Podcasts about Rorschach

On this, our 311th Evolutionary Lens livestream, we discuss what is happening in Minneapolis. First: research finds that on average, men and women experience empathy differently: men do not have empathy for people who have done wrong; women have empathy for people regardless of context. Then: Was the Alex Pretti shooting by ICE officers in Minneapolis a cold-blooded murder, or a justified homicide? How would we know? Few of us were actual eye-witnesses to the scene, but our modern media environment tricks us into believing, unconsciously, that we know more than we do. This feels like Portland in 2020. We are being manipulated into disjunct narratives, taught to distrust and fear one another, at ever greater distance from simply being good neighbors and fellow citizens. Finally: an invitation to submit Covid Era Stories.*****Our sponsors:Xlear: Xylitol nasal spray that acts as prophylaxis against respiratory illnesses by reducing the stickiness of bacteria and viruses. Find Xlear online, or at your local pharmacy, grocery store, or natural products store.Caraway: Non-toxic, highly functional & beautiful cookware and bakeware. Save with Caraway's cookware set, and visit Carawayhome.com/DH10 to for an additional 10% off your next purchase.Masa Chips: Delicious chips made with corn, salt, and beef tallow—nothing else—in loads of great flavors. Go to masachips.com/DarkHorse, use code DarkHorse, for 25% off.*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org*****Mentioned in this episode:Singer et al 2006. Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439(7075): 466-469. Draft pdf: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2636868/pdf/ukmss-3669.pdfTucker Carlson and Tim Walz: https://x.com/tcnetwork/status/2016539262230184357Fox on Pretti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX9y3612RloCNN on Pretti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FR-fz57PEUCovid Era Stories: https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/covid-era-storiesSupport the show

Episode 88 Occupied by Tim Rich   Tim Rich reads ‘Occupied' and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness. https://media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/media.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/content.blubrry.com/amouthfulofair/88_Occupied_by_Tim_Rich.mp3 This poem is from: Dark Angels: Three Contemporary Poets Available from: Dark Angels is available from: The publisher: Paekakariki Press Amazon: UK   Occupied by Tim Rich We buttered the cat's pawsand baked bread in borrowed tinsto make the unfamiliar speak of pleasureand our intentions to remain All that first daythe house talked to itselfabout us Later than I expected, light withdrew across our table, unopened cratesback through thin glasstowards tomorrow So the room released its formand we sat among one anothergiving our ears to the conversation:inner doorways muttering behind flat hands; oak floors—masonic in their black treacle gloss—deciding whether to settleunder our presence Later still, in bed, I stared sideways into an unlit universe, absentlymindwalking the bounds,relocking iron door-bolts like an old rifle, drawingdrawn curtains a little closer,charting the evaporating pathbehind that plane's descent In time, each stray thought went to its home, leaving this accommodation to take place: the air held here sighing gently,like contented tortoise breaths; the softening percussion of bodies sleeping; the punctuating crack and hiss as fresh eggs are brokeninto a smoking pan; someoneopening a window   Interview transcript Mark: Tim, where did this poem come from? Tim: So, almost always for me, poems just emerge out of some sort of inner dusk. I'm not someone that can go to their desk with a plan to write about a particular message or topic or piece of content. The poem just presents itself to me. And actually I don't really have any choice in the matter. I'm sort of just forced to be a transcriber in that moment. And I was looking at the sea the other day, and I had this moment when I just thought my poems are a bit like strange sea creatures that live on the seabed. And at a particular point in their life, they decide that they just want to go to the light and they start floating up through the murky water and explode in bubbles on the surface. And, you know, hopefully I'm there sitting in the poet's boat ready to haul them on board. So, that's almost always how poems start for me. And this poem very much began that way. I was at home on a winter's evening, and it just began to come through me, as it were. And the context for that was that after many years of living in the same house, my wife and I were starting to think about the possibility of moving. And, you know, it was a really exciting prospect but also it definitely was stirring up the sediment of my unconscious. I'm someone that really feels the need for a settled home, a settled place, and this unsettled me. So, I think that that was what was giving the raw energy to the content. And there was something else, which is what informed the scenery of the poem, if you like, which is this idea of light withdrawing from a space and what that does within the space. And when I was 11, I was living just with my dad, and he would come home from work later than I would get home from school. So, for the first year or so, he arranged for me to go to some elderly neighbours on the way home from school. So I was, sort of, watched, and we would sit in their front room, and they would load up their coal fire. And through the windows, the sun would set slowly, and they were so calm. They would hardly speak. When they did speak, it was about these, kind of, wonderful domestic details like, you know, what needs to be chopped for dinner, or are there any windfalls in the garden that we can harvest tomorrow? It was very, very calm. And, you know, the coals in the fire were glowing red, but the rest of the room just lost its light. And I remember the shape of their very heavy old furniture, and the picture frames, and the curtains all began to disappear. And that must have just lodged somewhere deep within me, because that's very much, as the poem came out, where I was also taken to in my mind. Mark: So, I like this. So, I mean, to put it bluntly, it's not like you moved into a house and then you wrote this. You were thinking about moving and then a house emerged from your unconscious, from memories of other houses and so on. Tim: Yeah, yeah. Absolutely. Mark: And I think that's kind of a salutary thing to hear because… And this is a poem that really you read it and you totally believe it. It feels like a first-hand account of, well, we did this and this is what happened. And yet you're, kind of, pulling the rug from under our feet here, which is a nice thing in poetry. I think that you can't necessarily take it literally or face value. Tim: Well, we moved house… Yeah, we moved house about six months after I wrote the poem. So, I went through the experience of living the poem, which seems to be quite a good way around. Mark: Did you conjure the house, Tim? Tim: Actually, it was wonderful because it confirmed to me part of what motivated the poem, which is that I think we can all become a little bit… I don't know. Complacent seems to be too loaded a term, but we get so used to how our houses speak that we stop hearing them. And actually, there's this kind of wonderful symphony going on the whole time, you know, radiators making those strange percussive noises, and the way that the door squeaks, or suddenly, you know, how your staircase gets to a particular temperature in the middle of the night and decides to squeak. And they're constantly making these noises. And when you're living there, you stop hearing them. But when you move to somewhere for the first time, or sometimes if you go and stay in a haunted Airbnb in the woods, that first night particularly, everything's coming to you fresh. So, I think there's a strong sense of what's it like when a person moves into a space for the first time and that space has a character, and an energy, and a being of its own. Mark: So, really it's that state of heightened awareness, isn't it? You know, apparently this is how the mind works. If you've got a constant stimulus, the mind will tune it out. It's that Heaney line, you know, ‘The refrigerator whinnied into silence,' which is just that moment of… You only hear the fridge when it stops. Tim: Yeah. Mark: And what you're describing is the reverse of that. When you're in the house for the first time and everything is new and you're on hyperalert for the voices of the house. Tim: Yeah. And we're listening to our houses right now because there's a 1066 Line train from Hastings that's just gone into the tunnel over there. But we probably can't quite hear it on the microphones, but it's in the air and it's just touching elements of the house. And we're surrounded by this the whole time. And I think it's important to say, as soon as the poem had laid itself out on the page for the first time, it was clear to me that this poem was about people moving into a home for the first time, but it is also quite a vivid description, I think, of what was going through me at the time in terms of that unsettled nature. You know, I was quite surprised by the nature of the metaphors that my unconscious had presented me with. I mean, it's quite a portrait of anxiety to double-check the curtains, to lock a bolt as if it's an old rifle. You know, this is partly a portrait of an unsettled, anxious mind, which is, I think, something that I was going through at the time. Mark: And you've got some great similes, you know, the iron door bolts like an old rifle. And there's this lovely bit where you talk about ‘drawing drawn curtains'. And if you look on the website, then you can see that there's a line break after drawing, so it's drawing, line break, drawn curtains, which really just emphasises it's already drawn. You don't need to do it. This is the OCD kicking in, which really speaks to that anxiety you're describing. And I really love the second section where you say, ‘All that first day, the house talked to itself about us,' which is just a wonderfully unsettling idea that we are the intruders and the house has an opinion. Tim: Yeah, I definitely wasn't being sort of whimsically mystical about infrastructure and materials. It was definitely the feeling that there is an exchange when animals, human and other, come into a space. There's a change in energies and temperatures and sound and smells. And, you know, the dynamism of creatures come into a space that has been unoccupied, which is what generally most houses are, you know, sometimes for days, sometimes for months, and years before the new occupants come in. And I was just really taken with that idea that the house also needs to find its way of settling under these new occupants. And that seemed like a moment of 24 hours of the two parties eyeing each other and listening to each other and wondering about, ‘Who is this that I need to live with for these next years?' Mark: And it's quite a humbling poem, isn't it? Because, you know, when you think of owning the house or occupying the house, it's like you're the one in charge. But this poem just kind of subverts that idea that it's the house that's weighing us up, as in the people in the poem. It made me think of that TV series David Olusoga does, A House Through Time, where he gets an old house, and he goes through the records, and he looks at all the people who lived in the house and tells their story. And there's quite a lot of them, like, much more than I would have expected. You know, each episode goes on and on and on, and you just realise the house is staying there. The house is constant. These people, they're temporary. They might think they're the owners, but we're just passing through. Tim: We are passing through. It is a reminder of our mortality and our houses often way outlive us. Also, in recent years and decades, there's been an increase in the way in which people work from home, but that isn't a new thing. So, I wrote this poem in the house we lived in before, which was built to be a weaver's cottage, a live/work weaver's cottage. And, you know, they would find their living accommodation in quite modest corners of the house because a lot of it, at different times in the process, was given to equipment and storing material and a very intense version of live/work and working from home. And, you know, I think that part of when people suddenly a whole generation through particularly lockdowns but also just this change in working habits are spending much more of their life within the home quite often and what that means in terms of their relationship to the space and how the house relates to that. Tim: I think, just as I'm speaking, it occurs to me that perhaps also part of the influence of the atmosphere in the poem is around some of the fiction that I enjoy. And I haven't thought about this until we were talking now, but I like an M. R. James novel, or, you know, The Haunting of Hill House has just come to mind, and buildings and atmospheres that speak, as sort of some of the atmospheres you get in a Robert Aickman type horror novel. So, some of the classic British horror novels and that type of fiction. And just as we were talking about that, and I was also casting my eyes down the poem, there's some of the dusk that you get with those places, which is in this poem. And it's great, isn't it, coming back to one of your own poems quite a while after you wrote it, and you perhaps see some of the reasons for its being in a slightly different way. Mark: I mean, that's the basic premise of the haunted house is that the house is alive. I mean, you've not gone full Hammer Horror with this one. It's maybe a little more subtle, but you've definitely got some really wonderfully suggestive details. I loved ‘inner doorways muttering behind / flat hands, oak floors – masonic / in their black treacle gloss'. And that's so true. There are so many of these old houses. It's like, what happens to the wood? How does it get to be like treacle? And there's that heaviness and that opacity about it that you convey really well. Tim: Yeah. I was taken with the idea of the house being almost quite an august figure in some ways. It would be wrong to say it's proud of itself, but deciding whether to settle under our presence is quite… Mark: It's not aiming to please, is it? Tim: It's not. It's not easily won over. I mean, you know… Yeah, let's see what these new occupants are like. You know, what do they get up to? What are their tastes? What do we think of the prints that they put up on the wall? Mark: Yeah. Will they get it? Will they behave themselves? So you've got this lovely line in the third paragraph, ‘So the room released its form / and we sat among one another.' Well, thinking about the form of the poem, how close is this to, say, the first draft when you were hauling the sea creature out from the depths over the side of your poetic boat? Tim: Yeah, when the poem came out onto the page, it actually made a demand of me. It said, ‘I don't want you to put me into very organised type measures. I don't want to be sorted into regular stanzas. And also, I want you to be quite careful about any linguistic bells and whistles.' It just was a bit like the house. It had almost a sort of slightly stern feeling to it as a poem. It was very clear, and it was saying each of these stanzas, or scenes maybe, has to be as long as it wants to be. ‘I don't want you to spend time evening things up or creating consistency.' And there are many other poems that I've written where, of course, I'm deliberately very measured, very consistent. At the moment, a lot of the poems I'm writing have a lot of half rhymes but particularly a lot of internal rhymes. And, goodness, audaciously, you know, I even have a rhyming couplet in a poem that I'm working on at the moment. But this poem just said, ‘I don't want any of that.' Now, that's not to say that there aren't some half rhymes or suggestions of rhymes, and certainly some lovely withholding with words at the end of the line that only resolve as you move through into the next line, the enjambment of the word and the meaning falling over into the next line. Definitely that happens. But I tried to edit this into different shapes. I probably tried it five different ways, and each time it just felt wrong quite quickly actually. I tried to give it a consistent number of lines per stanza, and it repulsed me as a poem. It just said, ‘No, I need to be this free form.' And also, I had to accept that it's probably a little bit messier than I normally feel comfortable with. And it was good. I was like, ‘Actually, you know, just stop fighting. Just stop fighting it.' Sometimes your poems can be more irregular, more free, less obviously organised. And I think it has its rhythms that hold it together. It does for me. And listeners will decide, when they hear it, whether those rhythms are actually holding it together. Mark: Well, for me, it feels a bit like one of those old houses where you go in and there's not a right angle in sight. You know, the floors are sloping. The doors have to be a kind of trapezium to open and close, which I think is obviously true to the spirit of the thing. And it's like the house itself. It's not trying too hard. You can read it quite quickly, and it seems quite plain-spoken and spartan. But when you look, you notice the little details. Like, you know, there's the door bolts like a rifle, and the ‘nasonic', a wonderful adjective. And I've just noticed now, as we were talking, in the final verse, ‘In time, each stray thought / went to its home, leaving this / accommodation to take place'. And that's a lovely reframing of ‘accommodation', because the everyday sense is a place where you go and live, but it's an accommodation in the sense of a mutual alignment, almost like a negotiation or getting used to each other, which I think is really delightful. Mark: Okay, Tim, so I have to ask, looking again at the poem, what on earth is going on with buttering the cat's paws at the beginning? Tim: So, buttering the cat's paws is a bit of folk wisdom. And the idea is that when you move to a new house, if you have a cat or cats, that you actually put lovely, creamy butter on their paws and that they, you know, as cats do, will then spend time licking and licking and licking. And it means that more of their scent is put into the floor and the grounds of the place so they feel at home quicker and sooner. So they're sensing the place much more actively sooner. Now, I don't think there's any scientific evidence to suggest it works. But, you know, if anyone has any experience with this, I would love to hear it. But I don't really care, because the whole image of spreading beautiful, creamy butter onto the paws of the cat and that somehow just inviting them to feel that this place is home is more than enough for me. And I'd heard the phrase years and years and years before. And again, I think it was just the very first phrase that came out as the poem emerged. I think it was opening the doorway to the poem, and it felt very natural for it to be the beginning of the poem. I wonder now, looking back, whether there's something to do with the eye opened with an animal spirit. And so much of this poem really has come up from the unconscious. And I'm not starting with a very measured, conscious human, you know, activity or… I'm not saying, you know, ‘we made the decision to move'. It's not a person-led piece in the sense that, okay, we're doing the buttering, but it's the cat that's front and centre in that open line. And that's not something that I particularly thought about consciously at the time. But looking back, I think there's a hint there that we're not just talking about a straightforward human, rational response to living in a place. There are animal spirits too. Mark: Yeah, and it feels like a wonderful piece of folk magic. I mean, cats are magical creatures like witches' familiars. And, you know, maybe there's a magical aspect to that. It's a little ritual, isn't it? Tim: It is. I had a question for you, but it just came out of part of my experience of this poem going out into the world, which is that I've just been surprised, in a wonderful way, by how diverse and often surprising people's responses are to poems, how I can never really tell what it is about a poem someone's going to pick up and come back to you about. You know, for example, someone has given copies of this poem to friends when they move house. Mark: Oh, lovely. Tim: …as a housewarming present, a printed letterpress, which is very, very beautiful. Someone else said that they really loved sort of, what did they say, the soft absurdity around the house being almost this grand piece. And others have responded in different ways. And I think it's one of the wonders of poetry, maybe something that doesn't get talked about quite so much, which is that we interrogate the meaning for ourselves. And if you work with your editor and sometimes reviewers, meaning is discussed. But actually, my experience, when poems go out into the world, is it's just incredible how broad the range of response is and what people pick up on. And I suddenly think, well, is that just my experience? So what's it like for you? Are you constantly surprised by what people pick up and come back to and focus on with your poems? Mark: Yeah, it's a little bit like a Rorschach test, isn't it? People see themselves in it to a degree, or they see something that will resonate for them. And to me, it's the sign of a real poem if it can do that, if different people see different things in it. If it was too obvious and too, you know, two-dimensional, then that's fine, but it's not really a poem. And I think this is part of the magic of why poems can persist over time. Society is shifting all around them. Maybe a few of the houses are constant, but the poem still inhabits the space, and people still relate to it for decades or hundreds or even thousands of years sometimes. Tim: Yeah, I think there's an important point for poets that you have to maintain your confidence in ambiguity and what might feel like potential confusion. Of course, you need to think through how you're writing it and avoid unintended, poor consequences. But there's also a point in which I think you have to protect some of the messiness of meaning and not try to pin things down too much. Of course, there are different types of poets, and some poets need to be very clear and very message-driven. But I'm thinking, for me, there are sometimes moments when I think, ‘Am I just leaving this hanging and ambiguous and a bit dusky in terms of meaning?' And that's the point at which I think, ‘No, quite often just trust that people will find their own way into the poem.' Mark: Yeah, absolutely. And this is something I've seen a lot in classes, and it certainly happened to me very often. You know, the teacher will say you can cut the last line because we already get it. You don't need to underline the message of the poem. Sometimes we feel a bit nervous just leaving it hanging. And you've absolutely had the confidence to do that with the wonderful ending of this, where you talk about ‘the punctuating crack and hiss / as fresh eggs are broken / into a smoking pan. Someone / opening a window' – and that's it. I mean, tell me about that ending. How did you arrive at that? And did you go back and forth? Did you think, ‘Can I leave that window open, that line?' And by the way, listener, there is no full stop either to hang on to at that point! Tim: Yeah. I have to say, I do find myself clearing away more and more of the furniture of the poems. And there is a very deliberate lack of a full stop there. It was all there in the first draft that came out. It wasn't a constructed or reconstructed ending later on. Again, the poem seemed to want to open into something rather than close itself down and make a point. I think that in the action of the poem, we've moved through this dusky night, including a sort of bout of insomnia, of staring into the darkness. And then morning is coming, and it's full of new things. And there is something about that morning of waking up in a new house. What a moment in someone's life that is. Mark: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tim: It's just extraordinary. And there's a natural link there into the egg as a symbol. Something new, something is being born. And yeah, there may be many reasons why that window needed to be open. The smoke from the pan is one thing, which is all about the… Mark: Right, right. Setting the smoke alarm off! Tim: Yeah, it goes off in our kitchen quite often. And of course, the cooking is, again, this thing of humans being in a house and occupying it and all of the energy and dynamics. And how are you most going to make a new home your own? You're going to get out and start cooking and making a mess and eating together and getting things moving. I have no idea who the someone is, and I don't know what their motivation is for opening a window. And I like that. Mark: Okay. Well, let's have another listen to the poem and maybe, you know, each of us, as we listen to this this time, just see what associations come up for you. You know, houses you've lived in, places you've been, memories it conjures up. Thank you very much, Tim. What a lovely space to explore with this poem.   Occupied by Tim Rich We buttered the cat's pawsand baked bread in borrowed tinsto make the unfamiliar speak of pleasureand our intentions to remain All that first daythe house talked to itselfabout us Later than I expected, light withdrew across our table, unopened cratesback through thin glasstowards tomorrow So the room released its formand we sat among one anothergiving our ears to the conversation:inner doorways muttering behind flat hands; oak floors—masonic in their black treacle gloss—deciding whether to settleunder our presence Later still, in bed, I stared sideways into an unlit universe, absentlymindwalking the bounds,relocking iron door-bolts like an old rifle, drawingdrawn curtains a little closer,charting the evaporating pathbehind that plane's descent In time, each stray thought went to its home, leaving this accommodation to take place: the air held here sighing gently,like contented tortoise breaths; the softening percussion of bodies sleeping; the punctuating crack and hiss as fresh eggs are brokeninto a smoking pan; someoneopening a window   Dark Angels: Three Contemporary Poets ‘Occupied' is from Dark Angels: Three Contemporary Poets, published by Paekakariki Press. Available from: Dark Angels is available from: The publisher: Paekakariki Press Amazon: UK     Tim Rich Tim Rich grew up in the woods of Sussex and now lives and writes by the sea in Hastings. His poems have been published in numerous anthologies and journals, including Dark Angels: Three Contemporary Poets (Paekakariki Press) and Poet Town (Moth Light Press). The Landfall series – exhibited at the Bloomsbury Festival, London — brought together his poetry and photography. He has five poems in the anthology Family Matters, a collection of poetry about family, to be published in 2026. Alongside poetry, Tim writes, edits and ghostwrites books.  timrich.com Photograph by Maxine Silver   A Mouthful of Air – the podcast This is a transcript of an episode of A Mouthful of Air – a poetry podcast hosted by Mark McGuinness. New episodes are released every other Tuesday. You can hear every episode of the podcast via Apple, Spotify, Google Podcasts or your favourite app. You can have a full transcript of every new episode sent to you via email. The music and soundscapes for the show are created by Javier Weyler. Sound production is by Breaking Waves and visual identity by Irene Hoffman. A Mouthful of Air is produced by The 21st Century Creative, with support from Arts Council England via a National Lottery Project Grant. Listen to the show You can listen and subscribe to A Mouthful of Air on all the main podcast platforms Related Episodes Occupied by Tim Rich Episode 88 Occupied by Tim Rich  Tim Rich reads ‘Occupied' and discusses the poem with Mark McGuinness.This poem is from: Dark Angels: Three Contemporary PoetsAvailable from: Dark Angels is available from: The publisher: Paekakariki Press Amazon: UK... Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold Episode 87 Dover Beach by Matthew Arnold  Mark McGuinness reads and discusses ‘Dover Beach' by Matthew Arnold.Poet Matthew ArnoldReading and commentary by Mark McGuinnessDover Beach By Matthew Arnold The sea is calm tonight.The tide is full, the moon lies... Recalling Brigid by Orna Ross Orna Ross reads and discusses ‘Recalling Brigid’ from Poet Town.

On episode 249, we welcome Jack El-Hai to discuss the Nuremberg trials and the recent film about them, the psychiatrist who analyzed Hermann Göring, Dr. Douglas Kelley's motivations for doing so, whether Nazis were monsters and if being human makes them scarier, how the results of Göring's Rorschach test reveled a narcissistic personality, the foundation of evil, Kelley's stifled ambitions and why his social contributions make his work meaningful, and the warnings in 'Nuremberg' about our political future. Jack El-Hai is an acclaimed author and journalist whose writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Smithsonian, GQ, Wired, Scientific American, Discover, and many other publications. He has written several acclaimed books — including The Lobotomist, The Lost Brothers, and Face in the Mirror — translated into more than twenty languages worldwide. His book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist inspired the major motion picture Nuremberg, which explores the psychological dimensions of the Nuremberg Trials. | Jack El-Hai | ► Website | https://www.el-hai.com  ► Twitter | https://x.com/Jack_ElHai  ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/jackelhai1 ► Bluesky | https://bsky.app/profile/jackelhai.bsky.social ► Linkedin | https://www.linkedin.com/in/jackelhai ► The Nazi and the Psychiatrist Book | https://amzn.to/4bBoBqf Where you can find us: | Seize The Moment Podcast | ► Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/SeizeTheMoment ► Twitter | https://twitter.com/seize_podcast ► Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/seizethemoment ► TikTok | https://www.tiktok.com/@seizethemomentpodcast

Please SUBSCRIBE to this channel!  Follow Slater on Instagram + TikTok: @investigatorslater  Join our Patreon family! (www.Patreon.com/PsychopediaPod) On Patreon, you'll get AD FREE episodes, Girl On Gore Season 2 episodes, merch discounts, exclusive content, extra true crime cases, pop quizzes, behind-the-scenes pics/vids, private group chats, and much more!  Trigger warning: This episode discusses the very difficult subject of child sexual abuse. Please listen with caution.Description: In 2016, Jason Vukovich decided the justice system wasn't doing its job — so, he took over. Jason launched a violent, one-man campaign against convicted pedophiles in Alaska, attacking his targets with fists, hammers, and years of unresolved pain and anger.  As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, Jason openly framed his actions as punishment the justice system failed to deliver.  To supporters, he is a vigilante hero known as “The Alaskan Avenger.”  To law enforcement, he is a dangerous criminal and serial attacker who belongs behind bars.  To the public? A Rorschach test.  This explosive case collides trauma, rage, and moral certainty - and leaves us with one brutal question: when justice fails and revenge feels necessary, who's actually at fault? To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New angles of ICE's fatal shooting in Minneapolis showcase a Rorschach test for a divided nation. Plus, Tucker Carlson calls out the right for being hypocritical on their reaction to this tragedy versus Charlie Kirk's death.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week, the shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis has drawn new scrutiny of President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement push, and reactions have become something of a political Rorschach test. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Sen. Mark Kelly (Arizona) are facing new challenges as they navigate attacks from Republican leaders. And the Trump administration continues to project defiance in the aftermath of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's removal.“This is just one expression of raw American power after another,” says White House reporter Michael Birnbaum on this week's “Post Reports” politics roundtable.Michael spoke with host Colby Itkowitz and Dan Merica, co-anchor of the Early Brief newsletter, to unpack a jam-packed week of political news. Today's show was produced by Thomas Lu and Josh Carroll. It was edited by Martine Powers with help from Reena Flores and mixed by Sean Carter. Subscribe to The Washington Post here. And watch us on YouTube here.

The most consequential story remains Iran, where protests appear to be growing despite the regime shutting down the internet, a move that historically precedes lethal force. The scale of the demonstrations is difficult to verify, but the videos that do emerge suggest a population no longer content to absorb repression quietly. It is hard to separate this moment from the cascading effects of October 7, the regional dismantling of Hamas and Hezbollah, the fall of Syria, and the degradation of Iran's military capacity. Whether this becomes a true regime crisis is unknown, but it is unquestionably the most important story in the world right now.A Fatal ICE Encounter and a Nation Watching the Same Video DifferentlyDomestically, the killing of a 37 year old mother during an ICE operation in Minnesota has become a political Rorschach test. She was ordered out of her car, did not comply, put the vehicle in motion, and was shot by an ICE officer. Federal authorities have shut down any investigation, with Vice President J.D. Vance asserting absolute immunity. What is striking is not just the tragedy itself, but how confidently people draw opposite conclusions from the same footage. To Republicans, this is law enforcement under siege. To Democrats, it is evidence of authoritarian overreach. The incident hardens beliefs rather than persuading anyone new, which is precisely why it is politically potent.Texas Democrats and a Brutal Primary RealityThe Texas Senate race continues to clarify in uncomfortable ways for Democrats. Reporting suggests Republican maneuvering helped nudge Jasmine Crockett into the race, and the stylistic contrast with James Talarico could not be sharper. Crockett is relentless and confrontational. Talarico's first ad, by contrast, feels staged and overly polite. In a Texas Democratic primary, that is a problem. Style matters, and beating Crockett will require more than reasonableness. It will require a moment, a line, or a conflict that reframes the race entirely.Affordability, Power, and Trump UnfilteredDonald Trump's affordability push continued with a pledge to direct the purchase of mortgage bonds to drive down rates, paired with earlier proposals to restrict large institutional buyers from the housing market. Whether these ideas work is secondary to the political intent. Trump wants to be seen doing something on costs. His two hour interview with The New York Times reinforced that worldview. He openly dismissed international law as a constraint, embraced coercive diplomacy, and framed power as its own justification. It was Trump without the volume turned all the way up, which may be the most revealing version of him.Chapters:00:00:00 - Intro00:01:50 - Iran00:04:20 - ICEf00:11:59 - Texas Races00:16:11 - Interview with Reese Gorman00:52:23 - Update00:52:46 - Mortgages00:54:34 - Trump's NYT Interview00:56:54 - Tariffs00:59:00 - Interview with Stella Tsantekidou01:32:50 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

In Minneapolis, the ICE shooting of Renee Good is a Rorschach test. The Bible speaks of the “rabble” from the "mixed multitude" of Numbers, craving comfort and stirring grievance, to the mob in Acts 17 whose fury drives them to a different city to cause trouble. Let us learn to beware the "rabble" of the Old and New Testaments.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Minneapolis, the ICE shooting of Renee Good is a Rorschach test. The Bible speaks of the “rabble” from the "mixed multitude" of Numbers, craving comfort and stirring grievance, to the mob in Acts 17 whose fury drives them to a different city to cause trouble. Let us learn to beware the "rabble" of the Old and New Testaments.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Epstein files keep coming out, and instead of clarity, they are producing something far messier: suspicion without resolution and outrage without proof.What we are seeing now is not the mythical document many people imagine, a clean list pairing powerful men with specific criminal acts. That list does not exist. What exists are FBI files and grand jury materials filled with allegations, some credible, some vague, many never fully investigated. The result is a widening cloud of suspicion over a long list of names, with no clear answers about who did what or why prosecutors failed to act when they had the chance.Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.That ambiguity is why this release satisfies no one. New documents, like the bizarre and possibly fake letter to Larry Nassar attributed to Epstein after his death, only deepen confusion rather than resolve it. If the Trump administration delayed releasing these files out of fear of what they contained, that decision backfired badly. The slow drip has turned the Epstein case into a permanent Rorschach test, where everyone sees what they already believe. Until the Justice Department explains what it has, what it does not, and why accountability failed for so long, the Epstein story will remain unresolved and corrosive.Chapters00:00 - Intro01:39 - Epstein05:16 - Tevi Troy on Lame Duck Presidents49:41 - Wrap-up This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe

Am 23. Dezember 2024 brannte die Badhütte Rorschach fast vollständig nieder. Der Brand bewegte weit über die Stadtgrenze. Das über 100 Jahre alte Bauwerk soll nun für rund sechs Millionen Franken wieder aufgebaut werden. Im Sommer 2028 soll die Badhütte wiedereröffnet werden. Weiter in der Sendung: · Die SVP-Fraktion des St. Galler Kantonsrats will von der Regierung wissen, wie es um das Klanghaus Toggenburg steht.

This week, Shat The Movies dives headfirst into early-2000s suburban dread with Donnie Darko, the cult classic that launched a thousand dorm-room debates and taught a generation to fear jet engines and men in bunny suits. Commissioned by listeners Wes and Fernando, this episode tackles Richard Kelly's time-bending, angst-soaked sci-fi drama that somehow feels even more relevant today. Gene and Big D unpack Jake Gyllenhaal's star-making performance, the film's iconic '80s soundtrack, and whether Donnie Darko is a brilliant meditation on fate and free will—or just an elaborate emo Rorschach test. Along the way, they debate self-help gurus, creepy motivational speakers, suburban hypocrisy, and why this movie hits differently depending on when you first saw it. Is Donnie Darko a misunderstood masterpiece or a pretentious puzzle box that gets more credit than it deserves? Grab your Philosophy of Time Travel and find out. Subscribe Now Android: https://www.shatpod.com/android Apple/iTunes: https://www.shatpod.com/apple Help Support the Podcast Contact Us: https://www.shatpod.com/contact Commission Movie: https://www.shatpod.com/support Support with Paypal: https://www.shatpod.com/paypal Support With Venmo: https://www.shatpod.com/venmo Shop Merchandise: https://www.shatpod.com/shop Theme Song - Die Hard by Guyz Nite: https://www.facebook.com/guyznite

What if the “techno-feudalism” boom is a symptom of our confusion rather than a diagnosis of the age? We sit down with Alex Hochuli (Bungacast, American Affairs) to interrogate the feudal metaphor and make a sharper case: we're living through total capitalism's decay, not a return to lords and serfs. That lens helps make sense of platform tolls, anti-market monopolies, surveillance, and institutional rot without pretending we've exited capitalism's basic relations of production.We trace why the feudal story resonates—unfreedom feels real—then test it against history. Feudalism meant manorial production, oath-bound sovereignty, and overlapping legal orders; our world runs on consolidated states, global supply chains, and platform intermediaries that convert risk into reliable rents. The better comparison is peripherization: practices once common in the periphery now shape the core, from precarious work to state-enabled accumulation. That shift helps explain why labor leverage has collapsed despite rising public sympathy: dispersed service shops, automated production, and logistics-dependence blunt traditional organizing power.China enters as Rorschach test: state capitalism, social credit, and surveillance make the feudal label tempting, yet the core logic remains capitalist, steered by growth imperatives and legitimacy management. We explore AI's forked path—job-displacing windfall or costly stagnation—and why care-economy fixes won't build a livable future on their own. If everyone secretly wants social democracy back, we ask what could replace the vanished conditions that once made it possible.The conversation ends with “dark hope.” Drop the costume drama, name the system we have, and fight for a directly political project that builds capacity: housing, grids, industry, and public institutions that actually work. Speak against oligarchy in terms a broad public can hear. If you're ready to trade clever metaphors for concrete ambition, hit play, share with a friend, and leave a review so more listeners can find the show.Send us a text Musis by Bitterlake, Used with Permission, all rights to BitterlakeSupport the showCrew:Host: C. Derick VarnIntro and Outro Music by Bitter Lake.Intro Video Design: Jason MylesArt Design: Corn and C. Derick VarnLinks and Social Media:twitter: @varnvlogblue sky: @varnvlog.bsky.socialYou can find the additional streams on YoutubeCurrent Patreon at the Sponsor Tier: Jordan Sheldon, Mark J. Matthews, Lindsay Kimbrough, RedWolf, DRV, Kenneth McKee, JY Chan, Matthew Monahan, Parzival, Adriel Mixon, Buddy Roark, Daniel Petrovic,Julian

This week, Eric and Josh are joined by Pascale, to hype the new Mayfair themed It's A Wonderful Life holiday cards that she designed! They also chat about: visiting New York City, home ownership, TrueAnon, silent films with live bands, swapping out our projector, Stranger Things, CHUO, the Disney Vault, Canuxploitation, and more! Plus, they mention the movies screening from Friday December 19 - Thursday December 25: The Tale Of Silyan, Die Hard, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Sense And Sensibility, It's A Wonderful Life, Ghostkeeper, and Sentimental Value!

Jared is joined by comedian and longtime friend Greg Stone for a classic Chit Chat Wednesday full of derailments, dad life, and perfectly unhinged takes. They spiral from a broken sponsor e-bike into NDAs, Hollywood rumors, and why Greg absolutely cannot be trusted with secrets. The conversation jumps to toys, parenting, Christmas gifts, and Greg's very intense opinions on action figures, trains, and ruining his own kids' expectations. Then they play a rapid-fire 2025 Rorschach test, breaking down viral moments like the Coldplay kiss cam, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, Katy Perry in space, and the mysterious 6-7 trend. It's loose, chaotic, and exactly what happens when two comedians let each other cook.Jared is on tour!

Aristocratic chaos agent Hedda Gabler isn't a character. She's a Rorschach test, and has been for over a century now. Since first appearing in 1891 as the puzzling eponymous protagonist of a play by Henrick Ibsen, audiences have stared into at this recently married woman, driven by domestic suffocation into acts of destruction, and found different meanings, reflective of who they are, reflective of their politics and personal struggles. Is she a beacon of feminist freedom, lashing out at the restraints forced upon her by a misogynistic upper class? Is she a tragic figure, numbed then maddened by the spiritual emptiness of a bourgeois life? Or is she more simply put, a monster - someone so bored, she seeks entertainment in the destruction of others?In writer-director Nia DaCosta's new take on the character, starring frequent collaborator Tessa Thompson, she's perhaps all of the above and more – this is a queer retelling that fizzes with intrigue and nuance and a kinda Brat Summer-era celebration of feminine messiness. Today on Script Apart, a podcast about the first draft secrets of great movies and TV shows, Nia joins me to talk about the thematic through line in her work, connecting Hedda with her 2018 thriller Little Woods and her 2023 foray into superhero cinema, The Marvels. We get into her fascination with unconventional women on-screen, the literature in her childhood that led her to Hedda and every important spoiler plot point from this new adaptation.Script Apart is hosted by Al Horner and produced by Kamil Dymek. Follow us on Instagram, or email us on thescriptapartpodcast@gmail.com.To get ad-free episodes and exclusive content, join us on Patreon.Get coverage on your screenplay by visiting ScriptApart.com/coverage. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we review Watchmen: Chapter 2, exploring Rorschach's disturbing past, Doctor Manhattan's crisis of humanity, and the shocking truth behind Adrian Veidt's plan to “save” the world. With impossible moral choices, devastating sacrifices, and a finale that changes everything, this chapter asks whether peace is worth the cost of the truth.

We're joined this week by Brandon Sheffield — director at Necrosoft Games and cohost of the fantastic Insert credit podcast — for a conversation about making games, making Demonschool specifically, and making a version of Rorschach who is somehow even worse than the original. Afterwards, we have a conversation about the highs and lows of Metroid Prime 4: Beyond, a game we are deeply conflicted about.Discussed: Demonschool, Metroid Prime 4: BeyondFind us everywhere: https://intothecast.onlineBuy some merch, if you'd like: https://shop.intothecast.onlineJoin the Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/intothecast---Follow Stephen Hilger: https://bsky.app/profile/stephenhilger.bsky.social Follow Brendon Bigley: https://bsky.app/profile/bb.wavelengths.onlineProduced by AJ Fillari: https://bsky.app/profile/ajfillari.bsky.social---Season 8 cover art by Scout Wilkinson: https://scoutwilkinson.myportfolio.com/Theme song by Will LaPorte: https://ghostdown.online/---Timecodes:(00:00) - Intro (00:14) - Demonschool | Brandon Sheffield is here! (01:05:04) - Break (01:05:05) - Metroid Prime 4: Beyond | I will not make a Myles joke. I will not make a Myles joke. I will not make a Myles joke. I will not make a Myles joke. (01:57:34) - Wrapping up ---Thanks to all of our amazing patrons, including our Eternal Gratitude members:Ed AJ-RockSamantha DNorth HeroSam HSnzznBertitoJ-RockGregory Mark SCmndr BiscuiticemanChristian HRydan BCaleb HArden FEye of the DuckKaleNathan EJ. H. AjoelchronoMellowMatthew BRobin LPSeekingSeakingJimmerszoey!Vinny MMattKerry KBrian MNoah DZach DChristopher TDHugo WToddChris BLukerfuffleStephen YDaniel GEric FTaran WBrendan OChris ZClayton MZach RGriffinDylan NFederico VTigerz RevengeLogan HAlan RJohn AMike LmattjanzzDavid MHeavyPixelsKaleb HTyler JCorey ZSusan HBarry TRobert RChris JBrett Allen HDan SJack SGarrett CjimiiboJohn HDirch FJim EJim WTristan LEvan BAwfulHanzomin2Aaron GJean HTodd Nred_wagonNeilPeter BJohn VvErik MRedmage77Joshua JTony LDanny KGibson GKate Duncan BRichard MDaniel NSeth MJamesAndy HDemoEmmaLyn ECorey TCaleb WJake LJesse WMike TCodesMatt BWesleymebezacAlex LSergio LninjadeathdogRory BA42PoundMooseRobert MMichael WAndrewthis_JUSTINRyan O14.3 billion yearsBrendan KMegan BSecretAgentKoalaNoah OArcturusAndrew WhepaheChase ALoveDiesNick QChris MRBKaren HAdam FScott HAlexander SMatt HMurrayDavid PJason KMicah OKamrin HAndrew DKyle SPhilip N ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Episode two of On The Record begins exactly where great podcasts are born: with the crushing realisation that nothing has been recorded. After a brief collective sigh (and a generous decision to “power through”), Michael Mackenzie, Brian Wise and guest Nick Corr regroup and press on—braver, wiser, and still dangerously unsupervised. What follows is a gloriously eclectic ramble through: A shamelessly persuasive plug for Rhythms Magazine, which somehow doubles as relationship advice A sold-out theatre talk about fungi, proving that mushrooms now draw bigger crowds than indie bands A deep dive into Pluribus, the Apple TV series that turns hive minds into a philosophical Rorschach test (Michael finds it calming; Brian finds it terrifying) The long-awaited final album from Chris Bailey of The Saints, hailed as a dignified, and moving farewell Lucinda Williams, political defiance, and why some albums are necessary whether America's ready or not A prolonged, reverent detour into Tom Waits, including birthdays, movies, glitter-filled pockets, and the universal agreement that everyone would still fly overseas to see him Talking Heads nostalgia, Bluesfest ticket shock, and the unsettling concept of “cover bands with original members” The episode wraps with movies (Dead of Winter, Train Dreams), tears shed in unexpected places, and the firm belief that art about love, loss, and grief is best discussed at length—preferably after checking the record button. On The Record is a podcast where culture is taken seriously, and tangents are treated as the main event. Useful Links Rhythms Subscription For Your Loved One At Christmas  Order Your Rhythms T Shirt For Christmas   Merlin Sheldrake Interview  The Saints Long March Through The Jazz Age  Lucinda Williams new album World's Gone Wrong  Lucinda's Honky Tonk in NYC  Documentary: Finding Lucinda   Jay Buchanan - Caroline (Official Music Video) Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery | Official Trailer | Netflix  Tom Waits - "Come On Up To The House"  Tom Waits Glitter and Doom Live  Tom Waits - The Acting Years  Snocaps band site  The Lemonheads New Album Remain In Light feat. Jerry Harrison & Adrian Belew | Full Set | Hollywood Arts Park | 3-2-2024  Caught Stealing Trailer  Dead of Winter Trailer  Train Dreams Trailer 

Mohanad Elshieky joins Funny You Should Mention with stories that make Benghazi feel less like a political Rorschach test and more like the small town where he learned comedy by roasting his siblings and dodging unlicensed militias. He walks us through the dictatorship-era silence around politics, the sudden rise of ISIS-adjacent checkpoints, and the knife-wielding "helper" who hijacked his car only to request a future hangout. We also dig into the Greyhound incident that vaulted him into national headlines, why clapter makes his skin crawl, and how Portland's well-meaning curiosity can feel like its own border crossing. Produced by Corey Wara Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠thegist@mikepesca.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ To advertise on the show, contact ⁠⁠⁠⁠ad-sales@libsyn.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ or visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://advertising.libsyn.com/TheGist⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g⁠⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to The Gist Instagram Page: ⁠⁠⁠⁠GIST INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow The Gist List at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠Pesca⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack⁠⁠⁠⁠

Der Grosse Rat hat am 1. Dezember 2025 beschlossen, den Personalaufwand des Kantons im Budget 2026 um 398'600 Franken zu reduzieren. Dabei wird die Stelle des Bedrohungs- und Risikomanagers gestrichen, die immer wieder für Diskussionen gesorgt hat. Weitere Themen: · National- und Ständerat genehmigen Innerrhoder Kantonsverfassung · Wiler Stadtparlament kürzt sich seine Entschädigungen · Rapperswil-Jona prüft, ob sich die Sportvereine in Zukunft an der städtischen Sportinfrastruktur beteiligen sollen · Kinderbaustelle in Rorschach sucht händeringend Personen für das Organisationskomitee

This week on Sinica, I speak with Zhong Na, a novelist and essayist whose new piece, "Murder House," appears in the inaugural issue of Equator — a striking new magazine devoted to longform writing that crosses borders, disciplines, and cultures. In January 2024, a young couple, both Tsinghua-educated Google engineers living in a $2.5 million Silicon Valley home, became the center of a tragedy that captivated Chinese social media far more than American outlets. Zhong Na explores how the case became a collective Rorschach test — a mirror held up to contemporary Chinese society, exposing cracks in the myths of meritocracy, the prestige of global tech firms, and shifting notions of gender, class, and the Chinese dream itself. We discuss the gendered reactions online, the dimming of America's appeal, the emotional costs of the immigrant success story, and the craft of writing about tragedy with compassion but without sentimentality.5:06 – How the story first reached Zhong Na, and the Luigi Mangione comparison 7:05 – Discovering she attended the same Chengdu high school as the alleged murderer Chen Liren 8:10 – The collaboration with Equator and Joan Didion's influence 10:30 – Education, class, and the cracks in China's meritocracy myth 16:01 – Tiger mothers vs. lying flat: two responses to a rigged system 19:12 – The pandemic and the dimming of the American dream 22:49 – Chinese men as perpetrators: immigrant stress and the loss of patriarchal privilege 25:56 – The gender war online: moral autopsy and victim-blaming 30:25 – The obsession with the ex-girlfriend and attraction to the accused 34:37 – The murder house, Chinese numerology, and the rise of Gen Z metaphysics 37:08 – Geopolitics, the China Initiative, and rethinking America as a destination 39:42 – Craft and moral compass: learning from Didion and Janet Malcolm 42:31 – Zhong Na's fiction: writing Chinese experiences without catering to Western expectationsPaying it forward: Gavin Jacobson and the editorial team at EquatorRecommendations: Zhong Na: Elsewhere by Yan Ge Kaiser: Made in Ethiopia, documentary by Xinyan Yu and Max Duncan (available on PBS)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Monday's selloff rattled the entire market—Bitcoin, equities, commodities, you name it. But beneath the volatility, something more structural may be happening. In this week's Bits + Bips, Austin Campbell, Ram Ahluwalia, Chris Perkins, and B+B OG previous host Alex Kruger break down one of the most confusing macro weeks of the year. They debate why high-beta assets snapped, whether a rotation into quality is underway, why institutions seem unfazed even as retail stays skittish, and share initial thoughts on Vanguard finally allowing clients to buy crypto. The crew also unpacks Strategy's chaotic comments about selling BTC, the Clarity Act's political hurdles, the CME outage that exposed systemic fragility, and the never-ending debate over Tether—profitability, reserves, and what institutions actually want from a stablecoin issuer. Sponsors: Uniswap Mantle Hosts: Ram Ahluwalia, CFA, CEO and Founder of Lumida Austin Campbell, NYU Stern professor and founder and managing partner of Zero Knowledge Consulting Christopher Perkins, Managing Partner and President of CoinFund Guest: Alex Kruger, founder of Asgard   Timestamps:

Doc and Angus discuss Alan Moore's character creation Rorschach and explore writer Tom King's take on the character in his graphic novel 'Rorschach'! All in celebration of Alan Moore Month. Rorschach (2020-)https://www.amazon.com/Rorschach-2020-Tom-King-ebook/dp/B09KMGKVG7/It's been 35 years since Ozymandias dropped a giant interdimensional squid on New York City, killing thousands and destroying the public's trust in heroes once and for all. And since that time, one figure in a fedora, mask, and trench coat has become a divisive cultural icon. So, what does it mean when Rorschach reappears as a gunman trying to assassinate a candidate running against President Redford? Who is the man behind the mask, and why is he acting this way? Now it's up to one detective to uncover the identity of this would-be killer and expose a web of conspiracies that will change the world forever.Leave a message at kirbyskidspodcast@gmail.comJoin the Community Discussions ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://mewe.com/join/kirbyskids⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Please join us for our 2025 Graphic Novel Reads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.kirbyskids.com/2024/11/kirbys-kids-giving-thanks-2025-graphic.html⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Please join us for our 2026 Graphic Novel Reads⁠⁠https://www.kirbyskids.com/2025/11/the-kids-talk-2026-kirbys-kids-graphic.html⁠⁠For detailed show notes and past episodes please visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.kirbyskids.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

November 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials in Germany at the end of World War II. In episode 79 Michon and Taquiena Boston aka The Boston Sisters talk with award-winning journalist and author Jack El-Hai about the James Vanderbilt film NUREMBERG based on El-Hai's thought-provoking book, "The Nazi and the Psychiatrist. "Jack El-Hai's book and the film explore the psychological dynamics between Nazi second-in-command Hermann Göring (Russell Crowe) and American psychiatrist Dr. Douglas M. Kelley (Rami Malek). The book and film delve into the nature of evil, the Nuremberg trials, and Dr. Kelley's findings from his examinations of the Nazi prisoners that raise questions about the potential for fascism in any and every society. The discussion also touches on the importance of understanding historical events and the role of popular history in reflecting on the present.After their conversation with Jack El-Hai, Michon and Taquiena share their thoughts about “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist,” and NUREMBERG.Spoiler alert: Key moments in the story of the 1945 Nuremberg Trials, and Dr. Douglas M. Kelley's story, as seen in the film NUREMBERG, are shared in this podcast. ADVISORY: Be advised, the history discussed in this podcast includes themes of suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988, or visit their website (988lifeline.org). TIMESTAMPS0:03 - Intro and Overview of Podcast2:34 - Jack El-Hai background journalistic accomplishments4:11 - THE NAZI AND THE PSYCHIATRIST Book and NUREMBERG Film Synopsis9:10 - Personal Impact of Writing THE NAZI AND THE PSYCHIATRIST13:58 - Hermann Göring's and Dr. Douglas Kelley's Relationship18:51 - NUREMBERG From Page to Screen25:24 - Generic Podcast Break25:59 - Historical Context and Psychological Evaluations of Nuremberg Prisoners29:17 - Use of Rorschach tests30:04 - Competing Perspectives and Roles of Key Figure41:13 - Legacy and Relevance of Dr. Kelley's Work45:18 - Popular History and Its Role in Understanding the Past48:45 - The Nature of Evil and Fascism56:32 -  Final Thoughts on NUREMBERG Film and THE NAZI AND THE PSYCHIATRIST (Michon and Taquiena)1:04:52 - Recommendations1:06:10 - Disclaimer------SUBSCRIBE to HISTORICAL DRAMA WITH THE BOSTON SISTERS® on your favorite podcast platformENJOY past podcasts and bonus episodesSIGN UP for our mailing listSUPPORT this podcast  SHOP THE PODCAST on our affiliate bookstoreBuy us a Coffee! You can support by buying a coffee ☕ here — buymeacoffee.com/historicaldramasistersThank you for listening!

Dave and Cody dive deep into House of Dynamite, Kathryn Bigelow's nail-biting new nuclear thriller that's equal parts technical masterpiece and moral Rorschach test. Is it brilliant minimalism—or a cinematic blue screen of death?They also break down the possible sale of Warner Bros. Discovery, what it could mean for movie theaters, and whether James Gunn's fledgling DCU survives a Netflix takeover.It's the perfect PCP blend of wit, wonder, and way-too-much coffee.Cold Open: Dave overshares at the coffee drive-thru ☕Pop Culture News:Why Warner Bros. might be up for saleThe Netflix wildcard and the ripple effect on theatersThe DCU's uncertain future under Gunn & SafranMain Review: House of DynamiteMultiple perspectives, one moral bombThe power of restraint vs. reactionIdris Elba's presidential gravitasWhat works, what fizzles, and why the ending divides everyoneWinner & Loser of the MovieThe Lobby Q&A

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

A bracing, accessible history of white American liberals—and why it's time to change the conversation about them.If there's one thing most Americans can agree on, it's that everyone hates white liberals. Conservatives hate them for being culturally tolerant and threatening to usher in communism. Libertarians hate them for believing in the power of the state. Socialists hate them for serving as capitalism's beard. Even liberals hate liberals—either because they can't manage to overcome their own prejudices, or precisely because they're so self-hating.This is the starting point for Kevin M. Schultz's lively new history of white liberals in the United States. He efficiently lays out the array of objections to liberals—ineffective, spineless, judgmental, authoritarian, and more—in a historical frame that shows how protean the concept has been throughout the past hundred years. It turns out, he declares, that how you define a “white liberal” is less a reflection of reality and more a Rorschach test revealing your own anxieties.Sharply assessing how decades of attacks on liberals and liberalism have steadily hollowed out the center of American political life, Schultz also explains precisely what needs to be done to avoid digging ourselves even further into the hole of polarization. The ultimate goal, he argues, is to achieve political fragmentation that will fuel the rise of a true multiparty system, where ideology will matter more, not less.With a tight command of postwar American history and a spirited voice, Why Everyone Hates White Liberals (Including White Liberals): A Critical History (University of Chicago Press, 2025) is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand—and envision a way forward in—the complicated landscape of American politics. Kevin M. Schultz is professor and chair of history at the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC). He is the author of Buckley and Mailer and Tri-Faith America. Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/a48266/videos Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm sitting on a bench at the nearby city park listening to Creek & Raven. It comes out in a few days, as I write this. I haven't listened to it for many months now, so it's both surprising and unsurprising how it opens. Unsurprising is the trilling Pacific Wren, a distant Common Raven and the faint sound of a creek. Surprising is the mournful synthesizer lead that resembles a French horn.The vibe is meeting me where I am today, on this last overcast day of another extended Portland Indian summer. Winter is coming, literally and figuratively. I feel it; stark, curious and foreboding.The environmental audio was captured in one of the deeper canyons of Forest Park in early June of this year. The creek that carved this deep canyon is named Rocking Chair Creek after the discovery of a rocking chair in its waters. I'm visualizing it now like the heirloom bentwood rocker in my living room, half sunk with gold-green moss growing on it, illuminated in a sunbeam. I returned to the canyon a few weeks ago and made more sketches. It's interesting to me how the palette shifted, on return, to bluer hues of green. This brings to mind how the observer influences a scene; how interpretations and tone can shift. About 8 miles away from this canyon is a different scene that has captured the imagination of the nation, and beyond, in the recent news cycle.Here, a nondescript beige multi-story federal building stands between Interstate 5 and the Willamette river on the margins of downtown Portland, Oregon. It is ground zero for a political Rorschach test. A lot has been written about it. I'm not interested in trying to summarize that here. If you know, you know…you know?But the idea that there is any debate about facts on the ground; that there is any set of conditions that presently call for US military intervention in my home town is unnerving. It is deeply strange and seemingly animated by a dark fantasy. Most here poke fun at the absurdity of it all; the disconnect between truth and image-peddling. A few have their own reasons to support some hazy notion of a “crackdown”. The city is not without problems, after all. Anyone can tell you that. It's been a tough run over the better part of a decade, here and most everywhere. On that score, there have been plenty of indications that the city turned a corner. I travelled to four capital cities in Europe over the summer and they didn't strike me as better or worse, any more or less livable on the whole.The fever-pitched finger pointing is what makes my stomach churn. The notion that educated people cannot in good faith arrive at a consensus on whether a city is “war-ravaged”, “under siege”, even “burning to the ground” or about average for its size is like a chapter out of George Orwell's 1984. “Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”“2 + 2 = 5”-Party doctrine from 1984 by George OrwellIn the finale of Creek and Raven we hear ravens croak and rattle with gusto. What are they saying?Ravens have long been cast as messengers in the symbology of First Nations. As a communicative carrion bird, their associations with prophecy, insight, and playing intermediary between life and death are long held. Do these ravens have any prophecies or insights to share about their home in Portland, Oregon? Recent studies have identified at least 30 to 40 distinct vocalizations in ravens' repertoire. They vocalize for the same reasons humans do: talking about food, keeping track of family members, socializing, bonding, playing, warning, and identifying each other specifically. Ravens even use “emotional” prosody; they convey urgency or calm through tone. They can learn new vocalizations, mimicking human speech and other sounds.I think we could all benefit by taking time to actively listen to what Bernie Krause coined the “biophony”, the layer of the soundscape made by living organisms. We would do well to listen to each other as well; us human animals. I believe estrangement from the biophony, can lead to less empathy, and that can lead to all sorts of unfortunate outcomes.We have some mending to do. We have holes in our social fabric left over from the pandemic; splits aggravated by social media and the tribalism of news media empires. Maybe we can take a lesson from ravens and just remember to talk to each other; to shoot the breeze about food and family.A raven's warning call is a sharp, urgent Kawk! Kawk! Kawk! But what happens when one of the flock spreads alarm when there is no real threat? We know from the old folk tale how Chicken Little—the sky is falling!—learns a lesson about spreading alarm without evidence…in the sanitized version of the tale. In most versions, the characters (Chicken Little, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey) encounter Foxy Loxy who uses the panic to trick them into his den and eat them all. What I think we are facing in this country is leadership that is acting like Chicken Little while also behaving like Foxy Loxy. It's not normal. It's not okay. I think it needs to be called out. I think we—all of us—deserve more from elected leaders. I'm not typically an outspoken person, but now doesn't feel like the time to sit back and say nothing.Thank you, as always, for joining me here, and for listening to my point of view. Creek & Raven is available on all music streaming services October 17th, 2025. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit chadcrouch.substack.com/subscribe

Next Monday is Columbus Day. Or should it be Indigenous People's Day? According to the historian Matthew Restall we should be celebrating both Columbus and Indigenous People on Monday. The author of the timely The Nine Lives of Christopher Columbus, Restall places Genoa's most famous sailor as a prisoner of history - endlessly protean to reflect each era's changing values. The many lives of Columbus, then, is a mirror of how we have thought differently about him over the last 500 years. As history's greatest saint and sinner, Christopher Columbus might be the ultimate Rorschach test. Tell me what you'll be celebrating next Monday and I'll tell you who you are. Happy hols!1. Columbus Was a “Manic Narcissist” Who Believed He Was God's Agent Restall discovered Columbus wasn't likable—he descended into believing he was divinely chosen and could even be found in the Old Testament. This grandiosity was partly his undoing as a colonial administrator.2. Columbus Failed as a Colonizer and Administrator Unlike the conquistadors who came after him, Columbus lacked political and diplomatic skills. He was “just a sailor”—son of a weaver, grandson of a cheesemaker—and Spanish authorities quickly sidelined him. He died in 1506, only 13 years after his first voyage, with a declining reputation.3. The Columbus Day Debate Is About Different Columbuses Italian-Americans defend a 19th/20th century “Italian-American Columbus”—a symbol of immigrant achievement—while Indigenous Peoples' Day supporters condemn the “historic Columbus” who began a colonization process that killed 70-90% of indigenous populations within a century. These groups are talking past each other about entirely different figures.4. Conquistadors Were “Armed Entrepreneurs” Running Investment Companies Spanish conquistadors functioned like venture capital firms—assembling ships, soldiers, and supplies as investments, seeking returns through plunder and enslaved people, then winning authority positions to generate more profit while paying a 20% tax to the crown.5. Columbus's One Success: Founding a Noble Dynasty That Still Exists Despite his failures, Columbus achieved his main ambition—establishing an aristocratic dynasty. The title “Admiral of the Ocean Sea” granted in 1493 is still held today by the 20th admiral, a Spanish naval officer and businessman named Don Cristóbal Colón.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

On episode 188 of March Forth with Mike Bauman, Mike chats with Dylan Baumgartner of Slingshot! Formed in 2018, Slingshot is an emo/post-hardcore band from Southern California. Comprised of Baumgartner (guitar & vocals), She-Ra (vocals), Armand Morillo (bass & vocals), and Annaleece Arellano (drums), this lineup of Slingshot has built a following through energetic live shows and an implementation of alternative, punk, and hardcore into their sound. After releasing the EP Dawn of Decline and split EP Invaders From Uranus! with their friends in Split Image in 2023, Slingshot built on that momentum in 2024 with more live shows and new tunes "157AM," "Sons of Yoren," and "Rorschach." This year, Slingshot dropped their latest EP entitled Don't Get Lost Before Dusk in May, followed by their "Don't Get Lost" Tour.  On October 1st, Slingshot released a new music video for their song "Sound of Metal." The video was shot and edited by Baumgartner, and produced by his production company, Reelverse Productions. On October 20th, Slingshot is set to release their live EP entitled Dawn To Dusk, which was recorded at their homecoming show in Murietta, California from the "Don't Get Lost" Tour. On this episode, Dylan talks with Mike about Slingshot's eventful 2025, including the "Don't Get Lost" Tour, the forthcoming live EP Dawn To Dusk, the mental health themes on Don't Get Lost Before Dusk, the inspiration and meaning behind the "Sound of Metal" music video, his engagement, and more. This episode of the pod also features the live version of "X-Rated" from Slingshot off their forthcoming live EP Dawn To Dusk, available October 20th! Follow Slingshot on Instagram @slingshot.band. To stay up to date with the latest shows and tunes from Slingshot, visit https://instabio.cc/Slingshot. Follow Mike on Instagram @marchforthpod. To stay up to date on the podcast and learn more about Mike, visit https://linktr.ee/marchforthpod. Thanks for listening! If ya dug the show, like it, share it, tell a friend, subscribe, and above all, keep the faith and be kind to one another.

¡Vótame en los Premios iVoox 2025! Este año se cumplen 85 años de la publicación del primer cómic de DC en España., un momento perfecto para hablar de nuestra relación con la editorial de Superman y Batman. Junto a Víctor Gómez (Es la hora de las tortas) y Chechu (Planeta de juegos y Ración de NBA), recorremos la historia de la edición de DC en España desde los tebeos de Ciclón, el superhombre, pasando por la actual de etapa de Panini o las de Zinco, Norma o ECC. Por supuesto también hablamos de nuestros primeros cómics DC. Reflexionamos sobre la naturaleza del universo DC con superhéroes dioses, el legado y su multiverso. Reivindicamos nuestros personajes y tebeos favoritos: desde la JLI al Escuadrón Suicida, pasando por la JSA, la Legión de Superhéroes, Animal Man de Lemire, Gotham Central o el Batman de Breyfogle, la Doom Patrol o Batman y Robin: Año uno. Pudimos compartir unos minutos con el gran Jorge Fornés, uno de los mejores autores que trabaja para DC, con el que hablamos de su estilo, héroes, Rorschach y otras series independientes. Finalmente recomendamos Nemesis the warlock, Void rivals, Bajo los árboles, donde nadie te ve, Okinawa y 20th century men. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

New episodes every THURSDAYFollow us on social media! Bluesky // Instagram // Twitter // TikTok :⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@comicsnchronic⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/channel/UC45vP6pBHZk9rZi_2X3VkzQ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠E-mail: comicsnchronicpodcast@gmail.comCodyInstagram // Bluesky:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@codycannoncomedy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter: @Cody_CannonTikTok: @codywalakacannonJakeInstagram // Bluesky:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@jakefhaha⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AnthonyBluesky // Instagram // Threads // Twitter // TikTok:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@mrtonynacho⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

What happens when a polarizing figure's death becomes a cultural Rorschach test? Sarah and Beth process the assassination of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath, exploring how the same person can be seen as both saint and monster depending on your media diet, and why we're all seeing different versions of the same story. How do we have "soft conflict" in a world demanding verbal war? They examine the death spiral of online discourse where nuance dies and everyone becomes either completely good or irredeemably evil, discussing why we've lost the ability to disagree without destroying each other and how algorithmic social media poisons every conversation. Can we escape the cycle of cancellation and retribution? From firing people over social media posts to the deification and demonization of public figures, Sarah and Beth explore how both left and right use the same punitive playbook, and why someone has to go first in laying down weapons. Why are we all craving something real when everything feels like performance? Outside of Politics, they discuss the exhaustion of being extremely online, the appeal of house plants and tangible hobbies, and why even award shows feel hollow when streaming has fractured our shared cultural experiences. Ready to go deeper? Visit our website for complete show notes, exclusive premium content, merchandise, chats and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The events of September 11, 2001 changed the world. Julian reflects on several interpretations of what they meant, proposing that each is a kind of Rorschach-test result based on our own religious and political beliefs, backgrounds, and social conditioning.  The conspiracy theorist simply can't believe something like that could happen to America, going in search of complicated alternative explanations that exist outside of the “official narrative,” even of reality itself. Where the Christian conservative might see a call to Holy War signaling that the End Times is near, Neocon warhawks surrounding Bush observe an opportunity to enact plans for maintaining economic and political power and security. Meanwhile, many on the left see the attack as justifiable “blowback” against American imperialism, Cold War atrocities, and Western colonialism. Religion is merely an inflaming of a fundamentalist minority based on political injustices. What about the Soviet Union? The history of political Islam and massive Muslim caliphates that ruled for nearly 1,300 years? The intractable sectarian conflicts and the multiple internal ideologies vying for control over the Middle East? There may be no easy answers, but perhaps engaging with these different perspectives can allow us to name some of the many factors that got us to 9/11 and the seemingly unsolvable dilemmas of our world today. Show Notes Popular Mechanics on 911 conspiracies Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracies Pilger on Project for A New American Century NYT 2023 Piece on the Reasons for Iraq War Saddam's Ruthless Purge CNN on Kabul attitudes after US Invasion Polling of Iraqis Mahmood Mamdani Good Muslim, Bad Muslim Interview Human Rights Watch on Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan Taimur Rahman's Red Star History of Political Islam Lectures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Text at 617-750-9411

Et un final en mode aléatoire ! tracklist : Foxy – 1978 – MademoiselleWeval – 2025 – OPEN_UP_THAT_DOORMechatok – 2025 – You Don't ExistGiorgio Moroder – 1980 – Night Drive (Reprise)Blondie – 1980 – Call me (12'' version)KAYTRANADA – 2025 – CHAMPIONSHIPAnycia – 2025 – BreakJorjiana – 2025 – Shark (Remix) [feat. Babyfxce E & Chuckyy]gyrofield – 2025 – Rorschach (feat. Flo State)Tyler, The Creator – 2025 – Don't You Worry BabyMaxo Kream – Cracc at 15 feat. Tyler, the CreatorClipse & Tyler, The Creator – 2025 – P.O.V.Clipse – 2025 – M.T.B.T.T.T.F.Nourished by Time – 2025 – Crazy PeopleParanoid London – 2025 – Talk Dirty feat. Josh CaffeMariah The Scientist / Kali Uchis – 2025 – Is It a CrimeDJ Premier & Roc Marciano – 2025 – Prayer HandsGeese – 2025 – 100 HorsesFcukers – 2025 – Play MeEli Escobar – 2025 – i'll wait all day (4 U)B 15 Project – 2000 – Girls Like UsDaft Punk – 1997 – FreshSimo Cell – 2020 – CegetelAlice Clark – 1972 – I Keep it HidHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

The boys drink and review Crowhill's latest homebrew, then discuss gerrymandering. Every ten years, new census data reshapes our political maps. But who decides where the lines go—and why does it matter so much? In this episode, we dive deep into gerrymandering: what it is, how it works, and why it has such a lasting impact on elections.We cover:* The basics of redistricting and why “one person, one vote” isn't as simple as it sounds.* The two key strategies: packing and cracking voters.* The paradox of race in redistricting: sometimes illegal, sometimes required.* Why the Supreme Court stepped back from partisan gerrymandering cases.* Real-world examples from Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Florida.* The consequences for representation, polarization, and voter trust.* Possible reforms: independent commissions, mathematical “fair maps,” and state-level challenges.At the heart of it all is a question we pose to you: Should drawing political districts be a political act—or a purely mathematical one?If you've ever wondered why election results don't always match the popular vote, or why so many districts look like Rorschach tests, this episode is for you.#gerrymandering

In this episode, we explore the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine through the Loper Bright case, examining its impact on the regulatory landscape in America. In just the first six months after Loper Bright was decided, courts cited the case more than 400 times, leading to the invalidation of new agency rules 84% of the time. This has affected policies ranging from net neutrality to labor regulations to environmental protections. We delve into how Loper Bright has already reshaped American regulatory policy. We also look into how the Trump administration's strategic use of Loper Bright to dismantle Biden-era rules, directing agencies to identify regulations that may be vulnerable under this new legal framework. But is the celebration over Chevron's demise premature? Some legal experts describe Loper Bright as “a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball” suggesting theat its impact might be more complex than anticipated, with different interpretations emerging. Featuring: Helgi Walker, partner at Gibson Dunn and co-chair of their administrative law and regulatory practice group Rebecca Rainey, senior labor department reporter for Bloomberg Law Cary Coglianese, professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and director of the Penn Program on Regulation

Even the most compelling data presentation can fail if it runs headfirst into your stakeholders' cognitive blind spots. Decision makers who claim to be "data-driven" often unconsciously filter information through their existing beliefs, leaving brilliant insights ignored or dismissed.In this Value Boost episode, Dr. Russell Walker joins Dr. Genevieve Hayes to reveal practical techniques for identifying and overcoming the cognitive biases that sabotage data-driven decision making.This episode reveals:How confirmation bias transforms data analysis into a "numerical Rorschach test" where stakeholders see only what confirms their existing beliefs [02:59]The "verbal jujitsu" technique that acknowledges preconceptions without confrontation, allowing stakeholders to save face while guiding them toward data-driven conclusions [03:47]Why recency bias makes yesterday's angry customer complaint outweigh months of systematic data analysis in executive decision making [05:24]The pre-meeting strategy that helps you anticipate and prepare for stakeholder blind spots before they derail your presentation [07:00]Guest BioDr Russell Walker is the principal consultant at Walker Associates, which specialises in data science education and healthcare analytics, and previously served as a professor at DeVry University, where he co-founded the university's business intelligence and analytics program. He holds a PhD in business administration with a specialty in computer science.LinksRussell's WebsiteConnect with Russell on LinkedInConnect with Genevieve on LinkedInBe among the first to hear about the release of each new podcast episode by signing up HERE

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

  Imnterview from BOR Show #305, original airdate: January 1, 2007 Loren Singer (1923-2009) wrote the book The Parallax View (1970) Loren worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS ) during WW II He first had to pass a series of psychological tests He read studies of Rorschach tests given to top Nazis at Nuremberg Loren wrote for television and radio, this was his first book The amount of influence totalitarian governments had on us A relationship with German Intelligence officer Reinhard Gehlen Loren didn't like the film, the screenwriters couldn't find the thread The terrorism threat is sort of gauzy, Where? How? Unite in order to survive, that's what people will be told Chapters start with quotes from a fictional handbook The book is not a solution to the Kennedy assassinations A list of JFK related deaths, originally Loren scoffed The military men never became OSS assassins General William Donovan, committed to the survival of Britain Psychologists, psychiatrists, geographers, foreign language experts, engineers, weapons instructors Does a government have the right and or the duty to eliminate numbers of it's citizens to ensure it's survival? Skating around the edge right now with Guantanamo Teams ready to do the bidding of corporate or government interests The recruitment, the film's powerful six minute segment An OSS competition, three days of psychological testing Nobody ever passed the final exam, never any finite answer The people running Parallax were certain to have backups Loren did not want to do the screenplay The Manchurian Candidate (1962 film) was much better written Parallax opens with it's own "Zapruder" film Six Seconds In Dallas (Thompson 1967), sued by Time, Inc.  

Keith Huckins of Deadguy / Kiss It Goodbye / Rorschach joins us this week.  Eith has been a huge influence on me as a guitarist dating all the way back to his work with the seminal metallic hardcore band Rorschach. At that particular time, no one was doing anything like that and he continued his work with Deadguy in the mid-90's.  Fast forward over two decades and Deadguy has now deployed their new album Near Death Travel Services available from Relapse Records. Intro:    “All the Dark Things” – Mike Hill Outro: “Kill Fee” – Deadguy

Frank Langfitt has covered the world. Now he reports for NPR as a roving correspondent, focusing on stories that help us understand a changing America. Recently, he covered both the military parade that brought tanks and armored personnel carriers rolling through the nation's capital, as well as the No Kings protests where people in dozens of cities across the country rallied against politicization of the armed forces by someone they called a would-be autocrat. Many have dubbed the day as a split-screen moment - and for Frank, going to two events on the same day gave him the sense of looking at America with a lens he had often examined other countries in the past. There are events that become a Rorschach test that brings out America's political and cultural divisions in bold relief. You could look at that day as an example of a divided America — a moment where our differences were placed in pretty stark relief. But perhaps by being in both places on the same day you see something different. For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Our strategists Michael Zezas and Ariana Salvatore provide context around U.S. House Republicans' proposed tax bill and how investors should view its potential market impact.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy.Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Public Policy Strategist.Michael Zezas: Today, we'll dig into Congress's deliberations on taxes and fiscal spending.It's Wednesday, May 14th at 10am in New York.Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, there's been a lot of news around the tax and spending plans that Congress is pursuing; this fiscal package – and clients are really, really focused on it. You're having a lot of those conversations right now. Why are clients so focused on all of this?Ariana Salvatore: So, clients have reasons to focus on this tax policy bill across equities, fixed income, and for macroeconomic impacts.Starting with equities, there's a lot of the 2017 tax cut bill that's coming up for expiration towards the end of this year. So, this bill is Congress's chance to extend the expiring TCJA. And add on some incremental tax cuts that President Trump floated on the campaign trail. So, there's some really important sector impacts on the specific legislation side. And then as far as the deficit goes, that matters a lot for the economic ramifications next year and for bond yields.But Mike, to pivot this back to you, where do you think investor expectations are for the outcome of this package?Michael Zezas: So there's a lot of moving pieces in this fiscal policy package, and I think what's happening here is that investors can project a lot onto this. They can project a lot of positivity and constructive outcomes for markets; and a lot of negativity and negative outcomes for markets.So, for example, if you are really focused on the deficit impact of cutting taxes and whether or not there's enough spending cuts to offset those tax extensions, then you could look at the array of possible outcomes here and expect a major deficit expansion. And that might make you less constructive on bonds because you would expect yields to go higher as there was greater supply of Treasuries needed to borrow that much to finance the tax cuts. Again, not necessarily fully offset by spending cuts.So, you could look at this and say, well, this will ultimately be something where economic growth helps tax revenues. And you might be looking at the benefits for companies and the feed through to the equity markets and think really positively about it.And we think the truth is probably somewhere in between. You're not going to get policy that really justifies either your highest hopes or your greatest fears here.Ariana Salvatore: So, it's really like a Rorschach test for investors. When we think about our base case, how do you think that's going to materialize? What on the policy front are we watching for?Michael Zezas: Yeah, so we have to consider the starting point here, which is Congress is trying to address a series of tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. And if they extend all of those tax cuts, then on a year-over-year basis, you didn't really change any policy. So that just on its own might not mean a meaningful deficit increase.Now, if Congress is able to extend greater tax cuts on top of that; but it's going to offset those greater tax cuts with spending cuts in revenue raises elsewhere, then again you might end up with a net effect close to zero on a deficit basis.And the way our economists look at this mix is that you might end up with an effect from a stimulus perspective on the economy that's something close to neutral as well. So, there's a lot of policy changes happening beneath the surface. But in the aggregate, it might not mean a heck of a lot for the economic outlook for next year.Now, that doesn't mean that there would be zero deficit increase in the aggregate next year because this is just one policy that is part of a larger set of government policies that make up the total spending posture of the government. There's already something in the range of $200-250 billion of deficit increase that was already going to happen next year. Because of weaker revenue growth on slower economic growth this year, and some spending that would automatically have happened because of inflation cost adjustments and higher interest on the debt. So, long story short, the policy that's happening right now that we think is going to be the endpoint for congressional deliberations isn't something our economists see as meaningfully uplifting growth for next year, and it probably increases the deficit – at least somewhat next year.Now we're thinking very short term here about what happens in 2026. But I think investors need to think around that timeline because if you're thinking about what this means for getting deficits smaller, multiple years ahead, or creating the type of tax environment that might induce greater corporate investment and greater economic growth years ahead – all those things are possible. But they're very hypothetical and they're subject to policy changes that could happen after the next Congress comes in or the next president comes in.So, Ariana, that's the overall look at our base case. But I think it's important to understand here that there are multiple different paths this legislation could follow. Can you explain what are some of the sticking points? And, depending on how they're resolved, how that might change the trajectory of what's ultimately passed here?Ariana Salvatore: There are a number of disagreements that need to be resolved. In particular, one of the biggest that we're focused on is on the SALT cap; so that's the cap on State And Local Tax deductions that individuals can take. That raised about a trillion dollars of revenue in the first iteration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.Republicans generally are okay with making a modification to that cap, maybe taking it a bit higher, or imposing some income thresholds. But the SALT caucus, this small group of Republicans in Congress, they're pushing for a full repeal or something bigger than just a small dollar amount increase.There's also a group of moderate Republicans pushing against any sort of spending cuts to programs like Medicaid and SNAP; that's the food stamps program. And then there's another cohort of House Republicans that are seeking to preserve the Inflation Reduction Act. Ultimately, these are all going to be continuous tension points. They're going to have to settle on some pay fors, some savings, and we think where that lands is effectively at a $90 billion or so deficit increase from just the tax policy changes next year.Now with tariff revenue excluded, that's probably closer to [$]130 billion. But Mike, to your point, there are these scheduled increases in outlays that also are going to have to be considered for next year's deficit. So, you're looking at an overall increase of about $310 billion.Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's right and the different ways those different dynamics could play out, I think puts us in a range of a $200 billion expansion maybe on the low end, and a $400 billion expansion on the high end. And these are meaningful numbers. But I think important context for investors is that these numbers might seem a lot smaller than some of what's been reported in the press, and that's because the press reports on the congressional budget office scoring, and these are typically 10-year numbers.So, you would multiply that one-year number by 10 at least conceptually. And these are numbers relative to a reality in which the tax cuts were allowed to expire. So, it's basically counting up revenue that is being missed by not allowing the tax cuts to expire. So, the context matters a lot here. And so we have been encouraging investors to really kind of look through the headlines, really kind of break down the context and really kind of focus on the short term impacts because those are the most reliable impacts and the ones to really anchor to; because policy uncertainty beyond a year is substantially higher than even the very high policy uncertainty we're experiencing right now.So, sticking with the theme of uncertainty, let's talk timing here. Like we came into the year thinking this tax bill would be resolved late in the year. Is that still the case or are you thinking it might be a bit sooner?Ariana Salvatore: I think that timing still holds up. Right now, the reconciliation bill is supposed to address the expiring debt ceiling. So, the real deadline for getting the bill done is the X date or the date by which the extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted. That's the date that we would potentially hit an actual default.Of course, that date is somewhat of a moving target. It's highly dependent on tax receipts from Treasury. But our estimate is that it's somewhere around August or September. In the meantime, there's a number of key catalysts that we're watching; namely, I would say, other projections of the X date coming from Treasury, as well as some of these markups when we start to get more bill text and hear about how some of the disputes are being resolved.As I mentioned, we had text earlier this week, but there's still no quote fix for the SALT cap, and the house is still tentatively pushing for its Memorial Day deadline. That's just six legislative days away.Michael Zezas: Got it. So, I think then that means that we're starting to learn a lot more about how this bill comes together. We will be learning even a lot more over the next few months and while we set out our expectations that you're going to have some fiscal policy expansion. But largely a broadly unchanged posture for U.S. fiscal policy. We're going to have to keep checking those regularly as we get new bits of information coming out of Congress on probably a daily basis at this point.Ariana Salvatore: That's right.Michael Zezas: Great. Well, Ariana, thanks for taking the time to talk.Ariana Salvatore: Great speaking with you, Michael.Michael Zezas: Thank you for your time. If you find Thoughts on the Market and the topics we cover of interest, leave us a review wherever you listen. And if you like what you hear, tell a friend or colleague about us today.