Podcasts about Rosenstein

ACTIONABLE TAKEAWAYS: Get Permission to Reframe: Before turning a perceived weakness into a strength, ask for permission to tell the story. This keeps the approach authentic and avoids sounding overly salesy. Anchor High for Multithreading: When requesting additional stakeholders, ask for more than you need. If they say no to six but yes to two, you've still gained ground. Reframe Intentional Limitations: When faced with an objection or missing feature, consider if it's intentional by design. Reframe it as a benefit aligned with the prospect's goals. Prep for Large Meetings: Divide the room strategically. Prep with your champion, pre-call each stakeholder, then personalize questions in the meeting to tailor the conversation. DAVID'S PATH TO PRESIDENTS CLUB: Senior Account Executive MM @ LinkedIn Account Executive SMB @ LinkedIn Sales Development Representative @ LinkedIn Creator Manager @ LinkedIn RESOURCES DISCUSSED: Join our weekly newsletter Things you can steal Club Pass

Going behind the scenes and into the mind of a public school Earth Science teacher was a journey filled with insights about why education is so different from school to school.  The diversity of students and the environment/location has a lot to do with these differences, but often I forget how the unique skills and philosophy of the teachers is a factor that should not be underestimated. Danny Rosenstein shares his journey, from New York's inner city urban schools to alternative schools in the Hudson Valley, and how nature and outdoor learning is experienced differently by students from different environments.  We talk about how science gives us the tools to understand our world/universe, but how even science sometimes forgets to include humans in the 'natural world'.    We live in a time in which many students, schools, families and communities are under a great deal of pressure and social and economic change.  It's in these times that educators can find ways to help their classrooms become a refuge from that chaotic energy, so they can breathe, learn and get connected in an authentic way. LinkedIn:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-rosenstein-a065971b/ Forest Educator Bonus Content Page: http://foresteducator.com/bonuscontent Join the Forest Educator Patreon! https://patreon.com/ForestEducatorPodcast Connect with Ricardo: https://www.foresteducator.com/ https://www.theforestboxforkids.com/ https://www.hawkcircle.com/ Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ricardo-sierra-5980931/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_forest_educator_podcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RicardohawkSierra

The BMitch & Finlay Show Hour 2 features: 1.Congressional Insider Joe Maloney Explains The RFK Bill Situation 2.Talking Commanders With Greg Rosenstein 3.Jeff Walker's Week 16 Hype Song

Greg Rosenstein from NBC sports on the Commanders fan support

Trey and Brian keep the beat with Music Mends Minds founder Carol Rosenstein, who fights memory loss with the unforgettable power of song.   Carol Rosenstein is an educator and practitioner in the field of mind body medicine. In 2014 Carol watched as her husband Irwin, a once-vibrant lawyer and pianist, slipped away due to Parkinson's disease and dementia. As communication became increasingly difficult, hope seemed lost—until Irwin sat at the piano and began to play. With each note of familiar melodies, he transformed, regaining his spark and spirit. Inspired by this miraculous moment and the insights of his neurologist on music's power to change brain chemistry, Carol founded Music Mends Minds, to share this extraordinary healing through music with others facing neurodegenerative challenges, igniting a movement that has gone on to impact countless lives.Brian Phelps is an American radio personality, actor, and comedian best known for co-hosting the nationally and globally syndicated Mark & Brian Morning Show in Los Angeles for 25 years. As the co-lead of his own television series, with multiple roles in movies, and a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Phelps is also an inductee in the Radio Hall of Fame.Trey Callaway is an American film and TV writer and producer who wrote the hit movie I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, and has produced successful TV series like CSI:NY, Supernatural, Rush Hour, Revolution,  The Messengers, APB,  Station 19 and 9-1-1 LONE STAR. He is also a Professor at USC.___________________________________Make sure to follow us on social media at:begoodhumanspodcast.cominstagram.comtiktok.comthreads.netfacebook.com

How does the Chief Financial Officer of Townsquare Media view his company's potential revenue intake from digital advertising in the coming quarters? "The sky's the limit," he told attendees of the BofA Securities Leveraged Finance Conference, held at the Boca Raton Resort in Palm Beach County, Fla., on December 3.Stu Rosenstein also shared that a Term Notes issuance is coming, telling institutional investors in attendance, "You guys should look at as as a 'sleep at night' loan," he said, adding that the "Local First" media company heavy on programmatic and local digital solutions will be paying down debt monthly with the bank loan of approximately $460 million — in the works for January 2025 — and that Townsquare's debt leverage at the start would be at 4.6x.Free Cash Flow and Capital Expeditures were also part of a discussion that saw CEO Bill Wilson chime in on his expectations from a forthcoming Brendan Carr-led FCC, and we're pleased to offer highlights from the company's presentation in this InFOCUS Podcast, presented by dot.FM.

This is Part 1 of a two-part episode series in memory of the events of October 7th. Margarita interviews Shira Rosenstein and Eilat Tibi. Shira is the PR Manager for a NGO organization called ISRAEL-Is. One of the major contributions of this organization is their unique virtual reality film, "Survived To Tell" which takes the viewer through the sites of October 7th. Eilat Tibi is a Nova Music Festival survivor. In the past year, Eilat spent time serving in the IDF and working for the Nova Exhibition in NYC and LA. We cover the lives of these two women post-October 7th and their remarkable contributions. Connect with Shira on Instagram @israel.is.you and @survived.to.tell . Learn more about the work of ISRAEL-IS at www.israel-is.org Connect with Eilat on Instagram @eilatibi . Learn more about the Nova Music Festival Exhibition on Instagram @novaexhibition . What We Discuss: 00:00 Intro & Episode Agenda 05:03 Shira Rosenstein's story & ISRAEL-Is 35:35 Eilat Tibi - Finding the way after Nova --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/peoplejewwannaknow/support

Howard Rosenstein – Treasures, Shipwrecks and the Dawn of Red Sea Diving…with TRE's Giles Brown

B”H Download the ez-maaser app from your app store or by going to ez-maaser.com/get Sign up to The Art of Jewish Giving at yaeltrusch.com/giving We've all been in financial difficulties, at times. My guest is no exception and he's always come out better on the other side. To what does he credit his financial successes […] The post 390: The Power of Maaser & Chomesh with Joel Rosenstein appeared first on Yael Trusch.

The best ad for mixing was "Leave the door open!" Glenn talked about mixing at the Power Station and Sigma Sound, recording Madonna, Springsteen, U2, Talking Heads, Ziggy Marley, the birth of remixing, and renewing Fame Studios in Muscle Shoals. Get access to FREE mixing mini-course: https://MixMasterBundle.com My guest today is Glenn Rosenstein a Multi Grammy-winning producer, engineer, and mixer who began his music career at the legendary Power Station Recording Studio in NYC, assisting alongside some of the best producers, engineers as well as at New York's historic Sigma Sound Studios where Glenn became a mixer and remix engineer, creating work for such artists as U2, Madonna, Talking Heads, The Ramones, Ziggy Marley, Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam, James Brown, Miles Davis and many others. Glenn's music production & mixes continue to be highly visible & diverse, from Whitney Woerz, Carly Simon and Earl “Chinna” Smith to James Taylor, Black Uhuru, Wes Sheffield and Bif Naked. He produced Benedictines Of Mary project for Decca/Universal which was Billboard Magazine's #1 Classical release for the 2012 to 2013 holiday season. As a producer, mixer, & engineer, Glenn's projects have won 3 Grammy Awards, 5 Grammy nominations, an Oscar and a Golden Globe Award. His work is responsible for record sales well in excess of 300 million units. His music production & mixing credits for film & television include The Sopranos, Celebrity Circus, The Last Emperor, Blown Away, Married To The Mob, Charmed, Beverly Hills 90210, All My Children and Buffy The Vampire Slayer. As both songwriter & producer, Glenn's work with reggae artist Snow led to a chart-topping single in Canada. In addition, Glenn has overseen production of a landmark multi-DVD project for Saturday Night Live‘s 25th Anniversary, producing the surround remixes and audio for 60 unique music performances, as well as 60 musical comedic sketches. This project features the live performances of Mariah Carey, Sting, Aretha Franklin, Metallica, Nirvana, Paul McCartney, Snoop Doggy Dog, Paul Simon, Alanis Morissette, James Brown and Bruce Springsteen, to name just a few. Glenn has also partnered in the renovation and restoration of the historic Fame Recording Studios in Muscle Shoals AL, where he maintains a residence and studio and where we join you today.  And last but not least I consider Glenn a longtime friend and mentor here in Nashville. THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS! http://UltimateMixingMasterclass.com https://www.adam-audio.com https://www.native-instruments.com Use code ROCK10 to get 10% off! https://www.izotope.com/en/deals.html iZotope RX 11 is here! https://www.lewitt-audio.com/ray https://gracedesign.com/ https://RecordingStudioRockstars.com/Academy  https://www.thetoyboxstudio.com/ Listen to this guest's discography on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7hJRXvS4M6FURuZurWyWth?si=3bd7089aa93e4e1b If you love the podcast, then please leave a review: https://RSRockstars.com/Review CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AT: https://RSRockstars.com/457

It feels like “likes”—you know, that little thumbs-up on Facebook—have always been with us. But it turns out that this virtual symbol of affirmation has only been around since 2009. The “like” designer, Justin Rosenstein, said he wanted to help create “a world in which people uplift each other rather than tear each other down.” But Rosenstein came to lament how his invention might have enabled users’ unhealthy addiction to social media. I think Rosenstein’s creation speaks to our hard-wired need for affirmation and connection. We want to know that others know us, notice us—and, yes, like us. The “like” is fairly new. But our hunger to know and be known is as old as creation. Still, the like button doesn’t quite get the job done, does it? Thankfully, we serve a God whose love goes so much deeper than a digital nod. In Jeremiah 1:5, we witness His profoundly purposeful connection with a prophet whom He called to Himself. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.” God knew the prophet even before conception and designed him for a life of meaning and mission (vv. 8-10). And He invites us too into a purposeful life as we come to know this Father who so intimately knows, loves, and likes us.

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

We had the opportunity to speak with Ana Rosenstein, the CEO of Amante 1530, and leapt at the chance. This new amaro is an interesting entry into the space, hitting more than one sweet spot. For example, Aperol is 11% ABV, while Campari ranges from 24-29% ABV. Amante 1530 is bottled at 15-percent ABV (and there could be a higher-proof version in the cards as the brand grows). Further, Amante 1530 isn't as sweet as Aperol or bitter as Campari. Intriguingly, this amaro performs equally well as an aperitivo or a digestivo. During this conversation you'll hear the brand's origin story, learn how the recipe was created, hear about the challenges Ana and her team faced and overcome while navigating the spirits space, and even get advice for getting in front of and succeeding with investors. Cheers! Notes Amante 1530 website: https://www.amante1530.com/ Amante 1530 IG: https://www.instagram.com/amante_1530/ Bar Hacks IG: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/barhacks/⁠ KRG Hospitality IG: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/krg.hospitality/⁠ KRG Hospitality website: ⁠https://krghospitality.com/⁠ David Klemt IG: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/david.ex.machina/

Originally May 8, 2020Trump ​asked ​the ​Supreme ​Court ​to ​stay ​the ​order ​to ​hand ​over ​the ​Mueller ​grand ​jury ​materials. ​Trump ​abandons ​the ​CDC's ​strategy ​to ​reopen ​as ​FEMA ​privately ​warns ​the ​states ​are ​still ​experiencing ​shortages ​of ​PPE. ​Richard ​Burr's ​family ​also ​sold ​off ​stock ​prior ​to ​the ​COVID ​crash. ​Trump ​installs ​an ​RNC ​donor ​as ​postmaster ​general. ​Dem ​lawmakers ​demand ​intelligence ​on ​coronavirus ​origins. ​The ​Department ​of ​Justice ​released ​a ​less ​redacted ​Rosenstein ​memo ​defining ​the ​scope ​of ​the ​Mueller ​probe. ​Republican ​Ken ​Buck ​ordered ​an ​election ​official ​to ​falsify ​voting ​results. ​The ​military ​is ​requiring ​a ​medical ​waiver ​for ​those ​who ​were ​hospitalized ​for ​COVID. ​Trump's ​valet ​has ​tested ​positive ​for ​COVID. ​A ​woman ​who ​accused ​Fauci ​of ​sexual ​assault ​admits ​Trump ​supporters, ​namely ​Jacob ​Wohl, ​paid ​her ​to ​do ​so. ​And ​the ​Department ​of ​Justice ​files ​a ​motion ​to ​dismiss ​the ​charges ​against ​General Michael Flynn. Our Guest Glenn Kirschner:https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2https://www.youtube.com/glennkirschner2https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/justice-matters-with-glenn-kirschner/id1526751534 Natasha Bertrandhttps://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryMonday June 17th Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Wednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)Thursday July 25th Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKESunday July 28th Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-TennWednesday July 31st St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STLFriday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

When a group of young moms died around the same time, clinicians Dr. Justin Yopp and Dr. Don Rosenstein wanted to refer their widowed spouses to a grief support group… but none existed. So they started their own.  In this conversation, Kate, Justin, and Don discuss: The grief of imagined futures  The particular needs of parents with cancer and those of widowed parents How to talk to kids about cancer  How to parent while you have cancer Together, they uncover the magic of we. This summer, we are re-sharing our all-time favorite episodes. While this conversation originally aired in 2020, Kate caught up with Don and Justin to get an update on what they are working on lately. You won't want to miss their important (and practical!) update.   Watch clips from this conversation, read the full transcript, and access discussion questions by clicking here or visiting katebowler.com/podcasts. Follow Kate on Instagram, Facebook, or X (formerly known as Twitter)—@katecbowler. Links to social pages and more available at linktr.ee/katecbowler.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nachum Segal presents Rav Leo Dee, Ari Rosenstein of LifeShare, great Jewish music, the latest news from Israel and Morning Chizuk with Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser.

I believe in God's winks. Sometimes, things happen, and they're supposed to happen. About ten years ago, I was introduced to my next guest, Dr. Jacob Rosenstein, when I went to sell him PR services. During that conversation, he flipped the switch on me and asked if I wanted to feel 17 again. I said, "Who wouldn't?" Now I feel like a 17-year-old again, and I call that a God wink. He joins us in the studio to tell us how.

A special Valentine's Day episode with Jen Rosenstein! We share YOUR "Not Cool" moments and our "Not Cool" moments on this episode. So whatever your Valentine's Day is or isn't, we're here with ya to talk about shitting our pants, getting a DUI in flip flops, Jen's bizarre sleepiness, worst dates ever and so much more! Happy love day out there! Enjoy. PHOTOGRAPHER Jen Rosenstein is an advertising and editorial photographer. Photographing the most recognizable Rock & Rollers in history to riding along with the Vice President Kamala Harris in her motorcade and photographing her at the White House. She's trusted by many clients from editorial magazines, advertising agencies and hired by Amazon / NETFLIX to photograph key art for the newest TV shows. Not Cool Podcast instagram: @notcoolpod Sarah Rose Hyland instagram: @sarahhylandrosenstein Jen Rosenstein instagram: @JenRosenstein For all your Not Cool Podcast needs & Merch! Not Cool Podcast website: www.NotCoolPod.com For all your Not Cool Podcast needs & Merch! Not Cool Podcast website: www.NotCoolPod.com

B”H Join Yael's Free 5-Day Jewish Money Makeover Challenge Starting February 11.   How many charity campaigns do you receive a year having to do with someone's spouse passing away, leaving dependents in a financial bind? My guess is one too many! Today we're talking about something we all can do to help every Jewish person […] The post 365:  Ensuring financial security in our communities and for our soldiers' families, before tragedy strikes with Life Share Co-Founder Ari Rosenstein appeared first on Yael Trusch.

World renowned solo artist and Black Label Society member Jeff Fabb reminds us to chase your dreams with your heart first and your head second

Join us for an eye-opening discussion with  Dr. Megan Rosenstein, and Isabel Pierre-Louis BSN RNC-OB as they shed light on the national health crisis of maternal mortality rates in the United States and the health disparities that exist for black and brown women across our country. This has been a topic that we have wanted to highlight for a long time so we are grateful to our guests for coming on the show and giving us an understanding of what is happening, why the numbers are going up, the heart-breaking disparities for black and brown mothers, and the innovative and equitable solutions that are being implemented at ATLANTIC HEALTH OVERLOOK HOSPITAL and across the country.  Although this is a difficult topic to discuss, the good news is that the more awareness we can bring to the issues, the more we can all work towards a long term solve for this.  About our GuestsDr. Megan Rosenstein is the Associate Chief Medical Officer and Director of Obstetric Anesthesia at Atlantic Health System's Overlook Medical Center in Summit New Jersey.   Dr. Rosenstein came to Overlook from New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, where she completed her training in Anesthesiology with a focus on the care of high risk perinatal patients.  In her time at Overlook, Dr. Rosenstein has actively participated in Atlantic Health's system-wide Maternal Collaborative, Overlook's Perinatal Safety and Quality Committee and spearheaded projects such as the Massive Transfusion Protocol, Opioid Reduction Task Force, protocoled response to Amniotic Fluid Embolism, and Enhanced Recovery after Cesarean Birth.  Dr. Rosenstein is the New Jersey state representative for the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, which recognized Overlook as one of the first designated centers of excellence in Obstetric Anesthesia care.  Dr. Rosenstein is a wife and mother to three sons and enjoys weekends on the sidelines and enjoying time with her family.  She is an avid supporter of equitable access to women's healthcare in New Jersey and beyond.  Isabel Pierre-Louis, BSN, RNC-OB, is a career-long advocate of equitable, accessible, high-quality healthcare for all. In her specialty of obstetrical nursing, Isabel is attuned to the needs of women and birthing people, including the unique experiences of those chronically exposed to healthcare inequities, like the BIPOC communities. ABOUT R. Seelaus & Co., Inc. Annie Seelaus is CEO of R. Seelaus & Co., Inc. The firm is a certified women's business enterprise ("WBE") and has grown into a full-service financial firm that is mission-driven in its commitment to creating more opportunities for women in financial services. R. Seelaus & Co., Inc., and its subsidiaries offer investment advisory, asset management, capital markets, brokerage, fixed income and equity trading, institutional sales, leveraged finance, and insurance services. The R. Seelaus & Co., LLC subsidiary is a broker-dealer registered with the SEC and a member of FINRA, and the subsidiary Seelaus Asset Management, LLC, is an SEC Registered Investment Advisor ("RIA"). With various fixed-income trading desks and more than seventy professionals, both entities serve individuals, families, public and private companies, non-profit organizations, and institutional investors. The firm has offices in New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. For more information about R. Seelaus & Co., and its subsidiaries visit www.rseelaus.com

Nachum Segal presents representatives of The Hebron Fund: Yoni Bliechbard, Yishai Fleisher, Rabbi Simcha Hochbaum, Rabbi Dan Rosenstein in honor of their year-end security campaign. He also presents great Jewish music, the latest news from Israel and Morning Chizuk with Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser.

Chief Executive Officer for the SAFE Project, Jeff Horwitz, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast and talked about his journey to the organization, what the organization does and barriers faced when educating workers and leaders on opioid addiction and mental health issues. An organizer for the United Auto Workers, Maida Rosenstein, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast and discussed the Union's new contract with the Brooklyn Museum. Rosenstein also discussed the UAW's campaign during negotiations and some of the wins in the first contract.

The host of Pinball Innovators & Makers Podcast talks about his passion for the unique designs from the pinball community. Plus, Dan looks forward to big homebrew collection at Pinball […]

Jen Rosenstein joins Not Cool again this week. For a brief convo on current events, is Jesus god's son, Jerry Springer and getting hit on by a cowboy. OY! Join us next week as we continue to get our shit together one episode at a time.... and yes.. Jen's head is cut off on this episode! Enjoy! Not Cool Podcast instagram: @notcoolpod Sarah Rose Hyland instagram: @sarahhylandrosenstein Jen Rosenstein instagram: @JenRosenstein For all your Not Cool Podcast needs & Merch! Not Cool Podcast website: www.NotCoolPod.com For all your Not Cool Podcast needs & Merch! Not Cool Podcast website: www.NotCoolPod.com

We're back! After a little summer hiatus, Sarah is back with a returning Jen Rosenstein to talk their pod break, the ups and downs of photography, The Queer Ultimatum and more! DO NOT MISS! Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sarahhylandrosenstein https://www.instagram.com/jenrosenstein https://www.instagram.com/notcoolpod https://www.instagram.com/thecomedystore https://www.instagram.com/comedystorestudios Wanna buy something with our logo on it? https://shop.comedystore.com/ and https://comedystorerecords.myshopify.com

David Cann, Director of Organizing with the American Federation of Government Employees joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to talk about the organizing success in May. Cann discussed the organizing model the AFGE employed and why empowering locals and members is the key to successful organizing. Director of Organizing for the United Auto Workers Local 2110 Maida Rosenstein, joined the America's Work Force Union Podcast to talk about the Hispanic Society Museum and Library. Rosenstein outlined the reasons for the museum workers' strike and their battle for a first contract.

Do traditional teaching methods still have a place in the modern international school? Are things like textbooks, call and response or direct instruction still valuable. If your school is grappling with these questions, this episode is for you.This episode features my conversation with Dan Guerrard, an experienced music teacher based in Penang. We delve into a crucial discussion on teaching approaches, the use of workbooks and textbooks, and the importance of traditional methodologies in international education.Episode Summary:We kick off the episode by navigating the "black or white mentality" dominating the education sphere. Dan brings to light the importance of avoiding categorizing teaching methods strictly as good or bad, emphasizing the necessity for nuance and context.Dan passionately advocates for the use of workbooks in international education. He underscores the benefits they offer, particularly for English as an additional language learners and transient students. Workbooks, as per Dan, provide a tangible resource for students to review and track their learning progress.Key Quotes"A workbook is actually incredibly useful for [students] to be able to go away and just look back over the work that they've been doing."_ - Dan GuerrardIn a captivating segment of our discussion, we explore the often controversial topic of textbooks in education. Dan shares an intriguing anecdote about a school discarding textbooks, illustrating the prevalent yet misguided belief that "no good teacher uses textbooks". We discuss the potential advantages and drawbacks of textbooks, ultimately agreeing that textbooks are merely resources that can be beneficial if utilized thoughtfully, not just blindly followed.The conversation shifts to the value of a more traditional teaching approach, with music education as the focal point. Dan expresses his concern about wasted opportunities in music education where students spend significant time without gaining substantial skills or knowledge."What have they learned in 360 hours of music tuition?... They spend most of the time, keyboards and messing around in groups."_ - Dan GuerrardWe wrap up our conversation discussing strategies to implement more traditional teaching methods. Dan suggests that starting with Rosenstein's principles of instruction could be a good way to initiate this shift."If you're going to try to get everybody to buy into something… you've got to do something which people will struggle to reject." - Dan GuerrardKey Links:Traditional Primary Music Blog: traditionalprimarymusic.com/You can find Dan on Twitter: @DanGuerrardRosenstein's principles of instruction – Playlist from Tom SherringtonDan Guerrard's insights challenge us to question traditional stances and to continuously strive for improvement in the way we approach teaching and learning.Find me on Twitter and Instagram using the handle @leaningshaneYou can also find me on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/leaningshane

After four long, painstaking years, the Durham investigation is complete. John Durham taught us one thing for sure…Democrats always win. The left can spy on presidential candidates, weaponize the justice system, invent crimes, spread hoaxes, and get Republicans thrown in jail for no reason. And they'll always get away with it. Three pathetic indictments. One pitiful conviction. Nobody fired or reprimanded. A colossal failure. John Durham should be embarrassed. Yes he exposed the biggest political scandal in history, but he failed at his job, which is “prosecuting” crimes. Ironically, the bombshell report he released this week is a huge win for the establishment. Durham proved beyond doubt that the ‘Deep State' is real. Yet he prosecuted merely three people, none of whom we have ever heard of, and two were acquitted. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Hillary, Mueller, Rosenstein, Jim Baker, Andrew the Pitbull, and yes…Obama and Biden…conspired to spy on Trump and accuse him of colluding with Russia. None has been charged with so much as jaywalking, and none were fired as a result of the probe. As always, the leftist establishment got away with it. They won. We lost. The biggest takeaway from the Durham probe was…wait for it..a REPORT! Not just any report. A damning report. Are we supposed to celebrate? When Trump threatened to fire Bob Mueller, he was accused of obstruction. He was compared to Nixon. It turns out, he would have been 100% correct to do so. It would have saved millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and endless heartache. In fact, some people believe that the reason Mueller was appointed in the first place, was an effort to lure Trump into firing him, which then would have been used by Pelosi to impeach Trump. However he did not take the bait. Amazingly, at the time the Russia hoax investigation was ongoing, some “conservative” pundits insisted that we should let the probe play out, and allow Mueller to finish the job. While many of us were screaming from the rooftops that the entire thing was a Deep State witch-hunt, others said that we should “stay the course”. Now some of those same people have turned into ‘Monday morning quarterbacks'. They are doing high-fives, and essentially saying “See! We knew it was a hoax all along.” They did the same thing with Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other scandals. Yet what is most astonishing, is that right now, other hoaxes are taking place. Trump is still being indicted on bogus charges. The Deep State is still weaponizing the justice system, targeting good people like Elon Musk and others. Some people are brave enough to speak the truth–not years later when John Durham gives them permission. But early on, when it's unpopular. When it can get them banned from Youtube and Facebook for ‘disinformation'. We need to call out the swamp, and prevent them from targeting and destroying anyone who does not support their narrative. Otherwise, we may all eventually find ourselves in the crosshairs of the ‘Deep State'. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-josh-m-show/message

Congessman Bill Posey discusses the Durham report revelations and his infamous letter in 2017 to the Department of Justice concerning the necessity of creation of the Mueller investigation and a special prosecutor. The Florida Congressman remarks that after recent revelations, there's no doubt, “to me, there's not one ounce of evidence of anything else, but pure, intentional, misleading, trying to misdirect Congress, while they tried to somehow screw [President Trump].”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

After four long, painstaking years, the Durham investigation is complete. John Durham taught us one thing for sure…Democrats always win. The left can spy on presidential candidates, weaponize the justice system, invent crimes, spread hoaxes, and get Republicans thrown in jail for no reason. And they'll always get away with it. Three pathetic indictments. One pitiful conviction. Nobody fired or reprimanded. A colossal failure. John Durham should be embarrassed. Yes he exposed the biggest political scandal in history, but he failed at his job, which is “prosecuting” crimes. Ironically, the bombshell report he released this week is a huge win for the establishment. Durham proved beyond doubt that the ‘Deep State' is real. Yet he prosecuted merely three people, none of whom we have ever heard of, and two were acquitted. Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Hillary, Mueller, Rosenstein, Jim Baker, Andrew the Pitbull, and yes…Obama and Biden…conspired to spy on Trump and accuse him of colluding with Russia. None has been charged with so much as jaywalking, and none were fired as a result of the probe. As always, the leftist establishment got away with it. They won. We lost. The biggest takeaway from the Durham probe was…wait for it..a REPORT! Not just any report. A damning report. Are we supposed to celebrate? Here are the indisputable facts: There has never been a shred of evidence that Trump colluded with Russia The Clinton campaign was behind the entire Russia hoax The fake Steele Dossier, upon which virtually the entire Russia hoax was based, was paid for by Hillary's campaign The FBI lied repeatedly to the courts to obtain a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign The convictions of General Michael Flynn and George Papadapolous would never have happened, had there not been an investigation. They were ‘process crimes' manufactured by the anti-Trump FBI. The Mueller probe was initially led by Stzrok and Page, until it was discovered that they are rabid leftists who despise Trump James Comey admitted under oath that he assured Trump on three separate occasions that he was not a subject of the Russia investigation. Trump urged Comey to make a public declaration, yet Comey repeatedly refused. That led to Trump firing Comey, which prompted the appointment of Mueller. Can you blame Trump for firing Comey? Would any of us have done differently? Carter Page, the Trump staffer who was spied on by the FBI because of Russia ties, was known to be a CIA asset. Although the FBI was aware of this, attorney Kevin Clinesmith altered an email to hide this fact from the FISA court, to obtain a warrant to spy British intelligence officials were unwilling to aid in the Russia hoax, because they knew that it was “devoid of predicating evidence.” Former Intel officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, promoted the bogus Russia collusion narrative, despite knowing there was no evidence While long forgotten, Trump was mocked and ridiculed in 2017 when he revealed he was wiretapped at Trump Tower. It turns out, that was the small tip of a very large iceberg. When Trump threatened to fire Bob Mueller, he was accused of obstruction. He was compared to Nixon. It turns out, he would have been 100% correct to do so. It would have saved millions of wasted taxpayer dollars and endless heartache. In fact, some people believe that the reason Mueller was appointed in the first place, was an effort to lure Trump into firing him, which then would have been used by Pelosi to impeach Trump. However he did not take the bait. Amazingly, at the time the Russia hoax investigation was ongoing, some “conservative” pundits insisted that we should let the probe play out, and allow Mueller to finish the job. While many of us were screaming from the rooftops that the entire thing was a Deep State witch-hunt, others said that we should “stay the course”. Now some of those same people have turned into ‘Monday morning quarterbacks'. They are doing high-fives, and essentially saying “See! We knew it was a hoax all along.” They did the same thing with Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop, and other scandals. Yet what is most astonishing, is that right now, other hoaxes are taking place. Trump is still being indicted on bogus charges. The Deep State is still weaponizing the justice system, targeting good people like Elon Musk and others. Some people are brave enough to speak the truth–not years later when John Durham gives them permission. But early on, when it's unpopular. When it can get them banned from Youtube and Facebook for ‘disinformation'. We need to call out the swamp, and prevent them from targeting and destroying anyone who does not support their narrative. Otherwise, we may all eventually find ourselves in the crosshairs of the ‘Deep State'.

Guests: Dr. Joe McFadden, Cornell University and Dr. Peri Rosenstein, Environmental Defense FundJoining together around the pub to discuss methane emission metrics are experts Dr. Joe McFadden and Dr. Peri Rosenstein. Dr. McFadden, an animal science professor at Cornell University, has focused much of his research and career on studying the interactions between nutrition, environment and animal food production. After discussing mitigating enteric methane emissions during the Real Science Lecture series, more than 600 people listened to the episode. In fact, Dr. McFadden's research in defending the dairy industry has been highlighted in both The Hill and Time magazines. Dr. McFadden began the conversation by mentioning he ultimately believes a percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions is methane. He went on to mention that reducing methane emissions does enhance production, and the industry should be in favor of the shift. 9:04While methane remains a major contributor to agricultural food production, livestock emissions from the glimpse of total greenhouse gas emissions remain relatively low, raising questions on where the focus of enteric methane mitigation should be. Progress is moving the needle from management, genetics, nutrition and enhanced efficiency. Dr. Rosenstein and Dr. McFadden's research focuses on South Asia, specifically India, as there are nearly 75 million small dairy farmers and about 300 million buffalo. Dr. McFadden shared that while the country produces around 20% of total global dairy production, it is also the highest producer of methane. 15:30Cattle are a source of national food security and are a way of life for many people, Dr. Rosenstein added, mentioning the goal is not to pivot completely but instead offer resources to optimize cattle productivity through nutrition, animal health and breeding. 20:22In addition to the Environmental Defense Fund studies in South Asia, Scott Sorrell, podcast host and director of global marketing for Balchem, asked about any other current research taking place. 22:03Just recently, Dr. McFadden said the plans and proposals for the additional construction at the Cornell University research facility were implemented. He added he believes the opportunity to pivot not only allows his team the position to test the next solutions that reduce enteric methane but to continue acquiring various green feeding units. 23:25Dr. McFadden then shifted the conversation to highlight the importance in studying feed duration through green feed study trials. Whether three weeks or three months long, he mentioned they offer a greater understanding when analyzing lactation, supplementation or even replacement strategies. 28:21When discussing strategies for enteric methane mitigation, Dr. Rosenstein mentioned they not only have to have proper feed additives but also be safe for both humans and animals alike. 32:31Wrapping up the conversation, Dr. McFadden summarized the urgency in being transparent on effective additives and encouraged feed manufacturing and feed additive companies to think about markets in new countries as an opportunity to collaborate and expand. 44:10Please subscribe and share with your industry friends to bring more people to join us around the Real Science Exchange virtual pub table.  If you want one of our new Real Science Exchange t-shirts, screenshot your rating, review, or subscription, and email a picture to anh.marketing@balchem.com. Include your size and mailing address, and we'll get a shirt in the mail to you.

Photographer, artist and all-around badass Jen Roseinstein is here to talk all of it with Sarah (who happens to be her wife). It's a good one!! CHECK OUT OUR FRIEND JUSTIN MARTINDALE'S NEW SPECIAL "GAY BASH" ON OUTTV! Follow us on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/sarahhylandrosenstein https://www.instagram.com/jenrosenstein https://www.instagram.com/notcoolpod https://www.instagram.com/slobspod https://www.instagram.com/thecomedystore https://www.instagram.com/comedystorestudios

In this episode, Kelly Goetsch speaks with Darrell Rosenstein of the Rosenstein Group. Learn from one of the first ever LinkedIn users who literally went from index cards - yes index cards - to founding the Rosenstein Group, a leader in martech-related executive search. This episode features an overview of how the executive staffing industry works, how to stand out in this hiring market, how to prevent your top employees from being poached, who makes the best CEO, and how the types of people that companies hire over time necessarily changes. Personal intro / background | 1:19 Linkedin then, LinkedIn now-Darrell was one of the first!? | 2:25 How the executive staffing industry works | 4:47 Engagement work behind the scenes | 6:52 The Kolbe method | 8:55 What are the differences you look for when hiring for various company sizes? | 12:41 What types of profiles do seed stage companies need to hire? How does that differ from series D and IPO-bound companies? | 18:26 Why do companies hire you to find executives, rather than train and promote from within? | 21:56 So you you've described yourself as a people capitalist - what does that mean? | 26:34 The provider's mindset | 30:15 What signs do you look for when approaching potential recruits? Are there signs that a prospective recruit may be disgruntled? | 31:18 What traits do you look for in a Ceo as a potential client and a potential investment target? | 39:49 Who makes the best CEO? Product people? Sales? Combination of the two? | 42:47 In this tight job market, how do candidates stand out? | 46:58 The Greatest Hits! Those spotted early on in their careers? | 55:20 How to get in touch with Darrell | 1:34

In this episode, we are joined by a special guest, Sam Rosenstein, who provides valuable insights on the key findings from a 2016 Harris poll. Additionally, Sam shares his personal experience on how he identified companies to invest in and offers practical advice that is applicable to anyone seeking to achieve success.We also delve into the ups and downs of our own wealth-building journeys, which include both victories and setbacks, and discuss the lessons we have learned along the way. Investing is not a straightforward path, and we explore how to navigate the inevitable obstacles that arise.Overall, this episode offers a wealth of knowledge and practical advice that can help listeners achieve their financial goals.The types of 401K benefits Passive and Active Investing Understanding Index Funds Compound Interest Explained Disclaimer: The content provided in this episode is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as, and shall not be construed as, financial or investment advice. Any strategies, tips, or information shared in this episode are solely for the purpose of general knowledge and discussion. Listeners are encouraged to consult with qualified financial professionals and conduct their own research before making any financial decisions. The hosts and guests do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information presented. Investments involve risk, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Listeners should exercise caution and discretion when considering any financial actions, and their personal circumstances and goals should always be taken into account.

Organ Grinder? They hardly know her! Just kidding, she's the reason Bitsie, Bree, and Claire were all on Grimm! Casting director Donna Rosenstein is on the podcast this week. They discuss their casting stories, Donna's first impression of them all, and her current work at Amazon.To leave Claire, Bitsie, and Bree a message for them to answer on the show, please go to https://bit.ly/TheGrimmCastHosts: Claire Coffee, Bitsie Tulloch, Bree TurnerExecutive Producers: Rebecca Eisenberg & Todd MillinerCoordinator & Researcher: Riley VilliersResearcher: Emily BentonProduction & Editing by: Rabbit Grin ProductionsOriginal Music by: Richard MarvinOriginally developed and produced by: Claire Coffee and Erica Tuchman

Great Britain is considering Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to stage a major counteroffensive against Russia in the spring. The tanks have 1,200 horsepower engines and are equipped with 120 mm guns. The decision is expected to be announced at the meeting of NATO officials at the Ramstein airbase in Germany on Jan. 20. The UK's willingness to supply battle tanks to Ukraine is a major escalation in World War III. It comes in response to France's decision to provide Ukraine with armored AMX-10 combat vehicles. Rick Wiles, Doc Burkhart. Airdate 1/9/23.You can partner with us by visiting TruNews.com/donate, calling 1-800-576-2116, or by mail at PO Box 690069 Vero Beach, FL 32969.The Fauci Elf is a hilarious gift guaranteed to make your friends laugh! Order yours today! https://tru.news/faucielfIt's the Final Day! The day Jesus Christ bursts into our dimension of time, space, and matter. You can order the second edition of Rick's book, Final Day. https://www.rickwiles.com/final-day

It was recently revealed that in Nov. 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI issued a grand jury subpoena to Google for Kash Patel's personal records, emails, and credit card information. “And I wasn't the only one. We've confirmed at least one other senior congressional staffer was subpoenaed,” says Kash Patel.At the time, Patel was senior counsel and chief investigator for the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation under then-Chairman Devin Nunes.“If you send out a subpoena to investigate a member of Congress and/or his staff, the Attorney General must sign off on that. That means Rod Rosenstein himself…had to have personally signed off on it,” says Patel. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself and vested authority in Rosenstein.Two months later, in a closed-door meeting in January 2018, Rosenstein threatened to subpoena the records of Devin Nunes and his staff, Patel says. He would later deny issuing such a threat when asked by Rep. Jim Jordan under oath.“How is it that Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena my emails and my records along with Congressman Nunes' in January of 2018. Yet he had already knowingly authorized it two months prior?” says Patel.In this episode, we discuss these growing scandals for the DOJ and FBI, and we also look at a recent “Twitter Files” drop that shows the FBI paid Twitter over $3.4 million between Oct. 2019 and Feb. 2021. This is just the tip of the iceberg, argues Patel.“I bet you it's ten times that amount… In January, the Republicans have to demand every relationship agreement between the FBI and every big tech company and every single dollar of our money that was spent by the FBI to put on the largest disinformation campaign to rig a presidential election,” says Patel.“And if anyone thinks that it was a one-off, they are completely wrong.”

Welcome to Season 7 of the Marketing Happy Hour podcast! We're excited to kick things off with Erica's conversation with Bari Rosenstein, Social Media Manager at Auntie Anne's and Jamba. Here's a peek at what we cover in this episode: [00:03:30] - Bari shares her experience working for agencies, transitioning brand side with Coca-Cola, how she found her current role with Auntie Anne's and Jamba, and how she and her team are bringing pretzels and juice to life on social! [00:08:47] - Bari reveals which platforms each of the brands are utilizing and what content does well on each platform. Her advice? Tailor the content to each audience and "drive the crave." [00:11:09] - Bari walks us through the importance that audience sentiment plays in determining a campaign's success, and gives us a behind the scenes look at building each brand's TikTok presence from scratch. [00:16:51] - Bari uncovers how Auntie Anne's and Jamba's strategies differ on social, and how each brand promotes LTOs (Limited Time Offers). She shares tips on how to juggle multiple brands and how to let management know if and when you need to bring on additional help! [00:25:10] - Bari chats all things Twitter and shares how brands can make a splash on social by standing out amongst the noise in their categories. [00:29:44] - Learn how social media truly impacts the bottom line for a brand, and the lasting impact that branding yourself as a professional on LinkedIn can have on your career. Grab a drink and listen in to this week's Marketing Happy Hour conversation! ----- Other episodes you'll enjoy if you enjoyed Bari's episode: Social Strategy 101: What You Need to Succeed | Lauren Freund of Shutterfly Your Guide to Social Media, Paid Media + Influencer Marketing | Halie Soprano of Traackr Audience Insights 101: Sliding in the DMs | Sara Arbelaez of Heelys ____ Say hi! DM us on Instagram and share your favorite moments from this episode - we can't wait to hear from you! Please also consider rating the show and leaving a review, as that helps us tremendously as we move forward in this Marketing Happy Hour journey and create more content for all of you. Follow Bari / Auntie Anne's / Jamba on Instagram: @basicallybari / @auntieannespretzels / @jambajuice Connect with Bari on LinkedIn: Bari Rosenstein Check out Auntie Anne's and Jamba on TikTok: @auntieannes / @jamba Follow MHH on Instagram: https://instagram.com/marketinghappyhr Follow MHH on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marketing-happy-hour/ Subscribe to our LinkedIn newsletter, Marketing Happy Hour Weekly: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/marketing-happy-hour-weekly-6950530577867427840/ Join our Marketing Happy Hour Insiders LinkedIn Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/9238088/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cassie-palmer/support

It was recently revealed that in Nov. 2017, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI issued a grand jury subpoena to Google for Kash Patel's personal records, emails, and credit card information. “And I wasn't the only one. We've confirmed at least one other senior congressional staffer was subpoenaed,” says Kash Patel. At the time, Patel was senior counsel and chief investigator for the House Intelligence Committee's Russiagate investigation under then-Chairman Devin Nunes. “If you send out a subpoena to investigate a member of Congress and/or his staff, the Attorney General must sign off on that. That means Rod Rosenstein himself…had to have personally signed off on it,” says Patel. Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself and vested authority in Rosenstein. Two months later, in a closed-door meeting in January 2018, Rosenstein threatened to subpoena the records of Devin Nunes and his staff, Patel says. He would later deny issuing such a threat when asked by Rep. Jim Jordan under oath. “How is it that Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena my emails and my records along with Congressman Nunes' in January of 2018. Yet he had already knowingly authorized it two months prior?” says Patel. In this episode, we discuss these growing scandals for the DOJ and FBI, and we also look at a recent “Twitter Files” drop that shows the FBI paid Twitter over $3.4 million between Oct. 2019 and Feb. 2021. This is just the tip of the iceberg, argues Patel. “I bet you it's ten times that amount… In January, the Republicans have to demand every relationship agreement between the FBI and every big tech company and every single dollar of our money that was spent by the FBI to put on the largest disinformation campaign to rig a presidential election,” says Patel. “And if anyone thinks that it was a one-off, they are completely wrong.” ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

Getting into oncology requires a lot of education and training. How does one deal with the success and stress of such a journey? In Part Two of this ASCO Education Podcast, moderator Dr. Aakash Desai – fellow at the Mayo Clinic along with guests Dr. Madison Conces – fellow at Cleveland Clinic, and Hematology/Oncology fellowship program directors Dr. Lori J. Rosenstein (Gundersen Health System) and Dr. Deepa Rangachari (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) explore the past, present, and future of Oncology Training. They discuss the transition from training to clinical practice (1:02), how to stay current with new treatments and guidelines (6:39) and what oncology training should look like in the future (12:12). Resources: ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics - Burnout in Oncology: Trainee Perspective ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 1) ASCO Education Podcast: Cancer Topics – Career Paths in Oncology (Part 2) If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation, is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. Aakash Desai: Hello, everyone, this is Dr. Aakash Desai, I am currently a Hematology and Oncology fellow at Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, and this is part two of our discussion on the past, present, and future of Oncology training. My guests are, Dr. Madison Conces, Hematology/Oncology fellow at Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Lori Rosenstein, Hematology, and Oncology Fellowship Program Director, at Gundersen Health System, and Dr. Deepa Rangachari, Fellowship Program Director, at Fellowship Program Director, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In part one, we gave our insight into what motivated us to get into Oncology, along with spotlighting the rewards and stresses of going through fellowship. Today, we're going to look at what the future of Oncology should look like. But first, I and my guests will explore the challenges of transitioning from training to clinical practice in Oncology. Lori, gives us her answer. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: You know, I think part of it is, you are in that final stage, this is the rest of your life. So, I think a lot of my fellows feel like when they're leaving fellowship, they have to find the perfect job, because it's where they're going to be for the rest of their life, and I think everybody who is out in practice knows that it's very unlikely you stay in the first job out of fellowship. And so, having less stress on yourself, of finding that perfect experience, I think, finding an experience that fits with your goals and aspirations, and what you see your life being like, is good enough. And then if you go there, and it turns out it's not a great situation for you, feeling free to go somewhere else, that's a different paradigm than I think fellows expect. They put so much stress on themselves. We're all type-A people, right? And you just want to make the right choice.  I've now had a couple of jobs. Each of them was the right choice for me at the time, and each of them taught me really important lessons that I have carried on to my next role. When I started my first job out of fellowship, I had no idea medical education was going to be a huge part of my life and career. I like to teach - that was what I knew about myself, but as I got more involved in medical education as a career, as a research opportunity, as probably the most important part of what I do in work, it changed where I was going to go. It changed what I ended up doing. You know, I ended up as a program director, and when I talked to my fellows and I say, you know, my job is research and taking care of patients, and teaching, and then medical education. To me, medical education is at the top, and that would not have been what I said as I left fellowship. So, having that openness to say, "I'm going to take in experiences and continue to grow and develop," is huge. Aakash Desai: Madison, what challenges do you think you are going to have to face when you start clinical practice from training? Dr. Madison Conces: I think for me right now, the main things on my mind are making sure I have the support I need after I graduate. I don't think I'll be abandoned anywhere, but I just want to make sure I join a supportive practice. And I think the second kind of big stress on my mind is doing research as a staff. Obviously, have mentorship, but as a fellow, I feel like there's a little bit more of a structure maybe with that, and so again, I'm not sure how that will be as a staff, but you'll be kind of more of the PI right on the project rather than a co-PI necessarily, and kind of going with patient care, like all the details, and making sure all T's are crossed and I's are dotted, and I know I'll be ready when it's time, but I just feel like it's kind of always in the back of my mind, like that it's coming - exciting, and I think one thing I try to reflect on, is I have made it; I'm literally the 10th year of my medical training. If I've made it this far, and I have problem solved, and helped patients, and worked as a team, and been a leader when I needed t0 this far, then I have to have faith that I can figure it out as a staff as well. Aakash Desai: Deepa, can you answer next? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Couple of recurring themes: one, appreciating the interdisciplinary nature of the care that we give, and just recognizing that the need for help, whether it's help with regard to clinical decision making, or intuition, or best practice, or the need for help just in terms of supporting the needs of your patients, those things never, ever go away. That sort of segues very nicely into this idea of consistent and ongoing rapidity of the growth and knowledge that doesn't end when you come out of fellowship. Those things continue to evolve and change well after your fellowship training. You need to know when and how, and who to ask for help. You also need to develop paradigms for lifelong learning. What will it mean to you to be a learner during career span journey, where not only will the knowledge change, but the way in which you access that knowledge will change? And I think those are important things to recognize as challenges of making us transition. I think really this idea of what I call work-life negotiation is present very much during training, and one continues to be very present in your ongoing clinical practice. And what I mean by work-life negotiation is, on any given day or any given week, or any given month, the way in which you organize these relative priorities at home and at work certainly can change dramatically. And this idea that you can be in charge of refining, and reorganizing, and defining, and turning up or down the dial at home or at work, according to what's going on in your life, is very important to recognize, and so, I think that idea of paying attention to the need to continue to negotiate those factors on a regular basis is something that is very important as you transition from training to clinical practice. I would not go so far as to say that it necessarily ever becomes easier, but I absolutely think it becomes more manageable for two main reasons; one, you have more control over your career and your life as you move from training to practice, and two-- and I think we should be open and honest about this, you have more resources to do so - whether there's financial resources, or supportive resources. But both of those things, I think, make it more manageable, even if the challenges never go away. Aakash Desai: And now we'll move on to the next question. I think this is a question I think most fellows have in mind because they realize that as and when they go out to clinical practice, the treatments you learned during fellowship and what ends up happening when you're actually interactive, there's going to be a lot of difference because of all the new updates, and the new drugs, and others that come out. But how do you stay current with new treatments and guidelines, and what would you advise current fellows and future Oncologists, the resources to use for these kinds of updates? So, Madison, I'll start with you. Dr. Madison Conces: That's a tough question, I think because some groups, the field is changing so fast. I would say if I'm dealing with something I've not seen before, or I don't know in depth as much as maybe, you know, GI malignancies, which is mostly my interest right now, we'll start out with the NCCN guidelines, and I'm well aware there are plenty of people who don't follow those verbatim and all of that, and there is some interpretation with those, but at least, it gives you a structure to work with. And so, I like to start there, and they usually have at least updated, you know, genetic mutations and some drugs that are, you know, used for those mutations, and so any targeted therapy might be listed on that guidelines. And so, I usually start there and then go beyond there. I mean, I'm obviously talking in a very general sense here, because patients with a really rare cancer, you're just going to have to read up more and look at case reports, you know, see if there's any recent trials. That's kind of where I start, and I just kind of read from there. It's almost like a trickle-down effect in a way. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: So, Madison, I think that is also where I start - NCCN guidelines, up to date, those sorts of things. I will tell you that as I have gone along, I have become much more likely to phone a friend than I used to be. I used to be, as a fellow, like, "I'm not going to call that person." I still remember, as a fellow, I called somebody at MD Anderson to ask about Mantle Cell lymphoma, and he was absolutely lovely, but I was petrified. I was like, "Oh, he's going to think I'm an idiot, and why am I calling him?" Now, I know that people are out there and they're experts for a reason, and they're experts because they want to share their expertise, and it's very rare that someone is just completely not interested in helping you. But reaching out, I think there's lots of ways on social media that you can reach out, and my fellows, they think I'm silly because I tell them, "Look what I just found on Twitter." Like, if you're following the right people on Twitter, and people who you trust their opinions, and you know they're experts in their fields, and they say, "Hey, I was just at ESMO, and here's the slide from what I think is really important." That helps guide me to like, "Hey, this is something." Now, obviously, social media is what it is, and you have to take it with a grain of salt - I try not to trust complete strangers, but at least it leads me to new articles that I wouldn't necessarily have seen. Currently, on my desk, I probably have about 30 "Bloods" because I just am so behind in looking through those, so, knowing that someone who I know in Hematology said, "Hey, this is a really great review article on X, Y, or Z," I'm texting that to my fellows at night when that comes across Twitter. And likewise, there's some really good groups on Facebook that are specifically for Hem/Onc, that provide support, you know who the experts are, they're willing to help. ASCO and ASH both have ‘phone a friends' where you can present difficult cases and MedNet -- I have no financial disclosures for any of these, by the way. MedNet is a really interesting ‘phone a friends' where you can put in a question around a general concept with a clinical case, and get experts in the field to reply back. So, all of those things, I'm much more likely to do now, than I was when I was a fellow, just because I'm now less concerned that people would think I don't know what I'm doing; I'm much more likely to say, "Hey, I don't know what I'm doing, and I need help in this situation." Aakash Desai: That is so great to hear because social media really has become one of the primary sources of updates that we get. It's definitely not the ideal resource, but I think in a fast-paced world, I think having a few things on updates, I think definitely has been very helpful. How about you, Deepa? What are your thoughts on this? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: Yeah, being, staying current, it's really a challenge and I think lifelong learning is often interpreted as sort of like being willing to continue to learn over time. The trickiest thing about this is learning how to adapt the ways in which you learn over time, and so, I'm a very pen-and-paper sort of a person, I've had to really learn how to be savvy with using digital resources. I keep a very brisk PDF library of key literature, not only that I like to read and save to re-review myself, but also in terms of a lot of the teaching, and presentations, and talks, that I'm invited to give. And so, I think I've gone from a very pen-and-paper modality, and I still have the notebooks that I kept during my residency and fellowship training, and I still remember at the quarter left hand of a page, I wrote something that I really wanted to remember, but I've had to move away from that because I can't be walking around with pen and notebooks all the time. And so, I've developed PDF libraries and things that are available leveraging the technological support provided by my institution to maintain things on the cloud. I've incorporated podcasts into my lengthy commute time to, and from work, to sort of have a chance to keep up. And I think the honest truth is that everybody has to develop a system, and you have to be willing to be flexible and iterative with that system, and modify it, and grow it as time goes along. So, I don't have any simple equation for this other than a willingness to recognize the importance of being organized, and a willingness to be willing to change as the ways in which we learn and get information change, and a willingness to ask - that's the most important thing, is to be willing to ask others, and have others in your realm, who you know and trust, and can get candid and accurate answers from. Aakash Desai: So, now I have a very simple question, I think, to which you'll all have to give straightforward answers: What do you think Oncology training should look like in the future? What are your thoughts, Deepa? Dr. Deepa Rangachari: I think two of the things that we really have to acknowledge are; one, it has never been possible, nor will it be possible in the future, to think that three years of clinical training can prepare you for all of the questions, and nuances, and advancements that our discipline is fortunate to witness, or that we are fortunate to be a part of, and contribute to. So, really, fellowship training then has to be about developing a very rigorous infrastructure for critical thinking, and lifelong learning, and recognizing general frameworks and scripts for illness, and wellness, and therapeutic intervention, and understanding when are moments to push, and when are moments to sort of take a step back, and sort of revisit or refine the care trajectory along with our patients. I think that's one thing - sort of really just acknowledging there's no way we're going to be able to train people to see everything and know everything, so to really make sure that our training programs provide each trainee, and the program at large, with that sort of rigorous infrastructure and framework for thinking about complex problems, and really for working in complex interdisciplinary teams. I think the second thing that conceptually, I think, training program leaders should be thinking about is, helping make connections between different disease entities so that we're not training folks to think in disease-specific silos, but really think about emphasizing concepts that are shared across disease entities; thinking about making connections between common disease biologies, and things that may be similar or different, rather than memorizing a series of therapeutic pathways in stage III non-small cell lung cancer versus locally advanced breast cancer, versus early stage pancreatic cancer, but really thinking, what are the things that these different disease entities, at the biological level, or at the care coordination level, what are the things that are similar or different? I think this serves a couple of different things. From a learning science perspective, it sort of reinforces what we know are effective strategies for knowledge acquisition and retention, but I think also part of our obligation as training program leaders, is to make sure that we're training people to be thought leaders and innovators in their respective clinical and scholarly domains, and that really requires a lot of cross pollination of ideas - what is something that we know works well in lung cancer? How might that same way of thinking or science be applied to a patient in breast cancer? And how could we use those insights to innovate across different diseases? And I think a lot of this comes down to just acknowledging that this finite amount of training time will never be enough to fully expose people to every aspect of the breadth and depth of the discipline, let alone, how we're practicing now, or even thinking about the future. And so, really thinking about making sure that training programs create paradigms of thinking and collaborating, and lifelong learning that will go the distance rather than just emphasizing very specific content. Aakash Desai: Lori, what are your thoughts on this? Dr. Lori Rosenstein: From my standpoint, I think if I could totally change fellowship-- the thing that I'm most worried about with my fellows is trying to have all the medical knowledge for Hem and Onc by the time you finish three years. ACGME is so useful, as a program director, to help me guide what I need to be helping my fellows learn during that time. But for any of you who are program directors all know, there continues to be more and more things that we need to show that we're doing - we need to show that we're teaching our fellows multidisciplinary approaches to care of patients, they need to know about patient safety and quality improvement, they need to do research, they need to have all this medical knowledge. And as more and more things kind of come on the plate of what we need to turn out in three years, and more and more knowledge is out there, it becomes this point where we're not going to be able to do that. And if I had my choice, I would drop the medical knowledge part of knowing every esoteric drug mechanism and pathway, and having testing for that, and more, can we prove that they can critically think and take care of patients who are very complex? It's hard to test on that, and it's hard to just check that box and say, "Complete." But when you're a program director, and you're working very closely with fellows during that three years, you learn that - is this someone you want to take care of your patients or not? And they may be extremely able to take tests and answer questions correctly, and still not the Hem/Onc doctor that we would want them to be. In general, I would just say, less and less emphasis on test taking, and you know, regurgitating medical knowledge, and more and more emphasis on, where can you find the knowledge, and how do you apply it? Aakash Desai: So, as currently the programs are structured, I think most programs in the country are dual Hem and Onc boarded. Some programs do allow for single boarding, but I guess I want to ask thoughts on the future. There'll be more and more programs who will opt for singular boarding Hem or Onc, rather than a dual board. Dr. Lori Rosenstein: Yeah, so this is Lori. I think that single boarding is extremely challenging with the way our healthcare structure is laid out. So, you know, we all have to be very realistic that most of our fellows are going to leave fellowship, and are going to practice both Hematology and Oncology, and they're going to take care of the broad spectrum of all of those diseases. And in order to do so, their hospital is going to require they're credentialed, and certified in both of those. So, I think if we start to either only have Hem, or only have Onc, people are going to have extended training, and it's going to become less and less attractive. It's already a really long slog to be a medical oncologist and hematologist, and making that longer, I really don't think it's the way to go. Aakash Desai: Madison? Dr. Madison Conces: I'll jump back to the prior question of where do I see fellowship training in the future. I definitely think that the critical thinking aspect will still be there. I think there'll have to be more of an emphasis on thinking through patient care, and not so much the regurgitation medical knowledge of memorization. I think, you know, core lectures, like I'm sure a lot of fellowships we do here, which I think are really important to have, maybe at the beginning of the year, just to kind of lay out the basics for first-year fellows, but I think beyond that, doing case conferences where it's not crystal clear what even the subject is going to be and walking through it, and making people answer questions even in more of an interactive manner is another way we could go about the conferences. Other than maybe some very obvious information, I think a lot of this we just need to make sure we know how to find it - like we've already mentioned the NCCN, up to date, I think probably a lot of us got used to doing some of that in residency, in terms of where to find information. We've all been-- I think most people who are in fellowship right now have trained through all their training with computer and the internet, so you know, I think a lot of us are very familiar with it. Aakash Desai: Yeah, I think completely agree. And I think, you know like Lori mentioned, fellowship should be more than just preparing for Boards. And especially, I think as we move on in our fellowships Madison, and I think I've realized that you know, to know what your blind spots are and when to ask for help is also a critical part of actually training during fellowship. And I think as I come towards the end of my fellowship journey, I think I've realized now that it's a continuation of a longer journey. You know, three years is just the tip of the iceberg, and there's obviously a whole lot of you know, things that I'm going to see in the future. So, that, to me, I think in the future, needs to be kind of emphasized for the fellows to kind of really be okay with the idea of not knowing it all at the end of three years. And as we've geared more towards-- and we talked a little bit about work-life negotiation rather than balance, I think will be also very important. Thank you. I think those are phenomenal points, and I really appreciate everyone's time today. So, that is all what we have for today. Thank you so much, Dr. Conces, Rangachari, an Dr. Rosenstein, for this candid and vivacious conversation on Oncology training. I'm sure our listeners will appreciate and be able to relate to many of the personal anecdotes that you've shared, and the insights that you have shared today. Thank you also to our listeners, we appreciate you tuning in to this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click, "subscribe". Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at: education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy, should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

In this episode, we're joined by a fantastic change agent for families of children with dyslexia, Dr. Lauren McClenney-Rosenstein. Dr. Lauren is the CEO and founder of Think Dyslexia, LLC. She delivers training and professional development for teachers and administrators at the district level focusing on dyslexia awareness, dyslexia screening, and MTSS (Multiple Tiered Systems of Support). Dr. Lauren's passion for educating, advocating, and bringing awareness to dyslexia at the domestic and international levels began in the elementary classrooms of private schools serving students with language-based learning disabilities. She has been a certified special educator for a decade and earned her Doctor of Education in teaching learning leadership curriculum in 2019 from Northeastern University. She also holds a dual Master's in Special Education and Elementary Education and a Bachelor's in Psychology from Syracuse University. In this episode, we are going to discuss dyslexia advocacy as well as the challenges that parents and caregivers face. Tune in as we take a closer look at how we can support families on their journey with dyslexia. Hang around until the end, we'll answer a listener's question about assessing for dyslexia. Resources mentioned in this episode: Think Dyslexia Parent Community - 10% coupon code: podcast10 Dyslexia Mom Boss podcast Dyslexia Mom Boss Blueprint D3 Parent Guide to Success eBook Holistic Strategy Session Consultation Think Dyslexia Academy - free courses For more from our guest, Dr. Lauren McClenney-Rosenstein, check her out at Think Dyslexia. You can connect with her on Instagram. If you like this episode, please take a few minutes to rate, review, and subscribe. Your support and encouragement are so appreciated! Have a question you'd like us to cover in a future episode of Together in Literacy? Email us at support@togetherinliteracy.com! If you'd like more from Together in Literacy, you can check out our website, Together in Literacy, or follow us on Facebook and Instagram. For more from Emily, check out The Literacy Nest. For more from Casey, check out The Dyslexia Classroom. Thank you for listening and joining us in this exciting and educational journey into dyslexia as we come together in literacy!

As we see more patients who have had Covid-19, we ask psychiatrist, Dr. Imaan Alaidroos, to speak with us about the neuropsychiatric impact of the disease. In this episode, Dr. Alaidroos explains the mechanisms behind the neuropsychiatric symptoms and the specific neuropsychiatric symptoms that have been associated with Covid-19. Hosts: Alan, Toshia Guest: Imaan Alaidroos, MD References: 1.Méndez, R, Balanzá-Martínez, V, Luperdi, SC, Estrada, I, Latorre, A, González-Jiménez, P, Feced, L, Bouzas, L, Yépez, K, Ferrando, A, Hervás, D, Zaldívar, E, Reyes, S, Berk, M, Menéndez, R (La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia; Health Research Institute La Fe, Valencia; University of Barcelona, Barcelona, University of Valencia, CIBERSAM, Valencia; La Fe University and Polytechnic Hospital, Valencia; University of Valencia, Valencia; Health Research Institute La Fe, Valencia, Spain; Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong; The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Center for Biomedical Research Network in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Madrid, Spain). Short-term neuropsychiatric outcomes and quality of life in COVID-19 survivors. J Intern Med 2021; 290: 621– 631. 2.Nakamura, Z. M., Nash, R. P., Laughon, S. L., & Rosenstein, D. L. (2021). Neuropsychiatric Complications of COVID-19. Current psychiatry reports, 23(5), 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01237-9 3.Banerjee, D., & Viswanath, B. (2020). Neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19 and possible pathogenic mechanisms: Insights from other coronaviruses. Asian journal of psychiatry, 54, 102350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102350 4.Borah, P., Deb, P. K., Chandrasekaran, B., Goyal, M., Bansal, M., Hussain, S., Shinu, P., Venugopala, K. N., Al-Shar'i, N. A., Deka, S., & Singh, V. (2021). Neurological Consequences of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Concurrence of Treatment-Induced Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events in COVID-19 Patients: Navigating the Uncharted. Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 8, 627723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.627723 5.Jansen van Vuren, E., Steyn, S. F., Brink, C. B., Möller, M., Viljoen, F. P., & Harvey, B. H. (2021). The neuropsychiatric manifestations of COVID-19: Interactions with psychiatric illness and pharmacological treatment. Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine& pharmacotherapie, 135, 111200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2020.111200 6.Roy, D., Ghosh, R., Dubey, S., Dubey, M. J., Benito-León, J., & Kanti Ray, B. (2021). Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic. The Canadian journal of neurological sciences. Le journal canadien des sciences neurologiques, 48(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2020.173

WE ARE NOT DYING TODAY! Billy and Dagny are joined by Ali Rosenstein to discuss the iconic, universally panned killer shark flick DEEP BLUE SEA. We're talking Bigger Sharks, Smarter Sharks, Faster Sharks, Meaner Sharks, and LL Cool J. And we get into a heavy SPOILER FILLED discussion of Jordan Peele's NOPE. Also on this episode we talk about Billy going viral on Tik Tok, The finaled of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 7, The Rehearsal, Grease 2, The Umbrella Academy, and YOU. Is that you, Eric Selving? Hosts: Billy and Dagny McCartney Guest: Ali Rosenstein Art: Nina Howard Music: Someone Your Own Size by RW Smith

Noah Rosenstein is an Emmy nominated producer and an avid fooser living in Los Angeles.  In this episode, Clay Tumey sits down with Noah to discuss pie relations, lesbian hippy communes, and the silent “e” of the food world. 

John Mills joins us to discuss why Peloton is deleting posts about the rower. Peloton's stock drops below $10. Dr. Jenn - Tips for shaking up your workout routine. Robin Arzon has a new book. Robin Arson partners with Diff Eye Wear. Ross Rayburn's husband won a Tony. Tunde is featured on Well & Good's Changemakers list. Aditi Shah was part of the New York Indian Film Festival. Kirsten Ferguson was on the Ali On The Run podcast. Callie Gullickson celebrates one year with Peloton. The "Just Workout" feature is no longer in beta. Instructors will be rotating on Fridays in July. The New York studio was closed on June 15 & 16. Latitude 32 employees appear to no longer be working for Peloton. The latest artist series features Barbra Streisand. Angelo has tips for how to curb late-night snacking. Netflix's MAID (created by Peloton member Stephanie Land) is up for an Emmy. Tonal Announces New Studio Birthdays: Joslyn Thompson Rule (6/15), Selena Samuela (6/22), Andy Speers and Denis Morton (6/23) All this plus our interview with Marci Rosenstein! Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share! Here's How » Join The Clip Out community today: theclipout.com The Clip Out Facebook The Clip Out Twitter The Clip Out Instagram

John Mills joins us to discuss why Peloton is deleting posts about the rower. Peloton's stock drops below $10. Dr. Jenn - Tips for shaking up your workout routine. Robin Arzon has a new book. Robin Arson partners with Diff Eye Wear. Ross Rayburn's husband won a Tony. Tunde is featured on Well & Good's Changemakers list. Aditi Shah was part of the New York Indian Film Festival. Kirsten Ferguson was on the Ali On The Run podcast. Callie Gullickson celebrates one year with Peloton. The "Just Workout" feature is no longer in beta. Instructors will be rotating on Fridays in July. The New York studio was closed on June 15 & 16. Latitude 32 employees appear to no longer be working for Peloton. The latest artist series features Barbra Streisand. Angelo has tips for how to curb late-night snacking. Netflix's MAID (created by Peloton member Stephanie Land) is up for an Emmy. Tonal Announces New Studio Birthdays: Joslyn Thompson Rule (6/15), Selena Samuela (6/22), Andy Speers and Denis Morton (6/23) All this plus our interview with Marci Rosenstein!Love the show? Subscribe, rate, review, and share!Here's How »Join The Clip Out community today: theclipout.com The Clip Out Facebook The Clip Out Twitter The Clip Out Instagram See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.