone who lived a full life. As someone strong enough to cross the Atlantic for decades. In that moment, I was reminded of the Polish poet, Wislawa Szymborska's words, "As far as you've come, can't be undone." This, I believe, is what it means to honor the dignity of our patients, to reflect back the person they are despite or alongside their illness…all of their parts that can't be undone. Sometimes, this occurs because we see our own personhood reflected in theirs and theirs in ours. Sometimes, to protect ourselves, we shield ourselves from this echo. Other times, this resonance becomes the most beautiful and meaningful part of our work. It has been years now since I took care of Suresh. When the weather is nice, my wife and I like to take our young son to the harbor in South Boston to watch the planes take off and the barges leave the shore, loaded with colorful metal containers. We usually pack a picnic and sit in the trunk as enormous planes fly overhead and tugboats work to bring large ships out to the open water. Once, as a container ship was leaving the port, we waved so furiously at those working on board that they all started to wave back, and the captain honked the ships booming horn. Every single time we are there, I think of Suresh, and I picture him sailing out on thewaves—as free as he will ever be. Mikkael Sekeres: Welcome back to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. This ASCO podcast features intimate narratives and perspectives from authors exploring their experiences in oncology. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami. What a treat we have today. We're joined by Dr. Alexis Drutchas, a Palliative Care Physician and the Director of the Core Communication Program at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School to discuss her article, "The Man at the Bow." Alexis, thank you so much for contributing to Journal of Clinical Oncology and for joining us to discuss your article. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Thank you. I'm thrilled and excited to be here. Mikkael Sekeres: I wonder if we can start by asking you about yourself. Where are you from, and can you walk us a bit through your career? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: The easiest way to say it would be that I'm from the Detroit area. My dad worked in automotive car parts and so we moved around a lot when I was growing up. I was born in Michigan, then we moved to Japan, then back to Michigan, then to Hong Kong, then back to Michigan. Then I spent my undergrad years in Wisconsin and moved out to Colorado to teach snowboarding before medical school, and then ended up back in Michigan for that, and then on the east coast at Brown for my family medicine training, and then in Boston for work and training. So, I definitely have a more global experience in my background, but also very Midwestern at heart as well. In terms of my professional career trajectory, I trained in family medicine because I really loved taking care of the whole person. I love taking care of kids and adults, and I loved OB, and at the time I felt like it was impossible to choose which one I wanted to pursue the most, and so family medicine was a great fit. And at the core of that, there's just so much advocacy and social justice work, especially in the community health centers where many family medicine residents train. During that time, I got very interested in LGBTQ healthcare and founded the Rhode Island Trans Health Conference, which led me to work as a PCP at Fenway Health in Boston after that. And so I worked there for many years. And then through a course of being a hospitalist at BI during that work, I worked with many patients with serious illness, making decisions about discontinuing dialysis, about pursuing hospice care in the setting of ILD. I also had a significant amount of family illness and started to recognize this underlying interest I had always had in palliative care, but I think was a bit scared to pursue. But those really kind of tipped me over to say I really wanted to access a different level of communication skills and be able to really go into depth with patients in a way I just didn't feel like I had the language for. And so I applied to the Harvard Palliative Care Fellowship and luckily and with so much gratitude got in years ago, and so trained in palliative care and stayed at MGH after that. So my Dana-Farber position is newer for me and I'm very excited about it. Mikkael Sekeres: Sounds like you've had an amazing career already and you're just getting started on it. I grew up in tiny little Rhode Island and, you know, we would joke you have to pack an overnight bag if you travel more than 45 minutes. So, our boundaries were much tighter than yours. What was it like growing up where you're going from the Midwest to Asia, back to the Midwest, you wind up settling on the east coast? You must have an incredible worldly view on how people live and how they view their health. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: I think you just named much of the sides of it. I think I realize now, in looking back, that in many ways it was living two lives, because at the time it was rare from where we lived in the Detroit area in terms of the other kids around us to move overseas. And so it really did feel like that part of me and my family that during the summers we would have home leave tickets and my parents would often turn them in to just travel since we didn't really have a home base to come back to. And so it did give me an incredible global perspective and a sense of all the ways in which people develop community, access healthcare, and live. And then coming back to the Midwest, not to say that it's not cosmopolitan or diverse in its own way, but it was very different, especially in the 80s and 90s to come back to the Midwest. So it did feel like I carried these two lenses in the world, and it's been incredibly meaningful over time to meet other friends and adults and patients who have lived these other lives as well. I think for me those are some of my most connecting friendships and experiences with patients for people who have had a similar experience in living with sort of a duality in their everyday lives with that. Mikkael Sekeres: You know, you write about the main character of your essay, Suresh, who's a barge captain, and you mention in the essay that your family crossed the Atlantic on cargo ships four times when you were growing up. What was that experience like? How much of it do you remember? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Our house, like our things, crossed the Atlantic four times on barge ships such as his. We didn't, I mean we crossed on airplanes. Mikkael Sekeres: Oh, okay, okay. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: We flew over many times, but every single thing we owned got packed up into containers on large trucks in our house and were brought over to ports to be sent over. So, I'm not sure how they do it now, but at the time that's sort of how we moved, and we would often go live in a hotel or a furnished apartment for the month's wait of all of our house to get there, which felt also like a surreal experience in that, you know, you're in a totally different country and then have these creature comforts of your bedroom back in Metro Detroit. And I remember thinking a lot about who was crossing over with all of that stuff and where was it going, and who else was moving, and that was pretty incredible. And when I met Suresh, just thinking about the fact that at some point our home could have been on his ship was a really fun connection in my mind to make, just given where he always traveled in his work. Mikkael Sekeres: It's really neat. I remember when we moved from the east coast also to the Midwest, I was in Cleveland for 18 years. The very first thing we did was mark which of the boxes had the kids' toys in it, because that of course was the first one we let them close it up and then we let them open it as soon as we arrived. Did your family do something like that as well so that you can, you know, immediately feel an attachment to your stuff when they arrived? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Yeah, I remember what felt most important to our mom was our bedrooms. I don't remember the toys. I remember sort of our comforters and our pillowcases and things like that, yeah, being opened and it feeling really settling to think, "Okay, you know, we're in a completely different place and country away from most everything we know, but our bedroom is the same." That always felt like a really important point that she made to make home feel like home again in a new place. Mikkael Sekeres: Yeah, yeah. One of the sentences you wrote in your essay really caught my eye. You wrote about when you were younger and say, "I loved those times, the wild abandon of travel, the freedom of being somewhere new, the way identity can shift and expand as experiences grow." It's a lovely sentiment. Do you think those are emotions that we experience only as children, or can they continue through adulthood? And if they can, how do we make that happen, that sense of excitement and experience? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: I think that's such a good question and one I honestly think about a lot. I think that we can access those all the time. There's something about the newness of travel and moving, you know, I have a 3-year-old right now, and so I think many parents would connect to that sense that there is wonderment around being with someone experiencing something for the first time. Even watching my son, Oliver, see a plane take off for the first time felt joyous in a completely new way, that even makes me smile a lot now. But I think what is such a great connection here is when something is new, our eyes are so open to it. You know, we're constantly witnessing and observing and are excited about that. And I think the connection that I've realized is important for me in my work and also in just life in general to hold on to that wonderment is that idea of sort of witnessing or having a writer's eye, many would call it, in that you're keeping your eye open for the small beautiful things. Often with travel, you might be eating ramen. It might not be the first time you're eating it, but you're eating it for the first time in Tokyo, and it's the first time you've had this particular ingredient on it, and then you remember that. But there's something that we're attuned to in those moments, like the difference or the taste, that makes it special and we hold on to it. And I think about that a lot as a writer, but also in patient care and having my son with my wife, it's what are the special small moments to hold on to and allowing them to be new and beautiful, even if they're not as large as moving across the country or flying to Rome or whichever. I think there are ways that that excitement can still be alive if we attune ourselves to some of the more beautiful small moments around us. Mikkael Sekeres: And how do we do that as doctors? We're trained to go into a room and there's almost a formula for how we approach patients. But how do you open your mind in that way to that sense of wonderment and discovery with the person you're sitting across from, and it doesn't necessarily have to be medical? One of the true treats of what we do is we get to meet people from all backgrounds and all walks of life, and we have the opportunity to explore their lives as part of our interaction. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Yeah, I think that is such a great question. And I would love to hear your thoughts on this too. I think for me in that sentence that you mentioned, sitting at that table with sort of people in the Navy from all over the world, I was that person to them in the room, too. There was some identity there that I brought to the table that was different than just being a kid in school or something like that. To answer your question, I wonder if so much of the challenge is actually allowing ourselves to bring ourselves into the room, because so much of the formula is, you know, we have these white coats on, we have learners, we want to do it right, we want to give excellent care. There's there's so many sort of guards I think that we put up to make sure that we're asking the right questions, we don't want to miss anything, we don't want to say the wrong thing, and all of that is true. And at the same time, I find that when I actually allow myself into the room, that is when it is the most special. And that doesn't mean that there's complete countertransference or it's so permeable that it's not in service of the patient. It just means that I think when we allow bits of our own selves to come in, it really does allow for new connections to form, and then we are able to learn about our patients more, too. With every patient, I think often we're called in for goals of care or symptom management, and of course I prioritize that, but when I can, I usually just try to ask a more open-ended question, like, "Tell me about life before you came to the hospital or before you were diagnosed. What do you love to do? What did you do for work?" Or if it's someone's family member who is ill, I'll ask the kids or family in the room, "Like, what kind of mom was she? You know, what special memory you had?" Just, I get really curious when there's time to really understand the person. And I know that that's not at all new language. Of course, we're always trying to understand the person, but I just often think understanding them is couched within their illness. And I'm often very curious about how we can just get to know them as people, and how humanizing ourselves to them helps humanize them to us, and that back and forth I think is like really lovely and wonderful and allows things to come up that were totally unexpected, and those are usually the special moments that you come home with and want to tell your family about or want to process and think about. What about you? How do you think about that question? Mikkael Sekeres: Well, it's interesting you ask. I like to do projects around the house. I hate to say this out loud because of course one day I'll do something terrible and everyone will remember this podcast, but I fancy myself an amateur electrician and plumber and carpenter and do these sorts of projects. So I go into interactions with patients wanting to learn about their lives and how they live their lives to see what I can pick up on as well, how I can take something out of that interaction and actually use it practically. My father-in-law has this phrase he always says to me when a worker comes to your house, he goes, he says to me, "Remember to steal with your eyes." Right? Watch what they do, learn how they fix something so you can fix it yourself and you don't have to call them next time. So, for me it's kind of fun to hear how people have lived their lives both within their professions, and when I practiced medicine in Cleveland, there were a lot of farmers and factory workers I saw. So I learned a lot about how things are made. But also about how they interact with their families, and I've learned a lot from people I've seen who were just terrific dads and terrific moms or siblings or spouses. And I've tried to take those nuggets away from those interactions. But I think you can only do it if you open yourself up and also allow yourself to see that person's humanity. And I wonder if I can quote you to you again from your essay. There's another part that I just loved, and it's about how you write about how a person's identity changes when they become a patient. You write, "And in that moment the full weight of what he had lost hit me as forcefully as a cresting wave. Not just the physical decline, but the profound shift in identity. What is more, we all live, me included, so precariously at this threshold. In this work, it's impossible not to wonder, what will it be like when it's me? Will I be seen as someone who's lived many lives, or whittled down only to someone who's sick?" Can you talk a little bit more about that? Have you been a patient whose identity has changed without asking you to reveal too much? Or what about your identity as a doctor? Is that something we have to undo a little bit when we walk in the room with the stethoscope or wearing a white coat? Dr. Alexis Drutchas: That was really powerful to hear you read that back to me. So, thank you. Yeah, I think my answer here can't be separated from the illness I faced with my family. And I think this unanimously filters into the way in which I see every patient because I really do think about the patient's dignity and the way medicine generally, not always, really does strip them of that and makes them the patient. Even the way we write about "the patient said this," "the patient said that," "the patient refused." So I generally very much try to have a one-liner like, "Suresh is a X-year-old man who's a barge captain from X, Y, and Z and is a loving father with a," you know, "period. He comes to the hospital with X, Y, and Z." So I always try to do that and humanize patients. I always try to write their name rather than just "patient." I can't separate that out from my experience with my family. My sister six years ago now went into sudden heart failure after having a spontaneous coronary artery dissection, and so immediately within minutes she was in the cath lab at 35 years old, coding three times and came out sort of with an Impella and intubated, and very much, you know, all of a sudden went from my sister who had just been traveling in Mexico to a patient in the CCU. And I remember desperately wanting her team to see who she was, like see the person that we loved, that was fighting for her life, see how much her life meant to us. And that's not to say that they weren't giving her great care, but there was something so important to me in wanting them to see how much we wanted her to live, you know, and who she was. It felt like there's some important core to me there. We brought pictures in, we talked about what she was living for. It felt really important. And I can't separate that out from the way in which I see patients now or I feel in my own way in a certain way what it is to lose yourself, to lose the ability to be a Captain of the ship, to lose the ability to do electric work around the house. So much of our identity is wrapped up in our professions and our craft. And I think for me that has really become forefront in the work of palliative care and in and in the teaching I do and in the writing I do is how to really bring them forefront and not feel like in doing that we're losing our ability to remain objective or solid in our own professional identities as clinicians and physicians. Mikkael Sekeres: Well, I think that's a beautiful place to end here. I can only imagine what an outstanding physician and caregiver you are also based on your writing and how you speak about it. You just genuinely come across as caring about your patients and your family and the people you have interactions with and getting to know them as people. It has been again such a treat to have Dr. Alexis Drutchas here. She is Director of the Core Communication Program at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School to discuss her article, "The Man at the Bow." Alexis, thank you so much for joining us. Dr. Alexis Drutchas: Thank you. This has been a real joy. Mikkael Sekeres: If you've enjoyed this episode, consider sharing it with a friend or colleague, or leave us a review. Your feedback and support helps us continue to save these important conversations. If you're looking for more episodes and context, follow our show on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen, and explore more from ASCO at ASCO.org/podcasts. Until next time, this has been Mikkael Sekeres for the ASCO podcast Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review. Guest Bio: Dr. Alexis Drutchas is a palliative care physician at Dana Farber Cancer Institute.

Send us a textHave you ever felt exhausted by the pressure to evangelise? Like you're failing because you haven't invited enough people to church or gotten enough "conversions for Jesus"? You're not alone—and you might be experiencing what I call "evangelism fatigue."In this episode, I sit down with Pastor Rob Ventura, author of "Equipped to Evangelize," to strip away the clutter and rediscover what evangelism actually is according to Scripture. Rob brings refreshing clarity: evangelism isn't about numbers, events, or techniques—it's simply sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.In this conversation, we explore:What the Bible actually says evangelism is (hint: it's simpler than you think)Why success in evangelism isn't about conversions, but faithfulnessHow Reformed theology actually motivates evangelism rather than hindering itThe four essential components of the gospel messageWhy we need to talk about hell (and how love demands it)Practical wisdom on when to speak and when to waitThe power of the Holy Spirit in evangelismHow to overcome evangelism fatigue and guiltAbout Rob Ventura: Rob Ventura is the pastor of Grace Community Baptist Church in Rhode Island and has been in full-time pastoral ministry for 18 years. He's been actively evangelizing for over 30 years, including open-air preaching in New York City. Rob is the author of several books including "Equipped to Evangelize: A biblical foundation' (Christian Focus Publications) and a commentary on Romans.Resources mentioned:"Equipped to Evangelize" by Rob Ventura (Christian Focus Publications)Grace Community Baptist Church sermons (available on Sermon Audio)If you're tired of feeling guilty about evangelism or wondering if you're doing it wrong, this conversation will encourage and equip you to share the gospel with fresh joy and biblical clarity.Follow @hertheology on Instagram & YouTube. Head to hertheology.com to find out more.

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 

250 meters to go. One move left. The underdog from Portsmouth finally takes his shot.Rhode Island's Sean Gray has spent years quietly sharpening his tools, building speed, endurance, and belief from the ground up.The Portsmouth High School senior has been unstoppable this fall, going undefeated and capturing two major titles. At the Rhode Island State Championships, Sean delivered one of the most thrilling finishes in meet history, surging past Hendricken's Colby Flynn in the final 250 meters to win in 15:16.1 and become the first boy from Portsmouth to ever claim the individual title.Just a week later, he followed it up with another win at the New England Interscholastic Championships, clocking 15:53.1 against some of the best runners in the Northeast.But Sean's rise wasn't effortless. After missing time with achilles tendinitis last year, he rebuilt from the ground up, learning patience, trust, and precision. With personal bests of 8:27 for 3K, 14:36 for 5K on the track, and 14:55 for 5K in cross country, along with Rhode Island state records in both the indoor and outdoor 5K, Sean has proven that steady, deliberate work can create something special.In this episode, we unpack the mindset, strategy, and quiet fire that turned Sean Gray from a calculated racer into a state champion and a potential national contender.If you enjoy the podcast, follow The Sunday Shakeout on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and leave a five-star review.

The Riverhounds beat Detroit to advance to the Eastern Conference Finals and setup a home match against Rhode Island to determine the best team in the East. Something special is happening, is this the year that the Hounds go all the way?! Let's discuss! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Providence's most impactful nonprofit leaders sit at one table — and the conversation is powerful. In this special two-part STEAM Box roundtable, host Roberto Gonzalez brings together an all-star lineup of community builders: Elliot Rivera, Dr. Womack (ARISE), Akeem (A Leadership Journey), Peter (Young Voices), Denezia (PSU), Marcela (Latino Policy Institute), Sweet P Pilar (A Sweet Creation), Ramona (PLEE), Rush (Youth Pride Inc.), and Stephanie (Youth in Action).In Part One, these leaders get real about:✨ How The Nap Ministry reshaped their understanding of rest and resistance✨ What it means to be seen or misunderstood in leadership✨ The legacy they hope to leave for their successors✨ The exhausting balance of caring for the community and ourselves✨ Why nonprofit work is love, struggle, creativity, and survival all at onceThis episode is a celebration of honesty, vision, and the people who carry Rhode Island forward.#STEAMBox #ProvidenceNonprofits #CommunityLeaders #YouthPower #RestIsResistance #NapMinistry #LeadershipJourney #YoungVoicesRI #LatinoPolicyInstitute #YouthPrideInc #ARISERI #PSU #PLEE #ASweetCreation #YouthInAction #RICommunity #NonprofitLife #LeadersWhoLift #CollectiveCare #RIProgress

This Day in Legal History: Social Security AmendmentsOn November 10, 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Social Security Amendments of 1983, a landmark piece of legislation aimed at addressing a looming fiscal crisis in the Social Security system. At the time, the program was projected to run out of funds within months, threatening benefits for millions of retirees. The bipartisan effort, led by a commission chaired by Alan Greenspan, produced a package of reforms that fundamentally altered the structure of Social Security and continue to shape its operation today. One of the most significant changes was the gradual increase in the full retirement age from 65 to 67, a shift that reflected growing life expectancies and was designed to reduce long-term benefit payouts.Another major provision subjected Social Security benefits to federal income tax for higher-income recipients, marking a departure from the program's previously tax-exempt status. These changes helped restore solvency to the system and underscored the evolving view of Social Security not merely as a safety net, but as part of a broader fiscal policy framework. The amendments also mandated that federal employees begin paying into Social Security and included temporary payroll tax increases.The 1983 reforms were notable for their rare bipartisan consensus, forged between a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled House. The political compromise demonstrated that major structural entitlement reform was possible when both parties shared a sense of urgency and responsibility. The law's legacy is complex—it shored up the system for decades but left future generations facing similar solvency questions. Legal scholars and policymakers still reference the 1983 amendments as a model of negotiated reform, even as the political climate has become more polarized. The taxation of benefits and the higher retirement age remain central to debates about equity and sustainability within the program.The Social Security Amendments of 1983 exemplify how statutory changes can recalibrate entitlement programs to respond to demographic and economic pressures, while raising ongoing questions about intergenerational fairness and fiscal responsibility.A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court's order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had planned to rely solely on $4.65 billion in contingency funds, which would have resulted in reduced aid, but the court found this inadequate. The Rhode Island judge had ordered the USDA to tap into a separate $23.35 billion fund intended for child nutrition programs to cover the $4 billion shortfall and avoid widespread harm to the 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP.While the 1st Circuit declined to stay the lower court's ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily paused the order, creating ongoing uncertainty about benefit distribution. The USDA has since directed states to reverse any moves to issue full benefits made before the pause, warning of potential financial penalties. The administration argued that it couldn't be forced to reallocate funds during a shutdown, blaming Congress for the funding crisis. However, the appeals court emphasized the urgent need to prevent food insecurity during the winter. The case arose from a lawsuit brought by cities, nonprofits, a union, and a food retailer seeking full benefit payments.Trump administration cannot withhold full funding for food aid, US appeals court rules | ReutersLarge and midsized U.S. law firms experienced a strong increase in client demand during the third quarter of 2025, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute. Demand rose 3.9% year-over-year—marking one of the largest quarterly gains in two decades and the highest outside the 2021 post-pandemic rebound. Transactional practices drove much of this growth, particularly among midsized firms, with M&A work rising 6.7%, corporate work up 4.4%, and real estate and tax also showing solid gains.Litigation demand increased 4.9%, while labor and employment rose 4%. Bankruptcy, however, dipped slightly by 0.4%. Demand for countercyclical practices—those that tend to rise in downturns—was more modest, with larger firms seeing smaller gains compared to firms ranked 101–200. Midsized firms also saw a 3.9% rise in these areas. Analysts attribute part of the shift to corporate clients seeking cost control by reallocating work to more affordable firms.Billing rates were also up 7.4%, contributing to greater profitability despite a 7.5% increase in overhead expenses driven by tech investments. While current trends point to a strong 2025, the report warned of continued global economic and geopolitical instability that could reverse gains quickly.US law firms saw demand surge in third quarter - report | ReutersDemocrats ended a record-long government shutdown without securing their primary goal: the extension of health insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act. Despite initial unity, eight Senate Democrats broke ranks and voted with Republicans to advance a bill reopening the government on its 40th day, omitting the sought-after healthcare provisions. In return, they received only a vague promise of a future vote on the subsidies, a concession many in the party, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and leaders in the House, criticized as a strategic failure.The decision has sparked internal party conflict, especially after Democrats had recently seen electoral gains tied to their affordability messaging. Some Democrats believed holding out longer might have forced Republican concessions, but others, like Senator Jeanne Shaheen, argued prolonging the shutdown would only harm the public. The failed push is reminiscent of past shutdowns, including Trump's 2018-19 border wall standoff, where policy goals were ultimately abandoned after prolonged disruption.Air travel chaos and delayed food aid added pressure to end the shutdown, with more than 10,000 flights affected and warnings of a near-complete travel halt ahead of Thanksgiving. While public opinion largely blamed Republicans for the impasse, Democrats now hope to leverage the upcoming healthcare vote in their favor ahead of the 2026 midterms. The fate of the tax credits—and potentially rising premiums for 24 million Americans—will likely become a defining campaign issue. The shutdown technically continues as the Senate and House still need to finalize and pass the bill before President Trump can sign it.Democrats Concede Shutdown Fight Without Health Care Win in HandPresident Donald Trump has issued pardons to at least 77 individuals connected to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark, and other close allies. The pardons, outlined in a proclamation dated Friday, were framed by Trump as an attempt to end a “grave national injustice” and promote “national reconciliation.” These actions come amid ongoing investigations into the fake elector scheme that aimed to keep Trump in power after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden—a plan Trump and his allies continued to promote until his 2024 re-election.While Trump himself had been federally indicted in connection with the elector plot, that case was dismissed after his re-election, citing the Justice Department's policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The pardons only apply to federal charges and do not shield recipients from state-level prosecutions, which remain active in some jurisdictions. The White House has not publicly commented on the latest round of pardons, many of which were not formally announced.Included in the list of recipients are legal and political figures such as John Eastman, Christina Bobb, and Boris Epshteyn, all of whom played public roles in contesting the 2020 results. The full number of individuals pardoned could be even higher, as the list may include unnamed individuals.Trump pardons Giuliani and dozens of others accused of seeking to overturn his 2020 defeat | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

This week Alanna interviews PhD candidate Ali Frey. Ali obtained her Bachelor's degree at the University of Rhode Island where she researched little skates and ichthyoplankton before working at the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center. The two discuss Ali's current research into southern New England Atlantic Cod at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology and how she leverages methods like acoustic telemetry to study data-limited stocks within the population.   Main point: "Don't overlook teamwork and collaboration"   Find Ali by email at afrey2@umassd.edu and LinkedIn at Alison Frey.   Get in touch with us! The Fisheries Podcast is on Facebook, X, Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky: @FisheriesPod  Become a Patron of the show: https://www.patreon.com/FisheriesPodcast Buy podcast shirts, hoodies, stickers, and more: https://teespring.com/stores/the-fisheries-podcast-fan-shop Thanks as always to Andrew Gialanella for the fantastic intro/outro music. The Fisheries Podcast is a completely independent podcast, not affiliated with a larger organization or entity. Reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the podcast. The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by the hosts are those of that individual and do not necessarily reflect the view of any entity with those individuals are affiliated in other capacities (such as employers).

The Trump Admin. has doubled down on tormenting the hungry and poor in America and holding them as political hostages, immediately appealing a new emergency ruling issued this afternoon by Federal Chief Judge McConnell in Rhode Island to force Trump to pay 42 million hungry Americans their November SNAP payments to live. Michael Popok reports on the efforts by Democratic Attorneys General —including NYAG Tish James—and Democracy Forward to force Trump to care about Americans in emergency court filings. 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

The long national nightmare is over— a DC federal jury acquitted, over sandwiches no less— the ridiculous federal criminal case brought by Trump's DOJ against a former DOJ paralegal for tossing a Subway salami sandwich, mustard and onions and all, at a Customs and Border Patrol agent in protest. This is now the second time today that a federal officer was not believed in a court of law, and Popok ties it together with the string of losses in federal court Trump and his DOJ has suffered just this week, coast to coast, from Rhode Island, to DC to South Carolina, to Virginia, to Chicago to 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

The Trump Administration moves with reckless impunity — but good state Attorneys General won't back down from the fight. This episode of Making the Case lays bare how the Trump administration's impulsive legal maneuvers sidelined workers, threatened our energy independence, and sparked an exodus from the Justice Department.Attorneys General Peter Neronha of Rhode Island and William Tong of Connecticut join Senator Whitehouse to discuss Trump's anti-wind agenda and the lasting consequences of an untrustworthy DOJ.

On this episode of America at Night with Rich Valdés, Principal Deputy State Department Spokesman Tommy Pigott discusses the Biden administration's refugee admissions cap, recent visa revocations, and what to expect from Trump's Asia trip. Then, Pastor Lucas Miles, Senior Director of TPUSA Faith and author of Woke Jesus, breaks down the election aftermath and what it could mean for New York City if socialist candidate Mamdani becomes mayor. Finally, Nicole Solas, Rhode Island parent and public-records advocate, joins to expose her battle over a $117,000 fee to access public-school curriculum, shining a light on transparency and parental rights in education. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The STEAM Box Panthers from the Boys & Girls Club of Pawtucket are using their voices to better understand what's happening in their communities and this week, they're joined by Rhode Island State Representative Karen Alzate!

Dalton manned the controls as he stepped in for Jim Schneider on this edition of the "Round-Up." Here's a selection of stories he looked at from the past week: --Republicans lost every major contest in Tuesday night's election as it was a "clean sweep" for Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey while Zohran Mamdani became the next mayor of New York City. --California voters approve Proposition 50, allowing the state to circumvent the independent redistricting process. --Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects Republicans to be laser-focused on affordability issues ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections. --The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York is not necessarily bad news if you're a real estate agent in states like Florida, as interest in new homes in that state is already exploding due to his election win. --In the Senate, bipartisan negotiations to reopen the government appear to be making limited progress. --A federal judge in Rhode Island says that the Trump administration must fully cover food stamp benefits for tens of millions of Americans in November. --More than 1,000 flights across the nation were canceled as the Federal Aviation Administration and airlines looked to deal with staffing shortages exacerbated by the ongoing shutdown. --According to a new report, American military planners have drawn up a list of targets to be attacked in Venezuela as soon as the president gives the order. --Russia wants to provide hypersonic missiles to Venezuela amid their frayed relations with the U.S.

A 37 días del cierre del gobierno, la administración Trump confirmó que a partir de mañana se reducirá el tráfico aéreo en un 10% afectando al menos 40 aeropuertos del país. Al menos 500 vuelos serán cancelado en el primer día de la medida. Un juez de Rhode Island le ordenó al gobierno Trump conseguir los fondos necesarios para financiar los beneficios del programa de asistencia nutricional SNAP.El cierre del gobierno también podría impedir que al menos 6 millones de familias de bajos recursos puedan pagar la electricidad y la calefacción en las próximas semanas por la falta de fondos del programa LIHEAP.En otras noticias: La jueza Sarah Ellis confirmó que el comandante de la patrulla fronteriza Gregory Bovino admitió mentir sobre el uso de gas lacrimógeno. La jueza limitó el uso de la fuerza a los agente federales en Chicago.

In addition to Trump's and MAGA's  election night shellacking, Trump had a historically bad week in courtrooms around America.  First Judge McConnell in Rhode Island issued a permanent injunction forcing Trump to fund infrastructure projects in Blue States; then Judge Immergut entered a preliminary injunction to block Trump's use of the National Guard on the streets of Oregon; then Federal Judge Currie ordered the turn over off all grand jury materials about Lindsey Halligan's role in prosecuting Trump's political rivals be turned over to her; then Judge McConnel (again) issued a temporary restraining order to ensure that 42 million Americans don't starve to death and Trump pay out $8 billion in funding asap.  Which brings us to the MAGA Supreme Court Justices looking their collective noses down at Trump's Solicitor General as they consider whether to overturn Trump's signature Tariff scheme.  No wonder Trump chickened out and failed to even show up in Court for the Supreme Court today as he had promised.  All this and so much more on the top rated Legal AF podcast with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo. Support Our Sponsors: One Skin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LEGALAF at https://oneskin.co/hair #oneskinpod Fatty 15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to https://fatty15.com/LEGALAF and using code LEGALAF at checkout. Honey Love: Save 20% Off Honeylove by going to honeylove.com/LEGALAF! #honeylovepod Trust and Will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting https://trustandwill.com/LEGALAF Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com 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

In Episode 421 Jeff Belanger and Ray Auger head to Burrillville, Rhode Island, to investigate the curious grave of Laura Sherman who was buried in this small family plot back in 1870. Today all of the headstones are gone. They say under a full moon and right conditions, her ghost will appear and talk to you.    See more here: https://ournewenglandlegends.com/podcast-421-dancing-with-a-ghost/  Listen ad-free plus get early access and bonus episodes at: https://www.patreon.com/NewEnglandLegends  Buy Jeff Belanger's new book Wicked Strange New England on Amazon: https://amzn.to/4lMkM3G  Check out Jeff's new underground publication Shadow Zine! https://shadowzine.com/  Listen to Ray's Local Raydio! https://localraydio.com/ 

Joel Lawrence and Matt Kim speak with Paul Hoffman, senior pastor of Evangelical Friends Church in Newport, Rhode Island, about his ministry journey and upcoming transition to a faculty role at Samford University. The conversation centers on the book Preaching to a Divided Nation, coauthored by Hoffman and Kim, exploring how pastors can preach for reconciliation amid cultural, political, and racial divisions. Together, they discuss the theological foundations of unity, the “four isms” that divide the church, the importance of empathy and storytelling in pastoral ministry, and how preaching forms Christian identity. Hoffman also reflects on listening as a spiritual discipline, cultivating a “non-anxious presence,” and embracing the call to be ambassadors of reconciliation in a fractured world.Living Church - Awe and Presence

Send us a textBill Bartholomew reacts to a big week for Democrats and how those wins may inform Rhode Island's upcoming elections. Support the show

Brian is back, and this time he's bringing along a very special guest — comedian and writer Jen Kirkman! Together, they dive into one of Hallmark's most ambitious Christmas movies yet, A Newport Christmas. For more Jen, head to jenkirkman.comABOUT A NEWPORT CHRISTMASElla, a charitable and spirited socialite from Newport in 1905 who dreams of using her wealth to start a foundation to help others in town, goes for a nighttime sail in her schooner to clear her head when she learns her father intends for her to become engaged to a man she's never met at the upcoming Christmas Eve ball. Upon seeing a comet shoot across the sky, she suddenly finds herself transported to 2025 Newport and meets Nick, a local historian. As Ella adjusts to her new surroundings and the two grow close, the legacy she built in her time and the course of Newport's history risk being erased the longer she stays in the present.AIR DATE & NETWORK FOR A NEWPORT CHRISTMASNovember 2, 2025 | Hallmark ChannelCAST & CREW OF A NEWPORT CHRISTMASGinna Claire Mason as Ella Stewart GraftonWes Brown as Nick McMannyBRAN'S A NEWPORT CHRISTMAS SYNOPSISThe movie kicks off in 1905 in Rhode Island. Ella is a fun-loving socialite who cares deeply for people who are down on their luck. She dreams of starting a charity, but her father isn't having it. He insists she focus on getting engaged instead. Upset, she rushes off in her boat.Cut to present day in Newport. Nick is leading a historical tour when he hears that the Coast Guard needs help with a rescue. Being an ex–Coast Guard officer, he takes a boat out to assist. Suddenly, Ella appears in his boat — she's been transported from 1905 to 2025!They're both shocked, but Nick sails them back to shore. Ella threatens to turn him in to the authorities, but she's clearly confused — this is not the Newport she knows. When she introduces herself, Nick is thrown off. He asks what year she thinks it is. When she answers “1905,” he's like, “Uh oh.” He assumes she's just an overly committed cosplayer. Then she spots an inflatable snowman and faints.When she comes to, she heads back outside and is horrified to see that women wear pants. She walks to what she believes is her home — but there are strangers living there. “WHAT ARE YOU DOING IN MY HOUSE?!” she yells. The family explains the history of her estate and how she's actually a famous historical figure. Ella is stunned. She decides she has to get back home — and what better way than by boat?But when Nick inspects the boat, he's shocked: none of his modern equipment is there, the carvings are different, and the name on the boat has changed. It's clearly her boat.To prove who she is, Ella shows them a secret hiding spot containing her belongings — including a diary no one knew existed. They finally believe her and agree to let her stay at a local bed and breakfast. One guy, Francis, theorizes, “What if the present and the past are happening simultaneously? I believe her. 1905 Ella hasn't started The Giving House yet, so clearly she must make it back.”Nick tells Ella that he thinks she's time-traveled. Ella mentions that before meeting him, she saw a comet — maybe that's connected.Nick takes her to see the town's Christmas tree lighting, and she's absolutely blown away. But when she spots a monument dedicated to The Giving House, she's shaken. As she reads it, Nick gets word that Ella is beginning to disappear from old portraits — and right before their eyes, the text on the monument starts to fade. They realize they need to get her back to 1905 before she vanishes completely.Nick researches the comet and learns there's a “Christmas Comet” that appears every 20 years. Ella confesses that when she saw the comet in 1905, she wished for a different life. The good news? The comet is coming again — in just five days. The bad news? That gives Ella and Nick more time to fall for each other, which they definitely do.As they stroll through town, Ella notices a man who looks vaguely familiar. She later learns he's the man her father bought the boat from. Nick's like, “Wait — that's the same guy I bought the boat from.”They track him down, and he introduces himself as Rex. Ella is stunned — that's the man she's supposed to marry. Rex admits that her father sent him out to rescue her after she ran away… but something went wrong, and he was transported to 2005 instead.Rex explains that when he arrived, he found a letter leaving the boat to him, with instructions to eventually sell it to Nick. He doesn't know who wrote the letter, but he figured out the Christmas Comet is the key to returning home. The twist? He's not sure he wants to go back.Ella's torn. She knows she's destined to marry Rex, but her heart belongs to Nick. Rex confides that he's built a life in the present — and even fallen for another woman. Ella admits she kind of wants to stay, too.Nick tells her she has to return — it's her story, her legacy. She pleads, “Why can't we be together?!” They share a kiss, but Nick pulls away. “We can't do this,” he says.It's the night of the big Christmas ball. Ella and Nick dance and confess their feelings. Then, right as Rex walks in with his fiancée, the Christmas tree begins to disappear — reality is collapsing. They rush to the boat. Nick gives Ella an ornament to remember him by, and they share one last hug and a soft forehead kiss before she sets sail.As she spots the comet streaking across the sky, Ella cries, “Why did you let me fall in love — but please, take me home!”It works. She's back in 1905. She bursts into the Christmas ball and tells her father she refuses to marry the man he chose. He insists, “But he's come all this way!” When Rex is introduced… it's Nick.Back in 2025, her portrait has returned. Nick explains in voiceover that as Ella was sailing off, he realized if Rex wasn't going to go back, he could. Knowing Rex had no family, he took his place — no questions asked.They kiss, and above them, the Christmas Comet twinkles once more. Watch the show on Youtube - www.deckthehallmark.com/youtubeInterested in advertising on the show? Email bran@deckthehallmark.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a textJoining us today is local Rhode Island filmmaker Jason Lake and actress, writer and YouTuber Julia Tutko-Balena to discuss their short film, Mother Grimm, which is currently hitting the festival circuit. We dig into indie filmmaking, the benefits to working on film in the smallest state, as well as the passion that went into crafting their project. Keep an eye out for Mother Grimm by following the Instagram page @mothergrimmofficial and follow Julia Tutko-Balena's filmmaking website and YouTube page:https://www.friendlyfilmmaker.com/https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyfilmzFollow 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

When she discovered the idea of a personal curriculum, today's guest couldn't wait to apply this concept to her reading life. Amy St. Amand, a primary care clinical pharmacist from Rhode Island, wants to know a little bit about a whole lot of things. She's working to build a personal learning plan that encompasses a variety of her assorted interests, and she's here today for Anne's help in developing and refining her selected topics. Anne couldn't wait to hear more about Amy's approach, why this idea resonated with her so much, and her progress so far. After they explore Amy's project, Anne recommends a whole lot of mostly nonfiction books that will help Amy delve deeper into her chosen topics. See the list of titles mentioned today at our show notes page, which you'll find at whatshouldireadnextpodcast.com/501. If you're a member of our Modern Mrs. Darcy Book Club, today's topic may sound familiar in a really fun way. We touched on the idea of a personal curriculum in our recent book club class, A Close Look at Great Books. Among other topics, this class explored our community manager Ginger Horton's ongoing grad school experience focused on a Great Books curriculum, and how you can apply some of those ideas to your own reading life. If this sounds like good nerdy fun to you, head over to ModernMrsDarcy.com/club for even more of these types of conversations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices