Podcasts about Rif

durée : 00:59:02 - Le Cours de l'histoire - par : Xavier Mauduit, Maïwenn Guiziou - Francisco Franco est né en 1892 à Ferrol en Galice. Comment grimpe-t-il progressivement les échelons du commandement militaire, notamment lors de la guerre du Rif ? Quel rôle joue-t-il dans le coup d'État de juillet 1936, qui fait basculer l'Espagne dans la guerre civile, jusqu'à devenir Caudillo ? - réalisation : Thomas Beau - invités : Pierre Salmon Maître de conférences en histoire contemporaine à l'École normale supérieure; Mercedes Yusta Rodrigo Professeure d'histoire de l'Espagne contemporaine à l'Université Paris 8

La biografia e la bibliografia (in italiano) di Mohamed Choukri, uno dei più grandi intellettuali marocchini di sempre con una storia leggendariaIscriviti qui alla nuova newsletter, ogni 7 del mese un nuovo appuntamentoRispondi a questo sondaggio di 7 domande per migliorare i contenuti ed i progetti futuri di Medio Oriente e Dintorni Qui trovate tutti i link di Medio Oriente e Dintorni: Linktree, ma, andando un po' nel dettaglio: -Tutti gli aggiornamenti sulla pagina instagram @medioorienteedintorni -Per articoli visitate il sito https://mediorientedintorni.com/ trovate anche la "versione articolo" di questo podcast. - Qui il link al canale Youtube- Podcast su tutte le principali piattaforme in Italia e del mondo-Vuoi tutte le uscite in tempo reale? Iscriviti al gruppo Telegram: https://t.me/mediorientedintorniOgni like, condivisione o supporto è ben accetto e mi aiuta a dedicarmi sempre di più alla mia passione: raccontare il Medio Oriente ed il "mondo islamico"

On today's Dear Heretics segment, Nolan and Kelli tackle a question on navigating layoffs, revealing hard-won lessons from cutting deep, treating people humanely, and avoiding rookie RIF mistakes.Support our Sponsor:Metaview is the AI platform built for recruiting. Check it out: https://www.metaview.ai/heretics* Our suite of AI agents work across your hiring process to save time, boost decision quality, and elevate the candidate experience.* Learn why team builders at 3,000+ cutting-edge companies like Brex, Deel, and Quora can't live without Metaview.* It only takes minutes to get up and running.KEEP UP WITH NOLAN + KELLI ON LINKEDINNolan: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nolan-church/Kelli: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kellidragovich/__For coaching and advising inquire at https://kellidragovich.com/—TIMESTAMPS:(00:00) Intro(03:22) Dear Heretics: What to Know Before Your First RIF(05:10) The Carta Layoff Playbook: Cut Deep, Stay Humane, Do It Once(09:19) Sponsor: Metaview(10:41) Change Management: Why Before and After Matter Most(15:00) Opt-In Severance and Tucking In Top Performers(19:00) Designing for Trust Over Fear(22:04) Leadership Accountability and the Golden Rule(24:11) Wrap This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hrheretics.substack.com

En première partie, le changement climatique. Dix ans après la COP de Paris et ses fondamentaux pour changer les choses, c'est à Belèm au Brésil que s'ouvre demain la grande conférence climat. Au coeur des préoccupations, notamment, la forêt. Et la plus vaste, l'Amazonie. Un des 4 reportages que nous lui consacrons porte sur l'archéologie. En cherchant bien, on voit dans cet imbroglio impénétrable de plantes géantes et humides qu'il était pénétré et cultivé il y a des millénaires. Les communautés indigènes avaient des pratiques durables. Leurs terres sont les mieux conservées. ... Le second reportage de notre émission nous emmène au Maroc, pays de culture et d'exportation illégale massive vers l'Europe de cannabis. Par go-fast sur les routes, par camionnettes entières, par bateau, le Maroc approvisionne le Nord. Mais au Maroc, tout en gardant la plante, une alternative est née pour tirer du cannabis des produits normaux, légaux. Amazonie 2/4: une forêt jardinée depuis des millénaires Deuxième épisode de notre série exceptionnelle de Grands Reportages en Amazonie à l'occasion de la COP30 sur le climat au Brésil : nous partons à la rencontre des archéologues brésiliens. Par leur travail, ils nous montrent que l'Amazonie n'est pas une forêt vierge, que les populations autochtones auraient gardée sous cloche. Elle est, au contraire, cultivée depuis des milliers d'années.  Quelles sont ces pratiques durables des communautés indigènes ? Pourquoi leurs terres sont les mieux conservées de cette immensité verte ?  Un Grand reportage de Lucile Gimberg qui s'entretient avec Jacques Allix.   Au royaume du cannabis, la révolution du chanvre légal Le Maroc est réputé à travers le monde entier pour la qualité de sa résine de cannabis. C'est le plus gros producteur de la planète. Problème, jusque-là, seuls les narcotrafiquants en profitaient réellement, exploitant un terroir unique dans le nord du pays. À flanc de montagnes, dans le Rif, les champs de marijuana s'étendent à perte de vue. Il y a quelques années, l'idée a germé dans l'esprit des autorités : extirper cette économie de l'illicite et de l'informel, pour en faire une culture légale. Agriculteurs, coopératives de transformation, exportateurs, une nouvelle filière se déploie. Un Grand reportage de Matthias Raynal qui s'entretient avec Jacques Allix.

As the current shutdown tops the 35-day record of 2018-2019, the impact on the federal workforce grows. The administration has signaled it may withhold back pay from furloughed employees and proceed with mass reductions in force, despite clear legal protections. Attorney Heidi Burakiewicz breaks down the Anti-Deficiency Act amendments, ongoing litigation in California courts, and what federal employees facing RIF notices need to know about their rights and legal recourse. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The ability to pay for a college education usually depends on stable economic conditions and clear, predictable rules. But what happens when everything seems to change every day? Amy and Mike invited financial aid advisor Ed Recker to explain what federal policy changes mean for financial aid. What are five things you will learn in this episode? What federal policy changes will have the potential biggest impacts to students? What federal policy changes will have the potential biggest impacts to colleges & universities? Has the U.S. Department of Education's reduction in force (RIF) impacted the financial aid process? Were there any changes to the FAFSA or federal student loans? Are there any benefits to completing the FAFSA early? MEET OUR GUEST Ed Recker is a Director of High School Relationship Management with Sallie Mae, serving high schools, states, and professional organizations throughout the U.S. He joined Sallie Mae in 2019, and has over 20 years' experience in the financial aid and enrollment industry.  Prior to joining Sallie Mae, Ed was a Senior Consultant within the Enrollment Division of Ruffalo Noel Levitz, held the position of Vice President for Enrollment Management at the University of Findlay, and held various financial aid positions at the University of Findlay, Terra State Community College, and Bowling Green State University. Ed holds a M.Ed. in Higher Education from the University of Toledo, and resides in Ottawa, OH with his wife Kate and daughter Evelyn. Ed appeared on the podcast in episode #492 to discuss The Better FAFSA For New And Previous Filers and in episode #544 to discuss First Impressions Of The Better FAFSA. Find Ed at Edward.Recker@salliemae.com. LINKS FAFSA 2026-27 - How to Apply for Financial Aid FAFSA Simplification: A Better FAFSA Process Means a Better Future for Borrowers | Federal Student Aid - Financial Aid Toolkit RELATED EPISODES HOW ARE POLITICAL CHANGES SHAPING HIGHER ED UNDERSTANDING YOUR COLLEGE TUITION BILL WHAT IS A NET PRICE CALCULATOR? THE PRICE YOU REALLY PAY FOR COLLEGE ABOUT THIS PODCAST Tests and the Rest is THE college admissions industry podcast. Explore all of our episodes on the show page. ABOUT YOUR HOSTS Mike Bergin is the president of Chariot Learning and founder of TestBright, Roots2Words, and College Eagle. Amy Seeley is the president of Seeley Test Pros and LEAP. If you're interested in working with Mike and/or Amy for test preparation, training, or consulting, get in touch through our contact page.  

The path to progressing as a leader isn't always linear. SUMMARY Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott shows how a childhood dream can evolve into a lifetime of impact—from commanding in uniform to leading innovation in healthcare and national defense. Hear more on Long Blue Leadership. Listen now!   SHARE THIS PODCAST LINKEDIN  |  FACEBOOK   MIKE'S LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS A leader worth his or her salt should be comfortable not being the smartest person in the room. Striving for a lack of hubris is essential in leadership. Setting a clear vision is a fundamental leadership skill. Moving people without authority is crucial for effective leadership. Resource management is key to achieving organizational goals. Acknowledging what you don't know is a strength in leadership. Effective leaders focus on guiding their teams rather than asserting dominance. Leadership is about influencing and inspiring others. A successful mission requires collaboration and shared vision. True leadership is about empowering others to succeed.   CHAPTERS 00:00: Early Inspiration 06:32: Academy Years 13:17: Military Career Transition 21:33: Financial Services Journey 31:29: MOBE and Healthcare Innovation 40:12: Defense Innovation Unit 48:42: Philanthropy and Community Impact 58:11: Personal Growth and Leadership Lessons   ABOUT MIKE OTT BIO Mike Ott is the Chief Executive Officer of MOBĒ, a U.S.-based company focused on whole-person health and care-management solutions. He became CEO in April 2022, taking the helm to lead the company through growth and operational excellence following a distinguished career in both the military and corporate sectors.  A graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, Mike served as a Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves before shifting into financial services and healthcare leadership roles including private wealth management at U.S. Bank and executive positions with UnitedHealth Group/Optum. His leadership ethos emphasizes alignment, acceleration, and human potential, building cultures where teams can thrive and leveraging data-driven models to improve health outcomes.   CONNECT WITH MIKE LinkedIn MOBE CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LEADERSHIP PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org Ted Robertson | Producer:  Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org    Ryan Hall | Director:  Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org  Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor:  Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer:  Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org      ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS     OUR SPEAKERS Guest, Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott '85  |  Host, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99   FULL TRANSCRIPT Naviere Walkewicz 0:00 A quick programming note before we begin this episode of Long Blue Leadership: This episode will be audio-only, so sit back and enjoy the listen. Welcome to Long Blue Leadership, the podcast where we share insights on leadership through the lives and experiences of Air Force Academy graduates. I'm Naviere Walkewicz, Class of '99. Today, on Long Blue Leadership, we welcome Col. (Ret.) Mike Ott, Class of 1985, a leader whose vision was sparked at just 9 years old during a family road trip past the Air Force Academy. That childhood dream carried him through a 24-year Air Force career, culminating in retirement as a colonel and into a life of leadership across business, innovation and philanthropy. Mike is the CEO of MOBE, a groundbreaking company that uses data analytics and a revolutionary pay-for-results model to improve health outcomes while reducing costs. He also serves as a senior adviser to the Defense Innovation Unit, supporting the secretary of defense in accelerating commercial innovation for national security. A member of the Forbes Councils, Mike shares his expertise with leaders around the world. A former Falcon Foundation trustee and longtime supporter of the Academy, Mike has given generously his time, talents and resources to strengthen the Long Blue Line. His story is one of innovation and service in uniform, in the marketplace and in his community. Mike, welcome to Long Blue Leadership. We're so glad to have you here.   Mike Ott 1:29 Naviere, thanks a ton. I'm glad to be here. Naviere Walkewicz 1:31 Yes, yes. Well, we're really excited. I mean, you're here for your 40th reunion.   Mike Ott 1:35 Yeah, it's crazy.   Naviere Walkewicz1:37 You came right in, and we're so pleased that you would join us here first for this podcast.   Mike Ott 1:39 Right on. Thanks for the time.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:41 Absolutely. Well, let's jump right in, because not many people can say at 9 years old they know what they want to do when they grew up, but you did. Mike Ott 1:48 Yeah. I guess some people can say it; might not be true, but for me, it's true, good or bad. And goodness gracious, right? Here for my 40th reunion, do the math team, and as a 9-year-old, that was 1972, And a lot was going on in the world in 1972 whether it was political unrest, Vietnam and all of that, and the Academy was in the thick of it. And so we had gone — It was our first significant family vacation. My father was a Chicago policeman. We drove in the 1968 Buick LaSabre, almost straight through. Stopped, stayed at a Holiday Inn, destination Colorado, simply, just because nobody had ever seen the mountains before. That was why. And we my parents, mom, mom and dad took myself. I have two younger sisters, Pikes Peak, Academy, Garden of the Gods, Royal Gorge. And I remember noon meal formation, and the bell going off. Guys at the time — we hadn't had women as cadets at that point in time — running out in their flight suits as I recall lining up ready to go. And for me, it was the energy, right, the sense of, “Wow, this is something important.” I didn't know exactly how important it was, but I knew it was important, and I could envision even at that age, there was they were doing good, Naviere Walkewicz 3:21 Wow. Nine years old, your family went on vacation, and it just struck you as this is important and something that I want to do. So what did that conversation look like after that experience that you had as a 9-year-old and kind of manifest this in yourself? How did that go with your parents? Mike Ott 3:36 Well, I didn't say too much about it, as I was in grammar school, but as high school hit, you know, I let my folks know what my plans were, and I had mom and dad — my mother's still alive, my father passed about a year ago. Very, very good, hard-working, ethical people, but hadn't gone to college, and we had been told, “Look, you know, you need to get an education.” They couldn't. I wish they had. They were both very, very, very bright, and so I knew college was a plan. I also knew there wasn't a lot of money to pay for it. So I'm certain that that helped bake in a few things. But as I got into high school, I set my sights. I went to public high school in Chicago, and I remember freshman year walking into my counselor's office, and said, “I want to go to the Air Force Academy,” and he kind of laughed.   Naviere Walkewicz 3:21 Really?   Mike Ott 3:22 Well, we had 700 kids in my class, and maybe 40% went on to college, right? And the bulk of them went to community college or a state school. I can count on one hand the number of folks that went to an academy or an Ivy League school or something of that. So it was it was around exposure. It had nothing to do with intelligence. It was exposure and just what these communities were accustomed to. A lot of folks went into the trades and pieces like that. So my counselor's reaction wasn't one of shock or surprise insofar as that's impossible. It was, “We haven't had a lot of people make that commitment this early on, and I'm glad to help.”   Naviere Walkewicz 5:18 Oh, I love that.   Mike Ott 5:19 Which is wonderful, and what I had known at the time, Mr. Needham...   Naviere Walkewicz 5:23 You Remember his name?   Mike Ott 5:24 Yeah, he was in the Navy Reserves. He was an officer, so he got the joke. He got the joke and helped me work through what classes to take, how to push myself. I didn't need too much guidance there. I determined, “Well, I've got to distinguish myself.” And I like to lean in. I like a headwind, and I don't mind a little bit of an uphill battle, because once you get up there, you feel great. I owe an awful lot to him. And, not the superintendent, but the principal of our school was a gentleman named Sam Ozaki, and Sam was Japanese American interned during World War II as a young man, got to of service age and volunteered and became a lieutenant in the Army and served in World War II in Europe, right, not in Asia. So he saw something in me. He too became an advocate. He too became someone that sought to endorse, support or otherwise guide me. Once I made that claim that I was going to go to the Academy. Naviere Walkewicz 6:30 Wow. So you mentioned something that really stuck with me. You said, you know, you didn't mind kind of putting yourself out there and doing the hard things, because you knew when you got to the top it was going to feel really great. Was that something you saw from your father? Was that something, there are key leaders in your life that emulated that? Or is that just something that you always had in yourself? Mike Ott 6:51 I would say there's certainly an environmental element to it — how I was raised, what I was exposed to, and then juxtaposition as to what I observed with other family members or other parts of the community where things didn't work out very well, right? And, you know, I put two and two together. y father demonstrated, throughout his entire career what it means to have a great work ethic. As did mom and, you know, big, tough Chicago cop for 37 years. But the other thing that I learned was kindness, and you wouldn't expect to learn that from the big, tough Chicago cop, but I think it was environment, observing what didn't occur very often and how hard work, if I apply myself, can create outcomes that are going to be more fulfilling for me. Naviere Walkewicz 7:48 Wow, you talked about kindness. How did you see kindness show up in your journey as a cadet at the Air Force Academy? Or did you? Mike Ott 7:58 Yeah, gosh, so I remember, started in June of 1981, OK, and still connected with many of the guys and women that with whom I went to basic training and all that. The first moment of kindness that I experienced that it was a mutual expression, but one where I recognized, “Wow, every one of us is new here. None of us has a real clue.” We might have some idea because we had somebody had a sibling or a mother that was in the military or father that went to the academy at the time, but none of us really knew, right? We were knuckleheads, right? Eighteen years old. Maybe there were a couple of prior-enlisted folks. I don't recall much of that, but I having gone to a public high school in Chicago, where we had a variety of different ethnicities. I learned how to just understand people for who they are, meet them for who they are, and respect every individual. That's how I was raised, and that's how I exhibited myself, I sought to conduct myself in high school. So I get to the Academy, and you're assigned, you know, the first couple three nights, the first few weeks before you go to Jacks Valley, you're assigned. It was all a alphabetical, and my roommate was an African American fellow named Kevin Nixon. All right, my God, Kevin Nixon, and this guy, he was built. I mean, he was rock solid, right? And he had that 1000-yard stare, right? Very intimidating. And I'm this, like, 6-foot-tall, 148-pound runner, like, holy dork, right? And I'm assigned — we're roommates, and he just had a very stoicism, or a stoic nature about him. And I remember, it was our second night at the Academy, maybe first night, I don't quite recall, and we're in bed, and it's an hour after lights out, and I hear him crying, and like, well, what do you do? Like, we're in this together. It was that moment, like we're both alone, but we're not right. He needs to know that he's not alone. So I walked around and went over his bed, and I said, “Hey, man, I miss my mom and dad too. Let's talk. And we both cried, right? And I'll tell you what, he and I were pals forever. It was really quite beautiful. And what didn't happen is he accepted my outreach, right? And he came from a very difficult environment, one where I'm certain there was far more racial strife than I had experienced in Chicago. He came from Norfolk, Virginia, and he came from — his father worked in the shipyards and really, really tough, tough, tough background. He deserved to be the Academy. He was a great guy, very bright, and so we became friends, and I tried to be kind. He accepted that kindness and reciprocated in ways where he created a pretty beautiful friendship. Naviere Walkewicz 7:48 Oh, my goodness. Thank you for sharing that story. And you got me in the feels a little bit, because I remember those nights, even you know me having family members that went through the Academy. There's just something about when you're in it yourself, and in that moment, it's raw.   Mike Ott 11:13 Raw is a good word. Naviere Walkewicz 11:15 Oh, thank you for that. So you're at the Academy and you end up doing 24 years. I don't mean to, like, mash all that into one sentence, but let's talk… Mike Ott 11:22 I didn't do very much. It was the same year repeated 24 times over. Like, not a very good learner, right? Not a very good learner. Naviere Walkewicz 11:30 Yeah, I was gonna ask, you know, in that journey, because, had you planned to do a career in the Air Force? Mike Ott 11:36 Well, I didn't know, right? I went in, eyes wide open, and my cumulative time in the Air Force is over 24 but it was only it was just shy of seven active duty, and then 22, 23, in the Reserves, right? I hadn't thought about the Reserves, but I had concluded, probably at the, oh, maybe three-year mark that I wanted to do other things. It had nothing to do with disdain, a sense of frustration or any indignation, having gone to the Academy, which I'm very, very proud of, and it meant an awful lot to who I am. But it was, “Wait, this is, this is my shot, and I'm going to go try other things.” I love ambiguity, I'm very curious. Have a growth mindset and have a perhaps paradoxical mix of being self-assured, but perhaps early on, a bit too, a bit too, what's the word I was thinking of? I wrote this down — a bit too measured, OK, in other words, risk taking. And there were a few instances where I realized, “Hey, man, dude, take some risk. What's the downside? And if it isn't you, who else?” So it was that mindset that helped me muscle through and determine that, coupled with the fact that the Air Force paid for me to go to graduate school, they had programs in Boston, and so I got an MBA, and I did that at night. I had a great commander who let me take classes during the day when I wasn't traveling. It was wonderful. It was there that I was exposed to elements of business and in financial services, which ultimately drew me into financial services when I separated from active duty. Naviere Walkewicz 13:17 Well, I love that, because first you talked about a commander that saw, “How can I help you be your best version of yourself?” And I think the other piece of financial service, because I had to dabble in that as well — the second word is service. And so you've never stopped serving in all the things that you've done. So you took that leap, that risk. Is that something that you felt developed while you're at the Academy, or it's just part of your ethos. Mike Ott 13:41 It developed. It matured. I learned how to apply it more meaningfully at the Academy after a couple, three moments, where I realized that I can talk a little bit about mentoring and then I can come back to that, but mentoring — I don't know, I don't recall having heard that term as a mechanism for helping someone develop. I'm sure we used it when I was a cadet at the Academy and out of the Academy, and having been gone through different programs and banking and different graduate programs, the term comes up an awful lot. You realize, wow, there's something there helping the next generation, but also the reciprocity of learning from that generation yourself. I didn't really understand the whole mentoring concept coming out of Chicago and getting here, and just thought things were very hierarchical, very, very command structure, and it was hit the standards or else. And that that's not a bad mindset, right? But it took me a little while to figure out that there's a goodness factor that comes with the values that we have at the Academy, and it's imbued in each one of you know, service excellence, all of those pieces. But for the most part, fellow cadets and airmen and women want to help others. I mean, it's in service. It's in our DNA. Man that blew right past me. I had no idea, and I remember at one point I was entering sophomore year, and I was asked to be a glider instructor. I'd done the soaring and jumping program over the summer, and like, “Hey, you know you're not too bad at glider. You want to be an instructor?” At the time, that was pretty big deal, yeah, glider instructors. Like, “Yeah, no, I'm not going to do that, you know? I've got to study. Like, look at my GPA.” That didn't really matter. “And I'm going to go up to Boulder and go chase women.” Like, I was going to meet women, right? So, like, but I didn't understand that, that that mechanism, that mentoring mechanism, isn't always bestowed upon a moment or a coupling of individuals. There are just good people out there that see goodness in others that want to help them through that. I had no clue, but that was a turning point for me.   Naviere Walkewicz 15:56 Because you said no.   Mike Ott 15:58 I said no, right? And it was like what, you know, a couple months later, I remember talking with somebody like, “Yep, swing and a miss,” right? But after that, it changed how I was going to apply this self-assuredness, not bravado, but willingness to try new things, but with a willingness to be less measured. Why not? Trust the system. Trust the environment that you're in, the environment that we're in, you were in, I was in, that we're representing right now, it is a trusted environment. I didn't know that. And there were a lot of environments when I was being raised, they weren't trusted environments. And so you have a sort of mental callous mindset in many ways, and that that vigilance, that sense of sentinel is a good protection piece, but it prevents, it prevents... It doesn't allow for the membrane to be permeated, right? And so that trust piece is a big deal. I broke through after that, and I figured it out, and it helped me, and it helped me connect a sense of self-assuredness to perhaps being less measured, more willing to take ambiguity. You can be self-assured but not have complete belief in yourself, OK? And it helped me believe in myself more. I still wish I'd have been glider instructor. What a knucklehead. My roommate wound up becoming one. Like, “You, son of a rat, you.”   Naviere Walkewicz 17:29 So tell me, when did the next opportunity come up where you said yes, and what did that look like in your journey? Mike Ott 17:36 I was a lieutenant. I was a lieutenant, and I was looking for a new role. I was stationed at Hanscom Field, and I was working at one program office, and I bumped — I was the athletic officer for the base with some other folks, and one of the colonels was running a different program, and he had gotten to know me and understand how I operated, what I did, and he said, “Hey, Ott, I want you to come over to my program.” And I didn't know what the program was, but I trusted him, and I did it blindly. I remember his name, Col. Holy Cross. And really good guy. And yeah, I got the tap on the shoulder. Didn't blink. Didn't blink. So that was just finishing up second lieutenant. Naviere Walkewicz 18:26 What a lesson. I mean, something that stuck with you as a cadet, and not that it manifested in regret, but you realized that you missed that opportunity to grow and experience and so when it came around again, what a different… So would you say that as you progress, then you know, because at this point you're a lieutenant, you know, you took on this new role, what did you learn about yourself? And then how did that translate to the decision to move from active duty to the Reserve and into… Mike Ott 18:56 You'll note what I didn't do when I left active duty was stay in the defense, acquisition, defense engineering space. I made a hard left turn…   Naviere Walkewicz 19:13 Intentionally.   Mike Ott 19:14 Intentionally. And went into financial services. And that is a hard left turn away from whether it's military DOD, military industrial complex, working for one of the primes, or something like that. And my mindset was, “If I'm not the guy in the military making the decision, setting strategy and policy…” Like I was an O-3. Like, what kind of policy am I setting? Right? But my point was, if I'm not going to, if I may, if I decided to not stay in the military, I wasn't going to do anything that was related to the military, right, like, “Let's go to green pastures. Set myself apart. Find ways to compete…” Not against other people. I don't think I need to beat the hell out of somebody. I just need to make myself better every day. And that's the competition that I just love, and I love it  it's greenfield unknown. And why not apply my skills in an area where they haven't been applied and I can learn? So as an active-duty person — to come back and answer your question — I had worked some great bosses, great bosses, and they would have career counseling discussions with me, and I was asked twice to go to SOS in-residence. I turned it down, you know, as I knew. And then the third time my boss came to me. He's like, “OK, what are you doing? Idiot. Like, what are you doing?” That was at Year 5. And I just said, “Hey, sir, I think I'm going to do something different.” Naviere Walkewicz 20:47 Didn't want to take the slot from somebody else.   Mike Ott 20:49 That's right. Right. And so then it was five months, six months later, where I put in my papers. I had to do a little more time because of the grad school thing, which is great. And his commander, this was a two-star that I knew as well, interviewed me and like, one final, like, “What are you doing?” He's like, “You could have gone so far in the Air Force.” And I looked at the general — he was a super-good dude. I said, “What makes you think I'm not going to do well outside of the Air Force?” And he smiled. He's like, “Go get it.” So we stayed in touch. Great guy. So it had nothing to do with lack of fulfillment or lack of satisfaction. It had more to do with newness, curiosity, a challenge in a different vein. Naviere Walkewicz 21:30 So let's walk into that vein. You entered into this green pasture. What was that experience like? Because you've just been in something so structured. And I mean, would you say it was just structured in a different way? Mike Ott 21:48 No, not structured. The industry… So, I separated, tried an engineering job for about eight months. Hated it. I was, I was development engineer at Ford Motor Company, great firm. Love the organization, bored stiff, right? Just not what I wanted to do, and that's where I just quit. Moved back to Chicago, where I'm from, and started networking and found a role with an investment bank, ABN AMRO, which is a large Dutch investment bank that had begun to establish itself in the United States. So their headquarters in Chicago and I talked fast enough where somebody took a bet on me and was brought into the investment banking arm where I was on the capital markets team and institutional equities. So think of capital markets, and think of taking companies public and distributing those shares to large institutions, pensions funds, mutual funds, family offices.   Naviere Walkewicz 22:48 So a lot of learning and excitement for you.   Mike Ott 22:51 Super fun. And so the industry is very structured. How capital is established, capital flows, very regulated. We've got the SEC, we've got the FDIC, a lot of complex regulations and compliance matters. That's very, very, very structured. But there was a free-wheelingness in the marketplace. And if you've seen Wolf of Wall Street and things like that, some of that stuff happened. Crazy! And I realized that with my attitude, sense of placing trust in people before I really knew them, figuring that, “OK, what's the downside? I get nipped in the fan once, once or twice. But if I can thrust trust on somebody and create a relationship where they're surprised that I've trusted them, it's probably going to build something reciprocal. So learn how to do that.” And as a young fellow on the desk, wound up being given more responsibility because I was able to apply some of the basic tenets of leadership that you learned and I learned at the Academy. And face it, many of the men and women that work on Wall Street or financial services simply haven't gone to the Academy. It's just, it's the nature of numbers — and don't have that experience. They have other experiences. They have great leadership experiences, but they don't have this. And you and I may take it for granted because we were just four years of just living through it. It oozed in every moment, every breath, every interaction, every dialog, it was there.But we didn't know it was being poured in, sprinkled across as being showered. We were being showered in it. But I learned how to apply that in the relationships that I built, knowing that the relationships that I built and the reputation that I built would be lasting and impactful and would be appropriate investments for the future endeavors, because there's always a future, right? So it wasn't… again, lot of compliance, lot of regulations, but just the personalities. You know, I did it for the challenge, right? I did it because I was curious. I did it because I wanted to see if I could succeed at it. There were other folks that did it simply because it was for the money. And many, some of them made it. They might have sold their soul to get there. Some didn't make it. Maybe it wasn't the right pursuit for them in the first place. And if I go back to mentoring, which we talked about a little bit, and I help young men and women, cadets or maybe even recent grads, my guidance to them is, don't chase the money, chase the environment, right? And chase the environment that allows you to find your flow and contribute to that environment. The money will come. But I saw it — I've seen it with grads. I've seen it with many of the folks that didn't make it in these roles in financial services, because I thought, “Hey, this is where the money is.” It might be. But you have to go back to the basis of all this. How are you complected? What are your values? Do they align with the environment that you're in? And can you flow in a way where your strengths are going to allow success to happen and not sell your soul? Naviere Walkewicz 26:26 Yeah, you said two things that really stood out to me in that —the first one was, you know, trusting, just starting from a place of trust and respect, because the opportunity to build a relationship faster, and also there's that potential for future something. And then the second thing is the environment and making sure it aligns with your values. Is that how you got to MOBE? Mike Ott 26:50 Yeah, I would say how I got to MOBE, that certainly was a factor. Good question.   Naviere Walkewicz 26:57 The environment, I feel, is very much aligned Mike Ott 27:00 Very much so and then… But there's an element of reputation and relationship that allowed me to get there. So now I'm lucky to be a part of this firm. We're 250 people. We will do $50 million of revenue. We're growing nicely. I've been in health care for four years. Now, we are we're more than just healthcare. I mean, it's deep data. We can get into some of that later, but I had this financial services background. I was drawn to MOBE, but I had established a set of relationships with people at different investment banks, with other families that had successfully built businesses and just had relationships. And I was asked to come on to the board because MOBE, at the time, great capabilities, but struggled with leadership during COVID. Lot of companies did. It's not an indictment as to the prior CEO, but he and the team struggled to get through COVID. So initially I was approached to come on to the board, and that was through the founders of the firm who had known me for 20 years and knew my reputation, because I'd done different things at the investment bank, I'd run businesses at US Bank, which is a large commercial bank within the country, and they needed someone that… They cared very little about health care experience, which is good for me, and it was more around a sense of leadership. They knew my values. They trusted me. So initially I was asked to come onto the board, and that evolved into, “No, let's just do a whole reset and bring you on as the CEO.” Well, let's go back to like, what makes me tick. I love ambiguity. I love a challenge. And this has been a bit of a turnaround in that great capabilities, but lost its way in COVID, because leadership lost its way. So there's a lot of resetting that needed to occur. Corpus of the firm, great technology, great capabilities, but business model adaptation, go to market mechanisms and, frankly, environment. Environment. But I was drawn to the environment because of the people that had founded the organization. The firm was incubated within a large pharmaceutical firm. This firm called Upsher-Smith, was a Minnesota firm, the largest private and generic pharmaceutical company in the country, and sold for an awful lot of money, had been built by this family, sold in 2017 and the assets that are MOBE, mostly data, claims, analysis capabilities stayed separate, and so they incubated that, had a little bit of a data sandbox, and then it matriculated to, “Hey, we've got a real business here.” But that family has a reputation, and the individuals that founded it, and then ultimately found MOBE have a reputation. So I was very comfortable with the ambiguity of maybe not knowing health care as much as the next guy or gal, but the environment I was going into was one where I knew this family and these investors lived to high ethical standards, and there's many stories as to how I know that, but I knew that, and that gave me a ton of comfort. And then it was, “We trust you make it happen. So I got lucky. Naviere Walkewicz 30:33 Well, you're, I think, just the way that you're wired and the fact that you come from a place of trust, obviously, you know, OK, I don't have the, you know, like the medical background, but there are a lot of experts here that I'm going to trust to bring that expertise to me. And I'm going to help create an environment that they can really thrive in. Mike Ott 30:47 I'm certain many of our fellow alum have been in this experience, had these experiences where a leader worth his or her salt should be comfortable not being the smartest gal or guy in the room. In fact, you should strive for that to be the case and have a sense of lack of hubris and proudly acknowledge what you don't know. But what I do know is how to set vision. What I do know is how to move people without authority. What I do know is how to resource. And that's what you do if you want to move a mission, whether it's in the military, small firm like us that's getting bigger, or, you know, a big organization. You can't know it all. Naviere Walkewicz 31:30 So something you just mentioned that I think a lot of our listeners would really like, would love a little bit to peel us back a little bit. You said, “I know how to set a vision. I know how to…” I think it was move…   Mike Ott 31:45 Move people without authority and prioritize.   Naviere Walkewicz 31:47 But can we talk a little bit about that? Because I think that is really a challenge that some of our you know younger leaders, or those early in their leadership roles struggle with. Maybe, can you talk a little bit about that? Mike Ott 32:01 For sure, I had some — again, I tried to do my best to apply all the moments I had at the Academy and the long list of just like, “What were you thinking?” But the kindness piece comes through and… Think as a civilian outside looking in. They look at the military. It's very, very, very structured, OK, but the best leaders the men and women for whom you and I have served underneath or supported, never once barked an order, OK? They expressed intent, right? And you and I and all the other men and women in uniform, if we were paying attention, right, sought to execute the mission and satisfaction of that intent and make our bosses' bosses' jobs easier. That's really simple. And many outsiders looking in, we get back to just leadership that are civilians. They think, “Oh my gosh, these men and women that are in the military, they just can't assimilate. They can't make it in the civilian world.” And they think, because we come from this very, very hierarchical organization, yes, it is very hierarchical — that's a command structure that's necessary for mission execution — but the human part, right? I think military men and women leaders are among the best leaders, because guess what? We're motivating men and women — maybe they get a pat on the back. You didn't get a ribbon, right? Nobody's getting a year-end bonus, nobody's getting a spot bonus, nobody's getting equity in the Air Force, and it's gonna go public, right? It's just not that. So the best men and women that I for whom I've worked with have been those that have been able to get me to buy in and move and step up, and want to demonstrate my skills in coordination with others, cross functionally in the organization to get stuff done. And I think if there's anything we can remind emerging graduates, you know, out of the Academy, is: Don't rely on rank ever. Don't rely on rank. I had a moment: I was a dorky second lieutenant engineer, and we were launching a new system. It was a joint system for Marines, Navy and Air Force, and I had to go from Boston to Langley quite often because it was a TAC-related system, Tactical Air Force-related system. And the I was the program manager, multi-million dollar program for an interesting radio concept. And we were putting it into F-15s, so in some ground-based situations. And there was this E-8, crusty E-8, smoked, Vietnam, all these things, and he was a comms dude, and one of the systems was glitching. It just wasn't working, right? And we were getting ready to take this thing over somewhere overseas. And he pulls alongside me, and it's rather insubordinate, but it was a test, right? He's looking at me, Academy guy, you know, second lieutenant. He was a master sergeant, and he's like, “Well, son, what are we going to do now?” In other words, like, “We're in a pickle. What are we going to do now?” But calling me son. Yeah, it's not appropriate, right? If I'd have been hierarchical and I'd relied on rank, I probably would have been justified to let him have it. Like, that's playing short ball, right? I just thought for a second, and I just put my arm around him. I said, “Gee, Dad, I was hoping you're gonna help me.” And mother rat, we figured it out, and after that, he was eating out of my hand. So it was a test, right? Don't be afraid to be tested but don't take the bait. Naviere Walkewicz 35:46 So many good just lessons in each of these examples. Can you share a time at MOBE when you've seen someone that has been on your team that has demonstrated that because of the environment you've created? Mike Ott 35:57 For sure. So I've been running the firm now for about three and a half years. Again, have adapted and enhanced our capabilities, changed the business model a bit, yet functioning in our approach to the marketplace remains the same. We help people get better, and we get paid based on the less spend they have in the system. Part of some of our principles at MOBE are pretty simple, like, eat, sleep, move, smile, all right. And then be thoughtful with your medication. We think that medicine is an aid, not a cure. Your body's self-healing and your mind controls your body.   Naviere Walkewicz 36:32 Eat, sleep, move, smile. Love that.   Mike Ott 36:35 So what's happening with MOBE, and what I've seen is the same is true with how I've altered our leadership team. I've got some amazing leaders — very, very, very accomplished. But there are some new leaders because others just didn't fit in. There wasn't the sense of communal trust that I expected. There was too much, know-it-all'ing going on, right? And I just won't have that. So the easiest way to diffuse that isn't about changing head count, but it's around exhibiting vulnerability in front of all these folks and saying, “Look, I don't know that, but my lead pharmacist here, my lead clinician here, helped me get through those things.” But I do have one leader right, who is our head of vice president of HR, a woman who grew up on a farm in southern Minnesota, who has come to myself and our president and shared that she feels liberated at MOBE because, though this firm is larger than one that she served as a director of HR, previously, she's never had to look — check her six, look right, look left and seek alignment to ensure she's harmonizing with people. Naviere Walkewicz 37:49 Can you imagine being in an environment like that? Mike Ott 38:51 It's terrible, it's toxic, and it's wrong. Leaders, within the organization, I think you're judged more by what you don't do and the actions that you don't take. You can establish trust, and you will fortify that trust when you share with the team as best you can, so long as it's nothing inappropriate, where you made a mistake, where we went wrong. What did we learn from that? Where are we going to pivot? How we're going to apply that learning to make it better, as opposed to finding blame, pointing the finger or not even acknowledging? That happens all the time, and that toxicity erodes. And regretfully, my VP of HR in prior roles experienced that, and I don't have time. Good teams shouldn't have time to rehearse the basic values of the firm. We don't have time the speed of business is like this [snaps]. So if I can build the team of men and women that trust one another, can stay in their lanes, but also recognize that they're responsible for helping run the business, and look over at the other lanes and help their fellow leaders make adjustments without the indictful comment or without sort of belittling or shaming. That's what good teams, do. You, and I did that in the Air Force, but it is not as common as you would think. Naviere Walkewicz 39:11 20 we've been talking about MOBE, and you know, the environment you're creating there, and just the way that you're working through innovation. Let's talk a little bit how you're involved with DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit. Mike Ott 39:21 Again, it's reputation in relationships. And it was probably 2010, I get a call from a fellow grad, '87 grad who was living in the Beltway, still in uniform. He was an O-5 I was an O-5. Just doing the Academy liaison work, helping good young men and women that wanted to go to the Academy get in. And that was super satisfying, thought that would be the end of my Reserve career and super fun. And this is right when the first Obama administration came in, and one of his edicts and his admin edicts was, we've got to find ways to embrace industry more, right? We can't rely on the primes, just the primes. So those were just some seeds, and along with a couple other grads, created what is now called Joint Reserve Directorate, which was spawned DIUX, which was DIU Experimental, is spawned from. So I was the owner for JRD, and DIUX as a reserve officer. And that's how we all made colonel is we were working for the chief technology officer of the Defense Department, the Hon. Zach Lemnios, wonderful fellow. Civilian, didn't have much military experience, but boy, the guy knew tech — semiconductors and areas like that. But this was the beginning of the United States recognizing that our R&D output, OK, in the aggregate, as a fund, as a percentage of GDP, whether it's coming out of the commercial marketplace or the military DoD complex, needs to be harnessed against the big fight that we have with China. We can see, you know, we've known about that for 30 years. So this is back 14 years ago. And the idea was, let's bring in men and women — there was a woman in our group too that started this area — and was like, “How do we create essential boundary span, boundary spanners, or dual-literacy people that are experiences in capital markets, finance, how capital is accumulated, innovation occurs, but then also how that applies into supporting the warfighter. So we were given a sandbox. We were given a blank slate.   Naviere Walkewicz 41:37 It's your happy place.   Mike Ott 41:38 Oh, super awesome. And began to build out relationships at Silicon Valley with commercial entities, and developed some concepts that are now being deployed with DIU and many other people came in and brought them all to life. But I was lucky enough after I retired from the Reserves as a colonel to be asked to come back as an adviser, because of that background and that experience, the genesis of the organization. So today I'm an unpaid SGE — special government employee — to help DIU look across a variety of different domains. And so I'm sure many of our listeners know it's key areas that we've got to harness the commercial marketplace. We know that if you go back into the '70s, ‘60s and ‘70s, and creation of the internet, GPS, precision munitions and all of that, the R&D dollars spent in the aggregate for the country, 95% came out of DOD is completely flip flopped today. Completely flipped. We happen to live in an open, free society. We hope to have capital markets and access a lot of that technology isn't burdened like it might be in China. And so that's the good and bad of this open society that we have. We've got to find ways. So we, the team does a lot of great work, and I just help them think about capital markets, money flows, threat finance. How you use financial markets to interdict, listen, see signals, but then also different technologies across cyberspace, autonomy, AI. Goodness gracious, I'm sure there's a few others. There's just so much. So I'm just an interloper that helps them think about that, and it's super fun that they think that I can be helpful. Naviere Walkewicz 43:29 Well, I think I was curious on how, because you love the ambiguity, and that's just something that fills your bucket — so while you're leading MOBE and you're creating something very stable, it sounds like DIU and being that kind of special employee, government employee, helps you to fill that need for your ambiguous side.   Mike Ott 43:48 You're right. You're right.   Naviere Walkewicz 43:49 Yeah, I thought that's really fascinating. Well, I think it's wonderful that you get to create that and you just said, the speed of business is this [snaps]. How do you find time in your life to balance what you also put your values around — your health — when you have such an important job and taking care of so many people? Mike Ott 44:06 I think we're all pretty disciplined at the Academy, right? I remain that way, and I'm very, very — I'm spring loaded to ‘no,' right? “Hey, do you want to go do this?” Yeah, I want to try do, I want to do a lot of things, but I'm spring loaded. So like, “Hey, you want to go out and stay, stay up late and have a drink?” “No,” right? “Do you want to do those things?” So I'm very, very regimented in that I get eight hours of sleep, right? And even somebody, even as a cadet, one of the nicknames my buddies gave me was Rip Van Ott, right? Because I'm like, “This is it.” I was a civil engineer. One of my roommates was an astro guy, and I think he pulled an all-nighter once a week.   Naviere Walkewicz 45:46 Oh, my goodness, yeah.   Mike Ott 45:50 Like, “Dude, what are you doing?” And it wasn't like he was straight As. I was clearly not straight As, but I'm like, “What are you doing? That's not helpful. Do the work ahead of time.” I think I maybe pulled three or four all-nighters my entire four years. Now, it's reflected in my GPA. I get that, but I finished the engineering degree. But sleep matters, right? And some things are just nonnegotiable, and that is, you know, exercise, sleep and be kind to yourself, right? Don't compare. If you're going to compare, compare yourself to yesterday, but don't look at somebody who is an F-15 pilot, and you're not. Like, I'm not. My roommate, my best man at my wedding, F-15 pilot, Test Pilot School, all these things, amazing, amazing, awesome, and super, really, really, happy and proud for him, but that's his mojo; that's his flow, right? If you're gonna do any comparison, compare yourself to the man or woman you were yesterday and “Am I better?”. Naviere Walkewicz 44:48 The power of “no” and having those nonnegotiables is really important. Mike Ott 45:53 Yeah, no, I'm not doing that. Naviere Walkewicz 45:56 I think sometimes we're wired for a “we can take on… we can take it on, we can take it on, we can take it on. We got this.” Mike Ott 46:03 For sure. Oh, my goodness. And I have that discussion with people on my team from time to time as well, and it's most often as it relates to an individual on the team that's struggling in his or her role, or whether it's by you know, if it's by omission and they're in the wrong role, that's one thing. If it's by commission, well, be a leader and execute and get that person out of there, right? That's wrong, but from time to time, it's by omission, and somebody is just not well placed. And I've seen managers, I can repatriate this person. I can get him or her there, and you have to stop for a second and tell that leader, “Yeah, I know you can. I'm certain that the only thing you were responsible for was to help that person fulfill the roles of the job that they're assigned. You could do it.” But guess what? You've got 90% of your team that needs care, nurturing and feeding. They're delivering in their function, neglect, there destroys careers, and it's going to destroy the business. So don't, don't get caught up in that. Yeah. Pack it on. Pack it on. Pack it on. You're right. When someone's in the crosshairs, I want to be in the crosshairs with you, Naviere, and Ted, and all the people that you and I affiliate with, but on the day-to-day, sustained basis, right to live, you know, to execute and be fulfilled, both in the mission, the work and stay fit, to fight and do it again. You can't. You can't. And a lot of a little bit of no goes a long way. Naviere Walkewicz 47:40 That is really good to hear. I think that's something that a lot of leaders really don't share. And I think that's really wonderful that you did. I'd like to take a little time and pivot into another area that you're heavily involved, philanthropy side. You know, you've been with the Falcon Foundation. Where did you find that intent inside of you? I mean, you always said the Academy's been part of you, but you found your way back in that space in other ways. Let's talk about that. Mike Ott 48:05 Sure. Thank you. I don't know. I felt that service is a part of me, right? And it is for all of us, whether you stay in the military or not. Part of my financial services jobs have been in wealth management. I was lucky enough to run that business for US Bank in one of my capacities, and here I am now in health care, health care of service. That aligns with wanting things to be better across any other angle. And the philanthropic, philanthropic side of things — I probably couldn't say that word when I was a cadet, but then, you know, I got out and we did different volunteer efforts. We were at Hanscom Field raising money for different organizations, and stayed with it, and always found ways to have fun with it. But recognized I couldn't… It was inefficient if I was going to be philanthropic around something that I didn't have a personal interest in. And as a senior executive at US Bank, we were all… It was tacit to the role you had roles in local foundations or community efforts. And I remember sitting down with my boss, the CFO of the bank, and then the CEO, and they'd asked me to go on to a board, and it had to do with a museum that I had no interest in, right? And I had a good enough relationship with these, with these guys, to say, “Look, I'm a good dude. I'm going to be helpful in supporting the bank. And if this is a have to, all right, I'll do it, but you got the wrong guy. Like, you want me to represent the bank passionately, you know, philanthropically, let me do this. And they're like, “OK, great.” So we pivoted, and I did other things. And the philanthropic piece of things is it's doing good. It's of service for people, entities, organizations, communities or moments that can use it. And I it's just very, very satisfying to me. So my wife and I are pretty involved that way, whether it's locally, with different organizations, lot of military support. The Academy, we're very fond of. It just kind of became a staple. Naviere Walkewicz 50:35 Did you find yourself also gravitating toward making better your community where you grew up? Mike Ott 50:41 Yeah, yeah, yeah. One of my dear friends that grew up in the same neighborhood, he wound up going to the Naval Academy, and so we're we've been friends for 50 years. Seventh grade.   Naviere Walkewicz 50:53 Same counselor? Mike Ott50:54 Yeah, no. Different counselor, different high school. His parents had a little bit of money, and they, he wound up going to a Catholic school nearby. But great guy, and so he and I, he runs a business that serves the VA in Chicago, and I'm on the board, and we do an awful lot of work. And one of the schools we support is a school on the south side, largely African American students and helping them with different STEM projects. It's not going to hit above the fold of a newspaper, but I could give a rat, doesn't matter to me, seeing a difference, seeing these young men and women. One of them, one of these boys, it's eye watering, but he just found out that he was picked for, he's applying to the Naval Academy, and he just found out that he got a nomination.   Naviere Walkewicz 51:44 Oh my goodness, I just got chills.   Mike Ott 51:46 And so, yeah, yeah, right, right. But it's wonderful. And his parents had no idea anything like that even existed. So that's one that it's not terribly formal, but boy, it looks great when you see the smile on that kid and the impact on that individual, but then the impact it leaves on the community, because it's clear opportunity for people to aspire because they know this young man or this young woman, “I can do that too.” Naviere Walkewicz 52:22 Wow. So he got his nomination, and so he would start technically making class of 2030?   Mike Ott 52:27 That's right. Naviere Walkewicz 52:28 Oh, how exciting. OK Well, that's a wonderful…   Mike Ott 52:27 I hope, I hope, yeah, he's a great kid. Naviere Walkewicz 52:33 Oh, that is wonderful. So you talk about, you know that spirit of giving — how have you seen, I guess, in your journey, because it hasn't been linear. We talked about how you know progression is not linear. How have you grown throughout these different experiences? Because you kind of go into a very ambiguous area, and you bring yourself, and you grow in it and you make it better. But how have you grown? What does that look like for you? Mike Ott 53:02 After having done it several times, right, i.e. entering the fray of an ambiguous environment business situation, I developed a better system and understanding of what do I really need to do out of the gates? And I've grown that way and learn to not be too decisive too soon. Decisiveness is a great gift. It's really, really it's important. It lacks. It lacks because there are too many people, less so in the military, that want to be known for having made… don't want to be known for having made a bad decision, so they don't take that risk. Right, right, right. And so that creates just sort of the static friction, and you've just got to have faith and so, but I've learned how to balance just exactly when to be decisive. And the other thing that I know about me is I am drawn to ambiguity. I am drawn… Very, very curious. Love to learn, try new things, have a range of interests and not very good at any one thing, but that range helps me in critical thinking. So I've learned to, depending on the situation, right, listen, listen, and then go. It isn't a formula. It's a flow, but it's not a formula. And instinct matters when to be decisive. Nature of the people with whom you're working, nature of the mission, evolution, phase of the organization or the unit that you're in. Now is the time, right? So balancing fostering decisiveness is something that that's worth a separate discussion. Naviere Walkewicz 54:59 Right. Wow. So all of these things that you've experienced and the growth that you've had personally — do you think about is this? Is this important to you at all, the idea of, what is your legacy, or is that not? Mike Ott 55:13 We talked a little bit about this beforehand, and I thought I've got to come up with something pithy, right? And I really, I really don't.   Naviere Walkewicz 55:18 Yeah, you don't.   Mike Ott 55:19 I don't think of myself as that. I'm very proud of who I am and what I've done in the reputation that I have built. I don't need my name up in lights. I know the life that I'm living and the life that I hope to live for a lot longer. My legacy is just my family, my children, the mark that I've left in the organizations that I have been a part of.   Naviere Walkewicz 55:58 And the communities that you've touched, like that gentleman going and getting his nomination. I'm sure.   Mike Ott 56:04 Yeah, I don't… having been a senior leader, and even at MOBE, I'm interviewed by different newspapers and all that. Like I do it because I'm in this role, and it's important for MOBE, but I'm not that full of myself, where I got to be up in lights. So I just want to be known as a man that was trustworthy, fun, tried to meet people where they are really had flaws, and sought to overcome them with the few strengths that he had, and moved everything forward. Naviere Walkewicz 56:33 Those are the kind of leaders that people will run through fire for. That's amazing. I think that's a wonderful I mean that in itself, it's like a living legacy you do every day. How can I be better than I was yesterday? And that in itself, is a bit of your living and that's really cool. Well, one of the things we like to ask is, “What is something you're doing every day to be better as a leader?” And you've covered a lot, so I mean, you could probably go back to one of those things, but is there something that you could share with our listeners that you do personally every day, to be better? Mike Ott 57:05 Exercise and read every day, every day, and except Fridays. Fridays I take… that's like, I'll stretch or just kind of go for a walk. But every day I make it a moment, you know, 45 minutes to an hour, something and better for my head, good for my body, right? That's the process in the hierarchy of way I think about it. And then read. Gen. Mattis. And I supported Gen. Mattis as a lieutenant colonel before I wanted to and stuff at the Pentagon. And he I supported him as an innovation guy for JFCOM, where he was the commander. And even back then, he was always talking about reading is leading none of us as military leaders… And I can't hold the candle to the guy, but I learned an awful lot, and I love his mindset, and that none of us can live a life long enough to take In all the leadership lessons necessary to help us drive impact. So you better be reading about it all the time. And so I read probably an hour every night, every day.   Naviere Walkewicz 58:14 What are you reading right now?   Mike Ott 58:15 Oh, man, I left it on the plane! I was so bummed. Naviere Walkewicz 58:17 Oh, that's the worst. You're going to have to get another copy. Mike Ott 58:22 Before I came here, I ordered it from Barnes & Noble so to me at my house when I get home. Love history and reading a book by this wonderful British author named Anne Reid. And it's, I forget the title exactly, but it's how the allies at the end of World War I sought to influence Russia and overcome the Bolsheviks. They were called the interventionalists, and it was an alliance of 15 different countries, including the U.S., Britain, France, U.K., Japan, Australia, India, trying to thwart, you know, the Bolshevik Revolution — trying to thwart its being cemented. Fascinating, fascinating. So that's what I was reading until I left it on the plane today. Naviere Walkewicz 59:07 How do you choose what to read? Mike Ott 59:10 Listen, write, love history. Love to read Air Force stuff too. Just talk to friends, right? You know, they've learned how to read like me. So we get to talk and have fun with that. Naviere Walkewicz 59:22 That's great. Yeah, that's wonderful. Well, the last question I'd like to ask you, before I want to make sure you have an opportunity to cover anything we didn't, is what is something you would share with others that they can do to become better leaders? Maybe they start doing it now, so in the future, they're even stronger as a leader. Mike Ott 59:42 Two things I would say, and try to have these exist in the same breath in the same moment, is have the courage to make it try and make it better every day, all right, and be kind to yourself, be forgiving. Naviere Walkewicz 59:59 That's really powerful. Can you share an example? And I know I that's we could just leave it there, but being courageous and then being kind to yourself, they're almost on two opposite sides. Have you had, can you share an example where I guess you've done that right? You had to be you were courageous and making something better, and maybe it didn't go that way, so you have to be kind to yourself. Mike Ott 1:00:23 Yeah, happy to and I think any cadet will hear this story and go like, “Huh, wow, that's interesting.” And it also plays with the arc of progress isn't linear. I graduated in '85 went to flight school, got halfway through flight school, and there was a RIF, reduction in force. And our class, our flight class, I was flying jets, I was soloing. I was academically — super easy, flying average, right? You know, I like to joke that I've got the fine motor skills of a ham sandwich, right? You know, but, but I didn't finish flight school. And you think about this, here it is. I started in 1981 there were still vestiges of Vietnam. Everyone's going to be a fighter pilot. Kill, kill, kill. Blood makes the grass grow. All of that was there. And I remember when this happened, it was very frustrating for me. It was mostly the major root of frustration wasn't that I wasn't finishing flight school. It was the nature by which the determination that I wasn't finishing was made. And it was, it was a financial decision. We had too many guys and gals, and they were just finding, you know, average folks and then kicking them out. So our class graduated a lower percent than, I think, in that era, it was late '85, '86, maybe '87, but you can look at outflows, and it was interesting, they were making budget cuts. So there was a shaming part there, having gone to the Academy.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:02:02 And knowing since 9 years old. Mike Ott 1:20:04 Right, right, right, and I knew I wanted to go the Academy. I'd like to fly, let's check it out and see if it's for me. I would much rather have been not for me, had I made the decision I don't want to do this or that I was just unsafe and didn't want to do it. The way it turned out is, and this is where I learned a little bit about politics as well. In my class, again, I was very average. Like, nobody's ever going to say, like, yeah, I was going to go fly the Space Shuttle. Like, no way, right? Very, very average, but doing just fine. And a lot of guys and gals wanted to go be navigators, and that's great. I looked in the regs, and I learned this as a cadet, and it's helped me in business, too. If there's a rule, there's a waiver. Like, let me understand the regs, and I asked to go to a board. Instead of just submitting a letter to appeal, I asked to go to a board. And so I went to a board of an O-5 five, couple of threes O-4 four, and ultimately shared the essence of why I shouldn't be terminated in the program. And son of a gun, they agreed, and I still have the letter. The letter says, “Recommend Lt. Ott for reinstatement.” Nobody in my class has that letter, nobody makes the appeal. And I'm like, I'm going downstream. I'm going downstream. And that's the Chicago in me, and that's the piece about… but also move forward, but forgive yourself, and I'll get to that. And so I, I was thrilled, My goodness, and the argument I had is, like, look, you're just not keeping me current. You put me in the sim, and then you're waiting too long to put me in the jet. The regs don't allow for that. And like, you're right. So I'm assigned to go back to the jet. My pals are thrilled. I'm going to stay in the same class. I don't have to wash back. And then I get a call from the DO's office — director of operations — and it was from some civilian person so the DO overrode the board's decision. Heartbreaking. Heartbreaking.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:04:12 You were so high, you did all of your work. And then… Mike Ott 1:04:15 Yeah, and then heartbreaking and frustrating, and I guess the word is indignant: anger aroused through frustration. In that I figured it out. I knew exactly what's happening. I made the appeal and I won. And it wasn't I was expecting to be assigned to fly a fighter. It was like, “Just let me, let me express the merits of my capabilities. It's how the system is designed.” The son of a gun, I jumped in my car and I ran to base and I waited and reported in. He didn't really know who I was. That's because he didn't make a decision. It was just it was that decision, and that's how life comes at you. That's just how it is. It isn't linear. So how do you take that and then say, “Well, I'm going to be kind to myself and make something out of it.” And he went through, you know, a dissertation as to why, and I asked him if I could share my views, and it's pretty candid, and I just said, If my dad were something other than the Chicago policeman, and maybe if he was a senator or general officer, I wouldn't be sitting here. That lit him up, right? That lit him up. But I had to state my views. So I knew I was out of the program. Very, very frustrating. Could have had the mayor of Chicago call. Didn't do that, right? Like, OK, I understand where this is it. That was very frustrating and somewhat shaming. But where the forgiveness comes in and be kind to yourself, is that I ran into ground. I ran into ground and drove an outcome where I still… It's a moment of integrity. I drove an outcome like, there you go. But then what do you do? Forgive yourself, right? Because you didn't do anything wrong, OK? And you pivot. And I turned that into a moment where I started cold calling instructors at the Academy. Because, hey, now I owe the Air Force five years, Air Force is looking for, you know, things that I don't want to do. And thank goodness I had an engineering degree, and I cold called a guy at a base in Hanscom. And this is another tap on the shoulder.   Naviere Walkewicz 1:06:24 That's how you got to Hanscom. Gotcha.   Mike Ott 1:06:27 There was a friend who was Class of '83, a woman who was in my squadron, who was there. Great egg. And she's like, “Hey, I was at the O Club.” Called her. I said, “Hey, help me out. I got this engineering degree. I want to go to one of these bases. Called Lt. Col. Davis, right? I met him at the O Club. I called a guy, and he's like, “Yeah, let's do this.”   Naviere Walkewicz 1:06:44 Wow, I love that..   Mike Ott 1:06:46 It was fantastic So it's a long winded way, but progress isn't linear. And progressing through that and not being a victim, right, recognizing the conditions and the environment that I could control and those that I can't. Anything that I could control, I took advantage of and I sought to influence as best possible. Ran into ground and I feel great about it, and it turns out to be a testament of one of my best successes. Naviere Walkewicz 1:07:17 Wow. Thank you for sharing

Le Maroc est réputé à travers le monde entier pour la qualité de sa résine de cannabis. C'est le plus gros producteur de la planète. Problème, jusque-là, seuls les narcotrafiquants en profitaient réellement, exploitant un terroir unique dans le nord du pays. À flanc de montagnes, dans le Rif, les champs de marijuana s'étendent à perte de vue. Il y a quelques années, l'idée a germé dans l'esprit des autorités : extirper cette économie de l'illicite et de l'informel, pour en faire une culture légale. Agriculteurs, coopératives de transformation, exportateurs, une nouvelle filière se déploie. «Au royaume du cannabis, la révolution du chanvre légal», un Grand reportage de Matthias Raynal. 

LA BIBLIOTECA DE LA HISTORIA nos abre uno de sus archivos, que nos va a acercar a: "100 años del desembarco de Alhucemas (1925-2025)". Hoy tenemos un programa muy especial. Un programa homenaje o recordatorio a esos 100 años que se han cumplido en fechas recientes del Desembarco de Alhucemas, operación militar llevada a cabo por el Ejército y la Armada Española y con la participación de Francia en territorio del Protectorado Español en el contexto de la guerra del Rif. Y para hablar de este tema tenemos a un gran invitado, a José Enrique Viqueira, General de Infantería de Marina (R), Profesor de Historia Militar e investigador, que nos trae mucha información novedosa sobre el Desembarco de Alhucemas, tema que ha estudiado en profundidad. Y también está con nosotros Marco Vinicio Ripario Baético, el "conseguidor", y quien ha hecho posible este programa. Sin más preámbulos os dejo con el programa. Enlace a la Asociación AMIGOS DEL MUSEO NAVAL: www.amigosmuseonaval.es Este es un Podcast producido y dirigido por Gerión de Contestania, miembro del grupo "Divulgadores de la Historia". Somos un podcast perteneciente al sello iVoox Originals. Enlace a la web del grupo "Divulgadores de la Historia": https://divulgadoresdelahistoria.wordpress.com/ Canal de YouTube de LA BIBLIOTECA DE LA HISTORIA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfHTOD0Z_yC-McS71OhfHIA *Si te ha gustado el programa dale al "Like", ya que con esto ayudarás a darnos más visibilidad. También puedes dejar tu comentario, decirnos en que hemos fallado o errado y también puedes sugerir un tema para que sea tratado en un futuro programa de LA BIBLIOTECA DE LA HISTORIA. Gracias. Música del audio: -Entrada: Epic Victory by Akashic Records . License by Jamendo. -Voz entrada: http://www.locutordigital.es/ -Relato: Music with License by Jamendo. Redes Sociales: -Twitter: LABIBLIOTECADE3 -Facebook: Gerión De Contestania Muchísimas gracias por escuchar LA BIBLIOTECA DE LA HISTORIA y hasta la semana que viene. Podcast amigos: Niebla de Guerra: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-niebla-guerra_sq_f1608912_1.html La Biblioteca Perdida: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-podcast-la-biblioteca-perdida_sq_f171036_1.html Casus Belli: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-casus-belli-podcast_sq_f1391278_1.html Victoria Podcast: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-victoria-podcast_sq_f1781831_1.html Relatos Salvajes: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-relatos-salvajes_sq_f1470115_1.html Motor y al Aire: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-motor-al-aire_sq_f1117313_1.html Pasaporte Historia: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-pasaporte-historia_sq_f1835476_1.html Cita con Rama Podcast: https://www.ivoox.com/cita-rama-podcast-ciencia-ficcion_sq_f11043138_1.html Sierra Delta: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-sierra-delta_sq_f1507669_1.html Permiso para Clave: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-permiso-para-clave_sq_f1909797_1.html Héroes de Guerra 2.0: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-heroes-guerra_sq_f1256035_1.html Calamares a la Romana: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-calamares-a-romana_sq_f12234654_1.html Lignvm en Roma: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-lignum-roma_sq_f1828941_1.html Bestias Humanas: https://www.ivoox.com/podcast-bestias-humanas_sq_f12390050_1.html Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

Reductions in Funding (RIFs) to disability services like the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and Office for Special Education Programs (OSEP) will not save money, these staffing cuts will cost money in the long run. These are programs that provide services for individuals with a vision loss from macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes, and blindness, and provide training for getting back to work or resuming daily living tasks.

On this episode of On Location, hosts Tim Lightner (eWorldEnterprise Solutions) and Barbara Lacina discuss the topic of transition from public service to the private sector. The conversation was prompted by recent reduction in force (RIF) events within the federal government and is of value to others who are considering making the shift to private sector employment . Guests Tanguler Gray (Executive VP of Operations, SMI); Laura Roth (recently retired as the Child Support Practice Lead and Director, CGI Technologies andSolutions Inc.), and Matt Lyons (Director of Public Sector Partnerships, SteadyIQ), all of whom have experience making this career shift, share their personal transition summaries and advice. Key topics include identifying transferable skills, adapting to new roles, and job searching tips for the private sector. This is part-one of a two-part series.Resources that are available to those seeking/needing to make this transition:  o  NCSEA 5/29/25 NCSEA Helps May 2025 Webinar: Navigating Change: Polished Resumes and Confident Interviewso  NCSEA 7/31/25 NCSEA Helps July 2025 Webinar:  Transitioning Public Service Experience into Private Sector Impacto  HSITAG Talent Bank:  https://hsitag.org/news/talent-bank/o  APHSA:  APHSA Career Center Account Benefits:  AmericanPublic Human Services Association (APHSA), APHSA Career Center|Find Your CareerHereo  NCSEA Job Board: https://www.ncsea.org/resources-info/job-board/

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.

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

*** 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

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)

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

(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

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