Podcasts about Rif

Agradece a este podcast tantas horas de entretenimiento y disfruta de episodios exclusivos como éste. ¡Apóyale en iVoox! Acceso anticipado para Fans - *** VIDEO EN NUESTRO CANAL DE YOUTUBE **** https://youtu.be/rAEg_W1IDKo +++++ Hazte con nuestras camisetas en https://www.bhmshop.app ++++ #historia #historiamilitar #historiaespaña En este episodio especial de Bellumartis Historia Militar, contamos con la participación de Rafael Mey, experto en armamento, para analizar en profundidad el armamento utilizado por el Ejército español durante las Guerras de Marruecos (1909–1927). Desde los fusiles Mauser 1893 y 1916, pasando por las pistolas Campo-Giro y Astra 400, hasta las ametralladoras Hotchkiss y Saint Étienne, exploramos cómo fue equipado el soldado español que combatió en el duro escenario del Rif. También abordamos el armamento improvisado del enemigo rifeño, los medios de combate de La Legión, los Regulares indígenas, y la evolución de la dotación militar a lo largo del conflicto. Un análisis riguroso, técnico y lleno de contexto histórico, de la mano de uno de los mayores especialistas en armas de fuego históricas en el ámbito hispano. Temas destacados del programa: - Dotación estándar del infante español en Marruecos - Fusiles Mauser y carabinas de caballería - Pistolas de reglamento y armamento corto - Ametralladoras en la guerra del Rif - Armamento indígena y capturado - Influencia del terreno y la logística en el uso de armamento SUSCRÍBETE para más contenido sobre historia y armas con base documental: https://www.youtube.com/@BELLUMARTISHISTORIAMILITAR Activa la campana para no perderte nuevos episodios Sigue nuestro trabajo en otras plataformas: Canal de Actualidad Militar y Geopolítica: https://www.youtube.com/@BELLUMARTISACTUALIDADMILITAR Blog de Historia Militar: https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com/ ************************************************************* COMPRA EN AMAZON CON EL ENLACE DE BHM Y AYUDANOS ************** https://amzn.to/3ZXUGQl ************* Si queréis apoyar a Bellumartis Historia Militar e invitarnos a un café o u una cerveza virtual por nuestro trabajo, podéis visitar nuestro PATREON https://www.patreon.com/bellumartis o en PAYPALhttps://www.paypal.me/bellumartis o en BIZUM 656/778/825 No olvidéis suscribiros al canal, si aún no lo habéis hecho. Si queréis ayudarnos, dadle a “me gusta” y también dejadnos comentarios. De esta forma ayudaréis a que los programas sean conocidos por más gente. Y compartidnos con vuestros amigos y conocidos. SIGUENOS EN TODAS LAS REDES SOCIALES ¿Queréis contactar con nosotros? Puedes escribirnos a bellumartispublicidad@hotmail.com como por WHATSAP o en BIZUM 656778825 Nuestra página principal es https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com y en la pagína web de Francisco García Campa https://franciscogarciacampa.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPRA EN AMAZON CON EL ENLACE DE BHM Y AYUDANOS ************** https://amzn.to/3ZXUGQl ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOS LIBROS DE PACO https://franciscogarciacampa.com/libros/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Si queréis apoyar a Bellumartis Historia Militar e invitarnos a un café o u una cerveza virtual por nuestro trabajo, podéis visitar nuestro PATREON https://www.patreon.com/bellumartis o en PAYPAL https://www.paypal.me/bellumartis o en BIZUM 656/778/825 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conviértete en miembro de este canal y apoya nuestro trabajo https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTtIr7Q_mz1QkzbZc0RWUrw/join -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No olvidéis suscribiros al canal, si aún no lo habéis hecho. Si queréis ayudarnos, dadle a “me gusta” y también dejadnos comentarios. De esta forma ayudaréis a que los programas sean conocidos por más gente. Y compartidnos con vuestros amigos y conocidos. SIGUENOS EN TODAS LAS REDES SOCIALES ¿Queréis contactar con nosotros? Puedes escribirnos a bellumartispublicidad@hotmail.com como por WHATSAP o en BIZUM 656778825 Nuestra página principal es https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com y en la pagína web de Francisco García Campa https://franciscogarciacampa.com Política de Privacidad https://franciscogarciacampa.com/politica-de-privacidad/Escucha este episodio completo y accede a todo el contenido exclusivo de BELLUMARTIS PODCAST. Descubre antes que nadie los nuevos episodios, y participa en la comunidad exclusiva de oyentes en https://go.ivoox.com/sq/618669

In this continuation of Gina Cafasso's conversation with nationally recognized career coach Maggie Mistal, the focus shifts from disruption to deep alignment. Together, they explore how intuition, courage, and soulful strategy can guide you through career transitions that feel anything but easy.This episode is a must-listen for anyone navigating change, seeking clarity, or wondering if it's truly possible to love what you do. Gina and Maggie discuss the emotional layers of rebuilding, the importance of support, and why giving yourself grace is part of the process. But they also get practical, discussing how to market yourself authentically, leverage transferable skills, and consider new paths, including trades and technology. Sometimes, soul-aligned work means using your hands to build something real and rediscovering your creativity.You'll hear why referrals are still the #1 source of hires, how to get your resume walked in, and why sending a paper resume or writing a letter can still make a powerful impression. It's not about making job hunting a full-time job; it's about making meaningful connections, offering support, and showing up with purpose.If you're just tuning in, start from the beginning of the RIF'd series. Each episode offers a unique lens on resilience, reinvention, and the power of soul-aligned work.Learn more about all the great tools and resources Maggie has to offer. Click here to visit her website.Her book "Are You Ready to Love Your Job" can be found here or on Amazon.Links to contact Maggie Mistal:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maggiemistalFacebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/MakingALivingWithMaggieMistalInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/maggie_mistal_/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/MaggieMistalListen to the whole series here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

About this episode: Following months of personnel cuts, funding terminations, and escalating violence, CDC employees face a new hurdle with the government shutdown. In this episode: Yolanda Jacobs, president of the union chapter that represents more than 1,000 CDC employees, offers an inside look at how employees are grappling with these challenges and shares how those of us outside the CDC can offer support. Guests: Yolanda Jacobs is a health communications specialist at the CDC and the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883. Host: Dr. Josh Sharfstein is distinguished professor of the practice in Health Policy and Management, a pediatrician, and former secretary of Maryland's Health Department. Show links and related content: With new cuts at CDC, some fear there's 'nobody to answer the phone'—NPR Supporting the Public Health Workforce in Challenging Times—Public Health On Call (October 2025) Transcript information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

durée : 00:58:42 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - À partir de 1912, de nombreuses tribus locales se révoltent contre les protectorats français et espagnols au Maroc. De l'éphémère émirat de Moulay Ahmed el Hiba à la République du Rif d'Abdelkrim, la résistance s'organise sur le territoire marocain pour contester la domination étrangère. - réalisation : Thomas Beau, Cassandre Puel - invités : Rachid Agrour Docteur en histoire contemporaine, spécialiste de l'histoire du Maghreb colonial et du domaine berbère

En esta ucronía vamos a disfrutar de una ucronía en la que el ejército español desatara la máxima brutalidad imaginable como represalia al desastre de Annual en 1921. La divergencia será que los militares africanistas convencerán al dictador Primo de Rivera de acometer un genocidio en el Rif. La promesa era vencer la guerra a mayor gloria del dictador y del legado de Alfonso XIII. Con la limpieza étnica al estilo turco contra los armenios se ganarían 5 nuevas provincias para España en las que miles de emigrantes españoles podrian empezar una nueva vida. ¿España pudo haber realizado un crimen así? ¿Cómo se podría haber materializado? ¿Cómo era el mundo en esa época? Índice: 1. El desastre de Annual 2. El informe Picasso y el golpe de Primo de Rivera 3. La solución final de los africanistas. 4. La guerra de Exterminio 5. Las provincias del Rif. 6. Comentario Si te ha gustado, y crees que la literatura moderna en audio lo merece, dale un like que ayuda con el algoritmo. Muchas gracias por estar ahí. Nuestra casa: https://historiaficcion.com/ 📧¿Queréis contarnos algo? ficcionhistoriapodcast@gmail.com Telegram: https://t.me/HistoriaFiccionChat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ficcionhistoria/ Twitter: @ficcionhistoria Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8LXvT2vus9IQ1Sad-bjVsg Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/historiaficcion Historia ficción forma parte de 📀 Ivoox Originals. • Créditos música Musicas in derechos de Youtube. Otros temas the-path-of-the-goblin-king, The curtain rises, I can feel it coming, volatile reaction, The snow queen, by Kevin Macleod, Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/7078- the-path-of-the-goblin-king En el Barranco del Lobo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKKmUx1RDQU

¡Vótame en los Premios iVoox 2025! En esta ucronía vamos a disfrutar de una ucronía en la que el ejército español desatara la máxima brutalidad imaginable como represalia al desastre de Annual en 1921. La divergencia será que los militares africanistas convencerán al dictador Primo de Rivera de acometer un genocidio en el Rif. La promesa era vencer la guerra a mayor gloria del dictador y del legado de Alfonso XIII. Con la limpieza étnica al estilo turco contra los armenios se ganarían 5 nuevas provincias para España en las que miles de emigrantes españoles podrian empezar una nueva vida. ¿España pudo haber realizado un crimen así? ¿Cómo se podría haber materializado? ¿Cómo era el mundo en esa época? Índice: 1. El desastre de Annual 2. El informe Picasso y el golpe de Primo de Rivera 3. La solución final de los africanistas. 4. La guerra de Exterminio 5. Las provincias del Rif. 6. Comentario Si te ha gustado, y crees que la literatura moderna en audio lo merece, dale un like que ayuda con el algoritmo. Muchas gracias por estar ahí. Nuestra casa: https://historiaficcion.com/ 📧¿Queréis contarnos algo? ficcionhistoriapodcast@gmail.com Telegram: https://t.me/HistoriaFiccionChat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ficcionhistoria/ Twitter: @ficcionhistoria Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8LXvT2vus9IQ1Sad-bjVsg Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/historiaficcion Historia ficción forma parte de 📀 Ivoox Originals. • Créditos música Musicas in derechos de Youtube. Otros temas the-path-of-the-goblin-king, The curtain rises, I can feel it coming, volatile reaction, The snow queen, by Kevin Macleod, Link: https://filmmusic.io/song/7078- the-path-of-the-goblin-king En el Barranco del Lobo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKKmUx1RDQU Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Ralph welcomes Professor Roddey Reid to break down his book “Confronting Political Intimidation and Public Bullying: A Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond.” Then, we are joined by the original Nader's Raider, Professor Robert Fellmeth, who enlightens us on how online anonymity and Artificial Intelligence are harming children.Roddey Reid is Professor Emeritus at the University of California, San Diego where he taught classes on modern cultures and societies in the US, France, and Japan. Since 2008 he has researched and published on trauma, daily life, and political intimidation in the US and Europe. He is a member of Indivisible.org San Francisco, and he hosts the blog UnSafe Thoughts on the fluidity of politics in dangerous times. He is also the author of Confronting Political Intimidation and Public Bullying: A Handbook for the Trump Era and Beyond.I think we still have trouble acknowledging what's actually happening. Particularly our established institutions that are supposed to protect us and safeguard us—many of their leaders are struggling with the sheer verbal and physical violence that's been unfurling in front of our very eyes. Many people are exhausted by it all. And it's transformed our daily life to the point that I think one of the goals is (quite clearly) to disenfranchise people such that they don't want to go out and participate in civic life.Roddey ReidWhat's broken down is…a collective response, organized group response. Now, in the absence of that, this is where No King's Day and other activities come to the fore. They're trying to restore collective action. They're trying to restore the public realm as a place for politics, dignity, safety, and shared purpose. And that's been lost. And so this is where the activists and civically engaged citizens and residents come in. They're having to supplement or even replace what these institutions traditionally have been understood to do. It's exhilarating, but it's also a sad moment.Roddey ReidRobert Fellmeth worked as a Nader's Raider from 1968 to 1973 in the early days of the consumer movement. He went on to become the Price Professor of Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego (where he taught for 47 years until his retirement early this year) and he founded their Children's Advocacy Institute in 1983. Since then, the Institute has sponsored 100 statutes and 35 appellate cases involving child rights, and today it has offices in Sacramento and DC. He is also the co-author of the leading law textbook Child Rights and Remedies.I think an easy remedy—it doesn't solve the problem totally—but simply require the AI to identify itself when it's being used. I mean, to me, that's something that should always be the case. You have a right to know. Again, free speech extends not only to the speaker, but also to the audience. The audience has a right to look at the information, to look at the speech, and to judge something about it, to be able to evaluate it. That's part of free speech.Robert FellmethNews 10/17/25* In Gaza, the Trump administration claims to have brokered a ceasefire. However, this peace – predicated on an exchange of prisoners – is extremely fragile. On Tuesday, Palestinians attempting to return to their homes were fired upon by Israeli soldiers. Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed those shot were “terrorists” whose attempts to “approach and cross [the Yellow Line] were thwarted.” Al Jazeera quotes Lorenzo Kamel, a professor of international history at Italy's University of Turin, who calls the ceasefire a “facade” and that the “structural violence will remain there precisely as it was – and perhaps even worse.” We can only hope that peace prevails and the Palestinians in Gaza are able to return to their land. Whatever is left of it.* Despite this ceasefire, Trump was denied in his bid for a Nobel Peace Prize. The prize instead went to right-wing Venezuelan dissident María Corina Machado. Democracy Now! reports Machado ran against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in 2023, but was “barred from running after the government accused her of corruption and cited her support for U.S. sanctions against Venezuela.” If elected Machado has promised to privatize Venezuela's state oil industry and move Venezuela's Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and in 2020, her party, Vente Venezuela, “signed a pact formalizing strategic ties with Israel's Likud party led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” Machado has also showered praise on right-wing Latin American leaders like Javier Milei of Argentina and following her victory, praised Trump's “decisive support,” even telling Fox News that Trump “deserves” the prize for his anti-Maduro campaign, per the Nation.* Machado's prize comes within the context of Trump's escalating attacks on Venezuela. In addition to a fifth deadly strike on a Venezuelan boat, which killed six, the New York Times reports Trump has ordered his envoy to the country Richard Grenell to cease all diplomatic outreach to Venezuela, including talks with President Maduro. According to this report, “Trump has grown frustrated with…Maduro's failure to accede to American demands to give up power voluntarily and the continued insistence by Venezuelan officials that they have no part in drug trafficking.” Grenell had been trying to strike a deal with the Bolivarian Republic to “avoid a larger conflict and give American companies access to Venezuelan oil,” but these efforts were obviously undercut by the attacks on the boats – which Democrats contend are illegal under U.S. and international law – as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeling Maduro a “fugitive from American justice,” and placing a $50 million bounty on his head. With this situation escalating rapidly, many now fear direct U.S. military deployment into Venezuela.* Meanwhile, Trump has already deployed National Guard troops to terrorize immigrants in Chicago. The Chicago Sun-Times reports Pope Leo XIV, the first American Pope and a Chicago native, met with Chicago union leaders in Rome last week and urged them to take action to protect immigrants in the city. Defending poor immigrants is rapidly becoming a top priority for the Catholic Church. Pope Leo has urged American bishops to “speak with one voice” on the issue and this story related that “El Paso bishop Mark Seitz brought Leo letters from desperate immigrant families.” Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich, also at the meeting with Leo and the union leaders, said that the Pope “wants us to make sure, as bishops, that we speak out on behalf of the undocumented or anybody who's vulnerable to preserve their dignity…We all have to remember that we all share a common dignity as human beings.”* David Ellison, the newly-minted CEO of Paramount, is ploughing ahead with a planned expansion of his media empire. His next target: Warner Bros. Discovery. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Ellison already pitched a deal to WB CEO David Zaslav, but the $20 per share offer was rejected. However, Ellison is likely to offer a new deal “possibly…backed by his father Larry Ellison or a third party like Apollo [Global Management].” There is also talk that he could go directly to the WBD shareholders if the corporate leadership proves unresponsive. If Ellison is intent on this acquisition, he will need to move fast. Zaslav is planning to split the company into a “studios and HBO business,” and a Discovery business, which would include CNN. Ellison is clearly interested in acquiring CNN to help shape newsroom perspectives, as his recent appointment of Bari Weiss as “editor-in-chief” of CBS News demonstrates, so this split would make an acquisition far less of an attractive prospect. We will be watching this space.* In another Ellison-related media story, Newsweek reports Barron Trump, President Trump's 19-year-old son, is being eyed for a board seat at the newly reorganized Tik-Tok. According to this story, “Trump's former social media manager Jack Advent proposed the role at the social media giant, as it comes into U.S. ownership, arguing that the younger Trump's appointment could broaden TikTok's appeal among young users.” Barron is currently enrolled in New York University's Stern School of Business and serves as an “ambassador” for World Liberty Financial, the “Trump family's crypto venture.” TikTok U.S., formerly owned and operated by the Chinese company ByteDance, is being taken over by a “consortium of American investors [including Larry Ellison's] Oracle and investment firm Silver Lake Partners,” among others.* As the government shutdown drags on, the Trump administration is taking the opportunity to further gut the federal government, seeming to specifically target the offices protecting the most vulnerable. According to NPR, “all staff in the [Department of Education] Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), with the exception of a handful of top officials and support staff, were cut,” in a reduction-in-force or RIF order issued Friday. One employee is quoted saying “This is decimating the office responsible for safeguarding the rights of infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.” Per this report, OSERS is “responsible for roughly $15 billion in special education funding and for making sure states provide special education services to the nation's 7.5 million children with disabilities.” Just why exactly the administration is seeking to undercut federal support for disabled children is unclear. Over at the Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS sent out an RIF to “approximately 1,760 employees last Friday — instead of the intended 982,” as a “result of data discrepancies and processing errors,” NOTUS reports. The agency admitted the error in a court filing in response to a suit brought by the employees' unions. Even still, the cuts are staggering and include 596 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 125 at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, to name just a few. This report notes that other agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Treasury and Homeland Security all sent out inaccurately high RIFs as well.* The Lever reports Boeing, the troubled airline manufacturer, is fighting a new Federal Aviation Administration rule demanding additional inspections for older 737 series planes after regulators discovered cracks in their fuselages. The rule “would revise the inspection standards…through a regulatory action called an ‘airworthiness directive.'...akin to a product recall if inspectors find a defective piece of equipment on the plane…in [this case] cracks along the body of the plane's main cabin.” The lobbying group Airlines for America is seeking to weaken the rule by arguing that the maintenance checks would be too “costly” for the airline industry, who would ultimately have to bear the financial brunt of these inspections. Boeing is fighting them too because such a rule would make airlines less likely to buy Boeing's decaying airplanes. As this report notes, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy – who oversees the FAA – “previously worked as an airline lobbyist…[and] Airlines for America recently selected the former Republican Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu to be their chief executive officer.”* In more consumer-related news, Consumer Reports has been conducting a series of studies on lead levels in various consumer products. Most recently, a survey of protein powders and shakes found “troubling levels of toxic heavy metals,” in many of the most popular brands. They write, “For more than two-thirds of the products we analyzed, a single serving contained more lead than CR's food safety experts say is safe to consume in a day—some by more than 10 times.” Some of these products have massively increased in heavy metal content just over the last several years. CR reports “Naked Nutrition's Vegan Mass Gainer powder, the product with the highest lead levels, had nearly twice as much lead per serving as the worst product we analyzed in 2010.” The experts quoted in this piece advise against daily use of these products, instead limiting them to just once per week.* Finally, in a new piece in Rolling Stone, David Sirota and Jared Jacang Maher lay out how conservatives are waging new legal campaigns to strip away the last remaining fig leaves of campaign finance regulation – and what states are doing to fight back. One angle of attack is a lawsuit targeting the restrictions on coordination between parties and individual campaigns, with House Republicans arguing that, “because parties pool money from many contributors, that ‘significantly dilutes the potential for any particular donor to exercise a corrupting influence over any particular candidate' who ultimately benefits from their cash.” Another angle is a lawsuit brought by P.G. Sittenfeld, the former Democratic mayor of Cincinnati – who has already been pardoned by Trump for accepting bribes – but is seeking to establish that “pay-to-play culture is now so pervasive that it should no longer be considered prosecutable.” However, the authors do throw out one ray of hope from an unlikely source: Montana. The authors write, “Thirteen years after the Supreme Court gutted the state's century-old anti-corruption law, Montana luminaries of both parties are now spearheading a ballot initiative circumventing Citizens United jurisprudence and instead focusing on changing state incorporation laws that the high court rarely meddles with.The measure's proponents note that Citizens United is predicated on state laws giving corporations the same powers as actual human beings, including the power to spend on politics. But they point out that in past eras, state laws granted corporations more limited powers — and states never relinquished their authority to redefine what corporations can and cannot do. The Montana initiative proposes to simply use that authority to change the law — in this case, to no longer grant corporations the power to spend on elections.” Who knows if this initiative will move forward in Montana, but it does provide states a blueprint for combatting the pernicious influence of Citizens United. States should and must act on it.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Caben otras formas de acoger a las personas migrantes y solicitantes de asilo, una manera más flexibles, más humanas para aquellos que tocan a nuestras puertas para ponerse a salvo e impulsar sus vidas. Caminaremos hoy por Martin Etxea, el espacio de acogida donde conviven personas llegadas de diferentes partes del mundo como Palestina, Sahara, el Rif, Guatemala, El Salvador para eso, ponerse a salvo y continuar con sus luchas entre nosotros. Descubriremos como en dos años abandonan el espacio con trabajo, papeles, ingresos y como parte más de esta sociedad. Yo soy Iñaki Makazaga, esto es Piedra de Toque y hoy arrancamos nueva temporada la número 13 desde Martin Etxea un lugar que nos recuerda que caben otras formas de acoger y acompañar, más flexibles, más humanas. https://www.piedradetoque.es/ https://www.instagram.com/imakazaga/

This week on "Off The Cuff," Melanie and Nalia provide an update on where things stand with funding for federal student aid programs due to the ongoing government shutdown. Nalia begins by debriefing listeners on what has happened with the government shutdown so far, which began on October 1. Melanie then discusses how the shutdown – now entering its third week – is impacting federal student aid, including concerns NASFAA has heard from members, and shares several resources to answer member questions. The team also highlights how the White House's most recent reduction in force (RIF) at the Department of Education (ED), where roughly 20% of staff were laid off, could impact higher education. Nalia also provides an overview of the current appropriations process, where Congress must work together to fund the government for fiscal year (FY) 2026. 

Is your federal job at risk? Learn everything about the 2025 government shutdown, Reduction in Force (RIF), furloughs, and how they impact federal employees with expert Ann Vanderol. This urgent breakdown covers what you need to know RIGHT NOW to protect your career, benefits, and retirement.

A judge is temporarily blocking the Trump administration from carrying out its latest round of federal employee layoffs at most agencies. Administration officials say RIF notices went out to about 4000 federal employees last Friday. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials say more layoffs could be coming at the end of this week. Federal News Network's Jory Heckman joins me with the latest.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Trump administration pushed forward Friday with plans to fire federal employees amid the government shutdown, directing reductions-in-force at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, among other agencies. Prior to and during the current shutdown, the White House repeatedly threatened to lay off additional federal workers in a bid to further its efforts to shrink the size of the government. The Trump administration maintains Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, though Democrats contend that a spending bill from Republicans — who control all levers of power — wouldn't adequately fund health care. Russ Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, posted on X early Friday afternoon that the “RIFs have begun,” without offering additional details. An OMB spokesperson told FedScoop the RIFs began and are “substantial.” In a preview of his discussions with Vought last week, President Donald Trump said in a post to his social media platform that they would target “Democrat Agencies,” calling them “a political SCAM.” According to a court filing from the Trump administration late Friday, at least 4,100 federal workers across eight federal agencies may have been sent RIF notices, with the bulk of the staff reductions at HHS, with 1,100 to 1,200 workers impacted, and the Department of Treasury, with 1,446 workers impacted. Deploying artificial intelligence requires taking on the right amount of risk to achieve a desired end result, a National Institute of Standards and Technology official who worked on its risk management framework for the technology said on a panel last week. While federal agencies, and particularly IT functions, are generally risk averse, risks can't entirely be avoided with AI, Martin Stanley, an AI and cybersecurity researcher at the Commerce Department standards agency, said during a FedInsider panel on “Intelligent Government” last week. Stanley said: “You have to manage risks, number one,” adding that the benefits from the technology are compelling enough that “you have to go looking to achieve those.” Stanley's comments came in response to a question about how the federal government compares to other sectors that have been doing risk management for longer, such as financial services. On that point specifically, he said the NIST AI Risk Management Framework “shares a lot of DNA” with Federal Reserve guidance on algorithmic models in financial services. He said NIST attempted to leverage those approaches and the same plain, simple language. “We talk about risks, we talk about likelihoods, and we talk about impacts, both positive and negative, so that you can build this trade space where you are taking on the right amount of risk to achieve a benefit,” Stanley said. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

How will the 2025 government shutdown impact federal employees, retirees, and those receiving Social Security? In this urgent update, CD Financial unpacks the latest on furloughs, layoffs, and Reduction in Force (RIF)—plus what steps you need to take right now.

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's latest mass layoffs will make their case to a federal judge tomorrow. The administration sent RIF notices to more than 4,000 federal employees last week. Government employee unions say reduction-in-force procedures are normally prohibited during a shutdown and that the Trump administration gave unlawful orders to exempt RIF activities. The Supreme Court this summer allowed the Trump administration to proceed with earlier mass layoffs across the federal workforce. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Vous aimez notre peau de caste ? Soutenez-nous ! https://www.lenouvelespritpublic.fr/abonnementUne émission de Philippe Meyer, enregistrée au studio l'Arrière-boutique le 10 octobre 2025.Avec cette semaine :François Bujon de l'Estang, ambassadeur de France.Béatrice Giblin, directrice de la revue Hérodote et fondatrice de l'Institut Français de Géopolitique.Nicole Gnesotto, vice-présidente de l'Institut Jacques Delors.Marc-Olivier Padis, directeur des études de la fondation Terra Nova.LE CHAMBOULE-TOUT FRANÇAISQuatre gouvernements en treize mois, un président affaibli, une Assemblée fragmentée : la France semble prise dans un tourbillon sans fin. La présentation, dimanche soir, par Sébastien Lecornu d'une équipe « resserrée » de 18 membres, dans laquelle les traces de la rupture annoncée n'étaient pas très apparentes a été vivement critiquée à droite comme à gauche. Lundi, en quelques heures, les Français ont assisté à la démission d'un Premier ministre, Sébastien Lecornu, nommé vingt-sept jours plus tôt, puis, en fin d'après-midi, à la désignation par le président de la République du même Sébastien Lecornu pour une mission de quarante-huit heures ayant pour but de « définir une plateforme d'action et de stabilité »., soit précisément ce que Le Premier ministre démissionnaire n'avait pas réussi à faire. M. Lecornu a accepté tout en faisant savoir qu'il ne redeviendrait pas chef du gouvernement, même dans le cas, très hypothétique, d'une réussite des discussions.Estimant qu'il existe « une majorité absolue » de députés opposés à la dissolution, Sébastien Lecornu a affirmé mercredi sur France 2 que les conditions étaient réunies pour que le président nomme un nouveau premier ministre « dans les 48 heures ». La première option pour le président de la République est donc de nommer un nouveau Premier ministre. En cas d'échec, un deuxième scénario serait une nouvelle dissolution de l'Assemblée nationale et un retour aux urnes. Le troisième scénario est celui d'une démission du président de la République. Une demande exprimée par l'extrême-droite, LFI, mais aussi, après l'adoption d'un budget par l'ancien Premier ministre Edouard Philippe.La situation est inédite, puisque les passations de pouvoir n'ont pas eu lieu entre les deux gouvernements démissionnaires. Dans ces cas-là, le décret publié au Journal officiel fait foi. Il a été publié dimanche soir, les ministres démissionnaires sont donc bien ceux qui ont été nommés le 5 octobre. Cette équipe devra gérer les « affaires courantes ». Aucun texte n'indique ce que peut faire, ou pas, un gouvernement démissionnaire, mais ses prérogatives sont limitées. Il s'agit de faire face aux urgences, d'assurer le fonctionnement minimal de l'État ainsi que sa continuité. Ce gouvernement peut mettre en application des lois déjà votées mais pas déposer de nouveaux projets de loi. Généralement, le Conseil des ministres ne se réunit pas en période démissionnaire.Si l'incertitude politique ne se traduit pas, à ce stade, par une crise économique aiguë, elle a toutefois déjà provoqué deux cassures dont les effets se feront sentir sur le long terme : le déclassement de la France sur les marchés, et la panne des investissements.LE MOUVEMENT GENZ AU MAROC (ET AU MADAGASCAR, AU NÉPAL …)Le Maroc est le théâtre depuis le 27 septembre de rassemblements quotidiens de jeunes protestataires − parfois mineurs − réclamant de meilleurs services d'éducation et de santé. Début octobre, des débordements violents à proximité d'Agadir ont causé la mort de trois manifestants. Face à une fièvre contestataire comme le Maroc n'en avait pas connu depuis la révolte du Rif en 2016-2017, le gouvernement semble pris de court. Parmi les jeunes urbains de 15-24 ans, la moitié est sans emploi et un quart a déserté l'école. Des marches spontanées avaient déjà eu lieu, début juillet, dans le Haut-Atlas pour l'accès à l'eau, poussant le roi Mohammed VI à manifester son refus d'un « Maroc à deux vitesses », lors de son discours du trône le 29 juillet.Le mouvement actuel est spontané, sans tête d'affiche et assez flou sur le plan des revendications. Il n'a pas de plateforme ni de programme politique, mais défend des grands thèmes sociaux. Né d'une indignation générale face à la mort de huit femmes à la mi-septembre dans un hôpital d'Agadir après des accouchements par césarienne, il s'est structuré une dizaine de jours plus tard sur le réseau social Discord sous la bannière d'un collectif GenZ 212. Une déclinaison locale (212 est l'indicatif téléphonique du Maroc) d'une génération Z − née entre 1997 et 2012 − qui a déjà fait vaciller le pouvoir au Sri Lanka, au Bangladesh et au Népal, et enfiévré plus récemment Madagascar. Connexion numérique, aspiration à la dignité et rejet de la vieille politique : la jeunesse marocaine se met au diapason d'un soulèvement transnational. Les jeunes Marocains se gardent toutefois bien de franchir une ligne rouge : la sacralité de l'institution royale. Si nombre d'entre eux réclament la démission du chef de gouvernement Aziz Akhannouch, un homme d'affaires richissime, symbole d'une oligarchie conquérante, nul n'appelle à la fin de la monarchie, malgré l'acuité des doléances sociales.Déjà électrique, le climat social n'a cessé de se tendre, à mesure que les prestigieux projets lancés dans la perspective de la Coupe d'Afrique des nations de football, qui s'ouvre fin décembre, et de la Coupe du monde de 2030 − que le Maroc coorganisera avec l'Espagne et le Portugal −détournaient les financements des priorités sanitaires et éducatives. Le régime espérait désamorcer le ressentiment populaire dans le patriotisme sportif : il s'est trompé. « Des écoles et des hôpitaux, plutôt que des stades ! », clame en substance la jeunesse soulevée. La GenZ 212 braque une lumière crue sur l'envers de la vitrine scintillante d'un Maroc « émergent ». Le coup est rude pour l'image que le royaume aime à projeter de lui-même à l'étranger. Le roi Mohammed VI doit faire un discours d'ouverture de la session parlementaire, ce vendredi.Chaque semaine, Philippe Meyer anime une conversation d'analyse politique, argumentée et courtoise, sur des thèmes nationaux et internationaux liés à l'actualité. Pour en savoir plus : www.lenouvelespritpublic.frHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Hoy os traemos Alhucemas 1925. El desembarco que decidió la Guerra de Marruecos, un libro del historiador Roberto Muñoz Bolaños, especialista en historia militar contemporánea. En esta obra, el autor revisa uno de los episodios más decisivos de la Guerra del Rif: el desembarco de Alhucemas, considerado la primera gran operación anfibia moderna. Muñoz Bolaños desmonta mitos y ofrece una visión renovada que combina estrategia militar, contexto internacional y consecuencias políticas. Con un análisis riguroso y narrativo ágil, el libro nos invita a entender por qué esta operación marcó un antes y un después en la historia de España y Marruecos. Una lectura imprescindible para quienes quieran comprender la guerra colonial española desde una perspectiva más amplia. Link del libro: https://www.despertaferro-ediciones.com/revistas/numero/libro-historia-roberto-munoz-bolanos-alhucemas-1925-el-desembarco-que-decidio-la-guerra-de-marruecos-rif/ https://forodelahistoria.com/ Twitter: @Forodhistoria Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Foro-de-la-Historia

In this episode of the Circumstance Podcast, host Gina Cafasso sits down with award-winning wealth advisor Alissa Todd to discuss the financial and emotional impact of a reduction-in-force (RIF). From budgeting and debt management to long-term planning and mindset shifts, this conversation offers practical tools to help listeners rebuild their financial foundation with clarity and confidence.Whether you're navigating job loss, career transition, or financial uncertainty, this episode delivers expert advice, emotional support, and values-based strategies to move forward with purpose.The Layoff Financial playbook: https://www.mywealthcg.com/resourcesLinks to contact Alissa Todd:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alissatodd_ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alissatodd Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/AlissaToddWCG Website: https://www.mywealthcg.com/Listen to the whole series here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  Most retirees view mandatory RIF withdrawals as a tax trap—but what if they're actually a strategic advantage?  In this episode, Joe Curry explains how smart RIF planning can reduce lifetime taxes, protect OAS and government benefits, and even help grow wealth. Learn how to use income smoothing, tax brackets, and the three-bucket strategy to master retirement income planning. Key Takeaways ·       RIF withdrawals aren't a punishment—they're part of a tax-deferred system designed for the decumulation phase of retirement. ·       Starting RRSP withdrawals early can smooth out income and prevent OAS clawbacks later in life. ·       The pension tax credit offers up to $2,000 in RIF withdrawals tax-free after age 65. ·       Using the three-bucket strategy—pre-tax, tax-free, and taxable—helps optimize annual withdrawals and minimize taxes. ·       Annual reviews are essential to adapt your withdrawal strategy as tax rules, income, and benefits change. —------------------------------------------------------------ Ready to take the next step?  Identify your retirement income style with the RISA questionnaire at  https://account.myrisaprofile.com/invitation-link/88QG1TMQ12  Want a retirement plan that adapts as your life evolves? Discover our True Wealth Roadmap — a step-by-step process to align your finances with your ideal retirement. Learn more at https://matthewsandassociates.ca/our-process/   Don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more simplified retirement planning insights! —------------------------------------------------------------   ABOUT JOE  CURRY Joseph Curry, also known as Joe, is the host of Your Retirement Planning Simplified, Canada's fastest-growing retirement planning podcast, where he provides accessible, in-depth financial advice. As the owner and lead financial planner at Matthews + Associates in Peterborough, Ontario, he is committed to helping people secure both financial stability and purpose in retirement. His mission is to ensure people can sleep soundly knowing they have a solid plan in place, covering both financial and lifestyle aspects of retirement. A Certified Financial Planner and Certified Exit Planning Advisor, he values true wealth as more than money—it's about creating meaningful experiences with loved ones and fostering opportunities for the future.  You can reach out to Joe through: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/curryjoe Website: https://www.retirementplanningsimplified.ca/ https://matthewsandassociates.ca/  https://www.facebook.com/RetirementPlanningSimplified/  ABOUT RETIREMENT PLANNING SIMPLIFIED Founded in 2022, its mission is to empower people to plan for retirement confidently, focusing not only on finances but also on a meaningful life. RPS wants everyone to have access to simple, reliable tools that reflect their values and priorities, helping them create True Wealth—the freedom to do what they love with those they love. By simplifying retirement planning and aligning it with the retiree's purpose, RPS aims to support building a retirement that feels fulfilling and secure. To know more about RPS you can visit the links below: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/retirement-planning-simplified/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/retirement_planning_simplified Podcast/Blog: https://www.retirementplanningsimplified.ca/blog Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@retirementplanningsimplified     —------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of Joseph Curry, a registrant of Aligned Capital Partners Inc. (ACPI), and may not necessarily be those of ACPI. This video is for informational purposes only and not intended to be personalized investment advice. The views expressed are opinions of Joseph Curry and may not necessarily be those of ACPI. Content is prepared for general circulation and information contained does not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any investment fund, security or other product or service.

Former State Department employees whose roles were eliminated as part of a reduction-in-force still received information about whether they would be needed during the government shutdown — including some workers who were told their positions were “excepted.” While the full extent of the issue wasn't immediately clear, three such employees shared those notifications with FedScoop on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Others were also aware of the problem even if they didn't receive the messages themselves. In response to a FedScoop request for comment, a State spokesperson indicated the department was aware of the issue and had taken steps to address it, confirming there were “minor” discrepancies with data, saying that the department immediately worked to resolve any outstanding issues. Of the three State Department notices reviewed by FedScoop, one informed the RIF'd employee that their position was “excepted” and explained that those roles are defined as those needed for emergencies that threaten life and property or are essential for national security. It then ordered that worker to “report to work on your next regularly scheduled workday.” The other two already RIF'd employees were told that they would be furloughed during the shutdown but that it was “in no way a value judgement on the work you do for the Department.” Those employees were also instructed to review their department emails for updates despite not being able to access that information. Of the three RIF'd employees, only one — a foreign service officer — is still on the department's payroll. As employees at the Education Department prepared for a looming government shutdown this week, several set an automatic email reply to inform others of their furloughed status. But by Thursday morning, some furloughed workers discovered that their automatic email replies had been altered, without their knowledge, to include a message blaming Democratic senators for the ongoing government shutdown. According to two furloughed Education Department employees, the agency sent workers suggested language to use for their out-of-office messages earlier this week, but the language was “neutral” regarding the shutdown. One of the employees, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told FedScoop they and other furloughed staff mostly cut and paste from the suggested language with little to no changes when setting their automatic replies. But when they checked their automatic email replies Thursday morning, the message changed and included partisan language mentioning Democrats, the employee said. The other furloughed worker said they set the generic text for their OOO email Wednesday morning and the message was changed by Wednesday night. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

In Episode 3 of the RIF'd series, host Gina Cafasso sits down with Kathleen Steffy, CEO of Naviga Recruiting & Executive Search, to explore the emotional and strategic realities of layoffs. Drawing on her experience in executive search and insights from recruiters, Kathleen offers a grounded perspective on how RIF (Reduction-in-Force) decisions are often made and what it means to be on the receiving end.This episode delves beyond the resume to explore what recruiters look for during career transitions, how AI is transforming the hiring process, and how to navigate a layoff with honesty and self-compassion. Whether you're navigating job loss, considering a career pivot, or seeking clarity in your next move, this conversation offers practical job search advice and emotional recovery tools to help you move forward.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance.Naviga Recruiting & Executive Search - websiteNaviga Recruiting and Executive Search - YouTube Naviga Recruiting and Executive Search - LinkedIn pageKathleen Steffy - LinkedIn pageSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The White House Office of Management and Budget is instructing agencies to consider reducing staff for programs that have a lapse in funding in the event of a government shutdown, as tensions rise ahead of the Sept. 30 end to the fiscal year. “With respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out,” the undated message said. The guidance goes on to say that consistent with applicable law, including a federal reduction in force statute, agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider RIF notices for employees working in projects, programs or activities that have a funding lapse on Oct.1, don't have another source of funding, and are not consistent with President Donald Trump's priorities. The project, program or activity must meet all three criteria, the message said. The message places blame for a possible shutdown squarely on congressional Democrats, calling their demands “insane.” The OMB message explains that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, legislation passed earlier this year that is at the heart of Trump's second-term agenda, provided “ample resources to ensure that many core Trump Administration priorities will continue uninterrupted.” Federal cyber authorities sounded a rare alarm last week, issuing an emergency directive about an ongoing and widespread attack spree involving actively exploited zero-day vulnerabilities affecting Cisco firewalls. Cisco said it began investigating attacks on multiple government agencies linked to the state-sponsored campaign in May. The vendor, which attributes the attacks to the same threat group behind an early 2024 campaign targeting Cisco devices it dubbed “ArcaneDoor,” said the new zero-days were exploited to “implant malware, execute commands, and potentially exfiltrate data from the compromised devices.” Cisco disclosed three vulnerabilities affecting its Adaptive Security Appliances — CVE-2025-20333, CVE-2025-20363 and CVE-2025-20362 — but said “evidence collected strongly indicates CVE-2025-20333 and CVE-2025-20362 were used by the attacker in the current attack campaign.” The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said those two zero-days pose an “unacceptable risk” to federal agencies and require immediate action. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

Tamlilit es como se denomina a Melilla en Amazigh, el idioma del RIF que sigue muy vivo en el norte de África. Significa La Blanca y hace referencia al color y la luz de la piedra en sus rocas. Este es un programa especial sobre el IwaFest, sobre todo de sus sesiones culturales realizadas durante toda la semana en las que hablar sobre el futuro cultural en una Geografía del Agobio, como lo han definido Carlos Reverte, Santi Moga que nos ha acompañado y Dani Botella. Nos ha visitado Idoipe y su recuperación sonora y popular en el Alto Aragón resumida en el documental "Tañen Furo"; la cantante balear Júlia Colom que ha presentado su película "Sempre Dijous" y las activistas culturales Alba Dominguez Pena, Rocio Madrid coordinadora de las charlas en la UNED de Melilla, además del director del IwaFest Borja Ramón. El diputado Juan Bordera narra su visión del Mediterráneo desde uno de los barcos de la Flotilla. Escuchamos la música de: IDOIPE - El Jilguerrillo- La Tronada ( La Ronda de Boltaña); JULIA COLOM- Gelosies- Estrófica; GHOULA- Ya Sa7bi; TECH PANDA- Dibar; THE LEILA- Rgueb,Rgueb; KABEAUSHÉ- Banguk Escuchar audio

What happens after the layoff? In this raw and reflective episode, Gina Cafasso continues her conversation with Amiee Gonsalves, a former coworker and close friend, as they unpack the messy middle, where identity blurs, finances tighten, and the future feels uncertain.Together, they explore the emotional and practical realities of rebuilding after a RIF, from the shifting landscape of marketing to the growing need to become your own brand in a world where permanence is no longer a given. They share personal stories, hard-earned insights, and the quiet strength it takes to move forward.If you're navigating a layoff, questioning what's next, or simply seeking a story that meets you where you are, this episode is for you.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the first episode of RIF'd, host Gina Cafasso sits down with former coworker and longtime friend Amiee Gonsalves to explore the emotional aftermath of a layoff. From the initial shock to the identity shifts that follow, this candid conversation dives into what it really feels like to be RIF'd, and how we begin to rebuild.Amiee shares her personal experience navigating grief, uncertainty, and the early steps toward rediscovery. If you've recently been laid off or are supporting someone who has, this episode offers empathy, insight, and a reminder that you're not alone.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/circumstance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cap

Chullin Shiur #8 Daf 3b- Rov Metzuyin Aitzel Shechitah, Rif, Rambam, Ramban

*** VIDEO EN NUESTRO CANAL DE YOUTUBE **** https://youtu.be/Qv5lmrq20ZE +++++ Hazte con nuestras camisetas en https://www.bhmshop.app +++++ Nuevo programa especial de Bellumartis Historia Militar con Joaquín Rivera Chamorro, autor del libro La guerra civil que vino de África https://amzn.to/3JIgdto Se cumplen 100 años del desembarco de Alhucemas (1925), una de las operaciones militares más decisivas de la historia contemporánea de España. Considerado el primer gran desembarco anfibio moderno, Alhucemas supuso el final de la sangrienta Guerra de Marruecos y de la resistencia rifeña de Abd el-Krim, tras desastres como Annual o el Barranco del Lobo. En este programa analizamos: - El contexto político y militar previo al desembarco. - La preparación y coordinación entre los ejércitos español y francés. - El desarrollo de la operación anfibia, pionera en la historia militar mundial. - El impacto de Alhucemas en la memoria de España y en la evolución de la guerra moderna. Un episodio clave que marcó el fin de la Guerra del Rif y abrió una nueva etapa para el ejército español. "ALHUCEMAS 1925: 100 años del desembarco que decidió la Guerra de Marruecos" https://youtu.be/UZ8Go6EAraI ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPRA EN AMAZON CON EL ENLACE DE BHM Y AYUDANOS ************** https://amzn.to/3ZXUGQl ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOS LIBROS DE PACO https://franciscogarciacampa.com/libros/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Si queréis apoyar a Bellumartis Historia Militar e invitarnos a un café o u una cerveza virtual por nuestro trabajo, podéis visitar nuestro PATREON https://www.patreon.com/bellumartis o en PAYPAL https://www.paypal.me/bellumartis o en BIZUM 656/778/825 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conviértete en miembro de este canal y apoya nuestro trabajo https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTtIr7Q_mz1QkzbZc0RWUrw/join -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No olvidéis suscribiros al canal, si aún no lo habéis hecho. Si queréis ayudarnos, dadle a “me gusta” y también dejadnos comentarios. De esta forma ayudaréis a que los programas sean conocidos por más gente. Y compartidnos con vuestros amigos y conocidos. SIGUENOS EN TODAS LAS REDES SOCIALES ¿Queréis contactar con nosotros? Puedes escribirnos a bellumartispublicidad@hotmail.com como por WHATSAP o en BIZUM 656778825 Nuestra página principal es https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com y en la página web de Francisco García Campa https://franciscogarciacampa.com Política de Privacidad https://franciscogarciacampa.com/politica-de-privacidad/

Nieves Concostrina habla sobre el primer incidente de la guerra de Marruecos, la entrega a España del protectorado del Rif.

Nieves Concostrina habla sobre el primer incidente de la guerra de Marruecos, la entrega a España del protectorado del Rif.

Nieves Concostrina habla sobre el primer incidente de la guerra de Marruecos, la entrega a España del protectorado del Rif.

En septiembre de 1925, las aguas de la bahía de Alhucemas se convirtieron en escenario de la primera operación anfibia moderna de la historia. España, junto a Francia, lanzó una arriesgada ofensiva contra las fuerzas rifeñas de Abd el-Krim, cambiando el rumbo de la Guerra del Rif. Más de 13.000 hombres, apoyados por buques de guerra, aviación y vehículos blindados, llevaron a cabo un desembarco sin precedentes que marcó un antes y un después en la estrategia militar mundial. En este episodio exploramos los preparativos, el desarrollo y las consecuencias de una operación que selló el destino del protectorado español en Marruecos y elevó al general Primo de Rivera como protagonista indiscutible de aquel triunfo. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

El desembarco de 1925 marcó un punto de inflexión en la Guerra del Rif y en la historia militar contemporánea. Fue la primera operación anfibia moderna combinando fuerzas navales, aéreas y terrestres, y supuso el inicio del fin de la resistencia rifeña liderada por Abd el-Krim. En este episodio repasamos no solo la acción bélica, sino también sus antecedentes y el complejo contexto político que la rodeó: la crisis de Annual, la presión internacional y las tensiones internas de España. Una narración objetiva e independiente que sitúa Alhucemas en el lugar que le corresponde dentro de la historia del siglo XX. Te lo cuenta Ramón Díez Rioja acompañado de Esaú Rodríguez. Casus Belli Podcast pertenece a 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Casus Belli Podcast forma parte de 📀 Ivoox Originals. 📚 Zeppelin Books (Digital) y 📚 DCA Editor (Físico) http://zeppelinbooks.com son sellos editoriales de la 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Estamos en: 🆕 WhatsApp https://bit.ly/CasusBelliWhatsApp 👉 X/Twitter https://twitter.com/CasusBelliPod 👉 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CasusBelliPodcast 👉 Instagram estamos https://www.instagram.com/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Canal https://t.me/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Grupo de Chat https://t.me/casusbellipod 📺 YouTube https://bit.ly/casusbelliyoutube 👉 TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@casusbelli10 👉 https://podcastcasusbelli.com 👨💻Nuestro chat del canal es https://t.me/casusbellipod ⚛️ El logotipo de Casus Belli Podcasdt y el resto de la Factoría Casus Belli están diseñados por Publicidad Fabián publicidadfabian@yahoo.es 🎵 La música incluida en el programa es Ready for the war de Marc Corominas Pujadó bajo licencia CC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ El resto de música es bajo licencia privada de Epidemic Music, Jamendo Music o SGAE SGAE RRDD/4/1074/1012 de Ivoox. 🎭Las opiniones expresadas en este programa de pódcast, son de exclusiva responsabilidad de quienes las trasmiten. Que cada palo aguante su vela. 📧¿Queréis contarnos algo? También puedes escribirnos a casus.belli.pod@gmail.com ¿Quieres anunciarte en este podcast, patrocinar un episodio o una serie? Hazlo a través de 👉 https://www.advoices.com/casus-belli-podcast-historia Si te ha gustado, y crees que nos lo merecemos, nos sirve mucho que nos des un like, ya que nos da mucha visibilidad. Muchas gracias por escucharnos, y hasta la próxima. Casus Belli Podcast pertenece a 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Casus Belli Podcast forma parte de 📀 Ivoox Originals. 📚 Zeppelin Books (Digital) y 📚 DCA Editor (Físico) http://zeppelinbooks.com son sellos editoriales de la 🏭 Factoría Casus Belli. Estamos en: 🆕 WhatsApp https://bit.ly/CasusBelliWhatsApp 👉 X/Twitter https://twitter.com/CasusBelliPod 👉 Facebook https://www.facebook.com/CasusBelliPodcast 👉 Instagram estamos https://www.instagram.com/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Canal https://t.me/casusbellipodcast 👉 Telegram Grupo de Chat https://t.me/casusbellipod 📺 YouTube https://bit.ly/casusbelliyoutube 👉 TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@casusbelli10 👉 https://podcastcasusbelli.com 👨💻Nuestro chat del canal es https://t.me/casusbellipod ⚛️ El logotipo de Casus Belli Podcasdt y el resto de la Factoría Casus Belli están diseñados por Publicidad Fabián publicidadfabian@yahoo.es 🎵 La música incluida en el programa es Ready for the war de Marc Corominas Pujadó bajo licencia CC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ El resto de música es bajo licencia privada de Epidemic Music, Jamendo Music o SGAE SGAE RRDD/4/1074/1012 de Ivoox. 🎭Las opiniones expresadas en este programa de pódcast, son de exclusiva responsabilidad de quienes las trasmiten. Que cada palo aguante su vela. 📧¿Queréis contarnos algo? También puedes escribirnos a casus.belli.pod@gmail.com ¿Quieres anunciarte en este podcast, patrocinar un episodio o una serie? Hazlo a través de 👉 https://www.advoices.com/casus-belli-podcast-historia Si te ha gustado, y crees que nos lo merecemos, nos sirve mucho que nos des un like, ya que nos da mucha visibilidad. Muchas gracias por escucharnos, y hasta la próxima. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

En el verano de 1921, el sol abrasador del Rif fue testigo de uno de los episodios más trágicos de la historia militar española. Lo que debía ser una campaña rápida y victoriosa terminó convertido en un desastre sin precedentes: más de diez mil soldados españoles cayeron bajo el fuego implacable de las cabilas rifeñas dirigidas por Abd el-Krim. Annual no solo fue una derrota militar, sino también un golpe profundo a la conciencia nacional, que desató una crisis política, social y moral en España. En este episodio repasamos las causas, el desarrollo y las terribles consecuencias de aquella catástrofe que marcó para siempre la memoria del Ejército y del país. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

*** VIDEO EN NUESTRO CANAL DE YOUTUBE **** https://youtube.com/live/UZ8Go6EAraI +++++ Hazte con nuestras camisetas en https://www.bhmshop.app +++++ Se cumplen 100 años del Desembarco de Alhucemas, una operación que cambió el rumbo de la historia militar española. En este programa especial de Bellumartis Historia Militar conversamos sobre el nuevo libro de Roberto Muñoz Bolaños, profesor de las Universidades Camilo José Cela y Universidad del Atlántico Medio y autor de "Alhucemas 1925. El desembarco que decidió la Guerra de Marruecos" https://amzn.to/3JWfYuy . El desembarco de Alhucemas fue la primera gran operación anfibia moderna, un ensayo general de lo que décadas después serían Normandía o Tarawa. Su éxito puso fin a la sangrienta Guerra del Rif, tras los traumas de Annual o el Barranco del Lobo. En el programa analizamos: - Los antecedentes del desembarco: la larga guerra de Marruecos y la resistencia de Abd el-Krim. - La dimensión militar, estratégica y táctica de la operación. - El papel decisivo de la cooperación franco-española. - El contexto internacional tras 1918, marcado por el “momento wilsoniano” y el auge de los movimientos anticoloniales. - Cómo Alhucemas transformó a España y su ejército, cerrando un capítulo trágico de su historia colonial. Una programa que nos lleva del campo de batalla a las cancillerías europeas, para entender por qué Alhucemas fue el verdadero desenlace de la Guerra de Marruecos. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPRA EN AMAZON CON EL ENLACE DE BHM Y AYUDANOS ************** https://amzn.to/3ZXUGQl ************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOS LIBROS DE PACO https://franciscogarciacampa.com/libros/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Si queréis apoyar a Bellumartis Historia Militar e invitarnos a un café o u una cerveza virtual por nuestro trabajo, podéis visitar nuestro PATREON https://www.patreon.com/bellumartis o en PAYPAL https://www.paypal.me/bellumartis o en BIZUM 656/778/825 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conviértete en miembro de este canal y apoya nuestro trabajo https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTtIr7Q_mz1QkzbZc0RWUrw/join --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No olvidéis suscribiros al canal, si aún no lo habéis hecho. Si queréis ayudarnos, dadle a “me gusta” y también dejadnos comentarios. De esta forma ayudaréis a que los programas sean conocidos por más gente. Y compartidnos con vuestros amigos y conocidos. SIGUENOS EN TODAS LAS REDES SOCIALES ¿Queréis contactar con nosotros? Puedes escribirnos a bellumartispublicidad@hotmail.com como por WHATSAP o en BIZUM 656778825 Nuestra página principal es https://bellumartishistoriamilitar.blogspot.com y en la pagína web de Francisco García Campa https://franciscogarciacampa.com

In this episode, Krish dives into Small Wonder by Ross Montgomery, a thrilling story about bravery, loyalty, and adventure, following young Tick and his little brother Leaf as they face dangers on the edge of the kingdom of Ellia.Krish also sits down with Dr. Erin Bailey, Vice President of Literacy Programmes and Research at Reading Is Fundamental (RIF), one of the most important literacy charities in the United States. Dr. Bailey shares the challenges kids face in developing a love for reading, how representation in books can inspire children and ways families can make reading a fun, everyday habit.Key topics covered in this episode:Why children read more when they see themselves in storiesThe power of book ownership and choice through RIF's book celebration eventsHow technology and e-books are changing kids' reading habitsTips for creating family reading routines that stickInspiring children to share stories and become reading role modelsFollow Ross Montgomery Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mossmontmomeryWebsite: http://rossmontgomery.co.uk/Follow Reading is Fundamental (RIF)Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/readingisfundamentalWebsite: https://www.rif.org/Follow KrishInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/krishthepodcaster Follow The Fourth Bookmark Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thefourthbookmark

We recite in the morning a special Beracha thanking Hashem for enabling us to wake up refreshed and reinvigorated after a night's sleep – "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena Me'enai U'tnufa Me'af'apai." We then proceed immediately to the "Vi'yhi Rason" prayer, which concludes, "Baruch Ata Hashem Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim Le'amo Yisrael." The Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" and the subsequent "Vi'yhi Rason" prayer are considered a single, lengthy blessing. Therefore, somebody who hears another person reciting the Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" does not answer "Amen" when that person completes the words "Al Af'apai," because this blessing continues with "Vi'yhi Rason." One answers "Amen" only at the end, after hearing the recitation of "Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim Le'amo Yisrael." There is a general rule requiring that when a lengthy Beracha is recited, the conclusion must resemble the beginning; meaning, the end of the Beracha must speak of the same theme with which the Beracha opened. At first glance, the lengthy Beracha of "Ha'ma'abir Hebleh Shena" violates this rule, as it begins by speaking of Hashem allowing us to wake up refreshed in the morning, and concludes with the more general statement that Hashem performs kindness for the Jewish People ("Ha'gomel Hasadim Tobim…"). Tosafot, cited by the Bet Yosef, explains that in truth, the beginning and conclusion of this Beracha are indeed the same, only that the Beracha begins with a specific kindness that Hashem performs, and concludes with a general statement about Hashem's kindness. We open this Beracha by mentioning Hashem's restoring our strength and alertness in the morning, and we end by thanking Him for always acting kindly toward us. Further insight into this Beracha may be gleaned from the Midrash Tehillim (25:2), which teaches that Hashem returns our souls to us in the morning in better condition than when we went to sleep. Normally, the Midrash states, when somebody lends an object, he receives it back in slightly worse condition; it experienced at least some degree of-wear and-tear in the borrower's possession. But after we entrust our souls to G-d at night, He cleanses them for us, and returns them to us pure and pristine. This is, indeed, a great act of kindness that we experience each and every morning, warranting the recitation of a special Beracha. The text of this Beracha that appears in the Talmud is written in the singular form ("Me'enai… Me'af'apai," etc.), and this is the text brought by the Rif, Rambam and Rosh. Accordingly, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939) ruled that this Beracha should be recited in the singular form. The Ben Ish Hai adds that in the Siddur of the Rashash (Rav Shalom Sharabi, 1720-1777), which was written based on deep Kabbalistic teachings, this Beracha appears in the singular form. By contrast, the Mishna Berura brings several Poskim (the Kenesset Ha'gedola, Magen Abraham and Mateh Yehuda) as stating that this blessing should be recited in the plural form. Hacham Ovadia Yosef, in Halichot Olam, refutes the proofs brought by the Ben Ish Hai, noting that we do not always follow the precise text of Berachot that appears in the Gemara. (For example, we recite the Beracha of "Ha'noten La'sechvi Bina," which appears in the Gemara in past tense – "Asher Natan La'sechvi Bina.") And as for the Siddur of the Rashash, there are different versions of this work, as according to tradition, the original manuscript was buried by the Rashash's son. Therefore, no proof can be brought from the Siddur of the Rashash. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia ruled that those communities who have the custom to recite this Beracha in the plural form should follow their custom. This was, in the fact, the custom among the Jewish community of Damascus. This is also the practice among Ashkenazim. Most Sepharadim, however, recite this Beracha in the singular form, following the opinion of the Ben Ish Hai and Kaf Ha'haim.

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

When and how does an animal that was worshipped become prohibited? • Surprisingly, the Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with the Tur against the Rambam and Ran (the Rif and Rosh are mysteriously silent about Chalipei Chalipin)

The Defense Department is planning on reorganizing and reducing the size of the staff that supports the Defense Technical Information Center or DTIC. The Pentagon says through a reduction-in-force effort, DTIC will cut 40 civilian positions. It expects the RIF notices to go out by August 25. Additionally, Silvana Rubino-Hallman, who is the acting administrator of DTIC, will conduct a zero-based core mission review for all contractor personnel augmenting DTIC staff and will direct contracting officers to issue any stop-work-orders as appropriate. DoD expects the RIF and reorganization to save more than $25 million per year. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On the latest episode of Your Employment Matters, Beverly Williams hosts a dynamic and honest conversation with three labor attorneys from Selikoff & Cohen: Elizabeth Pudel, Daniel Dowdy, and Hop Wechsler. explore the realities of labor law, the future of work, and why community, advocacy, and adaptability matter more than ever. Here are the top takeaways from this insightful discussion: There's No One-Path Career JourneyEach guest shared their unique path to labor law, from academia and publishing to bartending and temp work, highlighting how real-world experience shaped their perspectives and fueled their passion for workers' rights. Labor Law Is Personal and PowerfulWhether dealing with reductions in force (RIF), unemployment, or workplace discrimination, the attorneys stressed that labor law is rooted in real people's lives. Public sector unions, in particular, are vital to protecting essential workers and ensuring fair treatment. The Future of Work Is Uncertain but Unions Are a ConstantAI and automation were hot topics, with all guests agreeing that while technology may change industries, labor power and union advocacy remain key to ensuring that innovation doesn't come at the cost of worker dignity and livelihoods. Union Jobs = Tangible BenefitsUnionized workers earn higher wages, have better benefits, and enjoy stronger job protections. Data from the Department of Treasury and Bureau of Labor Statistics backs this up with unions helping to close the racial wealth and gender wage gaps. Adaptability, Curiosity, and Community Are EssentialBeverly and her guests agreed that finding your professional path often comes through trial, error, and connection. Building relationships, especially across different backgrounds can open unexpected doors and provide support when you need it most. Final Words of Advice: Tap into your community. Collective power starts with connection. Leaving a review of this podcast is encouraged and greatly appreciated.  Check out Beverly Williams book: Your GPS to Employment Success Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rachel Blackman-Rogers and Catherine Scheybeler, both of King's College London, join Alex Stevenson for an in-depth look at one of Horatio Nelson's most famous formative battles. The Royal Navy in the 1790s was always going to do well against the Spanish Navy, but it was Nelson's decisive use of initiative - and then the double-boarding to capture not one but two Spanish ships his Captain had become entangled with - which marked this battle out. This episode also features written contributions by Rif Winfield, co-author of Pen and Sword's Warships In The Age of Sail series. Thank you to Rif for taking part. You can read Rif's contributions in full on Patreon.Help us produce more episodes by supporting the Napoleonic Quarterly on Patreon: patreon.com/napoleonicquarterly

The U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its restructuring plans for federal agencies and the workforce is not the final word. Cases are still making their way through lower courts at the same time as several agencies have issued RIF notifications. Here to help us make sense of the variety of issues is managing partner at Tulley Rinckey, Michael Fallings.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on "Off The Cuff," Hugh is joined by Karen, Megan and Sarah to catch listeners up on some of the biggest news impacting student financial aid policy. Hugh kicks things off with a quick update on the Department of Education's (ED) reduction in force (RIF) and how a recent order from the U.S. Supreme Court could impact the department's staffing levels, while Megan and Karen explain some concerns about processing backlogs. The team then turns to discussing how the reconciliation law will directly impact several programs housed within the Higher Education Act (HEA). Sarah walks listeners through the law and answers some questions members have had since its enactment. Karen then explains how reconciliation differs from the annual appropriations process. Finally, Megan catches listeners up on the department's most recent negotiated rulemaking (NegReg) process and its potential impact on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program.

(0:00) The Besties welcome Travis Kalanick and Keith Rabois! (3:02) Travis on Pony.ai / Uber rumors and the state of Cloud Kitchens (18:51) xAI launches Grok 4, learning "The Bitter Lesson" in AI (40:36) How Grok can catch ChatGPT in usage, OpenAI's product excellence (46:27) Perplexity and OpenAI building AI-native browsers and taking on Chrome (58:01) Elon's "America Party": is now the right time for a third party, and could he make an impact in 2026? (1:13:12) SCOTUS backs Trump over federal government RIF plans Follow the Keith: https://x.com/rabois Follow the Travis: https://x.com/travisk Get The Besties All-In Tequila: https://tequila.allin.com Join us at the All-In Summit: https://allin.com/summit Summit scholarship application: http://bit.ly/4kyZqFJ Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect Referenced in the show: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/technology/uber-travis-kalanick-self-driving-car-deal.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW5fJikPmfM https://grok.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wTA90BYo30 https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/08/elon-musk-agrees-that-weve-exhausted-ai-training-data https://x.com/ArtificialAnlys/status/1943166841150644622 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1943192643439337753 http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html https://x.com/chamath/status/1943177837956968499 https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/09/perplexity-launches-comet-an-ai-powered-web-browser https://x.com/perplexity_ai/status/1942969263305671143 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1941584569523732930 https://polymarket.com/event/will-elon-register-the-america-party-by https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/presidential-approval/highslows https://news.gallup.com/poll/651278/support-third-political-party-dips.aspx https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-implement-plans-to-significantly-reduce-the-federal-workforce https://www.afge.org/article/summary-of-afge-lawsuits-against-trump--how-litigation-works https://cei.org/publication/10kc-2025-numbers-of-rules https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/american-manhunt-osama-bin-laden-release-date-news

The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a district court order that prevented multiple federal agencies from carrying out reductions-in-force, clearing the way for those actions to resume. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices granted the government's request for a stay of the lower court ruling, concluding that it will likely be successful on its argument that President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to make plans for RIFs and corresponding guidance from the White House were lawful. The justices, however, also emphasized that their ruling doesn't express a view on the legality of RIF or reorganization plans under that order and memo. The district court's preliminary injunction hinged on that court's view that Trump's order and the Office of Management and Budget's memo were unlawful and not on any of the plans specifically. Under the injunction from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a wide array of federal agencies were required to halt their RIF plans — which included the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of State, Department of Commerce, and many more. It also prompted OMB to pause reviewing or discussing those plans with agencies, per FedScoop reporting. While other legal challenges are moving forward on agency RIFs, the Supreme Court's ruling, at least for now, means they can begin those actions again. Anthropic is making the enterprise version of its chatbot Claude available to the entire staff of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the artificial intelligence company announced Wednesday. The expansion comes as generative AI companies look to deepen their relationship with the federal government's national lab system — and amid growing interest in agencies' use of the technology. Anthropic said the expansion comes after a pilot, as well as an event in March that allowed thousands of scientists based at the California lab to learn about the technology. The company said the program, which involves its Claude for Enterprise product, constitutes one of the most significant lab deployments of AI at the Energy Department. As many as ten thousand national lab employees will now be able to use generative AI for their work. Lawrence Livermore will eventually have access to a forthcoming FedRAMP High service, once it's approved and accredited, meaning lab scientists will be able to use Claude on unclassified data that requires that level of accreditation. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

In this episode, Jethro Jones introduces a special conversation between Dr. Erin Bailey, Vice President of Literacy Programs and Research at Reading is Fundamental, and Barb Solish, the NAMI National Director of Innovation. They discuss the partnership between Reading is Fundamental (RIF) and the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), supported by Macy's, to provide books and mental health resources to children nationwide. The conversation dives into the youth mental health crisis, the literacy crisis, and how these two organizations are working together to support children's mental and emotional well-being through literacy and other resources.NAMI and RIF joining together with the support of Macy'sBeing next to someone is powerfulName it to tame it. Identifying emotions for kids is powerfulLiteracy for skills in both areas. The power of a mother reading aloud to her children. NICU mothers reading aloud to kids every day lowered rates of post-partum depression and stress. Routine and trust are built together. Early intervention The Presence and the connection is what really matters. Barb Solish: Link to headshot - National Alliance on Mental illnessBarb Solish is NAMI's National Director of Innovation. She is passionate about mental health awareness, education, and advocacy, especially after the loss of a friend to suicide. Barb's lived experience developing a mental health condition as a young person also motivates her work improving outcomes for young people with mental health concerns.In her time at NAMI, Barb has led NAMI's Youth and Young Adult Initiatives team, developing new resources for kids, teens, young adults, educators, and caregivers. She also led the creation of new initiatives, including the virtual version of the NAMI Ending the Silence presentation program for middle and high school students and NAMI Next Gen, NAMI's young adult advisory group. In addition to youth and young adult work, Barb oversees NAMI's Workplace Mental Health Initiatives, including NAMI StigmaFree Workplace. Barb believes strongly that not only is creating a mentally healthy workplace the right thing to do, it's an economic imperative.Erin Bailey, Vice President, Literacy Programs & Research, Reading Is FundamentalErin Bailey, Ed.D., joined Reading Is Fundamental in 2021 and currently serves as the Vice President of Literacy Programs and Research. Dr. Bailey brings deep curriculum and instructional expertise to her position, which includes serving as the subject matter expert and developing, curating, and managing content and professional learning for educators and families on literacy.She has played a pivotal role in shaping high-quality, research-based content that supports Pre-K through Middle School students nationwide. With a strong command of literacy best practices, she leads cross-functional efforts to ensure RIF's resources spark reading joy while aligning with effective instructional strategies. Passionate about empowering educators, Dr. Bailey has spearheaded RIF's professional development initiatives—designing and delivering hands-on, relevant learning experiences that build lasting capacity and support classroom success.Dr. Bailey has been an educator in U.S. and international classrooms. Her teaching experience spans from PreK-8 including roles as a classroom teacher, literacy specialist, English language learning specialist, and university instructor. Her interests include professional learning for teachers on family and community engagement, instructional strategies for multilingual learners, and literacy instruction. She is interested in the ways that partnering with families and communities, particularly for children from historically marginalized communities, can transform literacy instruction. Additionally, she designs curriculum and professional development for utilizing play-based learning to teach language and literacy to young children.Dr. Bailey has a robust and interdisciplinary research repertoire including learning through informal spaces such as public gardens, art museums, and social movements. She takes up art processes such as film, photography, and sound mixing to expand approaches to qualitative inquiry. She has presented her work at several major conferences including the American Education Research Association (AERA) and the World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP) and has published in academic journals including Qualitative Inquiry, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, and Journal of Literacy Research. Join the Transformative Mastermind Today and work on your school, not just in it. Apply today. We're thrilled to be sponsored by IXL. IXL's comprehensive teaching and learning platform for math, language arts, science, and social studies is accelerating achievement in 95 of the top 100 U.S. school districts. Loved by teachers and backed by independent research from Johns Hopkins University, IXL can help you do the following and more:Simplify and streamline technologySave teachers' timeReliably meet Tier 1 standardsImprove student performance on state assessments

“Fascism isn't just about power—it's about controlling the stories we tell. It warps narratives to justify oppression, trapping us in cycles of dominance and despair. But stories can also resist, break those cycles, and open the door to something new.“ This is how YouTuber and hardcore Trekkie Jessie Gender starts her video essay “The Stories Fascism Fears Most“ which we highly recommend. A few weeks ago, Elia Ayoub sat down with Jessie to talk about it. They got into their love of Star Trek - because of course they did - as well as other franchises like The Matrix. This is a special crossover episode between The Fire These Times and Resistance is Fertile, a Star Trek Anarchist podcast by Elia and carla joy bergman. Show NotesSupport the making of RIF on PatreonRIF BlueSky: @thestartrekpod.bsky.social‬RIF IGElia's workcarla's workJessie Gender's YouTube channelMusic by NinePulseTech by Chris BergmanRIF is co-produced by carla and EliaThe Fire These Times is on Bluesky,⁠ IG⁠ and⁠ YouTube⁠ and has a⁠ ⁠website⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠From The Periphery is on⁠ ⁠Patreon⁠⁠, ⁠Bluesky⁠, ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠,⁠ Instagram⁠, and has a⁠ website⁠⁠Transcriptions: Transcriptions are usually done by⁠ Antidote Zine⁠ and published on⁠ The Fire These Times' transcript archive⁠. However, this time it's the RIF gang that did the transcripts. Thanks for listening! 

Our podcast show being released today is Part 2 of our two-part series featuring two former CFPB senior officers who were key employees in the Enforcement Division under prior directors: Eric Halperin and Craig Cowie. Eric Halperin served as the Enforcement Director at the CFPB from 2010 until former Director, Rohit Chopra, was terminated by President Trump. Craig Cowie was an enforcement attorney at the CFPB from July 2012 until April 2015 and then Assistant Litigation Deputy at the CFPB until June 2018. Part 1 of our two-part series was released last Thursday, June 12.  The purpose of these podcast shows were primarily to obtain the opinions of Eric and Craig (two of the country's most knowledgeable and experienced lawyers with respect to CFPB Enforcement) about the legal and practical impact of (i) a Memo to CFPB Staff from Mark Paoletta, Chief Legal Officer, dated April 16, 2025, entitled “2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities” (described below) which rescinded prior priority documents and established a whole new set of priorities which in most instances are vastly different than the Enforcement Priority documents which guided former directors,  (ii) the dismissal without prejudice of the majority of enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Acting Director Russell Vought was appointed to run the agency, and (iii) other drastic steps taken by CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought to minimize the functions and staffing at the agency. That included, among other things, an order calling a halt to all work at the agency, including the pausing of ongoing investigations and lawsuits and the creation of plans by Vought to reduce the agency's staff (“RIF”) from about 1,750 employees to about 250 employees (including a reduction of Enforcement staff to 50 employees from 258). We described in detail the 2025 Supervision and Enforcement Priorities as follows: ·       Reduced Supervisory Exams: A 50% decrease in the overall number of exams to ease burdens on businesses and consumers. ·       Focus on Depository Institutions: Shifting attention back to banks and credit unions. ·       Emphasis on Actual Fraud: Prioritizing cases with verifiable consumer harm and measurable damages. ·       Redressing Tangible Harm: Concentrating on direct consumer remediation rather than punitive penalties. ·       Protection for Service Members and Veterans:Prioritizing redress for these groups. ·       Respect for Federalism: Minimizing duplicative oversight and coordinating with state regulators when possible. ·       Collaboration with Federal Agencies: Coordinating with other federal regulators and avoiding overlapping supervision. ·       Avoiding Novel Legal Theories: Limiting enforcement to areas clearly within the Bureau's statutory authority. ·       Fair Lending Focus: Pursuing only cases of proven intentional racial discrimination with identifiable victims and not using statistical evidence for fair lending assessments. Key Areas of Focus: ·       Mortgages (highest priority) ·       FCRA/Regulation V (data furnishing violations) ·       FDCPA/Regulation F (consumer contracts/debts) ·       Fraudulent overcharges and fees ·       Inadequate consumer information protection Deprioritized Areas: ·       Loans for "justice involved" individuals ·       Medical debt ·       Peer-to-peer lending platforms ·       Student loans ·       Remittances ·       Consumer data ·       Digital payments We also described the status of a lawsuit brought by the union representing CFPB employees and other parties against Vought seeking to enjoin him from implementing the RIF. The Court has granted a preliminary injunction which so far has largely prevented Vought from following through on the RIF. The matter is now on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and a ruling is expected soon. These podcast shows complement the podcast show we released on June 5 which featured two former senior CFPB employees, Peggy Twohig and Paul Sanford who opined about the impact of the April 16 Paoletta memo and proposed RIF on CFPB Supervision. Eric and Craig considered, among other issues, the following: 1.  How do the new Paoletta priorities differ from the previous priorities and what do the new priorities tell us about what we can expect from CFPB Enforcement? 2.  What do the new priorities tell us about the CFPB's new approach toward Enforcement priorities? 3.  What can we learn from the fact that the CFPB has dismissed without prejudice at least 22 out of the 38 enforcement lawsuits that were pending when Vought became the Acting Director?  What types of enforcement lawsuits are still active and what types of lawsuits were dismissed? 4.  What are the circumstances surrounding the nullification of certain consent orders (including the Townstone case) and the implications for other consent orders? 5. Has the CFPB launched any new enforcement lawsuits under Vought? 6. What level and type of enforcement is statutorily required? 7.  Realistically, what will 50 employees be able to do in the enforcement area? 8. What will be the impact of the Supervision cutbacks be on Enforcement since Supervision refers many cases to Enforcement? 9.  Will the CFPB continue to seek civil money penalties for violations of law? 10.  What types of fair lending cases will the CFPB bring in the future?11.  Will Enforcement no longer initiate cases based on the unfairness or abusive prongs of UDAAP? Alan Kaplinsky, former practice group leader for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Group, hosts the podcast show. Postscript: After the recording of this podcast, Cara Petersen, who succeeded Eric Halperin as head of CFPB Enforcement, resigned abruptly on June 10 from the CFPB after sending out an e-mail message to all its employees (which was shared with the media) which stated, in relevant part: “I have served under every director and acting director in the bureau's history and never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack,” wrote  Petersen, who had worked at the agency since it became operational in 2011. She continued: “It has been devastating to see the bureau's enforcement function being dismantled through thoughtless reductions in staff, inexplicable dismissals of cases, and terminations of negotiated settlements that let wrongdoers off the hook.” “It is clear that the bureau's current leadership has no intention to enforce the law in any meaningful way,” Petersen wrote in her e-mail. “While I wish you all the best, I worry for American consumers.” During this part of the podcast show, we discussed the fact that the CFPB has entered into agreements with a few companies that had previously entered into consent agreements with former Director Chopra. After the recording of this podcast, the Federal District Court that presided over the Townstone Financial enforcement litigation involving alleged violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act refused to approve the rescission or undoing of the consent agreement based on Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because of the strong public policy of preserving the finality of judgments.

Monday, June 2nd, 2025Today, Ukraine destroyed more than 40 military aircraft in a drone attack deep inside Russia; the new Office of Personnel Management hiring plan includes loyalty essays; ICE raids a restaurant on a Friday night in San Diego and uses flashbang grenades to disperse the protesting crowd; Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to assassinate Trump but that appears to have been a set up; Donald Trump shared a conspiracy theory on Truth Social saying Biden was executed in 2020 and the man that was President until 2025 is a robot clone; top officials overseeing deportations at ICE are leaving their positions; a Women is suing Kansas over a law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy; Dan Bongino and Kash Patel say video shows that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide; Elon Musk denies a report that he took so much ketamine he doesn't pee right; the CDC keeps recommending Covid vaccines for children in defiance of RFK Jr; a Reagan appointed judge orders the Trump administration to fund Radio Free Europe; PBS has filed suit against the Trump regime for first amendment violations; the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reject's Trump's bid to move forward with massive federal government reductions in force; California opens an inquiry into Paramount and Trump; the government has ended a critical HIV vaccine effort; elderly and disabled Californians with more than $2,000 could lose Medi-Cal; a Jeffrey Epstein survivor is suing the FBI for failing to address her claims; Taylor Swift gets her music back; and Allison delivers your Good News.Thank You, DeletMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, PiqueGet 20% off on the Radiant Skin Duo, plus a FREE starter kit at Piquelife.com/dailybeans Sat June 14 10am – 12pm PDT AG is hosting NO KINGS Waterfront Park, San DiegoDonation link - secure.actblue.com/donate/fuelthemovementMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Paul KieselSpeak Up for Justice  - Speak Up for Justice seeks to bring the country together to voice support for the judiciary at a time when it is under unprecedented attack. It grows out of a shared recognition that the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are the hallmarks of our democracy. Next Webinars - June 26, July 31Stories:Outrage and solidarity after ICE raid shakes South Park restaurant | Fox 5 San DiegoAppeals panel leaves layoff injunction in place as Trump's RIF plans likely head to Supreme Court | Government ExecutivePBS sues Trump over executive order targeting federal funding, following NPR | The Washington PostWomen sue Kansas over law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy | The Washington PostCalifornia opens inquiry into Paramount and Trump | SemaforUkraine destroys 40 aircraft deep inside Russia ahead of peace talks in Istanbul | AP NewsOPM ‘merit' hiring plan includes bipartisan reforms, politicized new test | Government ExecutiveTop Officials Overseeing Deportations Leave Their Roles at ICE | The New York TimesExclusive: Kristi Noem said a migrant threatened to kill Trump. Investigators think he was set up | CNN PoliticsFBI leaders say jail video shows Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide | NBC NewsContradicting RFK Jr., CDC keeps recommending covid vaccine for kids | The Washington PostTrump Administration Ends Program Critical to Search for an H.I.V. Vaccine | The New York TimesElderly, disabled with $2,000 in assets could lose Medi-Cal | CalMattersElon Musk Denies Report He Took So Much Ketamine He Doesn't Pee Right | RollingStoneTaylor Swift buys back her master recordings | BBCGood Trouble: Contact ICE and let them know if you've been harmed by an alien.https://www.ice.gov/voice Or call - 855-48VOICEProton Mail: free email account with privacy and encryptionFind Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:250th Anniversary of the U.S. Army Grand Military Parade and CelebrationSchedule F comments deadline extended to June 7th Federal Register :: Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Share your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsThe Resistance Lab - Pramila for Congress1776 - 'Is Anybody There', from the 1972 American musical drama film - YouTubeVisiting | Animals in DistressPostcardsToVoters.orgReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts