Matthew Headen is a fitness and transformation coach. Well, that's what he does as a profession but that is NOT what he truly is. He is one of the most amazing souls I have ever been BLESSED to have as a brother and friend. He has lived a full ass that has included alchoholism, drug abuse and womanizing. Oh yea, did I mention that he is a combat veteran that risked his life for our country? This interview means so much to me and I'm grateful to bring his story to you. Key High Lights: A journey into Matthew's childhood The worlds sappiest intro to an episode ever! His life as an overwieght adolescent Substance abuse and how it all began Setting standards that reflect your actions How self-respect plays a vital role in your health & fitness Real and Raw recounting of his career as sales manager at a big box gym His journey to become clean Creating good habits sets you up for success Connect with Matthew: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/matthewheadden/?hl=en Website: https://matthewheaddencoaching.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-headden-b71aa2b6 Connect with Shawn: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theshawnfrench/?hl=en Website: https://theshawnfrench.com/
Substance abuse affects the whole family unit. This episode touches on how to approach addiction treatment as a parent and how to help your kids cope during your recovery. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thebadcowpodcastshow/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thebadcowpodcastshow/support
What would you do if you were the Commander in Chief and a mysterious Chinese surveillance balloon were floating freely above Kansas? If you're answer isn't "absolutely nothing," then you'd do more than President Biden and his Department of Defense. Howie discusses the CCP spy balloon and responds to some theories from listeners!
On this episode of "The Substance," Trevor and Philip dive into the highly anticipated and box office-breaking (already the 4th highest grossing film of all time!) sequel to James Cameron's blockbuster hit Avatar, "Avatar 2: The Way of Water." We discuss the advancements in technology and filmmaking as well as the deeply human themes that have made it so resonant with audiences around the world. Next, the conversation shifts to the topic of nepotism in Hollywood and sports. The hosts touch on some recent headline events in US Soccer and how it relates to the larger conversation of "nepo babies" in the entertainment industry. They offer insights both on the ways in which nepotism can be detrimental to diversity and representation, how in many ways it's an unavoidable reality, and how it can be addressed in the future. If you have a topic/guest suggestion for a future show send us a DM, email, or leave us a voicemail and if you like the podcast, share it with a friend! Links: https://www.vulture.com/article/what-is-a-nepotism-baby.html Shoutouts: Philip: The Banshees of Inisherin (Currently streaming on HBO Max) Trevor: Alamo Drafthouse Follow Us: Website Instagram Twitter Facebook YouTube Channel Share Your Questions/Suggestions/Feedback With Us: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 913-703-3883 Support Us: Support the show with an individual donation on CashApp to $TheSubstancePod or become a monthly supporter at the Anchor link below! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesubstancepod/support
Phil and Daniel discuss their first day at Mere Anglicanism's Lewis Conference. Your Lamp-post Links: Where Is God in All the Suffering?, by Amy Orr-Ewing After Humanity, by Michael Ward Symbol or Substance?: A Dialogue on the Eucharist with C. S. Lewis, Billy Graham and J. R. R. Tolkien, by Peter Kreeft Becoming CS Lewis, by Harry Lee Poe Prayers of a Parent for Young Children, by Kathleen Nielson Fount of Heaven: Prayers of the Early Church You can support the show on Patreon. You can also email us at email@example.com or leave us a voicemail at (406) 646-6733. Website | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | YouTube | Stitcher Radio | RSS Feed All Extracts by C.S. Lewis copyright © C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd. Used with permission.
What drives a child to murder their family? Is it abuse? Serious mental health issues? Substance use? Trauma? Or a mixture of them all. There are times when a person shows red flags and is violent but then there's times when they don't. Many of these individuals do not expect a family member to be capable of hurting them. This is the case of the Maldonado family. You can listen to our NEW episode on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and all other streaming platforms. — ¿Qué lleva a un hijo o hija a asesinar a su familia? ¿Es abuso? ¿Problemas graves de salud mental? ¿Uso de sustancias? ¿Trauma? O una mezcla de todo. Hay momentos en que una persona muestra señales de alerta y es violenta, pero en otros casos, nadie se pudo imaginar lo que esa persona era capaz de hacer. Muchas de estas personas no esperan que un familiar sea capaz de hacerles daño. Este es el caso de la familia Maldonado. Puede escuchar nuestro NUEVO episodio en Spotify, Apple Podcasts y todas las demás plataformas de transmisión. — Link + Source Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359277/Brother-law-confessed-raping-killing-teen-body-shallow-grave.html Lockport Union - Sun Journal https://www.lockportjournal.com/archives/cardenas-pleads-not-guilty/article_41fd7be8-b60b-5bae-aeba-0387f52b9260.html New York Post: https://nypost.com/2018/09/22/15-year-old-girl-charged-in-deaths-of-mother-sister/ New York Post: https://nypost.com/2018/09/21/sister-of-teen-killed-with-mother-was-murdered-years-ago/ AL.com https://www.al.com/news/2018/09/maldonado_al_new_york_mur.html News19: https://whnt.com/news/athens/breaking-overnight-two-dead-suspect-hospitalized-in-limestone-stabbing/ People.com: https://people.com/crime/alabama-teen-stabbed-mom-sister-911-call/ Rochester Democrat & Chronicle: https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/09/20/rosa-lee-and-rosa-aminta-maldonado-albion-stabbed-death-alabama/1366482002/ — Follow Us: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/SVSM_Podcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/SVSM_Podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoViolentoSoMacabroPodcast TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@svsm_podcast --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/svsm-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/svsm-podcast/support
On this Hacks & Wonks midweek show, Crystal has a robust conversation with Damon Petrich about his research at the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. As lead author of the seminal work “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Damon performed an extensive analysis of 116 research studies looking at the effect of incarceration on reoffending. The review's finding that the oft-used policy of imprisonment does not reduce the likelihood of recidivism sparks a discussion about how the United States ended up as the world leader in mass incarceration and the disconnect between conventional assumptions about what prisons provide versus reality. Noting that the carceral system does a poor job of rehabilitation - while eating up budgets across the country and exacting significant societal costs - Damon and Crystal talk about how to design and evaluate programs that do work to deliver greater public safety for everyone. As always, a full text transcript of the show is available below and at officialhacksandwonks.com. Find the host, Crystal, on Twitter at @finchfrii and reach Damon for more information about his research at firstname.lastname@example.org Resources “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review” by Damon M. Petrich, Travis C. Pratt, Cheryl Lero Jonson, and Francis T. Cullen for Crime and Justice Scott Hechinger Twitter thread “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022” by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner from the Prison Policy Initiative “Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation” by James Bonta and D. A. Andrews for Public Safety Canada “Let's Take a Hard Look at Who Is in Jail and Why We Put Them There” by Alea Carr for the ACLU-WA blog Book - “Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect” by Robert J. Sampson Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program - “Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism: Why They Matter and How to Measure in Your Community” “Polls Show People Favor Rehabilitation over Incarceration” by Matt Clarke for Prison Legal News Transcript [00:00:00] Crystal Fincher: Welcome to Hacks & Wonks. I'm Crystal Fincher, and I'm a political consultant and your host. On this show, we talk with policy wonks and political hacks to gather insight into local politics and policy in Washington state through the lens of those doing the work with behind-the-scenes perspectives on what's happening, why it's happening, and what you can do about it. Full transcripts and resources referenced in the show are always available at officialhacksandwonks.com and in our episode notes. Well, I am excited to welcome Damon Petrich, who's a doctoral associate in the School of Criminal Justice at University of Cincinnati and incoming assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago. He was the lead author of a recent article, "Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review," along with Travis Pratt, Cheryl Lero Johnson, Francis T. Cullen. Damon's research focuses on the effectiveness of corrections and rehabilitation programs, desistance from crime, and the impact of community violence on youth development. Thank you so much for joining us, Damon. [00:01:13] Damon Petrich: Thank you very much for having me on, Crystal. I'm excited to talk a little bit about my work and the implications of that and all that, so thanks again. [00:01:20] Crystal Fincher: I'm very excited to talk about this and it's extremely timely - has been for a while. We have conversations almost every day in the public sphere having to do with public safety - this is such a major component of it. And so I'm hoping as we have this conversation, it'll help us to better assess what the costs and benefits are of custodial sanctions and incarceration, and alternatives to that - to have a conversation that kind of orients us more towards public safety. Sometimes we're so concerned with metrics around police and how many they are, and what the length of a sentence should be. And sometimes we focus on things that take us off of the overall goal of keeping us all safer and reducing the likelihood that each of us are victimized and to hopefully prevent people from becoming victims of crime. And just to have accurate conversations about how we invest our public resources - what we're actually getting from them, and then how to evaluate as we go along - what we should be tracking and measuring and incentivizing. As so many people talk about taking data-driven approaches and create all these dashboards - that we're really doing it from an informed perspective. So just to start out - what actually were you studying and what were you seeking to find out? [00:02:47] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so the main purpose of our meta-analysis, which I can explain exactly what that is later on if you have questions, but the main purpose was to understand what happens when you take one group of offenders and you sentence them to something custodial like prison or jail, and then you sentence another group of similar offenders to something non-custodial like probation. How do those two groups differ in terms of whether they reoffend? So does prison actually deter recidivism, or does it make people more likely to commit crime afterwards? So that's sort of what we were looking at and so we considered all of the available research on that, in this review. [00:03:29] Crystal Fincher: Got it. So right now we have gone down the path of mass incarceration - that is the default punishment that we, as society, have looked to for crime. Hey - sentence them and many times it's, Hey, they're going to jail. Sometimes they get out of jail and they have supervision that continues, but jail is really focused, where we focus a lot of our effort and where we put people and hope that that'll straighten them out and they come out and everything is fine. How did we get here and where are we in terms of how we're approaching incarceration in our society, in our country? [00:04:11] Damon Petrich: Yeah, so there is a lot of public uproar around a lot of issues, like race issues, and there was crime spikes and concerns over social welfare - and there's all this confluence of issues in the '60s and early '70s. And we decided to - as a country, not everyone, but politicians decided that we should tackle the crime problem by A) incarcerating more people, and then B) once they get there, keep them there for longer. So we enacted things like mandatory minimum sentences, where the judge really has no discretion over what happens - the person gets automatically a sentence of incarceration if they've committed a certain type of crime. You had habitual offender laws where if you're - like California's three strikes policy - where if you have two prior felonies and you get a third, no matter what it is, you're going to jail for life. Michigan had the "650 Lifer Law," where if you get caught with 650 grams of heroin or cocaine, you're automatically going to prison for life. And then we got rid of parole and stuff like that in a lot of states. So all these things lead to more people going to jail and then for longer, and those laws came to be in the '70s and '80s. And over that time, our incarceration rate ballooned up by about 700%, so by the early 2000s, we were at over 2 million people incarcerated and another 7-8 million people on probation or parole. So it's a pretty big expansion - the United States has 5% of the world's population and a quarter, or 25%, of the prisoners, so it's a little ridiculous. The crime rate here isn't nearly as high, or nearly high enough to justify that huge disparity. So yeah, it's a whole confluence of factors led us to be the world leader in incarceration. [00:06:14] Crystal Fincher: And what attitudes or what justifications are the people who have the power to enact these policies and continue these policies - how are they justifying them? [00:06:25] Damon Petrich: So there's a few reasons why you might want to incarcerate somebody. One is just because you want to punish them or get revenge on them, so that's more of a moral reason. But the main focus of politicians were twofold - one was incapacitation, so that one means that because you're keeping somebody locked up in a cage, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So the thought is that you're going to reduce crime that way. The research on that is a little squishy even now, and I can talk a little bit more about that later if you want. But the other reason, and the one that we focused on in our review, was that prison deters people from going back to crime after they get out. So the idea there is that prison sucks - you go in there, you're cut off from your job, from your family, from your friends, or from just having hobbies or things to do. And you're not going to want to go back, so when you get out of prison - you think real hard, and you think how much prison sucks, and you decide not to go back to crime. That's the thinking behind that deterrence hypothesis anyway. So those two - incapacitation and deterrence - were the main drivers of those increase in laws and stuff during the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but there really wasn't any evidence for either of them - in the '70s and '80s in particular. So most of the research evaluating whether prison actually does deter recidivism has popped up over the last 25 years or so. [00:08:05] Crystal Fincher: And as you took a look at it - all of the studies that have popped up over the past 25 years had varying degrees of rigor and scientific validity. But as that body of research grew, people began to get a better idea of whether incarceration actually does reduce someone's likelihood of reoffending. How big was that body of work, in terms of studies, and what were you able to look at? [00:08:40] Damon Petrich: So in our particular review, we looked at 116 studies, which is a pretty sizable number. Most people - when you read through an article and a literature review might have 10 studies or something that they just narratively go through, but we looked at 116. And then within those 116 studies, there were 981 statistical models. So 901 different comparisons - or 981 different comparisons - of what happens to custodial versus non-custodial groups. So we looked at a pretty big chunk of literature. [00:09:20] Crystal Fincher: And in that, in the reliance of - that's a really big number - and I think, people now are maybe more familiar, just from a layperson's perspective, of just how big that number is. As we've seen throughout this pandemic that we're in the middle of, studies come out - people are looking at one study, and wow - study number two comes out and we're feeling really good about it. And man, we get to five studies and people are like, okay, we know what's going on. To get beyond a hundred is just a real comprehensive body of study and analysis. What were you able to determine from that? [00:10:05] Damon Petrich: So I should probably explain upfront what a meta-analysis is and why it's useful. So like you were just saying - like in the COVID pandemic, for example - one study will come out and it'll say, oh, Ivermectin reduces symptomatic COVID cases by X percent. And then the next study will come out and say, Ivermectin makes people way worse. So any individual study can be kind of misleading. A good analogy for what a meta-analysis does would be to look at baseball, for example. So let's say you're interested in some rookie player that's just come out, he's just joined Major League Baseball and you go to his - you want to know how good this player actually is? You've never seen him play, you've only heard rumors. So you go out to his first game, he gets up to bat four times and he gets no hits. So you walk away from that game thinking, wow, this player is terrible, the team wasted all their money recruiting and paying this guy's salary. But that could have just been an off game for many reasons - it's his debut game so maybe there's just first-game nerves, maybe the weather was bad, maybe he was having personal problems in his life, or he had a little bit of an injury. So there's a number of reasons why looking at his performance from that one game is not going to be representative of who he is as a player. Ideally, you'd want to look at all the games over a season where he might go up to bat 250 times. And over those 250 times, he gets 80 hits, which is a pretty good batting average - it's over .300. So with that amount of data, you could come to a more solid conclusion of whether he's actually a good player or not. And with that amount of data, you could also look at what we call moderating characteristics. So you could look at, for example, whether he plays better when it's an away game or in a home game, whether it's early or late season - you could look at all these sorts of things. So this is essentially what we're doing with research as well, in a meta-analysis. So if you look at studies on incarceration - one might show increases in recidivism after people go to prison, the next might show decreases, and the next might show that probationers and prisoners reoffend at about the same rates. So just like in the baseball analogy, in a meta-analysis, we're looking at all of the available research. We're combining it together and determining A) what the sort of overall or average effect of incarceration is, and then B) whether these moderating characteristics actually matter. So in other words, is the effect of incarceration pretty much the same for males as it is for females, or for juveniles as adults, or when the research design is really good versus when it's not so great. So that's basically what we did in this meta-analysis is again - looked at 116 studies and from those 981 statistical estimates. [00:13:13] Crystal Fincher: Very helpful. Totally makes sense with the baseball analogy, and I especially appreciate breaking down with all the statistical models and not just kind of thumbs up, thumbs down - the binary - it either increases or reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But under what conditions are - might it be more likely, less likely that someone does? What are some of those influencing effects on what happens? And so you were just talking about the justification that people used going into this, and now that we have data coming out - does it turn out that people go into prison or are incarcerated in jail, they think - wow, this is horrible. Some in society are like the more uncomfortable we make it in jail, the better we want to make sure it's a place that they never would want to come back to - that it's so scary and such a bad experience that they are just scared straight for the rest of their lives. Does it actually turn out to be that way? Do they take a rational look at - this was my experience, I don't want to go back again, therefore I will not do any of the things that I did going in. [00:14:28] Damon Petrich: I would not say that's the conclusion - no. So again, based on the 116 studies that we looked at, which is again a lot, people who are sentenced to incarceration - so jail, prison - they commit crime, they reoffend at about the same rates as if you'd sentence those same people to probation. So in other words, they're not being deterred by being sent to prison. These effects are the same for both males and females. So in other words, prison doesn't reduce reoffending for one group versus the other. It's the same whether we look at adults versus juveniles, it's the same regardless of what type of recidivism we're interested in - rearrests or convictions. It's pretty much the same across the board. There's some slight variations in research designs, but even within those, prison either has no effect or it slightly increases recidivism. We don't find any conditions under which prison is reducing reoffending or deterring these people from going back to those lives. [00:15:35] Crystal Fincher: So from a societal perspective, a lot of people kind of make the assumption that, Hey, we arrest and we incarcerate someone - whew, our streets are safer. They get out, and now they can choose to reintegrate themselves into society hopefully - they do and we're all safer because of it. But it looks like impressions that some people may have that, Hey, we're letting someone off easy. And suggestions - there's so much media coverage around this - and suggestions that because we're letting people off easy, that we're making it easier for them to reoffend, or they don't feel sufficiently punished enough and so that becomes an incentive to reoffend. Does that seem like it tracks with what the studies have shown? [00:16:33] Damon Petrich: Not really - so there's some studies that actually ask prisoners and offenders whether they'd prefer going to prison or probation. And a lot of them will say, oh, I'd rather do a year in prison than spend two or three years on probation. So it's not like they view probation as just being super easy. And they're not saying this because they received time off their sentence for being in the study or anything like that. Probation's not easy either - and you have to also think that while these people are on probation, they're able to stay in close touch with their family, they're able to maintain connections with work or find work, they're able to participate in the community, they can pay taxes - that I know a lot of people who are pro-prison love. So there's all sorts of reasons why - beyond just them reoffending at the same rates as if they'd gone to prison - there's a lot of reasons why we might want to keep these people in the community. And it's not like we're saying, let everybody out of prison - so the nature of this research - you want to compare apples to apples. So in this research, comparing prisoners to probationers - these have to be people who are getting - they could either legitimately get a sentence of jail or probation, or prison or probation. So these are going to be first-time offenders, people who are relatively low-level - they've committed low-level crimes and all that. So we're not saying - there's not going to be a situation where a murderer just gets probation - that sort of thing. So I know that might be a concern of some people - they think that's a natural argument of this analysis, but it's really not. [00:18:24] Crystal Fincher: Well, and to your point, we're really talking - if we're looking at all of the crime that gets people sentenced to prison time, a very small percentage of that is murder. A very small percentage of it is on that kind of scale - you can wind up in jail or prison for a wide variety of offenses - many of them, people perceive as relatively minor or that people might be surprised can land you in prison. Or if someone has committed a number of minor offenses, that can stack up - to your point in other situations - and increase the length of detention or the severity of the consequences. As we're looking through this and the conversation of, okay, so, we sentence them, we let them out - it's not looking like there's a difference between jail or community supervisions, things like probation - what is it about jail that is harmful or that is not helpful? What is it about the structure of our current system that doesn't improve recidivism outcomes for people? [00:19:42] Damon Petrich: Probably the main one is the rehabilitation is not the greatest. So just as an example, substance abuse is a very strong predictor whether people are going to reoffend, unsurprisingly. About 50% of prisoners at the state and federal level in The States meet the DSM [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders] criteria for having a substance use abuse disorder - so they meet the clinical criteria for substance abuse disorder. So half of them, and then more than that just use substances, but they don't meet the criteria for a disorder. But of that 50% who has a substance abuse disorder, only about 20% of those actually receives treatment for it while they're incarcerated. So, you're not dealing with a root cause of reoffending while they're in prison - so you're not deterring them, but you're also not rehabilitating them - so you're really not doing anything. And then in the rare cases where these people are provided with rehabilitation or reentry programming, it's often not based on any sort of evidence-based model of how you actually change people. So there's a lot of psychological and criminology theory and research on how you actually elicit behavioral change, and these programs really aren't in line with any of that. And I could give examples if you wanted, but - [00:21:17] Crystal Fincher: Sure. I think that's helpful, 'cause I think a lot of people do assume, and sometimes it's been controversial - wow, look at how much they're coddling these prisoners - they have these educational programs, and they get all this drug treatment for free, and if they don't come out fixed then it's their own fault because they have access to all of these treatment resources in prison. Is that the case? [00:21:43] Damon Petrich: No, I wouldn't say so - first of all, they don't have access, a lot of them, to any programs. And then, like I said, the programs that they do get really aren't that effective. So the big one that everybody loves to argue for is providing former inmates with jobs. If you look at any federal funding for program development, like the Second Chance Act or the First Step Act - I think that was one under Trump - and then under Bush, there was a Serious [and] Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative - pretty much all of these federal bills will be heavily focused on just providing offenders with jobs. And almost all of the evaluations of these programs show that they don't reduce reoffending. And it's not really that hard - again, if you go back to the literature on behavioral change and, criminology literature - it's not really that hard to understand why just providing a job isn't going to reduce or lead somebody away from a life of crime. A lot of these people have spotty work histories where they've never had a job at all, they believe and know that it's easier to gain money by doing illicit work than it is legal work, they have things like low self-control so they're very impulsive, they don't know how to take criticism or being told what to do by a boss. They live in neighborhoods with very poor opportunities for good jobs and education, and maybe there's a mindset around there that illegal work or whatever is just a better way to go - that's sort of ingrained. So there's a lot of different reasons why just handing somebody a job isn't going to lead them away from crime, 'cause they have all these other things that need to be dealt with first. So ideally, a rehabilitation program that's comprehensive would deal with all of those other background factors and then provide them with a job. Because if you make them less impulsive, better able to resist the influence of their antisocial friends, and get this thought out of their head that other people are being hostile towards them when they're really not - all these sorts of cognitive and behavioral biases that they have - if you deal with all of those things and then you give them a job, they're more likely to actually latch onto that job as something worthwhile doing. And then they're going to go on to get out of a life of crime. But if you just give them a job and you haven't dealt with any of those issues, you can't really expect that to work. And that is the model that we currently do - is something that we don't really expect to work that well. [00:24:28] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, that's - it's really interesting and I don't know that a lot of people actually know that, Hey, giving someone a job isn't sufficient - which is why I think it's so important to talk about studies like this, because some of what has become conventional wisdom, really is not accurate or reflects what has been studied and discovered. And I guess in that vein, what are the factors - you just talked about a few - but what does increase someone's likelihood of reoffending or recidivism, and what reduces it? [00:25:08] Damon Petrich: So those are probably two ends of the same, or two sides of the same coin, but this is pretty well known in criminology - a model called the risk-need-responsivity [RNR] model was developed by a couple of fellow Canadians, named James Bonta and Don Andrews, along with some of their colleagues in the '80s and '90s. And they, through again, other meta-analyses just like we did, found certain categories of characteristics of people who are more likely to reoffend. So you have things like having antisocial peers - so that one's pretty obvious - if you have a bunch of friends that are involved in crime, it's going to be pretty hard for you to get out of that life because you're surrounded by those people. Same with family members. If you have what are called criminal thinking patterns - so again, you might have what's called a hostile attribution bias, things like that, where somebody says something a little bit negative to you and you take that as a huge insult and you retaliate with anger and aggression - things like that. Or being impulsive - so you're again quick to anger, you're swayed by small little enticements in the environment and that sort of thing - so you're easily swayed one way or the other. Things like that are strong predictors of reoffending. Substance abuse - it's what I mentioned earlier. If you don't really have any sort of proactive leisure activities, like hobbies and stuff like that. So there's a bunch of well-known things that we know are strongly associated with recidivism, and a rehabilitation program should ideally deal with them. Now this model that Andrews and Bonta and all these other people came up with - this RNR risk-need-responsivity model - the risk part says that we should give people a risk assessment when they're entering prison or leaving prison and determine what level of risk are they from reoffending. And we assess these different criteria, like criminal thinking patterns and antisocial friends and substance abuse. So we determine what those factors are and then we design them a treatment program that actually deals with those factors at the individual level. So we're not just giving a blanket rehabilitation program to everybody, and you're providing the most amount of care to the people who most need it or who are the most likely to re-offend. And then once we've done all that, we need to make sure that we're addressing these problems in some sort of a format that we know actually works. The most well-known one, but not as often used, the most well-known within the sort of psychologist and criminological literature is cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]. So this is pretty popular for dealing with depression and all sorts of eating disorders and substance abuse problems in non-offender populations. Well, those programs also work in offender populations and they work pretty well. So the research shows - again meta-analyses - that when you deal with all these three factors - risk, need, and responsivity - you can reduce reoffending rates by about 26%. So it's a pretty sizeable amount - it's much greater than you're getting by just sentencing people to prison without doing anything. [00:28:42] Crystal Fincher: Absolutely, and I think you cover in your paper - those things are absolutely true. And you just talked about several administrations' attempts to implement programming and resources to try and help people get jobs, potentially - hey, there's even a CBT treatment, but if that treatment has twice as many people as are recommended being in a session and occurs over half the time that it's supposed to, you really are sabotaging the entire process or really setting it up for failure. And it just seems to be an expensive exercise that we aren't really getting anything out of. Does that seem to be consistent with how you've seen the attempts at introducing this programming within prisons and jails? [00:29:40] Damon Petrich: Yeah, for sure - this is a pretty common finding too - so it's not just about preaching that you're going to do these things. You actually have to implement them well. So just like you said, there's a number of studies that show this - so you've designed some really great program that deals with all of these risk factors that lead people back into reoffending, you give it to them in a cognitive behavioral setting. So all seems good on paper, but in practice, like you said - one of the famous studies there - can't remember the names of the authors offhand right now - but one of the famous studies there showed that they're providing it to people in groups of 30, as opposed to 15, and they're delivering it in a really short amount of time. And they're not maybe giving it to the highest-risk people - so they're just mixing random people in there at varying levels of risk. So when you do all these sorts of things - you implement the program poorly - you can't really expect it to work. And this is often the case - is the government pays people to come up with these great programs, and then not enough funding is provided to actually make sure that they're implemented and evaluated well. So the amount of funding that actually goes into that - developing the programs to begin with - is small, but when you do do that, you're not making sure that you're actually implementing things well. So it's just sort of shooting yourself in the foot, and probably making people come to the conclusion that these things don't work - when they do work, if you just implement them well. [00:31:17] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and there's also a lot of rhetoric - and you discuss this - there's a lot of rhetoric coming from the government, even coming from leadership within the Bureau of Prisons or leadership in our carceral system, saying we do want to rehabilitate people. We are trying to implement programming that does this. You see - we have these educational opportunities and we are doing evaluations of people. And it may be happening while they're understaffed or other challenges, but one of the biggest, I guess, red flags is that none of the evaluation of their programs and none of the incentives that arise are in any way tied to what is the actual result of what happens. Are you actually succeeding on reducing someone's likelihood for reoffense? It does not seem like any compensation is tied to that, any kind of evaluation of positions or regular reporting - to say, is this program having its intended effect? And if not, what do we need to do to correct for that? Is that what you found? [00:32:33] Damon Petrich: I would say that's probably a pretty fair assessment. A lot of the programs that are implemented are never evaluated at all. And then the ones that are - it's usually once - there's one evaluation of those programs. And then, like you said, there doesn't really seem to be a lot of self-reflection - I don't know what other word you would use - but these programs don't really change on the basis of these evaluations. So, it's kind of disheartening to hear about, I guess. [00:33:14] Crystal Fincher: It feels very disheartening to live in the middle of - and one of the big things about this is that this - we have these conversations and we talk about these studies and we're saying, yeah, it actually - we're not doing anyone any favors right now when it comes to reducing recidivism. And having these conversations oftentimes detached from the cost associated with what we're paying for these. And my goodness are we paying to incarcerate people? It's not just, well, we do lock them up and we keep them away. Or we do a good job of keeping them in - they reoffend, they go back to jail. And lots of people are like, we did our job, they went back to jail - boom, everything is fine. But we are paying through the nose and out the ear for this - just here, we're in the state of Washington, and right now the state spends about $112 per day, or over $40,000 annually, to incarcerate one individual - that's the cost per inmate. In King County - the county that we're in - they spend $192 a day, or $70,000 annually, to incarcerate an individual. That is a huge amount of the tax dollars that we spend - these come out of our general fund, meaning that these are dollars that every service, everything that is not a dedicated source of revenue, is competing for. So when we talk about things and have conversations like, well, we don't have the budget for that and we don't have the money - that is related to how much of that money we're spending on other things. And my goodness, I would think that we want to get our money's worth for that level of expenditure. And it really appears that if we're saying the goal of jail is to get people on the straight and narrow path and becoming contributing members of society and all of the implications of that, it doesn't seem like we're getting our money's worth. And so, if those aren't the goals and if we just want to punish people, it's not like we're punishing people for free. We're punishing people at the cost of $70,000 per day [year], and at the cost of all the other services and infrastructure needs that we have. So it really seems like we're punishing ourselves as much, or more, as others - particularly if we're bringing people back into society that are likely to reoffend in one way or another. And so if our goal is to keep our community safe and that is the North Star, it looks like we need to realign our processes and our expenditure of resources. I guess my question to you, after all that, is - how should we be moving forward? What should we be looking to do? What is shown to work? [00:36:24] Damon Petrich: Well, I would say - yeah, $70,000 a year as just a revenge cost per person seems like a lot. $80 billion in the country as a whole, for a revenge cost, seems like a pretty high price to pay, given we're not reducing reoffending. You could make the argument that these people aren't offending while they're in prison, but that's - there's other reasons why that might not be completely accurate, which I could talk about too, but - [00:36:59] Crystal Fincher: Well, I'm interested in that. Why might that not be accurate? [00:37:03] Damon Petrich: So, obviously the person - if you incarcerate a particular individual, obviously they can't be out in the community committing crimes. So that's obvious, but there's a number of reasons why that might not, en masse, actually reduce crime a whole lot. The research on it - this is a little bit squishy - in terms of whether incarcerating more people leads to lower crime rates, because one influences the other. But for example, if you look at illegal drug markets - a lot of the homicides in the United States and other violent crime that people are really concerned about, and it's plastered all over the media is - homicides, gang-related stuff. So if you take key gang members out and you put them in prison, what ends up happening is that there's competition in that market to take over that person's place, either within the gang or other gangs coming in. So what ends up happening oftentimes is a spike in violence. So that's one reason why just incapacitating, particularly high-crime individuals, might not actually lead to lower crime rates overall. Again, you're lowering crime for that one person, but you might be increasing crime on a more systemic level. Beyond that, these things have broader societal and community level impacts - incarcerating a lot of people. Again, research shows that when you're incarcerating a lot of people in a particular community - so there's a bunch of really good work by Robert Sampson - he has a book that came out a few years ago called Great American City. And he looked at these individual neighborhoods in Chicago over time, and what he finds is that in communities where there's a higher number of people incarcerated in a particular community, this ends up increasing what's called "legal cynicism." And this is done in some other work as well with David Kirk and Andrew Papachristos - but they show that this increases legal cynicism, which means people are skeptical of police helping them out, the police doing a good job. And what ends up happening after that - when people are more cynical of the legal system, they're less likely to report crimes to the police, they're less likely to cooperate with the police. So what ends up happening? You incarcerate more people and people in that community end up being less willing to cooperate with law enforcement. And this leads to sort of an endless cycle where things sort of get out of hand. So there's all these unintended and nonfinancial consequences of incarcerating a lot of people that could potentially end up leading to more crime. [00:40:03] Crystal Fincher: Well, and - speaking as a Black woman - obviously, looking at the impacts of mass incarceration in the Black community and in neighborhoods around the country - where it is almost like the community is responding to the actual outcome and that, Hey, this actually isn't making my community any better. I'm experiencing traumatic impacts from this - whether it's my relative went to prison or a sole breadwinner in the family and now we're thrown into poverty, or I'm in a situation where I don't have a parent who used to be there - who now is no longer there. Or causing instability and impacting the education that people get and the kind of job opportunity, watching someone who's come out have to struggle and be ostracized. And it looks like, Hey, this is just the first step on a long cycle of traumatic and undesirable events - and I don't want to participate in a system that is doing that. With that, as we look forward, and I think this is also related to conversations about just fundamental trust in our criminal legal system and relations with police and throughout the system. It's - if we think about how to turn that around - to me, seems related to thinking about the question of how do we get better outcomes for everyone? 'Cause it seems like right now where we're investing a lot in poor outcomes for people who were already, usually, in pretty poor spots leading to themselves being incarcerated, coming out and not necessarily improving, definitely not improving. And if anything, a chance that it gets a little bit worse. How do we change that entire outcome? And I know you're looking specifically in the incarceration space, but what should be, what could be done differently? Or do we just need a fundamental restructuring of the way we do this? [00:42:17] Damon Petrich: I don't know about a fundamental restructuring - I don't, I'm not great at that high-level thinking stuff, but what I do know is that - we're probably going to continue to incarcerate people. That's something that's done in every country and people seem to love here. So if we actually want to use prison for public safety - because 95% of inmates eventually get out - if we actually want to use it for public safety, then let's actually try wholeheartedly to rehabilitate them while they're in there. And again, there's a lot of theory and evidence-based principles on how we can do this, like the risk-need-responsivity model that I talked about earlier, cognitive behavioral therapy more broadly. If you use these types of things and continue to work on them and develop them over time, then yeah - prison might actually be helpful if people are going there and getting the help that they need. But that's not what's happening currently. So that's one level in incarceration terms - that's the area that I know best. So that's one way you could potentially alleviate some of this stuff is - if people are actually getting resources and stuff when they're in prison, and then when once they're reintegrating, they're not only going to reoffend less, but maybe they're going to contribute to their community more. They're going to be better able to connect with their family and stuff like that. So rather than being a hindrance, it could potentially be a help. Obviously, again, it's not ideal to remove people from their communities and their family and friends. And like I said earlier, if you have the option to sentence them to something community-based instead, I think that's the better route to go. But if you are going to send people to prison, which I think we're going to continue to do a lot of the time, then let's rehabilitate them while they're in there is the main point. And do so based on what actually works to do that. [00:44:23] Crystal Fincher: It's really the investment in the people who are there, and we're - I think up against a lot of societal attitudes and resistance where it just feels wrong to a number of people to be providing services and shifting that investment to things that are seemingly helpful for the inmate, because everything about how we've been conditioned to understand our prison system has been - the punishment is kind of the key, and they'll make rational decisions afterwards to avoid prison based on how bad the punishment is. When it comes to community supervision, things like probation, what are the differences there? If there are better outcomes from that, what accounts for the better outcomes when it comes to probation versus incarceration? [00:45:23] Damon Petrich: I wouldn't say the outcomes are better - they're just pretty much the same as they would be if they're sentenced to prison. So, probation costs less and then it also enables the people to be out in the community doing community things, like being with their friends and families and all that. I mean, you can't quantify, based on a recidivism percentage, what their family members and friends and employers are getting out of it. So that's something we can't really look at - or I guess you could, but something we don't often do - but so there's intangible things that you would get by keeping people in the community. Plus it doesn't lead to all that other stuff I talked about where people become cynical of the legal system and it leads to this cycle of whatever. [00:46:11] Crystal Fincher: Yeah, and so if we're were doing this programming in prison and helping people, I think your research shows it's extremely important to do both the structural, Hey, you need a place to live, you need to be able to pay your rent and your bills - so having a job, having housing, having healthcare, getting those very basic needs met is critical. But also addressing a number of the mental or behavioral health issues that are common among the incarcerated population - and dealing with that is as important. And basically those two things both need to happen hand-in-hand. How do we do a better job of that in our current system? [00:46:57] Damon Petrich: Well, first of all, I'd like to say that you're right there - I think maybe when I was talking earlier about employment, it might sound like giving people jobs is just a waste of time, but that's not the case. It needs - the two things need to be paired - you need to deal with the cognitive and behavioral problems in addition to giving them jobs and housing support and all that. In terms of how you actually go about doing that, there are examples in the literature of programs that do this, so there's examples out there. I think if you're a state or local or even federal correctional department and you're interested in doing this - implementing something that's evidence-based - or if you're just a concerned citizen that wants to rally your local officials to do that - go and talk to researchers like me, or people at universities that have criminology departments or criminal justice departments, because this knowledge is out there. It's widely available. You just have to go and seek it out. So at my university, for example, we have the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute and under the guidance of Ed Latessa, he was - now passed - but he was, over the last 30 years, responsible for disseminating a lot of this evidence-based practices to some of the state and local criminal justice agencies. And they helped with implementation and evaluation in a lot of these places, so the help is out there. You just have to look for it a little bit. [00:48:38] Crystal Fincher: And another question I had - your analysis seemed to suggest that when we're talking about low-risk, medium, and high-risk offenders - or people who have done relatively minor crimes versus those who have done more serious crimes - that these interventions are particularly effective the more serious the offense or crime has been. And that perhaps even sometimes treating someone who is a really low-risk as if they're a high-risk, can worsen the outcomes for that person. Is that the case? [00:49:21] Damon Petrich: Yeah, that tends to be a finding in research - we're not exactly sure why, but providing a lot of really intensive services to people deemed to be low-risk can actually be harmful rather than helpful. We don't know based on research why, but there's a lot of pretty good hypotheses about why. So a low-risk offender is going to be somebody who's a first-timer who's committed some not-that-serious crime. So they probably have a job, they probably have pretty strong connections with their family and all that. So if you're taking them and you're putting them in a program where you have to be there 40 hours a week, they're probably going to get fired from their job, it's going to be harder to stay in contact with friends and families that are sort of tying you into a non-criminal life. And then you're probably going to be associating with all kinds of people who are high-risk, and maybe they're going to draw you towards, oh yeah, I could earn four grand going out tonight and stealing some laptops. There's a lot of reasons why just taking low-risk people and putting them in these programs is going to be harmful rather than helpful. [00:50:31] Crystal Fincher: And so with that in mind, and you talk about, Hey, if we're trying to influence local electeds - one of the interesting things about having a podcast and radio show that caters to extremely politically and civically inclined people is that we actually do have a number of policymakers and politicians who listen, and people who are enacting and in control of this policy. If you were to talk to them and give them advice about how to move forward, especially in the current environment that we find ourselves in, where over the past few years has been increasing awareness of some of the defecits of our system and pushes to change those. And also, as we have seen more recently, a real strong pushback from a lot of people who are invested in our current system saying, Hey, let's not change things too much. Maybe we need to jail more and for longer. And maybe we're just not doing enough incarceration, and that's the answer. In that kind of political environment, what would you tell people who are in charge of this policy, who may be facing pressure to keep going forward with the status quo, about how they should evaluate how they should move forward and the kinds of things that they should do? [00:52:07] Damon Petrich: I know a lot of these politicians get lobbied by correctional officer groups or whatever, and that's whatever, but ultimately you get voted in by voters. So, I'm not an expert on public opinion - I have other friends who are more into that kind of stuff, but I do know from talking with them and from reading that literature, that the public actually does support rehabilitation. So they have for a long time and it's shifted more towards being in support of rehabilitation over time. So right now, most Americans support providing rehabilitation programs to prisoners and offenders. So this is something that's going to please your constituency, people want this kind of thing. And it's not like you're going to be losing all kinds of jobs by getting rid of prison - there's going to be a need for skilled people who can provide these programs and probation officers and all these sorts of things. So it's not a net loss when you're getting rid of prisons. There's a lot of reasons to sentence people to community supervision and things like that - provide rehabilitation. There's public support for it, there's jobs involved, there's cost savings - big time, obviously - it's way cheaper to keep somebody out of prison than it is to keep them in prison. So there's a lot of different reasons why you would want to do that as a politician. [00:53:43] Crystal Fincher: I think that makes sense. Certainly it's a lot cheaper to keep someone out of prison versus in prison. I mean, we talked about the annual costs - in the state of Washington over $40,000, King County over $70,000 - comparing that to how much we invest in a student of $11,500 a year. If we focus more on investing in people, both inside and outside the system, it seems like we set ourselves up for a safer community, fewer people being victimized, and more people leading thriving, productive, tax-paying lives. And we're all happier than we are right now, I would think, I would hope - it seems like the research points in that direction. So I certainly appreciate you taking the time to speak with us about this. Is there anything else that you want to leave with us, in thinking about this study and your research? [00:54:55] Damon Petrich: I think we covered it pretty well. Just to circle back to something you just said - I know this might put me out of a job since I focus on what happens when people's lives go awry, but you really are better off to invest in early prevention programs and giving people a good start on life than trying to correct the program or the problem afterwards. So yeah - politicians spend some money on prevention programs. I know the good effects of that are a long way out, but they're actually good on a societal level. So I guess I would add that, even though it's not good for criminologists, maybe, to put themselves out of a job like that. [00:55:40] Crystal Fincher: Well, much appreciated, and thank you so much for having this conversation with us today. [00:55:45] Damon Petrich: Yeah, thank you very much for having me on. I'm glad that there are people out there interested in this stuff, so thanks again. [00:55:51] Crystal Fincher: I thank you all for listening to Hacks & Wonks on KVRU 105.7 FM. The producer of Hacks & Wonks is Lisl Stadler with assistance from Shannon Cheng. You can find me on Twitter @finchfrii, spelled F-I-N-C-H-F-R-I-I. Now you can follow Hacks & Wonks on iTunes, Spotify, or wherever else you get your podcasts - just type "Hacks and Wonks" into the search bar. Be sure to subscribe to get our Friday almost-live shows and our midweek show delivered to your podcast feed. If you like us, leave a review wherever you listen to Hacks & Wonks. You can also get a full transcript of this episode and links to the resources referenced in the show at officialhacksandwonks.com and in the episode notes. Thanks for tuning in - we'll talk to you next time.
New Year, same great pod. After taking a short break to start the year (and celebrate our own, Ol Dirty Dennis' birthday) the boys are back to get the year cracking. We share our personal resolutions, some for the pod, and much more. From there, we get into theorizing for the new year. What do YOU think Marvel's Phase 7, 8 & 9 will look like? We discuss shows/movies we'd like to see, how to work the mutants in, etc. Do you agree/disagree with us? Hit us up on twitter with your opinions. Happy New Year, juuheard! BONUS CONTENT: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheMightyMetas Did you know? Did you know? Ya boys are now on Patreon! If you're looking for even MORE episodes, definitely join our Jean Lantern Community. SUPPORT: We need your help grow the podcast. Take a min to leave a review / rating if you rock with us ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ We take Questions, Comments, Suggestions. It may just end up on an episode: Metahumanspod@gmail.com FOLLOW US: Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/TheMightyMetas Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/TheMightyMetas YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheMightyMetas Email Us! Questions, Comments, Suggestions: Metahumanspod@gmail.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/the-mighty-metahumans/message
This week we travel back in time to the radical 80s when the 2nd British Invasion hit the States in the form of New Wave! However, we are exploring the true background of all these big pop hit makers; when they were PUNK! Whether you like this style of music or not, this is a fun exploration of the seedy underground beginning of some of the biggest 80s pop stars. This episode features songs with short track lengths and lots of, “No way! I can't believe that's ____”! It's PUNK ROCK people! It's fun and filthy and is where Kevin started down his path of music fanaticism. These songs are all firmly in the category of “Forgotten”. We hope we introduce to some tunes you may not have heard from these big New Wave hit makers.Songs this week include:Neon – “Information Of Death” from Obsessions EP (1982)The Cure – “I Dig You” from I'm A Cult Hero (1979)Beastie Boys – “Ode To…” from Polly Wog Stew EP (1982)Joy Division – “Warsaw” from Substance 1977-1980 (1978)The Go-Go's - “Party Pose” from Return To The Valley Of The Go-Go's (1979)Generation X – “Ready Steady Go” from Generation X (1978)Bananarama – “No Feelings (Sex Pistols)” from Party Party – The Original Motion Picture Soundtrack (1983)Please subscribe everywhere that you listen to podcasts!Visit us: https://inobscuria.com/https://www.facebook.com/InObscuriahttps://twitter.com/inobscuriahttps://www.instagram.com/inobscuria/Buy cool stuff with our logo on it!: https://www.redbubble.com/people/InObscuria?asc=uCheck out Robert's amazing fire sculptures and metal workings here: http://flamewerx.com/If you'd like to check out Kevin's band THE SWEAR, take a listen on all streaming services or pick up a digital copy of their latest release here: https://theswear.bandcamp.com/If you want to hear Robert and Kevin's band from the late 90s – early 00s BIG JACK PNEUMATIC, check it out here: https://bigjackpnuematic.bandcamp.com/
This week I'm interviewing Elizabeth Knight! Elizabeth lives and runs in Portland, Oregon. When she's not on the trails in Forest Park, she works as a nurse practitioner and owns an integrative health coaching practice, Flower Power Health, where she works with runners. She's passionate about science, inclusivity, and helping people approach their bodies with kindness and curiosity. A few of her favorite things are dogs, rock and roll, and pizza. You can find her online at flowerpower.health and on Instagram @flowerpower.health. She and I got together to discuss the importance of sleep for athletes - and humans in general. Hope you enjoy the episode! ----- Notes: Who is elizabeth knight? Healthcare vs. "Sick care" How Elizabeth started running What does "evidence-based" coaching mean? Why sleep matters How sleep affects your hormones How much sleep do you need? How to know whether or not your doing well on sleep The 3 categories of "noise" that affect your sleep Sleep trackers and tools Substance resets Things that could damage your sleep Sleep schedules You almost certainly have the time to get more sleep Napping Sleep aids and medications Simple shifts for better sleep Big takeaways Links: Watch on YouTube 4/7/8 Breath from Dr. Andrew Weil Elizabeth's Website Elizabeth's Links for Runners Elizabeth's Instagram ----- Want to be able to ask your own questions for this podcast? Head to the Trail and Ultra Running Nutrition group on FB: https://www.facebook.com/groups/trailultranutrition Thank you for listening! ----- Want to chat about trail and ultra running? Go here: https://linktr.ee/will.c.frantz --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/eatsleeprun/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/eatsleeprun/support
January 18, 2023 CLAUDE RAMSEY, pastor of Reformata Baptist Church of Knoxville, Tennessee, host of the Here I Stand Theology Podcast, & speaker @ the upcoming Open Air Theology Conference: From Shadows to Substance, who will address: "The MIGHTY WORKS of GOD in the PSALMS & PROPHETS" Subscribe: iTunes TuneIn Android RSS Feed Listen:
Welcome to a special, one-off Chemical Watch podcast on substance identity issues that have been raised as part of the ongoing REACH revision. In particular, we will be looking at a range of changes proposed by Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua). These would tackle potential registration problems of substances with hazardous impurities and nanomaterials. They include amending the definition of a substance as given in the legal texts of legislation, including REACH. Chemical Watch's science editor Andrew Turley is joined by Kristof Seubert and Angelina Gadermann both from Baua and Bernaette Quinn from REACHLaw. The consultancy has concerns over the ongoing use of the 'one substance' phrase commonly used in chemicals legislation. REACH takes a ‘one substance, one registration' approach to data submission. An analogous phrase – one substance, one assessment – is used in the chemicals strategy for sustainability.
Integrity. Kindness. Substance and value. These may not be the words used to describe today's media moguls or Fortune 500 CEOs, but it is how many remember the late Frank Biondi, the former CEO of HBO, Universal Studios, and Viacom. Today's guest is Jane Biondi Munna, Frank's youngest daughter and co-author of his memoir, Let's Be Frank, where she shares how he made good relationships alongside great deals, earned respect while earning multi-million dollar returns, and maintained character even when surrounded by an industry full of characters. More about Jane: She is an executive at JPMorgan Chase. She has served for over a decade in roles across marketing, finance, strategy, and communications, including as the executive communications partner to the co-president and COO of the firm. Her twenty years of experience began with investment banking and included a few years in marketing and special events for the Los Angeles Dodgers where she booked celebrities to throw out the ceremonial first pitch or sing the national anthem. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This podcasts is designed for applicants who have 6 months (or more) before their applications are due. In addition to offering suggestions about how to present your scores, essays, resume, and recommendations in the best possible light, this episode offers specific suggestions on how to use the months ahead to improve the SUBSTANCE of these elements before the application deadline. Do you want to go for a promotion or a title change at work? Is now the time to take on new beefy professional/leadership challenge? Should you consider deepening your volunteer/extracurricular activities between now and when you apply? To set you up for success, we offer five sets of suggestions helping you to: Think about your application as a journey of self-discovery that can teach you important lessons about yourself, Begin work on your short- and long-term goals now, at the beginning of your application journey. Rework your resume with a focus on quantifying impact, Rework your resume with a focus on adding important context behind your numbers, and Set professional and extracurricular stretch goals to complete between now and the time you apply.
President Biden tweeted on Wednesday, "In America, we go forward when we go together." What does going together look like? Talking in cliches isn't leading. It's meaningless. In what meaningful ways has this administration built any bridges to bring us together? What does going forward look like to the Radical Left? There is nothing forward-thinking about what Leftists have planned. Nonsense abounds.
President Biden tweeted on Wednesday, "In America, we go forward when we go together." What does going together look like? Talking in cliches isn't leading. It's meaningless. In what meaningful ways has this administration built any bridges to bring us together? What does going forward look like to the Radical Left? There is nothing forward-thinking about what Leftists have planned. Nonsense abounds.
How can we best determine that students are authentically grasping the lessons we're teaching? How can we best confirm that learning objectives are met? This week we discuss the best measures of actual learning and the shifts required to embrace them. Follow on Twitter: @HarveyAlvy1 @danacoledares @tomwhitby @bamradionetwork @jonHarper70bd. Ed Chat Archive: http://edchat.pbworks.com/ Harvey Alvy has served as a teacher, principal, and university professor, and was honored to be a National Distinguished Principal. He is the author of Fighting for Change in Your School: How to Avoid Fads and Focus on Substance, and co-author of Learning From Lincoln: Leadership Practices for School Success.
The BEST Independent Music Artists & Singers from around the world: EDM, Indie Rock, Indie Pop, Hip Hop, R & B, Rap, reggae, Jazz, Country, Folk, & more...Hosted by DTongAdvertising & Sponsorship: http://goo.gl/ioP6HwGuaranteed Song Play & Promotion: http://goo.gl/4aD98wBROUGHT TO YOU BY:https://www.ClubTrust.orghttps://llsupplement.comhttps://www.JoannaK.orgHola Privacy Apphttps://bit.ly/3PsCgmvClime Techhttps://bit.ly/3B8TlMmThe Rike LLChttps://bit.ly/3G0HlPTSum and Substance by William L Martinhttps://bit.ly/3WizyCQWavve Soundwave For Podcasts & Music Artistshttps://wavve.co?ref=johntongThe Fiverr Life podcasthttps://spoti.fi/30OnzPPAlso New Music from:Astomic 'Flatliner'Drew Dew 'Abyss'Erik Engelhardt w/ a BackToBackDJ BlackLight 'Come Party w/ Me'Sarantos 'Something To Believe In'Lily Amis ft Thir13een w/ a BackToBackBrian Doerr 'Mr. Rhodes'Squints 'With all you've been through'Andrea Pizzo and the Purple Mice 'Ada'BCOnTheTrack 'Let Em Say'The TUNE w/ a BackToBackMatt Dunn 'Walk In The Snow'Gumdrop 'Say Goodnight'ProjectApollo681xCatch the show on iTunes, Spotify, iHeartRadio, PlayerFM, Periscope, Google Play, TuneIn, Stitcher, Soundcloud, & www.DTongRadio.com
Can eating well translate to success in other areas of your life? Ania Lees sure thinks so, and she has the information to back it up. Today, I am joined by Ania Lees of Healthy with Ania. Ania is a certified Plant Based Nutritionist and founder of HealthyWithAnia – a one stop solution for those wanting to adopt a plant based diet. For the past 3 years with nutritional workshops, weight loss programs and Kitchen Transformation programs Ania aims to spread the message that vegan food is not only healthy but also tasty and easy to prepare. She has presented at a number of festivals including; London Plant Power Expo, Singapore Vegan festival, The Conscious festival, Green and Healthy festival. She has recently co-authored a book: “My Voice - A collective Memoir by Women of Substance”. Ania is a passionate foodie, loves to cook and create new recipes, she believes that vegan food does not need to compromise on flavour. Being fascinated with nutritional science she uses her knowledge about science behind the food and wants to show you the links between our food, health and wellbeing Through her events, she not only teaches what to put on your plate, but more importantly, what not to. On a daily basis she educates people to be more aware of what they eat, as the right diet is the single biggest change which can truly change our health. By the end of this episode, there's a good chance you'll feel ready to tackle to a new way of living! Have you noted the tips Ania mentioned? Keep it simple, Cook at home, Be willing to unlearn what you think you like, invest time and accept you might be uncomfortable, when you find a brand you like, stick to it, to reduce time in the grocery store and decision fatigue. Connect with Ania: https://www.healthywithania.com/ Instagram and FB: https://www.instagram.com/healthywithania/ https://www.facebook.com/HealthywithAnia Ania's Facebook Group - https://www.facebook.com/groups/600804897136078/ Ania's Oil-free Hummus recipe: https://www.healthywithania.com/oil-free-sun-dried-tomato-hummus Connect with me: https://www.didyoubringthehummus.com Free Facebook group for fans of Did You Bring the Hummus - https://www.facebook.com/groups/didyoubringthehummus/ ©2023 Did You Bring the Hummus LLC Theme Song ©2020 JP Winters @musicbyjpw
Case #197: Invisible Illnesses "You Don't Look Sick" Classification: [Healthcare] This Episode OVPOD talks about a group of Illnesses that are Invisible. The people who have these Invisible Illnesses may look healthy, but in reality, are sick. From Mental Illness to Multiple sclerosis, from Chronic Pain to Crohn's disease, from Lupus to Lyme Disease, today we talk about empathy and understanding. Guests: Catitty, The Darkside Baker, The Void Lead Researcher: Ood Gallifrey Poison: The Darkside Baker's Pies Topics Mentioned: Healthcare, Chronic Illness, Chronic Pain, Pain Management, Substance use, Invisible Illness, History of Medicine -Pallet Cleanser- Song: Stardust Artist: Hoagy Carmichael Year: 1927 Audio Sources: Floating Cities Music: Kevin MacLeod License: CC BY 3.0 http://goo.gl/BlcHZR Inspired Music: Kevin MacLeod License: CC BY 3.0 http://goo.gl/BlcHZR Lamentation Music: Kevin MacLeod License: CC BY 3.0 http://goo.gl/BlcHZR Taking the 'invisible' out of invisible illnesses | Bethany Dawson Youtube TEDx Talks US: Opioids Crackdown Leaves Pain Patients Suffering Youtube Human Rights Watch What happens when you have a disease doctors can't diagnose | Jennifer Brea Youtube Ted I'm a 22-Year-Old With Fibromyalgia | Invisible Illness | Health Youtube Health Magazine -Sponsored by- Our Patrons at http://www.patreon.com/ovpod
In this episode, Heartland for Children's Natalya Clemens, Community Engagement Specialist, interviews Allison Montgomery, Child Protective Investigator Supervisor for the Substance Exposed Newborn (SEN) Unit for the Department of Children and Families regarding resources available to families in Polk, Highlands and Hardee Counties. To get connected to resources check out Hope Florida or speak with a Hope Navigator by calling 850-300-HOPE.
SHOW NOTESTranscripts available at creativepeptalk.com/episodes!Sign up to the newsletter and receive a FREE copy of The Creative Career Path e-book! https://www.creativepeptalk.com/pathCheck out the Creative Pep Talk shop at creativepeptalk.etsy.comMake Noise: A Creator's Guide to Podcasting and Great Audio Storytelling - Book by Eric NuzumHrishikesh Hirway's TED Talk: What you discover when you really listenSong Exploder - Podcast and TV ShowCALL TO ADVENTUREBecome British realty.Walk your audience through the construction of a piece or project you love.SPONSORSFONTSELFIf you've ever wanted to make your own font, Fontself makes it both fun & easy. With the Fontself app on iPad, you can start drawing and enjoying your own personal fonts in minutes! Just draw your letters and characters, and Fontself will handle the rest. Search for Fontself on the App Store or visit this link https://apple.co/3hJOw5KOUR PATREON BACKERSThank you patrons, we appreciate you so much! If you have the means, support the show at patreon.com/creativepeptalk!
Group coaching graduate, D, sits down with Lisa to talk about what has been like to navigate life as a highly sensitive person in a pointy world, what it means to figure out who you really are apart from your titles and roles, and coming to a place where it feels safe to live a true and authentic life. Topics: Being soft in a pointy world Abandoning your authentic self to belong Substance use Adjusting to motherhood The fear of being fat Binging and over exercise [2:20] D talks about learning to identify herself from the inside out by doing the work in group coaching and discusses why she chose not to identify herself as a licensed marriage and family therapist while she was a member [11:00] D recalls the early messages she received about being a deep, sensitive, intuitive, empathic being raised in Los Angeles in the 70s and 80s and how she coped as a little girl [15:00] D reflects the culture of food in her Jewish home how was a love language for her Bubby, while her mom was what they called a “health nut” [19:00] D remembers the demand for girls to be pretty (and therefore skinny) and her earliest memories of hearing women speak ill of each other's bodies [24:00] D discloses when food, eating, and body image really started coming to her consciousness and how her middle school classmates had a rating system for girls' bodies and faces, and how she abandoned so much of herself to fit in and belong [32:00] D talks about how pregnancy and motherhood brought food and eating issues to the forefront and what that looked like for her [43:00] D reflects on the feelings surrounding her second go at weight loss when her second child was 10 years old and how she ultimately came to recovery [56:00] D shares about her experience in 14 Week Group Coaching, coming in as a student and treating it as an intensive outpatient program [1:10:00] D talks about life since completing the program and what has really stuck with her and shares this quote from Rupi Kaur, “it was when I stopped searching for home within others and lifted the foundations of home within myself I found there were no roots more intimate than those between a mind and body that have decided to be whole.” Leave Questions and Feedback for Lisa via OOTC Pod Feedback Form Register for Group Coaching! - Only Two Spots Left – Next Cycle Begins Jan 2023 Email Lisa: email@example.com Become a Member of the Out of the Cave Online Community - Includes Two Live Coaching Calls Monthly Out of the Cave Merch - For 10% off use code SCHLOS10 Socials Instagram Facebook YouTube Resources: The Feelings Wheel
Happy New Year, everyone! We hope you all had a nice holiday season and that you had, or are planning to make, some time set aside for reflecting on what you went through in 2022 and to plan for what you would like to focus on in 2023. It's been a while since we have had back to back episodes in the same format (if you're new to The Substance, we're a variety show with 4 formats that we try to have a decently even mix of), but the Substantive Cinema episode that we'll be dropping on the 15th, which has an unintentional connection with this one, seemed like an odd choice for a New Year's Day release. But we love good books and you love good books so we're excited to share this one with you! Olivia Meade is a wife, mother, church leader, and in May of 2022 she released her first book, Ordinary Faithfulness: How Your Ordinary Life Reflects an Extraordinary God. It was published by Rural Church Voices, a "small collaboration of leaders who care deeply for the rural church and long to provide voices of support through writing, speaking, and practical training." We love the model of people writing to edify The Church rather than trying to top bestseller lists or build a brand. Olivia cares about building up the regular women and men who fill our churches and to encourage them in their day to day lives. We love this and hope you are encouraged too! Reminder that our IVP Holiday Sale is still going through 1/15 and that you can get 30% off + free shipping on InterVarsity Press titles from folks like Jasmine Holmes, Esau McCaulley, Josh Larsen, Kaitlyn Schiess, Alan Noble, Trevin Wax, and more! If you enjoy the show, consider leaving a rating & review on iTunes or Spotify and sharing with a friend! Shoutouts: RC Sproul's biography Puzzles with 4 y/o Follow Olivia: Linktree Rural Church Voices website New book coming out 2023! Follow Us: Website Instagram Twitter Facebook YouTube Channel Share Your Questions/Suggestions/Feedback With Us: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 913-703-3883 Support Us: Support the show with an individual donation on CashApp to $TheSubstancePod or become a monthly supporter at the Anchor link below! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesubstancepod/support
It is not as though Old Testament saints received only victory, while New Testament saints receive only persecution. Virtually all Old Testament saints experienced some measure of victory, but with much defeat. And all New Testament saints experience some measure of defeat, but with an ever progressing amount of victory throughout the Gospel Age.
TRIGGER WARNING: This episode has a more solemn vibe than most of my episodes. If it's your first episode of WYW; possibly check out a lighter one! Or don't! Up to y'all. It is very transparent, vulnerable, and raw. I open up about a lot of things including my recent struggles and shortcomings in hopes that it will help someone who feels like nobody could ever understand how long addiction has brought them. Today I dive into the other side of addiction (the side we don't really show on social media). The side that doesn't include pretty graphics or sparkly tik toks. I also speak directly to people with active addictions, people in addiction recovery, but most of all - I speak directly to their loved ones. The ones who carry a lot of weight that wasn't theirs to carry. Tap in and tune into today's energy. In this episode you'll hear me talk about: what addiction really costs you a vulnerable look into my life as someone living with addiction the importance of setting boundaries when you love someone with substance abuse issues protecting your energy when you love someone with substance abuse issues why it is SAFE for you to walk away when needed the ripple effect of your addiction onto others taking radical responsibility getting back on your feet after a slip or relapse understanding that addiction is a life long battle realizing that a few steps backward do not undo your leaps forward showing compassion to yourself even when it feels impossible living with the consequence of your choices/mistakes ✨ Hi fam! Thank you for streaming the Wishing You Wellness podcast. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to leave us a review/rating so this message can reach even more hearts & souls. If something resonated from this episode, feel free to reach out on Instagram @wishyouwell.podcast or shoot me an email at email@example.com if that feels more aligned for you! To check out more about the podcast + for access to my free workshops, mentorship program, future retreats, & more….head to my new website: ✨ xoxoallisoncoaching.com ✨
One of many archived episodes that's been locked away and never dropped because I procrastinated so here you go. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/getyourdailydos/message
We all love to get excited about things. Unfortunately in today's world though, so much of the hype today just doesn't live up to the hype. In other words, it lacks substance.I've been wanting to talk about this for some time and I finally feel like I have ample material for it... so let's go! I hope that this gives you some perspective when it comes to keeping your word and your peace, by always providing substance with the hype you deal out.Time Stamps:1:00 - Bringing together hype and substance1:30 - Going to war analogy (you need to know what you're fighting for)4:00 - The Kite Analogy5:10 - "You have this base, what are you going to do with it?"6:50 - It's like catching lightning in a bottle.9:10 - You can replace the position, but not the person10:00 - Justin Welsh's Course Creation Value StrategyResources Mentioned:Hebrews 11 - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/heb/11?lang=eng Justin Welsh - https://www.linkedin.com/in/justinwelsh/The Insane Power of Reciprocity Episode - https://www.buzzsprout.com/543310/11921090 More YIELD Today:Newsletter: dallincandland.substack.comYouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@yieldtodaypodcastCommunity on Discord: https://discord.com/invite/KR5cdstcEBQuotes:"The newsletter is the substance.""There's few things as powerful as hype that has a strategy behind it.""If you rely on the hype eventually it's going to die.""The substance reminds you of the hype, where the hype came from, and where it can ultimately take you.""With the hype there has to be substance.""Overpromising is way too much hype and way too little substance."Support the show
Thomas just talked about some amazing recruiting practices and you had time to put ideas on paper of how to recruit great talent. Now What? You have some resumes that look promising and you're excited that all your prayers might be answered with one of these resumes. Now it's time to start interviewing. This is the recruit's first impression of you and your organization. This sets the tone for everything from this point forward. Are you professional? Are you organized? Are you intentional? Are you mission-driven or chaos-driven? If you are professional, well organized, and intentional, then the recruit knows you mean business. They will either get scared and run or they will show up and show off for you because they want the job. Wouldn't you want to scare them off now, instead of 3 months from now when they have cost you over $10,000 to $25,000 in your time and resources, and then you have to do this recruiting, hiring and onboarding all over again? So, How are you giving the first impression to recruits of your business? You should be doing this with your 6-Step Hiring Process. Step 1 Phone Interview Do you have this mapped out with the specific questions you ask at your phone interview? Is this replicable so anyone in your organization can get on the phone and do a phone interview? Step 2 1st Live Sit Down Interview This is the time where you share vision/mission/values/culture to allow the candidate to determine if this is even the type of business they want to be a part of? Do you have this spelled out so you don't have to think when the candidate comes in for the interview. Step 3 Due Diligence (My favorite) This is where we are calling the candidate to tell them we want to move forward and we want to do personality profiling, call their references, and assign homework. Have you decided on a Personality profiling tool to use? How about calling on references? Do you have your questions written down on what questions you will ask when calling references? What homework do you have for the candidate? For a bookkeeper maybe reconcile a mock bank account, for an estimator, estimate an old job, for a marketing specialist design a logo. Step 4 2nd Live Interview preferable with other team members Here you are deep diving into the role and seeing how they act with the other team members. Again, do you have this written out and documented so you cover everything from their ideal weekly schedule to going over your MPR? Step 5 Spousal/Friend Dinner/Lunch, social In his 2011 book “EntreLeadership,” Dave Ramsey recommends that companies vet spouses to make sure their hire is not “married to crazy.” Dave says, “When hiring someone, you are employing more than just the person. You're taking on the whole family. And when they are married to someone who is domineering, unstable or simply full of drama, you'll end up with a team member who can't be creative, productive or excellent.” Go to lunch or dinner with your candidate and their spouse to find out if crazy lives at home. Step 6 Phone call and email with Offer. Some of you are saying “Patrice we got this, we have been interviewing & hiring for years” Great then how can you systemize it and make it better so anyone can take your hiring process and run with it. Alright, your Hiring process is complete and the candidate accepted your offer Yeah!! They start on Monday and all your problems are going to be solved. Let me tell you a story, Becky. Becky sent her resume to XYZ realty as a marketing specialist. She had all the qualifications for the role and was hired. Her first day she was shown her desk, given her laptop, set up on email, and then voila! She started marketing and it was the best marketing ever done for XYZ realty. I wish!! Becky isn't her real name because honestly, I don't remember it. XYC Realtry was the Miles and Smith Real Estate Group which I owned. Becky was my new recruit. She was going to change everything for our real estate group. We would start getting more leads now then ever with a part-time marketing specialist, right! Within two weeks I was wondering what in the world she was doing. I saw a post or two on social media, but besides that….I had no clue what she was doing. I sat down with her to ask and she showed me a couple of things but nothing substantial. I asked where her marketing calendar was, where her content creator checklist was, how was she keeping track of analytics so we knew what was working and what wasn't, what about a newsletter or updating the website, I mean she is a marketing specialist she should know all these things. How many times as business owners have we said “They should know this, they did bookkeeping before, they did project management before….They should know what to do, why do I have to tell them everything? Because what is common to you is not common to them. What is common to you is not common to me. What is common to you is not ever common to your spouse or your best friend who knows you inside and out. You have to train, set expectations and hold people accountable so what is common to you can become common to them. To do this you need an Onboarding Process, Checklist and Training Schedule Your Onboarding Process will set the tone for the future accountability and performance of your new employee. Is your Onboarding Process clearly defined? Your onboarding checklist allows you to list everything you want to go over during the training and who in your organization is going to do the training. Do you have an onboarding checklist with all the Admin/Tech/Projects/Software/Processes and General Company policy and procedures that you want to go over with your new employee during their training time. Your onboarding weekly training schedule will map out in timeblocks what they are going to be trained on from your checklist. Do you have a weekly training schedule spelled out for at least the 1st week. So what part of Onboarding do you need to create or perfect? Breakout. First 10 minutes spend on your Hiring Process. Every step of the hiring process is crucial. If you don't have a hiring process, then start creating one. If you already have a hiring process….What are you short cutting on in your hiring process? 2. Second 10 minutes spend on your Onboarding. What do you need to create or perfect? Your Onboarding Process, Checklist, and or Training Schedule. 3. Talk to your team and collaborate on best practices and be prepared to share a few ideas to the group when we come back.
Eggs are the base and the ‘binding force' of my Sunday morning – bratwurst frittata recipe – featured in this episode. Eggs are key to a multitude of the dishes we eat from day to day. But is eating too many bad for our health? Is the cholesterol they contain good or bad for us? If you consider that a single egg contains everything needed to usher a chicken into existence – eggs are clearly nutritious. What crucial substance to eggs contain that's needed for many physiological processes – like making Vitamin D – to the human body? We explore the “sunny side” of eggs and consider whether the egg “cholesterol risk” is really all it's “cracked up” to be on this #VitalSigns with Brendon Fallon. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV
On a new Wild For Change podcast, I speak with Miguel Franco, CFO and co-owner of Healthy Substance, a vegan Mexican restaurant located on the south side of Chicago. We will be speaking about how Healthy Substance got its start, what it means to eat vegan, and how eating vegan helps to save animals' lives. Healthy Substance is one of my favorite restaurants and is my go-to for vegan Mexican food!During the podcast we learn;What it means to eat vegan.How Healthy Substance got its start.How Healthy Substance is able to make delicious traditional Mexican food vegan. About Healthy Substance's mission; Operation: Save the Animals.About Miguel's courage to be a voice for farm animals. How we can all be heroes for animals and the planet.Website: http://www.wildforchange.com Twitter: @WildForChange Facebook: /wildforchange Instagram: wildforchange
We continue our series about THE TWILIGHT ZONE (which only has two episodes, but that's actually not too shabby) by covering three Christmas themed episodes of the show (“The Night of the Meek”, “Five Characters in Search of an Exit”, and “The Changing of the Guard”), plus A CAROL FOR …
This week Master Zi and Vindesh explore a world without substance. It sounds bleak at first, but every generation has faced a moment where they are confronted with new technology and culture shifts. What makes this one so different? AI, crypto, and VR are amazing advancements. What isn't advancing is the human condition. This week Zi shares excerpts from the Tao and Vedas in order to understand the past so we can know how we got here. We must learn how to use this technology, otherwise it may use us.
PREVIEW:An athlete may be winning trophies and medals, but sometimes we don't know that they can be losing a silent battle that they don't even talk about. Some athletes live up to expectations placed by other people and get pressured to push harder or else everyone will be disappointed at them. But if they don't prioritize their own mental health, how do we expect them to keep winning? In this episode, clinical therapist Chris Blankenship talks about the mental health challenges some athletes go through, the reason why some athletes decide to get treatment, and a message to the parents of athletes. GUEST PROFILE:CHRIS BLANKENSHIP, MSW, LCSWChris Blankenship is a Senior Clinical Therapist who works with transition-age young adults and their families at Open Sky. Chris' clear and direct therapeutic approach helps students deepen their understanding of their presenting issues as well as the underlying processes resulting in these symptoms. Using evidence-based treatment modalities, Chris provides direct and supportive techniques that help families to understand not just their child, but their entire family system. He strives to help his young adults stabilize, to give them the tools necessary for growth, and to provide a sophisticated assessment for future treatment options to effect positive change and growth.TOPICS COVERED: Athlete, Expectations, Mental Health, Sports, Substance, Therapy00:00 Intro01:55 What makes athletes prone to mental health challenges?05:09 The stigma around mental health treatment for athletes07:00 Increased awareness of the importance of mental health treatment08:13 Burnout, substance use, and other challenges10:55 Expectations and pressure14:13 Treating different types of athletes17:06 Transitioning athletics to life21:55 Finding direction (navigating new stage of life)25:30 Athletics and family dynamicsSELECT QUOTES:“Sports are innately a win or lose game.You're striving all day every day, to be the best at something, to vanquish your opponent. That kind of stress is going to lead to a lot of extra work. It's also going to lead to occasional failure, which puts you under a lot of pressure. I think with student athletes, they're also under pressure to be students.”There are actually a lot of studies that suggest that athletes participating in mental health treatment is significantly more likely to happen if they're being encouraged by their family or their friends. And it's really not that likely to occur if they're being encouraged by coaches or teammates, because those are the people that they're actually beholden to. Those are the people they want to be there for.”“It's disheartening because this is supposed to be a game. It's supposed to be fun, it's supposed to be entertainment, but what it turns into for a lot of people is really life or death. It turns into the difference between me being healthy and me losing control of my life.”“The majority of people that I've worked with who've been either college athletes or high-level high school athletes who are then transitioning out of it have done so well here because they see this as kind of the new sport. This is the new team.”“You might have to get back in the driver's seat a little bit and say, ‘Hey, I want you to figure things out and I want you to be happy. And it is okay if you take a different road….I know I once put pressure on you, but now this is your thing and it's been your thing for a long time.I want you to know that it is okay to find a new thing. It is okay if you want to go different.'”
To support this ministry and help us continue to transform lives around the world, please visit: https://bit.ly/3ufMJav You're listening to Bishop Darlingston Johnson, senior pastor at Harvest Intercontinental Church, Olney, MD. Learn more about Harvesters-Olney at www.harvestersolney.org
To support this ministry and help us continue to transform lives around the world, please visit: https://bit.ly/3ufMJav You're listening to Bishop Darlingston Johnson, senior pastor at Harvest Intercontinental Church, Olney, MD. Learn more about Harvesters-Olney at www.harvestersolney.org
Happy Holidays, Substance fam! We hope you are all enjoying the holiday season and carving out time for joy and contemplation along with all the festivities that go along with it. For our last show of 2022 we wanted to take an episode and devote it to the Advent & Christmas season and to do so, we invited a guest! Bette Dickinson is an artist and author from Traverse City, Michigan and she just released a beautiful new Advent devotional from InterVarsity Press, "Making Room in Advent: 25 Devotions For a Season of Wonder." The book begins each day's reading with a painting to stop and reflect on and invite the reader to engage in visio divina (Latin: divine seeing). We talk with Bette about her art and how engaging with it can help us in ways that a merely textual devotional may not, how the incarnation spotlights the lowly & underrepresented, the joys of slowing down during the holiday season, and more! We hope you have had a wonderful year and we look forward to being back in your feed on New Year's Day. Merry Christmas! Links/Resources: Buy Book Text "Justice" to 33777 Valor Shoutouts: Small Group Kensington Church The Firekeeper's Daughter by Angeline Boulley Celtic Benediction by J. Philip Newell Honest Advent by Scott Erickson Westbay Handmade Millie & Pepper Follow Bette: Website Shop Instagram Follow Us: Website Instagram Twitter Facebook YouTube Channel Share Your Questions/Suggestions/Feedback With Us: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 913-703-3883 Support Us: Support the show with an individual donation on CashApp to $TheSubstancePod or become a monthly supporter at the Anchor link below! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thesubstancepod/support
Podcasting 2.0 December 16th 2022 Episode 113: "Substance Dualism" Adam & Dave discuss the week's developments on podcastindex.org - The ONLY truthful podcast predictions anywhere are discussed in this weekly board meeting Last years predictions - I was right on every single thing FB + YT Podcasts - nope Club House etc - Nope Companies running out of money People getting fired Financial de-platforming I predict AI will suck and no one will use it in podcasting. Safety & Sustainability will make ad funded podcasts boring Safety and suitability outside your show - Podnews Weekly Apple 2.0 Subscribe button for heir paid subscriptions Last Modified 12/16/2022 15:00:05 by Freedom Controller
Welcome to Rodes Live Podcast. This week's bonus episode is an extension of the IG famous "Toxic Bible Study" held by King Jerm of The FROCAST(@Frocast) Uncle Dolomite of The Too Much Game Podcast(@TooMuchGame) or Jay Christian of The Cognac Room (@TheCogniac Room). I'm a member of the Toxic Bible Study congregation. This episode was inspired by one of my sponsors Francine Williams, so I decided to share this with the world. On this bonus episode @12Kyle from the 12 Kyle Podcast, Uncle Dolomite, King Jerm and Moe chop it up about some interesting topics. We come together to discuss multiple topics from different perspectives respectfully. Listen and make sure you follow @Frocast, @UncleDolomite, and @12Kyle as well as their podcast. Please follow and subscribe to their Podcasts. 12 Kyle Podcast The FROCAST TooMuchGame Podcast Subscribe to www.rodesonline.net and listen at Linktr.ee/Rodes PayPal email@example.com Cash App $RodesT20 #podcasts #podcast #podcasting #podcastersofinstagram #podcastlife #podcaster #podcasters #podcastshow #spotify #applepodcasts #youtube #podcastlove #newpodcast #spotifypodcast #podcastaddict #podcastinglife #comedy #music #radio #podcasthost #itunes #podcastsofinstagram #applepodcast #podcastmovement #podcastnetwork #love #entrepreneur #motivation #podcastcommunity #podernfamily --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rodes-hunt/support