Podcasts about Theoretically

"A million dollars a shot is my price. But I only take one a year. The rest of the time I maintain my skills." That was Francisco Scaramanga, the villain in The Man With the Golden Gun, played by the superb Christopher Lee. Who, interestingly, was a cousin of James Bond creator Ian Fleming and a regular golfing partner of his. Now, while I certainly wouldn't recommend following Scaramanga's career path, there's a valuable lesson in that line. The reason Scaramanga could ask such a high price was not because he worked all the time. It was because he spent most of his time practising, refining, and maintaining his skills so that when the moment came, he could perform at an exceptional level. And that brings us to this week's question, which is all about developing, and more importantly, maintaining, your skills at managing your work and your time.   Links: Email Me | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Linkedin   The COD Productivity Method  Learn more about the Quiet Productivity Method here   Get Your Copy Of Your Time, Your Way: Time Well Managed, Life Well Lived The Working With… Weekly Newsletter Carl Pullein Learning Centre Carl's YouTube Channel Carl Pullein Coaching Programmes Subscribe to my Substack  The Working With… Podcast Previous episodes page   Script |421 Hello, and welcome to episode 421 of the Your Time, Your Way Podcast. A podcast to answer all your questions about productivity, time management, self-development, and goal planning. My name is Carl Pullein, and I am your host of this show.  There's a belief, held by many, that becoming better at time management and productivity is something you learn once and then you're set.  Or all you need to do is buy the latest productivity tool and all your struggles disappear.  Hahaha, it's not quite so easy.  Theoretically, it may be possible to add a new app or use a new process for getting your work done. Unfortunately, life doesn't fit perfectly into the little boxes we create. There's always something different or new.  This is why the idea of plotting out every minute of your day on your calendar doesn't work in practice.  Simple, natural things are not always predictable. You don't know when you will need a bathroom break, or if a colleague asks you a question, or perhaps you spill your coffee all over your desk.  If any of these things happen when you have carefully mapped out every minute of your day, your day is ruined.  The missing pieces are flexibility and practice, and that is where this week's question comes in.  So, let me now hand you over to the Mystery Podcast Voice for this week's question.  This week's question comes from Kathy. Kathy asks, Hi Carl, I've recently taken your Time Sector System course and loved it. One thing that's worrying me, though, is that no matter how well I plan my week, by Tuesday, my whole plan is ruined. Do you have any tips on staying on plan when things become hectic? Hi Kathy, thank you for your question.  This is a common discovery. Once you know the theory, putting it into practice can show up bumps in the road that cause problems.  One of the first problems people face is changing habits. If, for instance, you've never planned a week or a day, getting into the habit of consistently doing so is hard.  After all, you've spent most of your life so far without having a plan; skipping a daily or weekly planning session isn't going to cause too many problems.  Yet when you are building your system, it's that skipping that causes a problem. The more times you don't do it, the longer it will take you to build the essential habits.  The goal is to use your new knowledge automatically. When you're processing your inbox, you instinctively know what to do. It's like there's a voice in your head asking the three questions: What is it? What do I need to do with it? When will I do it? When you start, asking these questions can be slow. You're naturally thinking too much. But when you've done it consistently for a few weeks, you think less, and you automatically move things to their rightful place.  Today, I can process an inbox of twenty items in less than 6 minutes. When I first started following this sequence of questions, though, it would easily have taken me twenty to thirty minutes. I was overthinking and learning patterns.  In one scene in The Man With the Golden Gun, Bond and Scaramanga are having lunch. The lunch begins amiably, but soon turns hostile. At one point, Bond reaches into his coat pocket to pull out his gun. The camera pans to Scaramanga, who is pointing his legendary golden gun at Bond.  The surprising thing here is that Scaramanga had to build his gun from a golden cigarette case, a lighter, a fountain pen, and a cufflink. All Bond had to do was pull his gun from his shoulder holster.  How was Scaramanga faster? Practice.  How many hours would Scaramanga have had to practice putting his gun together to get that fast?  I know, it's fiction. But the point is, you get faster the more you do something.  This is why people who continually switch apps are also consistently behind on their work. They remain stuck at being slow.  What's happening there is they have to learn new ways of getting things into their system, and then moving tasks, and learning all the new features. And that doesn't account for the time it takes to move everything over to the new app.  It's dead time. Instead, sticking with the apps you already have forces you to get better and faster at using them.  Then we come to the realisation that no two weeks are ever the same. No matter how carefully we plan something, things will inevitably go wrong.  This is where practice and experience come in.  I have a client who travels for work a lot. Sometimes he travels domestically; other times he travels internationally, often to the other side of the world, which involves 20 hours of flying time.  He found the Time Sector System worked brilliantly when he was working from his office, but it fell apart when he had to travel.  When we analysed the problem, we discovered that he was trying to run things the same way while travelling as he did at his office.  How many times have you booked a flight, found that WIFI would be available for the flight and thought, ah, I'll catch up on my email and messages when flying, only to discover that the WIFI doesn't work? Now, you could respond to your actionable emails while flying, but you won't be able to send them until you get into a WIFI zone. But that disruption to your plans can leave you feeling very frustrated.  The solution in this case was to have a travelling routine. On days when my client was travelling, he reduced his task list to the essentials. Rescheduling or postponing routine tasks  He also set up a routine for international travel, using the flight time to plan and clean things up. None of which required WIFI.  The first few times he used this new process, he found he needed to make adjustments, but after a few tries, he had it working perfectly.  And that's the key part. Build in flexibility.  In my client's case, it was not to try and follow the same system when travelling as he does when at the office.  When you plan your week, allow for the unexpected.  One way to do this is to ensure that, when you plan your week, you have time for the essential things. That would be your core work and the parts of your life you have decided are important. Time with family and friends, hobbies and exercise, for example.  Once you have those on your calendar, then really you have the beginnings of a solid plan that should be flexible enough.  Hopefully, you have already locked in your core work.  When I was a teacher, I had an hour each day protected for class preparation. I was teaching around four to five hours a day; those times were fixed each month and were non-negotiable. I had to be in the classroom teaching.  The class preparation time did change from day to day, but it was always there, and I tried to fix it around the same time each day, which made it much easier to make it a habit.  The unknowns often come from project work. Projects, by their very nature, are unique. Each one requires something different. You will find that while you may not be able to plan precisely what needs to be done at a weekly level, scheduling time to work on your projects each week will help ensure you have enough time to keep these moving forward.  If you've ever read Stephen Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, you will no doubt remember the chapter: Sharpen the Saw.  In the chapter, Stephen Covey uses the example of a wood cutter who's working so hard that they never stop to sharpen the saw. Over time, the time required to cut the tree increases, not because the woodcutter is getting weaker, but because the saw is becoming blunter.  Your time management and productivity skills operate the same way. Sometimes you have to stop and sharpen your skills.  For example, I use an iPhone, and every time Apple updates its iPhone operating system, I review my collecting methods to see if anything in the new software will make collecting faster.  For example, when Apple added the action button to their phones, it let me map that button to add tasks to my task manager's inbox. It's super fast, and after a few days it became automatic for me to tap the action button when I needed to add something.  The most productive people I know spend time improving their ability to produce. This is why athletes train, musicians practise scales, pilots rehearse procedures, and surgeons continually update their skills. The performance people see is only possible because of the preparation and practice nobody sees. This is also why the Scaramanga quote fits this question. His point was essentially the same. As he said: “The rest of the time I maintain my skills.” Scaramanga's version is darker, of course, but the principle is identical. Exceptional performance is not the result of the moment itself; it's the result of the time spent preparing for that moment. If you find that by Tuesday your plan for the week looks destroyed, allow for that when you plan your week.  One way you can do this is to plan your objectives.  What is it that you want to get accomplished next week? These could be: To finish an important proposal Get on top of your emails To clean up the garden  To exercise a minimum of four times To update your LinkedIn profile With these five objectives, you can then decide when you will do them.  One tip here is to front-load your week with these activities. This way, if you do get waylaid, there's still time to recover in the week.  This reminds me of a story from one of the world's top rugby coaches. When he joined a new team, he found that if the team got ahead early in the game, they invariably won.  However, when they went behind early on, the likelihood was they would lose.  When he analysed this, he found that the team panicked when they fell behind, dropped their plan, and spent too much of the game taking unnecessary risks to get ahead.  He reminded the team that it was an 80-minute game and that what really mattered was sticking to their plan.  Tackle aggressively, maintain their defensive line and minimise mistakes. If they stuck to that, they would likely end the game ahead.  You don't win games in the first twenty minutes. You win the game over 80 minutes. It's the same for you, Kathy; you don't win or lose the week early on. You win the week by sticking to your plan and making adjustments where necessary, without losing sight of it.  I hope that has helped. Thank you for your question. And thank you to you, too, for listening.  It just remains for me to wish you all a very, very productive week.   

Themes:How both researchers came to feminist sport sociology and began collaboratingWomen's recovery from depression — the link between movement, embodied experience and mental healthPara-sportswomen's experiences of gendered ableism, body shaming and being unheard by coachesMedicinal cannabis in sport and questioning the "spirit of sport"The Brisbane 2032 Olympics legacy project — engaging people currently outside sportBarriers to sport participation: belonging, body image, cost, identity and feeling unwelcomeCreative research methods — poetry and songwriting workshops with marginalised communitiesHockey program for Yazidi refugees in Toowoomba as a model for sport and trauma recoveryGender-based violence in sport — prevalence, under-reporting and institutional responsibilityAddressing the gender gap in disability sport (intersectionality of disability and gender)Queer fans and the Women's World Cup — invisible communities in legacy planningStrength and conditioning coaches' understanding of gender and its gapsRecommendations: intersectional approaches, diversifying leadership, questioning sport's normsand who they serveDr Simone Fullagar (she/they) is Professor and Chair of the Sport and Gender Equity research hub at Griffith University, Australia. She has published feminist, interdisciplinary sociological research using (post)qualitative approaches across sport, leisure and mental health fields. Simone collaborates with colleagues on a number of ARC projects that address gender equity and diverse forms of embodied movement. Her most recently book is Pavlidis, A., Fullagar, S., & O'Brien, W. (2025). Feminist futures for sport: Tracing the affective dynamics of gender equity in sport organizations, Palgrave. Simone lives on the unceded lands of the Yugambeh and Kombumerri peoples of the Gold Coast.Dr Adele Pavlidis is an Associate Professor in Sociology with the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, and previously a DECRA Fellow (2018 to 2021). She is author of three books, Sport, Gender and Power: The Rise of Roller Derby (2016, Routledge, with Simone Fullagar), Feminism and a Vital Politics of Depression and Recovery (Palgrave, with Simone Fullagar and Wendy O'Brien) and Feminist Futures in Sport: Exploring the Affective Dynamics of Change in Australian Rules Football and Roller Derby (2025, Palgrave, with Simone Fullagar and Wendy O'Brien).She has published widely on a range of sociocultural issues in sport and leisure, with a focus on gender and power relations. Theoretically her work traverses contemporary scholarship on affect, power and organizations, and she is deeply interested in social, cultural and personal transformation and the entanglements between people, organizations, and wellbeing.She is currently Director of the Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Treasurer of the Australian Women's and Gender Studies Association, and Co-Chair of the Sportand Gender Equity (SAGE) research hub at Griffith University. 

Themes:How both researchers came to feminist sport sociology and began collaboratingWomen's recovery from depression — the link between movement, embodied experience and mental healthPara-sportswomen's experiences of gendered ableism, body shaming and being unheard by coachesMedicinal cannabis in sport and questioning the "spirit of sport"The Brisbane 2032 Olympics legacy project — engaging people currently outside sportBarriers to sport participation: belonging, body image, cost, identity and feeling unwelcomeCreative research methods — poetry and songwriting workshops with marginalised communitiesHockey program for Yazidi refugees in Toowoomba as a model for sport and trauma recoveryGender-based violence in sport — prevalence, under-reporting and institutional responsibilityAddressing the gender gap in disability sport (intersectionality of disability and gender)Queer fans and the Women's World Cup — invisible communities in legacy planningStrength and conditioning coaches' understanding of gender and its gapsRecommendations: intersectional approaches, diversifying leadership, questioning sport's normsand who they serveDr Simone Fullagar (she/they) is Professor and Chair of the Sport and Gender Equity research hub at Griffith University, Australia. She has published feminist, interdisciplinary sociological research using (post)qualitative approaches across sport, leisure and mental health fields. Simone collaborates with colleagues on a number of ARC projects that address gender equity and diverse forms of embodied movement. Her most recently book is Pavlidis, A., Fullagar, S., & O'Brien, W. (2025). Feminist futures for sport: Tracing the affective dynamics of gender equity in sport organizations, Palgrave. Simone lives on the unceded lands of the Yugambeh and Kombumerri peoples of the Gold Coast.Dr Adele Pavlidis is an Associate Professor in Sociology with the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, and previously a DECRA Fellow (2018 to 2021). She is author of three books, Sport, Gender and Power: The Rise of Roller Derby (2016, Routledge, with Simone Fullagar), Feminism and a Vital Politics of Depression and Recovery (Palgrave, with Simone Fullagar and Wendy O'Brien) and Feminist Futures in Sport: Exploring the Affective Dynamics of Change in Australian Rules Football and Roller Derby (2025, Palgrave, with Simone Fullagar and Wendy O'Brien).She has published widely on a range of sociocultural issues in sport and leisure, with a focus on gender and power relations. Theoretically her work traverses contemporary scholarship on affect, power and organizations, and she is deeply interested in social, cultural and personal transformation and the entanglements between people, organizations, and wellbeing.She is currently Director of the Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Treasurer of the Australian Women's and Gender Studies Association, and Co-Chair of the Sportand Gender Equity (SAGE) research hub at Griffith University. 

It's Question Time, and today's episode features an engaging question from one of our listeners based on Tim's argument that animals (including beloved pets) go to heaven. If that's true, says this listener, then how is God good if my child who I love MORE than my pet might be going to Hell? Josh and Tim tackle this philosophically, theologically, and pastorally. Want to ask a question? Go to our website: https://www.freethinkingministries.co... Check out Tim's Second Edition of Mere Molinism: https://us.amazon.com/Freedom-Divine-... Check out Josh's Novel: https://us.amazon.com/Fracture-Joshua... Tim's Article and Argument for pets going to heave: https://www.freethinkingministries.co... The full e-mail: I love my dog, but I love my child more. The following may reveal my own selfishness in that I don't want my child to choose what he desires (a life without Christ). Though I believe in freewill, I am almost to the point where I wish God did not grant it. I'd rather have my child "a robot" in Heaven with God and me than have him freely choose his eternal destination. I am concerned for a day when my son's sin takes him to the point of a totally seared conscience. Though my son is not a drug addict, a drug addict gets to the point of addiction when he knows not what he does in harming his own body, mind, etc. Isn't any sin this way? We know not what we do. We, as fallible creatures, don't know what's best for us. Only our Creator knows this, and yet He allows us to choose wrongly?!? Why?!? Why would God take an animal to heaven while allowing a mother or father who would die for their child (a human being made in God's image, unlike an animal, and "worth more than the birds of the air") to be separated from him for eternity? It is said that to have loved and then lost is better than to have never loved at all, but I'm not so sure right now. Pictures and memories of my son's "innocence" in childhood haunt me. Yet some say God wipes away such memories in Heaven, but don't you think we will know more, not less, in Eternity? To wipe that child from one's memory seems diminishing. Even to suggest annihilation (a theory I don't favor) would not soften the wounds of loss to a mother's heart. No longer existing seems to delegitimize any life. Even the truth of someday having a better understanding of God's holiness and justice regarding my own flesh and blood is gut wrenching (I agree we all deserve Hell). Why are we to lay down our lives for sinners now in reaching them for Christ but will eventually rejoice in jubilation when the time of their destruction comes? Why would God have fashioned such motherly sentiments to unconditionally love and sacrificially nurture if we were to suffer this pain of eternal separation? If God loves me and if God knew my child would not follow Him, why did He bring about a world allowing him to be created? Or to survive infancy? Theoretically, even abortion (God forbid!) would have been a better outcome as, if I'm correct in my theology, such would eventually reunite us. Is abortion a virtue in that all babes are saved from damnation? God forgive the thought! We are told to be fruitful and multiply, but why even risk having children if there's a possibility of having even one child…or grandchild or great grandchild or a great-great separated from you forever? Obedience beyond understanding? I don't want one from my family tree or one acquaintance or even one stranger to be lost! The only remedy I see to this scenario as we are to love even our enemies is universal reconciliation, also a theory I do not favor...because of free will! Can you help me with these excruciating dilemmas? For my sanity's sake I have to believe all my children will be with God in eternity, but since I don't believe universalism is biblical, what of those others who will be separated eternally from loved ones? Is the only answer to trust God? Thank you greatly for your time; I appreciate any help you may provide this hurting mama. ➡️ CHAPTERS ⬅️  00:00 Introduction 04:00 What Led to An Argument About Animals Going to Heaven? 05:35 The Reasonable Hope That Pets Go To Heaven Argument 11:00 Introducing Kim's E-mail - I Kind of Wish My Child Was a Robot 16:48 Why Would God Take an Animal and not my Son? 38:55 Will We Not Remember Pain In Heaven? 47:52 We Will Rejoice with Jubilation When People Go to Hell? 53:13 Why Would God Give Me A Child He KNOWS Will Reject Him? 1:04:00 Why Even Risk Having Children If They COULD Go to Hell? 1:10:30 Is Universalism the Only REAL Hope? 1:19:23 Concluding Thoughts ➡️ SOCIALS ⬅️ Website: https://freethinkingministries.com F acebook:   / freethinkinc   Instagram:   / freethinkinc   X: https://x.com/freethinkmin TikTok:   / freethinkinc   #Apologetics #FreeThinking #Christianity

Though Saddam Hussein tried to develop them and North Korea is accused of stockpiling them, biological weapons have been considered taboo for decades. Theoretically they're banned. But intelligence agencies and military leaders are increasingly warning of wider clandestine programmes to develop deadly mass toxins, and A.I. is lowering the barriers to entry dramatically. As governments scramble to keep up and frontier tech runs out of control, are we about to enter a new age of bioweapons and bioterrorism?  Gavin Esler talks to Dr Cassidy Nelson, director of biosecurity policy at the Centre for Long-Term Resilience, about this rising threat and what we can do about it.  Advertisers! Want to reach smart, engaged, influential people? Some 3.5 MILLION people download and watch our podcasts every month – and they love our shows. Why not get YOUR brand in front of our influential listeners with podcast advertising? Contact ads@podmasters.co.uk to find out more. • Support us on Patreon to keep This Is Not A Drill producing thought-provoking podcasts like this. Written and presented by Gavin Esler. Produced by Robin Leeburn. Original theme music by Paul Hartnoll – https://www.orbitalofficial.com. Executive Producer Martin Bojtos. Managing Editor Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor Andrew Harrison. This Is Not A Drill is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sometimes leadership is modeled in small ways — like leaving work at 4 p.m. and meaning it. Not because the job's done — but because you're showing your team that life outside of work matters too. SUMMARY In this Long Blue Leadership podcast, Mark Michalek '99, human capital director for the FBI, shares leadership tips for more resilient teams.   SHARE THIS EPISODE LINKEDIN  |  FACEBOOK   MARK'S TOP LEADERSHIP TAKEAWAYS 1. Transforming trauma into purpose Turning childhood loss and adversity into a lifelong calling in public safety, service and leadership 2. Post-traumatic growth vs. post-traumatic stress Reframing exposure to trauma as a potential catalyst for growth, resilience and deeper empathy in leaders 3. Whole-person leadership Leading people as complete humans — on duty, off duty, past and present — rather than just as job roles 4. Mental fitness as performance, not weakness Positioning counseling, wellness and psychological support as tools to optimize performance, not signs of failure 5. Modeling the behavior you want to see Leaders leaving at 4 p.m. for family, openly seeing counselors and visibly prioritizing health to give others “permission” to do the same 6. Leading in high-consequence environments Staying the “steady hand to land the plane” during crises like mass casualty events, while empowering experts on the ground 7. From doing the work to leading the work Shifting from frontline case work (violent crime agent) to enterprise-level leadership that shapes culture and systems 8. The power of networks and extended family in uniform Leveraging the Long Blue Line and law enforcement community as a lifelong support, mentorship and resilience network 9. Discipline, recovery and sustainable performance Rest, running and intentional unplugging as essential leadership disciplines — not optional extras 10. Long-view leadership and legacy Seeing careers (military, FBI) as chapters, focusing on integrity, service and excellence, and building organizations your kids would proudly join   CHAPTERS 00:00:00 – Welcome & Introduction 00:00:30 – Early Life and Father's Suicide 00:02:00 – Finding an Extended Family in Law Enforcement 00:03:00 – Civil Air Patrol, Flying and the Path to USAFA 00:04:15 – Cadet Years, Setbacks and First Responder Leadership 00:07:25 – Choosing Security Forces and First Leadership in Nuclear Convoys 00:09:45 – From Military to FBI: Mental Fitness and Post-Traumatic Growth 00:15:15 – Balancing Family, Leadership Loneliness and Modeling Self-Care 00:19:15 – Leading Through Crisis: Inside the Boulder Attack Response 00:27:30 – Lessons, Legacy and Advice for Future Leaders   ABOUT MARK BIO Mark Michalek is a senior leader in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, currently serving as human capital director, a role to which he was appointed by Pam Bondi, former U.S. attorney general. In this capacity, Michalek leads enterprise policy and strategy for human resources, security, internal affairs, compliance and training across the Bureau's 38,000-person global workforce. A 1999 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, Michalek previously served as special agent in charge of the FBI's Denver field office, where he oversaw operations throughout Colorado and Wyoming. He is the highest-ranking FBI special agent who is also a military veteran.   CONNECT WITH MARK LINKEDIN   CONNECT WITH THE LONG BLUE LINE PODCAST NETWORK TEAM Ted Robertson | Producer and Editor:  Ted.Robertson@USAFA.org Send your feedback or nominate a guest: socialmedia@usafa.org   Ryan Hall | Director:  Ryan.Hall@USAFA.org  Bryan Grossman | Copy Editor:  Bryan.Grossman@USAFA.org Wyatt Hornsby | Executive Producer:  Wyatt.Hornsby@USAFA.org     ALL PAST LBL EPISODES  |  ALL LBLPN PRODUCTIONS AVAILABLE AT USAFA.ORG/LONGBLUELEADERSHIP AND ON ALL MAJOR PODCAST PLATFORMS FULL TRANSCRIPT SPEAKERS Guest, Mark Machalek '99  |  Host, Lt. Col. (ret.) Naviere Walkewicz '99   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  00:11 Well, Mark, welcome to Long Blue Leadership. This is truly an honor, as your classmate, Class of '99. We go back, gosh, 30 years.   Mark Michalek  0:18 It is so exciting to see you again and to be here at USAFA; to have this conversation is just priceless. So thank you.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  00:27 Who knew we'd be doing this this many years?   Mark Michalek  00:28 That's right.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  00:31 Many may not know you've been in security forces as an active-duty officer, you went into the FBI, and you've really been in this public safety kind of realm. But we're going to dive in with, I think, a moment in time that really shaped you, and just in something I learned about you just recently. So you're 5 years old, and you shared with me that your dad actually, he took his life — death by suicide, right? And it shaped you in a way, when you're thinking about your role in public safety. Do you mind kind of sharing that with us?   Mark Michalek  01:00 When I was 5 years old, my dad died by suicide, and I was an only child, and he was my absolute hero. He was a local police officer, so my earliest memories of childhood were wearing his uniform and seeing the squad car and being around officers. And I think that really solidified my future in public safety.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  01:26 Your hero, something that you were exposed to. Tell me, as a 5-year-old, what did that start to look like? Where did you see that show up in, you know, in school, in your sports, like, just in the way you lived? How did, how did you navigate that?   Mark Michalek  01:40 So quickly I had an extended family. As I went to the playground and were around town, squad cars would show up,and police officers would come by and, you know, give me a pop or come in and check with me and see how I was doing and see how my mom was doing. And that really laid a foundation for me of a sense of an extended family of the police department being more than just a job in the balance of that. That sense of camaraderie and togetherness with the mission, I think, really shaped my childhood. I became very, very active. And I don't know if that was by design or divine intervention, or what, but it was kind of, you know, the object in motion stays in motion. I was on the run, literally on the run. Loved to run long distance. I quickly got into Civil Air Patrol as soon as I was old enough to do so, and got exposed to the Air Force that way. I got my private pilot's license at 17, I soloed before I got my driver's license and was destined to come to the Academy.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  02:48 Wow. I mean, you were accomplishing so much so quickly. Were you always like that was, did you see others in your life like that? Was your dad that way?   Mark Michalek  02:59 It's interesting in retrospect, to see if that was inherited or that was kind of a response to the trauma. I kind of think it was a response. I'm the only person in my family to have moved outside of Flint, Michigan. So folks were very stable and stayed where they were, but I was just constantly moving. You know. As we're talking, I remember I was the youngest Red Cross CPR instructor for the county at 15. I formed a K-9 search-and-rescue unit for police departments to train dogs to help find missing people. And I guess that was just a response to what had happened, and it really planted a seed in me that life is short, and I've had this drive to just leave it all on the field, to keep moving forward, to do more and more, to be able to, you know, focus on public safety and to protect people.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  03:54 So you showed up at USAFA. You knew — you went to Civil Air Patrol and USAFA was in your sights. I remember you as a cadet, and you're always a go-getter as well. Let's talk about a little bit your cadet years, and maybe some of where you saw that evolution of yourself as a leader, but also maybe how it showed up through, you know, go-getting and continually pushing that.   Mark Michalek  04:16 My first setback was I wasn't initially accepted. I got a Falcon Foundation scholarship. And it was really a fork-in-the-road decision — “Do you kind of take a year off and go this route and reapply, or do you go another route?” I ended up going, obviously the Falcon Foundation route. Went to Marion Military Institute, and I'm so glad I did, because it set me up to be a cadet and to be in the same class as you. You know, that cadet experience is just such a sensory overload. I wasn't an athlete. I joke that my athletics were just kind of graduating, like I just needed to focus on academics and surviving the day. But then I started to see some kind of opportunities to give back. And I kind of see these themes throughout my life. Myself and two of our classmates formed the cadet first responder team back in '97, I think. And that was really just, again, interest in public safety and a recognition that we needed some more kind of support for cadet-related activities. You know, 24/7 we've got the fire department and EMS here, but to understand the cadet experience and to be able to help out. So my sponsor was a paramedic in Colorado Springs, and a lot of ride time with him.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  05:37 That kind of worked out really well.   Mark Michalek  05:39 Again, divine intervention. And so we formed this team. We got our EMT certification on nights, and we're able to help out, and, you know, provide practical experience. If you remember that Class of 2001 was absolutely decimated during Recognition. Remember, we had to have a timeout. There was — we had to have a time to say, “Look, like, we got to, you know, we got to rein this in,” and so we were able to provide a lot of support there. But as I progressed in the Academy, you know, public safety, protecting people, continued to resonate with me, and was one of the reasons I chose behavioral science as a as a track, partly…   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  06:19 Not because you didn't love math?   Mark Michalek  06:21 Partly because I probably wouldn't have graduated.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  06:24 I was right here — social sciences too.   Mark Michalek  06:28 Yeah, you know, you got to go where you're strong, right? But I knew that regardless, we'd be working with people. And then to tie it back to my dad to understand why somebody with a family would take their own life was still something that I was struggling with, and so that really led me to a psychology track. But this drumbeat of public safety really continued to resonate with me, and it's really the main reason that I chose security forces as a career field. I mean, I was medically qualified to fly. Already had a private pilot's license.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  06:59 Right. That was actually what I was gonna ask you, because you had that.   Mark Michalek  07:03 Partly because although I have my license, I get horrifically air sick, which is a weird dynamic.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  07:11 And yet you kept pushing yourself. Amazing.   Mark Michalek  07:12 Yeah. So if I'm flying, I don't get sick, but if I'm a passenger, then I get sick. So I didn't want that as a career choice for me, but I wanted to lead people where they were. I wanted to lead on the ground in the public safety space, and so that's why I chose security forces.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  07:28 So let's talk about that a little bit. You know, as a security forces officer, you saw many things. I'm certain of it. But was there a moment when you actually had a leadership kind of moment for yourself that you grew — different from when you're a cadet — but in the moment leading some security forces, men and women, was there a moment that you grew that way?   Mark Michalek  07:49 Yeah, I think right out of the gate, because as soon as you're a second lieutenant in security forces, you are leading airmen. So my first assignment was at F.E. Warren as a nuclear weapon convoy commander — a team of 40 airmen. So there's no diffusion responsibility, there's nowhere to hide. Like, you are it. And that was the first practical application of leadership for me. Theoretically, and you know, within the Cadet Wing, you're kind of in this microcosm to test some things out and develop who you're going to be as a leader. But once you hit the ground, like, that is it. And to be able to motivate, inspire a team of people in a mission to protect nuclear weapons when there hasn't been a direct attack in our history is difficult, but now I look back as a 23-year-old lieutenant running a nuclear weapon convoy with the world's most important weapon on the open highways is an incredible responsibility. But that's really, I think, where the rubber meets the road, where you start to see what leadership looks like for you. It's not the same for everybody, right? You take bits and pieces of people and in theories and apply really what the moment requires. And in security forces, you really start to see the value of the senior noncommissioned officers, and although you have the authority, they have the reputation and the ability to deliver and so it's more art than science. And so I learned that very quick, right out of the gate.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  09:12 That makes a lot of sense. And something that you said, I think, is really important. You know that that human piece of it, when I think about the pace in which security forces and a lot of our law enforcement roles live in. My question for you might be, how did you help those handle kind of challenging moments or stress, right? You kind of go towards, “Give me more,” take on more, stay busy. Not everyone is wired the same. So did you have airmen that struggled in how they dealt with, you know, things, trauma, etc., and how did you coach or lead them through that?   Mark Michalek  09:45 Back then, there really wasn't a lot of support. There really wasn't a recognition. There was still a stigma, both in the military and law enforcement, of “I can't disclose that I'm having a problem. You're going to take my secure clearance, you know, you're going to take my weapon, I'm going to lose my job, I'm going to be embarrassed.” And so at that time, there really wasn't a safety net or an openness to discuss it, so you kind of just dealt with it. So it was more of telegraphing as a leader of what your values were, in hopes that people would kind of, you know, reach out if they needed help. In my time in the FBI, I was able to influence decisions and policies, to be able to be more accommodating, to kind of focus on the whole person and look at our individual followers as a function of performance, as opposed to, you know, you're my responsibility when you're in uniform from 9 to 5 and then you're off duty. You know, life is not my concern as a leader.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  10:47 You know there are times when you're leading folks and you might have the authority to do some things. Did you start to implement some of those programs or support resources, etc., as an agent, or when you were at a higher-level authority?   Mark Michalek  11:00 In FBI, it was at a higher level. So, you know, one of the reasons I left the Air Force after six years, it was a tough decision. And it wasn't running away from something, it was running towards something. And I recognized, you know, when we were company-grade officers, the trajectory is kind of baked in. You will continue to promote, but you will lead people. I wanted to do the work. I didn't want to just lead the people doing the work. I wanted to do the work for myself, and that was one of the reasons I joined the FBI. But going through as a case agent for 13 years on a violent crime squad and being exposed to some of the different things that my dad was exposed to, that others were exposed to, it really laid a foundation as I pursued leadership to be able to have greater influence as I moved up the organization, to set that culture towards mental fitness and resilience and really as a function of optimizing performance.   Naviere Walkewicz  11:55 Can you talk about that a little bit more? Tell me what you mean by mental fitness and resilience.   Mark Michalek  12:00 So, you know, law enforcement and military both, over the past 20 years, have made significant progress in kind of chipping away at that stigma. We're not where we need to be yet, but we're making really, really good progress. I equate our work to that of an Olympic athlete. It's not just running the race. Olympic athletes are obsessed with their craft, whether it is nutrition, sleep, mental imagery, you know, different types of runs to test different types of muscles and stamina and endurance, but they look at the whole person. So too should we in law enforcement and in the military. So as I got into leadership positions, you kind of block and tackle for your people and let them run, and you set the trajectory of your unit, your squad, your team, your division, your organization, on how they move forward. And so I really push that whole-person concept, that you are a whole person, not just your 9-to-5, but your off duty, your on duty, your past, your present, and all of that needs to be optimized for you to perform the mission. I was very fortunate at our entry level senior executive service position to be at our headquarters and be responsible for — it's called our employee health and performance section, but the clinical staff at the FBI, the psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, nurses, social workers, to be able to drive that culture and to move from post-traumatic stress to post-traumatic growth. And I needed to experience that as an agent. I needed to be on mass casualty scenes. I needed to be engaged with victims of crime to understand what that looked like, what that felt like, to project what my dad had experienced, but to recognize as humans, we are not wired to see what we are requiring our people to see and do time and time again, and we just require them to go out, to go out, to go out — instead, to provide mental health counseling, which in the FBI, we do, not only for the employee, but for their spouse, which I think is very important, and kids, for that matter, to be able to recognize that, yeah, like, you're not super human. It's OK to not be OK. You're not going to lose your clearance and your gun. People that lose their clearance do so because they compensate in maladaptive ways, whether that's drugs or alcohol or anything like that. And so that's been rewarding to drive that culture, to push the creation of employee assistance, counselors, these are mental health practitioners, chaplains, peers, just to be able to let that culture permeate, and to be able to demonstrate from the top, I'm very open about my dad and how that has shaped my life, to be able to telegraph that, you know, post-traumatic growth is possible, and there are a variety of resources out there now. And there's science and research, and there's just a recognition that the way that we are wired, you can't just keep going 100 miles an hour. You've got to go back to being that Olympic athlete and have a rest in a work and schedule and to be able to push yourself and to relax and just think holistically.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  15:16 The term itself post-traumatic growth is one that I'm not familiar with. But when you explain it that way, it's very clear. And my question to you might be, how have you for yourself, personally — you know, you're a husband, you're a father, you know, you have seen things, and then you go home and while you do have counseling for family members and for yourselves as well, what does that look like, this post-traumatic growth, when you go home personally.   Mark Michalek  15:45 You know, it's really tough to practice what you preach. We're really good about setting a vision for an organization as leaders and taking care of other people, but not taking care of ourselves. And what really flipped the switch for me was reframing the perspective on telegraphing for others to create the permission structure that it's OK, and when they see you do that, then they know it's OK. So for example, in FBI culture, same for the military, like if the boss is in the office, you've got to stay there, or you've got to be there till 5 o'clock. That's fine if you have work to do, but what sense does it make to sit there just because you know your boss is there? So one of the things that I did as I approached senior leadership was I left every day at 4 o'clock, and I made sure they saw me leave. And it's not — I'm going out to go play golf or whatever, but I am going back to be with my family. And in all the assignments I've had — I've moved several times in the FBI — I've made it a point to be home for dinner, and that is the stability for the family, for my girls, for me, and we'll have our dinner and put the kids to bed, and I'll get back and do more work, but being able to telegraph that, you know — I was the special agent in charge of our Denver field office — and as you move into the senior ranks, it's an incredibly lonely job. When you are at the top, there's no way you can talk to you can't gripe to people below you, you know, you've got to have a strong peer network, and you've got to put on the oxygen mask first to be able to help others, and that takes consistent kind of messaging. It takes some consistent actions to be able to show we're putting our money where our mouth is, and then engaging with employee assistance counselors. I talked regularly with ours, and I wanted people to see that, yeah, it's confidential, and there's no shame in that. You would have no problem putting on your squad calendar that you're going to a dentist appointment at 10 o'clock tomorrow. We want to get to a point where that's all “I'm going to go talk to the counselor.”   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  17:49 Have you seen the benefits of that, since the agency has made some of these changes?   Mark Michalek  17:55 I have, you know, over the past 20 years, the scale, speed and scope of critical incidents is just unimaginable. It's now commonplace for mass shootings. You know, when we were here at the Air Force Academy — Columbine —   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  17:49 I was just thinking that when you brought that up.   Mark Michalek  17:55   And now it's almost every single week. The FBI is very similar to the military in that we are mission focused. You know, our job is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution and the threat spectrum has exponentially changed. We have to deliver again. There is nowhere to hide. There's no diffusion of responsibility. When I was the special agent in charge for the Denver field office, we were the FBI for Colorado and Wyoming, and whatever happened, we had to deliver. And so we're not afforded the luxury to not respond. And it takes principled decision making in the development of culture to practice and plan and prepare and create that permission structure, because you know what's going to happen, and when it happens, it hits hard, and we've got to deliver. We have to be mission focused and get the job done, but we have to take care of ourselves on the back end, and that takes purposeful decision making by leaders to carve out that time and say, “Nope, we're going to take a timeout.”   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  19:19 Well, let's talk a little bit about that actual example, but let's talk about the Boulder attack. And you know, what was your role and approach as the leader, you know, in that lonely role as a leader, but to really kind of navigate that. Can you talk about that with us?   Mark Michalek  19:37 Unfortunately, the Denver Field Office has had their fair share of critical instances to respond to. So we've got our reps in over the course of time, but that performance just doesn't happen overnight. It takes a lot of work in policy development, in exercises, in pressure testing assumptions to be able to deliver when the moment requires it. The Boulder attack happened on June 1, on a Sunday. And so many things happen at one time. You know, our society has changed where, you know, it's a 24/7, news cycle, and things are happening in real time. You no longer have the built-in delays, because you've got to get to a phone to make a call, and so this is happening, unfolding in front of you in real time, and there's so many things you're responsible for as the leader. I think when it comes to times of crisis, people want stability. They want reassurances. They want a steady hand to land the plane. And that's what my focus was on, that although I have the same emotions, anxiety, stress that is happening, we need to be the steady hand to land the plane. We focused the culture in Denver on direct community impact and supporting partners. I think there's a misperception with the FBI that we have to be the lead. And you know, when the feds come in, they take it over, and, you know, here we go. But that's not the case. We can prop up local law enforcement and to provide the forensic, technical, analytic, tactical, behavioral expertise that they may not have or may be overwhelmed due to the size of the incident. And thankfully, we have a strong relationship with the Boulder Police Department. And so the chief called me personally as he was, I could hear the siren in the background as he was rolling to the scene. So we have plans in place, just like the military when there's a crisis and you send that flare up, and you execute the crisis-management plan, and you work in real time. Everything's moving at 100 miles an hour. Being the leader in that situation, you are getting torn in multiple directions. So you have your employees responding to the scene. You have local law enforcement. You have elected leaders here in Colorado, they want to know what's happening. You have elected leaders in D.C. that want to know what's happening to the point where my phone broke. So many phone calls at once, like, it was fried. And so again, like focusing on — I've got to be the steady drumbeat. I've got to be measured here, to telegraph that we've got this, but also a trust and confidence that your people do have it and to get out of the way. They're the experts. I'll block and tackle for them and let them run, and I telegraphed that in our culture, and let them run, and they did phenomenal. And I focused on what my responsibility was on, was not on being at the scene and seeing what's going on in that, it was engaging with executive leaders to be able to understand what we have, what resources we need, and to be able to deliver now at that time. Given the context of what was happening overseas, we knew this would be an international — of international interest immediately, so it could either go very well and controlled, or it could be absolutely horrible. And so that's another layer of pressure. And when you go back to the fundamentals at the Air Force Academy, of when it matters most, that you buckle your chinstrap on the helmet, and you just get to it, and you immediately go into that mode and distance your emotions and thoughts and anxieties, and put those to the side and focus on the mission at hand. And we knew when we were giving statements in the press that it would be carried internationally, so a different layer of stress as a leader. You know, we had simultaneous operations. We had the scene — the subject had a makeshift flamethrower and threw Molotov cocktails. There was about 15 victims at the time that were transported. Luckily, he was arrested by a Boulder police officer on the scene. But we also had activity in Colorado Springs, where his house was. So generate search warrants and everything for that, and then a mobile command post to assist Boulder PD. But nowadays, you know, we're running leads all over the world, because what we don't know at the macro level is, is this a distraction? Is there another attack happening? Is this part of a pattern that we've got to figure out in very short order?   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  24:20 I'm curious, because I remember the reason why you left active duty, or you transitioned from active duty to the FBI, because you wanted to be in the things doing, the things you find yourself now in, positions where you're leading. How have you grown as a leader yourself? What have you learned about yourself in this? Not being able to be the one doing, but like you said, blocking and tackling? Like, how have you grown yourself?   Mark Michalek  24:42 So I was a violent crime agent when I first graduated from Quantico, and I did that for about 12 years, and it was all about impact for me. So I worked bank robbery and armored car robbery scenes. And I remember this. I remember these scenes as we're talking, but I — you go to a chaotic scene like that, with yellow tape and local law enforcement there, and people crying and physical evidence and blood on the ground, and people are looking for somebody to take control. And I remember walking out of my car with that gun and badge on my hip, and you could feel it. “Here comes the FBI.” OK, they've got this and to be able to turn order into chaos, or chaos into order, and create, you know, develop evidence, make a case, prosecute it, provide that sense of closure for victims. That was the juice for me, in that direct community impact. But then I started to feel the calling of leadership from the military, and I started to see that as you move up the ranks, you're able to make more and more impact with a greater group of people. And that became the juice for me. And so in the FBI, it's not as linear as the military, where you, you know, you just move up here, you can kind of go up and down or sideways. But that really motivated me to be able to give back that public safety kind of motivation in larger and larger groups of people. And often when it comes to leadership, whether you're in the military or the FBI, there's kind of this imposter syndrome of like, “Do I really have this?” But you look back and say, “Look at all the things I've been doing, look at all the experiences I've had, all the different places I've led all over the world, and it's turned out just fine. I've got this.” And to move up and up the ranks and to make decisions and lead larger and larger groups of people and learn from those decisions — that was my spark. And then at that point, I just continued down the pipeline. I'm at a point now where I'm operating and leading at the enterprise level, which is impactful, stressful, humbling and rewarding, but that special agent in charge position, that was the ideal position, because you're directly connected with the people. We've got about 500 employees between the two states, and are ingrained in the community to be able just to help more and more people.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  27:09 So you're driven a bit by adrenaline. We've talked about this. I'm curious what's next? I mean, you're at the enterprise level. Do you stay here? How do you continue to fill your sense of impact that your leading or making a difference for when you've kind of continued to really, you know, rise in that way?   Mark Michalek  27:29 At the enterprise level, it's a different perspective of leadership — you're obviously leading through several layers of leaders. So you know what you know with the company grade or the supervisory special agent level, you kind of keep the train on the tracks and keep the trains running on time. The enterprise perspective, then you're laying down enough track for that train to keep moving forward. And so it takes a little bit of a shift. I'm enjoying my time right now. It's really impactful to see the subtle things. Change culture, people reaching out when they need help, direct community impact. Where you weren't directly involved in that, but you laid a foundation for that to grow. You know, that said, like, there's only one FBI director, so there's really no other opportunities. It's just continuing to give back at this level, but whether it's military or FBI, it's, you know, the similarities are leading in high-consequence environments where the stakes are high and the margin for error is small, and I think there's opportunities for that to continue to lead in those environments outside of government as well.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  28:50 So I think about some of the things you shared about, you know, why you've made certain decisions and leading through different levels. I'm curious about how leadership has shown up in your house as a dad and as a husband, thinking about what you experience with your dad, how do you navigate that in your home life?   Mark Michalek  29:09 You know, it's interesting as you grow older and you gain experience and maturity and in a world view, and you really start to see the forest through the trees, and leadership manifests in different ways, but as you get married and have kids, then you start to appreciate what your employees are experiencing, stresses and joys as well. It forces you to be disciplined and to focus on what your priorities are. And it's tough when you're in a high-consequence environment to say, “Yep, families first — can't do that.” Well, there's a mass shooting, like, you're going to have to go. So there has to be a little bit of flexibility. But all things equal, focusing on the family is really the sunlight, you know that helps us grow, and it shifts your mind towards giving back. Like, in preparing the future generations, which just happened in the blink of an eye for us— as I'm driving in, we go past the buff where we were commissioned. I'm like, my god, 27 years have passed. So now the focus shifts on providing for the family and thinking, “What kind of world do I want my girls to live in?” And it equates to the FBI, because I want the FBI to be an organization that agents and analysts and professional support staff folks not only serve for 20 years, but that my daughters want to join, and they want to do 20 years. So a pendulum shift more towards not just delivering results for today, but continuing to grow on what the future looks like.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  30:43 Pulling that a little bit further, what do you hope that your girls see in you as a leader? You know, the way that your dad was your hero and you looked up to him? What do you what are you hoping your girls see in you the traits?   Mark Michalek  30:56 You know, it's funny. They're 9 now, so I think they could care less.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  31:01 Maybe what they don't want to see you doing.   Mark Michalek  31:02 I'm just kidding. But, you know, in the future, I want them to be able to see the value of integrity, of service and of excellence, in this recognition that life is so precious and short, and I want them to leave it all on the field. And you know when their day comes to be able to say, “You know what I did, I lived a full life. I was supported, loved…” You know, whatever it is they want to get into, it doesn't have to be law enforcement or anything like — I just want them to excel and enjoy themselves, but just recognize how phenomenal life is and how short it is, and you just got to find your spark and just go for it.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  31:50 That's amazing. And I think about your comment earlier about we're really good at helping others know what they should be doing, but maybe not the best at taking our own advice. How are you doing that and taking care of yourself today?   Mark Michalek  32:01 So for me, it's running. Everybody's got something that they need to unplug, decompress from my time, from high school through the Academy, military and now it's running. It gets a little slower as we get older.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  32:17 Note to self, do not plan to go running with Mark. Got it.   Mark Michalek  32:21 But it just — everybody needs time to unplug and take off all the masks. FBI agent, Air Force member, husband, parent, friend. You just need to take the mask off and you just need to breathe. And that's what does it for me, being outside and breathing. And one of my assignments was in our San Diego field office, which was spectacular. But being in water was another area that I really found energized me and, you know, and made me whole. But, yeah, running is what does it now. And I make it a point that no matter how busy I am, I've got to run at least once a week.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  33:05 OK, what's your distance that you're running to give yourself this time to unplug in?   Mark Michalek  33:09 Now, not fast. Now, this isn't a sprint; it's more of a marathon, but I haven't done any marathons. That's a little too much for me. I'm in the in the 5- to 8-mile range. That seems to be the sweet spot. And then here in Colorado, it's being out in nature, but in D.C., to be able to run the monuments every single time — and I've done it hundreds of times — but every time you go past those monuments, and you put your hand on the Washington Monument, or you go up to the Lincoln Memorial, and you stand where Dr. Martin Luther King stood and you see that perspective, I just get this sense of history and appreciate the decisions that were made and the consequential events that happened over time in the stability of institutions, in that you know leaders way above us stood the test of time, were resilient and were able to navigate unthinkable challenges, then so too should we, and I find a sense of, I guess, comfort or shared experience, although that's a whole different level for those level of leaders, but that really helps fuel me.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  34:17 I can actually see that. Just picture you doing that. You know, I want to ask you, what is something you're doing every day to be better at “fill in the blank,” your leadership, your craft? What's something you're doing every day?   Mark Michalek  34:32 I think it's being disciplined and focused, definitely running and being physical, but balancing the time with family and friends in work, it sometimes — it comes across as selfish. I think particularly people who are service oriented consider that selfish. But again, like they say, when you're on the plane, you've got to put on your oxygen mask first before you can help others. So that's not selfish. You're telegraphing to others to take care of themselves. When I run, I listen to presidential biographies.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  35:05 Really, I was going to ask you, what's in your ear? Now — I'm just kidding.   Mark Michalek  35:09 I don't know if it's the cadence of the — but again, to understand decisions from the past, and when you know our country was at pivotal points, how we responded, that helps fulfill me. I think, you know, becoming a student of leadership, from being a cadet to now, and finding different ways and understanding whether it's private sector, other public sector entities, how they navigate things, because it's very, very similar when it comes to, you know, motivating people, managing programs, delivering results, you know, grappling with emerging tech, new different types of threats. So I do a lot of reading in that space, to be able to be a more kind of holistic leader and not have on horse blinders, just specific to government.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  36:00 Has there been one lately that's really stuck with you, or that you've listened to while you're running, or that you read that has continued to evolve the way you're thinking — you approach leadership?   Mark Michalek  36:11 I think it's — John Dickerson has a book called The Hardest Job in the World, and it's about the presidency, and it's not one individual president, it across party lines and in decades. But it's more of those themes that when you think back, they didn't have the technology we did. But like these fundamental themes are the same of, how do you motivate people? How do you respond to the operating environment? How do you handle complex challenges? Again, like I just felt a sense of reassurance or support and understanding on things, you know, through the course of time that we may not have all the answers, but collectively, people are the potential energy of the organizations, and they're going to deliver. They're going to hit it out of the park. You just have to support them.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  36:58 Well, we have viewers and listeners that kind of span from, you know, young cadet hopefuls, cadets, you know, graduates and family members. What's something that, if you could tell yourself years ago, maybe as a cadet, that you should say you should be thinking about this now, because in 27 years from now, it's gonna matter? What would you share?   Mark Michalek  37:18 You know, I think, first of all, I wish I would have had more fun.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  37:25 I think I've seen you smile more now.   Mark Michalek  37:28 I mean, it's just such a pressure cooker, and you don't want to let anybody down, and you don't know what the future holds. And, you know, “I've got to do this, I gotta do that. I gotta…” It's just breathe a little bit and enjoy it. Like, you don't recognize you're really in a pivotal point in your life. So that, I think that's one thing. I think the other for cadets and prospective cadets to recognize is, like, the FBI, like, the military is temporary. You're going to retire, probably young. You know, you do 20 years in the way our systems are set up, in the way the world is now. Rarely are you just going to go fishing at age 40 or 50. You know, you may have a second act, you may have a third act, and so you've got to really have the long view in mind, and it's OK not to have all the answers. You know, life will throw you some curve balls here and there. You've got to do what fulfills you at the time and doors will open. But you just got to have that faith that things are going to work out.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  38:35 Did you have that, you think, back then, or you, just looking back on it now, recognize that?   Mark Michalek  38:41 I don't know. I think partially I had it then. Those Academy years are really, really tough. And like, we were chatting before, like, well, you know, once you leave, that was it. I had no intention of coming back. And it's kind of like a boomerang. Distance and time makes the heart grow fonder, and then you recognize, you know, what you've learned here and how special this place was. And I think back, I think staying busy and active is what got me through. There's nothing worse than that first holiday break in December, right when you go back to your friends and they're at local schools, and you see all the stuff they're doing, and then you've got to come back. I mean, that is such a — the comeback piece. Do you have the, you know, intestinal fortitude to come back? You know, that was really, really tough, but now I see that the Academy, you know, left an indelible mark on me and changed the trajectory of my life. And I think back, you know, like I said, I'm the only person in my family to have ever left Michigan, and what life would have been, you know… You think the Earth is flat until get out and see there's a whole big world out there and a ton of opportunities. And as I've gotten in this role, particularly as a special agent in charge in Denver, I interact more with military leaders here in Colorado and Wyoming, and start to reconnect with people and see that this Long Blue Line, it spans everything. We are everywhere across the world. But you have no idea what good stuff lies ahead if you just stay the course, and your life will be changed in fundamentally spectacular ways.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  40:29 You couldn't end it better than that. I guess I want to just ask you this final question. Is there anything we didn't talk about today that you would like to make sure you make mention of?   Mark Michalek  40:34 No, but let me give one piece of advice for future cadets and cadets. And this — I think I read this in a book before I came but this is what helped me survive. Go to bed every night at 10 o'clock. You know, there's folks that try to do the all-nighters. I didn't. Every night, I went to bed at 10 o'clock and dealt with the consequences on the back end. And I think that ability to recharge and rest served me well.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  41:00 Do you still go to bed at 10 o'clock now?   Mark Michalek  41:02 I try. Now it's more like 9 or 8:30 as I've gotten older, but I think you've got to recharge and sleep. And that's one of the things the Academy teaches you, is you are not going to get everything done. You're not going to muscle your way through this. You can try. You're going to end up tired. But this is a team sport. Life is a team sport. You've got to do the best you can and get up and do it again the next day. But you are not you're just not going to get it all done. So you got to take care of yourself.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  41:30 Well, that really does kind of bring it home. Does that this time that you've been kind of experiencing in your life through the active-duty service, through the FBI, you know, you said it yourself, you kind of look back at, you know, maybe why your dad made some decisions. Do you feel like you've gotten to a point where you've had closure now?   Mark Michalek  41:49 Yes and no. I think I've gotten to a point where I've got all the answers I can but I'm at peace with what had happened. And I just, I try to, you know, leverage the time I have with my wife and girls to be present and to be a good role model and just to be able to support them and help them thrive.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  42:12 Well, I think you've been an incredible role model. You've been an incredible friend through all these years. This conversation has been one that's been really rooted and just understanding who you are, where you're at, and then how to navigate from that place. And I think that's why you've been one of the reasons why you've been just so successful, and why you're able to lead so many people through so many different crises. So I thank you for being on Long Blue Leadership. This has been a true treat for me, but again, I know that all of our listeners and our viewers have enjoyed this as well.   Mark Michalek  42:39 Oh, thank you, Naviere, I really appreciate the opportunity.   Col. Naviere Walkewicz  42:43 As I think back on our conversation today, you know, there are several things that stand out. I think one thread that we really need to think about is taking care of ourselves and others, knowing where we're at, thinking about mental resilience and really post traumatic growth, being able to move forward and seek help when you need it. I think part of our conversation today as leaders is not everything is easy, and certainly you have a network that supports you, and so one of the ways that my classmate Mark has really highlighted to me is lean into your network, you know, utilize the resources that are there for you, and then you can not only help yourself, but you can help others as well. So it's been an incredible conversation, one that I look forward to listening to again and sharing with others as well.   KEYWORDS Public safety leadership, law enforcement leadership, military leadership, FBI leadership, crisis leadership, trauma-informed leadership, mental resilience, post-traumatic growth, whole-person leadership, high-consequence environments, leading under pressure, servant leadership, organizational culture change, resilience culture, mental fitness for first responders, leader self-care, work-life balance for leaders, empowering frontline teams, interagency collaboration, leadership in crisis response.     The Long Blue Line Podcast Network is presented by the U.S. Air Force Academy Association & Foundation    

Do you ever feel like you have a laundry list of reasons why you can't ever take a break from your practice? Kiera is here to say, if that's how you're feeling, it's time to step away. In this episode, listeners get to take a breather. Kiera talks about the two parts of success (the "suck" part and the success part), and what you can do to hit a mental restart. Episode resources: Subscribe to The Dental A-Team podcast Schedule a Practice Assessment Leave us a review Transcript: The Dental A Team (00:00) Hello, Dental A Team listeners, this is Kiera and I hope today is such a great day for you. I hope that you're loving your life. I hope that you are enjoying it. And if you're not, today's podcast might be for you. Today is about when leadership gets heavy, how CEOs navigate the seasons you can't step away from. And this actually was a little bit of a self-medication for myself because when I ⁓ was actually getting ready to podcast the last time, I had a little bit of a breakdown.   And I just realized I was going at a pace that I wasn't able to sustain. And I felt very trapped. I felt like what happens as a CEO when you literally feel like you can't step away? Like you're in it. You bought the practice, you're in debt. I was actually just reading a book. It was a total fantasy book. And it was ⁓ about this little veterinarian who opened his practice to kind of prove a point to his parents, but also because he loved his craft and loved his work. And then he starts dating this girl and   she's on the other coast and long story short, they're like flying back and forth coast to coast. And he doesn't have money because he's got the practice. He's got the debt. He's got a team ⁓ and he wants to see his girlfriend. And so he's picking up ER shifts and moonlighting and so much so that he literally like drags his body into oblivion and gets so sick. And what was really crazy in the book is I feel like as I was reading it, I told Jason, I was like, this is my doctor's, this is me.   So many of us feel this way, right? You've got the debt, you've got this, you have a laundry list of reasons why you feel like you can't step away. And I will say like, if that's you, then it's time for you to step away. And I think in ownership, there are seasons where it's hard. And so today I kind of wanted to address like, what do you do and what are some tactical things when you're in this boat? And if you're in that boat today, hi, I'm Kiera. I'd love to be friends. Reach out, just even as a friend, if it's a pen pal, if you want to talk, if you want me give you tactical advice on your practice, reach out, I will happily help you.   If you're not in that boat, hi, I'm Kiera and I'm either preparing you or speaking to your future you because all of us will go through that. And I don't think it's a one and done. It's an ever flowing. It's an ebbing and flowing. And so there are seasons and ownership where it's freaking hard and it doesn't mean you're failing. It doesn't mean your practice is broken. It just means that we're growing and it's stretching our leadership. I remember thinking, I've talked about this on the podcast before. It's like throwback OG status or talk about like penguins, molting or snakes like sloughing off their skin.   And what happens is we actually grow bigger than what we're capable of. We grow bigger than what our skin is. grow, like our practice outgrows the leadership style that we are. There's a book called like, what got you here won't get you to where you want to go. And it's the same principle of like, we have to grow. And if you go back to being a child, growing pains don't feel good. I don't know if you guys remember like your legs hurt and your body hurts and like.   you, my little nephews and nieces, they wake up in the middle of the night with like leg aches because they're growing. Like it's painful. And I think we forget. And then as adults, we don't realize that like you get to go through it again. When you go through growth of leadership or your practice grows and you got to evolve into the next version of yourself to sustain that. And that's not comfortable either. you guys know, some of you been listening for a while. You know, I went to Antarctica, slight flex. ⁓ and it was amazing. It was honestly one of the most life-changing trips I've ever been on.   it was a place where I felt like I was navigating the most beautiful, serene scenery where no one's there and knowing that I could die. Like people die there. Like the Antarctic has nothing. It's freezing cold there. ⁓ I thought it would be covered in snow and it wasn't felt kind of like Utah-esque in the winter. ⁓ but like it was, I mean, that water is cold and you can see penguins like swimming through the water. It's so clean. It's so crisp. Nothing has touched that part of the world. It's very, very incredible. but I remember when I was there,   I was watching penguins and they were actually in molting season and they told us all like, don't get close to the penguins, just let them be. And they were like, they're in so much pain. And what these penguins were having to do is they sat there and like, you literally could see the like anger, sadness, pain in these little penguins. And they were sitting there. Cause what they have to do is they have to molt off all their feathers because their feathers are not the ones that they have on. They're not waterproof. And so they would actually drown when going into the water. So they have to molt all of those off.   get their like slippery ones and then they can go into the water and they just sit there and you see feathers flying everywhere. But I think like that image of a penguin is how I think a lot of CEOs feel and how a lot of office managers feel when we're going through this and we're being stretched and it's just annoying and you feel like, ⁓ I wanted this practice. I wanted this business, but I didn't want this. Well, I just want to remind you that success has two parts to it. There's suck and there's the success part. You can't have both sides of the coin without it. The word literally says it. And I think we sometimes forget, I think   For myself, I sometimes feel like I've already been through this. I should have to go through it again. But there's a call to a higher level. There's a call for us to be stronger leaders. And so what do you freaking do when it's hard and you feel like you can't escape? So I think that people believe that as you grow and evolve and get bigger and bigger, it gets easier. And I don't believe it actually does. Traction had a very strong quote at the end of it. And I'm not going to quote it exactly. I'll paraphrase it. But the book Traction by Gina Wickman, you guys know I'm obsessed with that model. I'm obsessed with running on EOS. I love helping practices.   be Dental A Team's version of it. We don't do true EOS. We do Dental A Team's version because I like to mix two things that I think actually work better for dental practices. But what I found is he said at the end, like a lot of people think getting bigger practices and bigger businesses actually equate to more profit and less headache and it doesn't. I remember him talking about like a $10 million practice versus $100 million practice. They both made the same amount of money, but there were way more headaches in the $100 million versus the $10 million. And   That has resonated with me for years. Now, if you're trying to sell to a DSO where you're trying to get multiples, of course you need to get it to a larger number. But if you're trying to do it for the long haul, sometimes having it smaller is actually easier. But again, this is your vision, your dream. For me, could I say small make my life easier? Theoretically, but my goal is to impact every single dental practice in this world to possibly reach you, influence you, work with you if it feels right. But my goal is to have the largest impact in dentistry I possibly can.   That's not going to be me playing small and I recognize that, but that also means that I can't sit here and complain because that's the choice I made. I can be frustrated and I can be annoyed and I can feel those feels, but I'm not allowed to sit here and have that. At least that's my opinion. So because I believe that it gets bigger and I'm called to swim in deeper water. And I also believe that I get stronger by carrying it. And you start to realize like, this is just part of business. And I'm sure it's how parents feel when you got one baby and it's so scary and then you get two and then you get three and then you get four. And it's like, yep, this is just how babies are. It's the same thing with business ownership. So   I think that when we feel pressure, it's often a sign of expansion, not failure. And so just a couple of things of tips and ideas of what to do. Number one, I will say, just go on a vacation if you can. I know sometimes it doesn't feel like it's the right thing to do. It feels very counterproductive. Myself, I was very much in the throes of it. Like I said, Dental A Team is going through such a fun ⁓ evolution. Like it is fun for me to sit as a visionary and to see where our team and our company are going and just to be freaking lit up.   with the clients we're serving and the team that we're building and like all of this is moving in motion. And then when I come into the weeds, I'm like, wow, this is really fun. This is a lot. And I think that it can get very heavy sometimes. And I was sitting in therapy and I was like, I just don't know what to do. And she's like, Kirit, it's just a season where it's hard and we accept it we just get through every day of whatever we can. We know this isn't forever. You've got a good perspective on that. And she's like, and if you can take a vacation. So I took a week off to Iceland.   And ⁓ it was great. was freezing cold. The Northern Lights were truly one of the most incredible things I've ever seen in my entire life. Like truly top five. And I have traveled to a lot of really cool places in my life. I've seen a lot of really amazing things. Seeing the Northern Lights dance across the sky when it's freezing cold and you are able to visibly see with your naked eye green and pink. I didn't have a strong to see some of the other colors, but I was able to see a very light pink and also bright vibrant green.   To see that whimsically like dance across the sky is amazing. So going on vacation can be such a relief, but you have to actually truly check out. So when I go on vacations and this has been Kiera's style, so take it if it's beneficial for you or not. And I think every team member should also do the same thing. ⁓ I delete Slack, I delete email, and I actually don't buy service international. Now you might have family, you might have friends that you got to, let them know.   But if there's a way I completely check out I become a very much princess passenger My husband has all the maps on his phone. He does all the things The only thing I have on my phone is I have Kindle and I have quite a few books that I tend to read Depending upon how stressed I've been I often try to curate a trip for me a lot of just like I need to bring it down So we actually stayed at a retreat in a lodge. It was very cold. So it was very cozy I watched a lot of trash TV like love is blind Lincoln lawyer, you name it like I had a decent amount of that   And it is truly just to bring my cortisol levels down, to bring that adrenaline down and to re-regulate my nervous system and to just chill. We went to a Blue Lagoon Retreat Spa. It was so lovely. I take as many naps as I want. Like it is a genuine disconnect. No team members, no clients, nothing. And I don't turn my phone back on. I have my team. They have a whole thing prepared for me. So when I get back, it's like, here are all the updates, here are all the things.   but they know unless it's like literally an emergency, which we've already gone through. Like if there's something, here's all the contact people for X, Y, Z. Like there truly shouldn't be anything that you need to contact me for. And if there is great, we're gonna fix it when I get back. I'm gone for a week. But I think you just being able to disconnect to check out, it's one of the greatest gifts. I had a client that I recommended they do this and they did, and they said, Kiera, we'll never like be the same. It was the best thing we ever did for ourselves because you genuinely go from high pressure,   down to like calm. And I've had it where I've gone other times and I like just say like, I'll just like check in on a few things. Well, when you're checking in, you're still like, there's this umbilical cord almost where you're still tethered to your practice and you can't ever fully like calm. So I will say like that is just one like off the wall tip for you if you can do it. And for me, I try to schedule a week trip at least once a quarter where I'm completely just disconnected. I don't always get that at least two per year.   ⁓ But I think it's also very important for me to do it. I also try to take like Fridays as just CEO mental days where I am disconnected, not there. Sometimes I need to do CEO laundry where I just got to catch up on a bunch of things. But if I can disconnect, not be in Slack, I show up as a better leader. And I think that these are subtle ways to get through the hard. ⁓ I also think when we look at hard, we often think of it as wrong. And so it's like, what's broken, what's wrong, how do I do this? And like growth is pressure. So more patience, more complexity, more team.   more leadership, more revenue, more decisions, like more, a bigger practice, more responsibility. Like it's just what it is, more opportunities, more legalities. Like it just is. And so pressure means that their practice is stretching into the next version. And so I just want you to know, I have coached and our team has coached hundreds of offices that have been going through this. Like this is what we go through. when you see it,   The practice isn't no, I tell people a lot of times I'm on the other side of the river. I've actually gone from where you are to where you want to be. And we know how to navigate as a guide across that river and do it in the least painful way, but it's still like, it's going to be painful. I've got a doctor and they're a startup and they're like, this sucks and it's hard. And like nothing feels right. And I'm on the verge of bankruptcy. And I'm like, guess what? You are a business owner. This is real life, but they're profitable. And even $500 a profit or a thousand dollars of profit doesn't feel great. Most off most businesses are not profitable for like three to four years when they first start out. And yet.   you are being profitable. So I also think like, don't see it as hard, see it as growth and also celebrate the freaking wins as you get them. I believe what we focus on we get and we attract more of. If I'm constantly saying like, they say race car drivers, like they're not looking at the next turn because they're gonna wreck. It's like they've got to look down the line and if you don't, you will literally wreck and hit it. And so I think for us, like if I'm constantly saying, I'm gonna go bankrupt or this is so hard or my team is terrible, you create more of it. literally.   turn your brain on to say, need more of this and I'm gonna look for it, I'm going to find it. Versus the other one of like, my team is doing great, we've got these good things, like there's momentum, I've got great patients, our cases are closing. And you're not lying to yourself, but we're celebrating those little wins and we're stringing more of those together. You're going to create more of that. And I think it can be so easy. As a consultant, I am literally wired to look for everything wrong. And I have to find it and figure out like, what's wrong is always available and so is what's right.   Both are gonna give me different outcomes and both are gonna give me different experiences. Which one do you choose to do more of? So I think like when you look at it, when I'm looking at this, is this a breakdown or is it a gross signal? What's going so well versus what's going so wrong? Maybe incorporating a gratitude journal, maybe having some like quiet times. It's not just like problem after problem after problem, maybe setting up meetings so like our problems get pinned to only once a week so you can handle it easier. That would be that.   Another tip when things like feel like you can't step away is like laser in on what you can actually focus on. I, it's funny, I'm looking around and if you're watching the video, you can see I have currently six, I used to have seven of those giant sticky pads sitting in my office on the other side of this camera. I have one of like our leadership structure. I've got one of an entire plan. I've got one of a future vision. I've got one of a CEO mantra. I've got one of Dental A Team's visions, my goals. And then I've got my like,   legit priorities and I've got four of them and I have them listed in order. And I think when things feel so chaotic, sometimes like bringing that leadership focus and scope in is like everything feels urgent and you try to fix it all. And honestly, if you've read the book, Essentialism, it has all the arrows and like you literally are spinning freaking top versus like what is number one priority? And I need to do that because if I try to do everything, this is how CEOs burnout. ⁓ And instead, like we need to train ourselves that there's bubbling pots constantly.   What's the biggest bubbling pot that's gonna move me forward the fastest and that's where I focus. And so it's like, what are the one or two things that protect operational like our practice stability right now and everything else is temporarily perfect. Temporarily perfect. Temporarily imperfect is perfect. And I want you to just have it like for me, there's so many things. If you want me to laundry list it all the way out, great. But I know that like, what are the one or two things right now that I need to go take care of and handle and everything else gets to be temporarily imperfect, which is perfect.   So when I have offices that do this, an example is they're trying to go and it's like, we need to hire an associate. We need to fix our hygiene department. We need to work on our scheduling. We need to fix our guarantees. We need to fix our case acceptance. We need to fix this. It can get exciting and overwhelming. And this is what I love of helping people get like an annual vision and a quarterly vision because it cuts the noise out. So when we focus in and we're like, okay, of all those things, what things need to happen now to get us to where we ultimately want to go? And if you know where your vision is of where you ultimately want to go,   It becomes so much easier for you to then filter through. And to me, that's a great filtering process. And I hope you actually like have this in place. And if not great, we're amazing at it. Reach out. I'd love to help you get there. You've got to have a vision. You got to figure out what's most important this quarter to get us there. You want to hire the associate, want to fix hygiene. You want to do all these things. But guess what? Us trying to do all those things is what causes the chaos, the burnout, the feeling like we're shackled to our companies and we can't leave versus recognizing. And this is like an ego dip, but it's freeing is not all that's going to get fixed today.   And these are the one or two things. My CEO mantra, would you guys like to hear it? Like, let me just help you guys out with this. Because I think it's really, really, really beneficial. My CEO mantra says saying no equals happiness. I started saying no a lot more and I realized like, wow, I am exponentially happier. The second one I have is I have more power than I think own it. I think a lot of times we feel like everybody else has the power and you are just kind of beholden to them. And this is not an ego power trip. It's more like, no.   I can make these decisions. can have some hard conversations. There is more power that I own rather than my team owning it or people are going to quit on me. Those are all what I've said, it might happen, but you have a lot more power than you think you do. ⁓ I said, don't be afraid of losing people. I've had some team changes and I remember I was so afraid, literally terrified. I'm squeezing my hands thinking back. was a ⁓ fractional team player and I was just super, super, super anxious about it.   And I sat on it and it was two days of pure health and then it was over. And I think a lot of times hard decisions of team members or decisions, usually it's like maybe two days of pain with a lot more freedom. So don't forget that. I said, focus on one thing a day, the rest works itself out. So every day I just pick one thing, this is my one thing I'm gonna work on and the rest truly does work itself out. ⁓ I said, I need to have two people in every position that knows it so that way I'm never feeling like trapped.   or beholden and I need to have systems written down. have like, pick your number and focus and cut fat regularly. So assess it, figure out like, where am I off to make sure that I'm keeping myself level headed and then take 10 minutes, like the calm or meditate whenever things are hard. So just a reminder, like I'm allowed to take a 10 minute timeout at any time. I know you feel like you got patience there, but if things feel like they're just bubbling and over you, that's kind of my CEO mantra. Like, hey, Kiera, when things are hard and it's literally like,   It's up here. I just read it to you. can see my eyes up there. I have them. And as other things come up, like I said, like take vacations regularly, showing up as my best self is the best thing I can do for my team. Those are a few other CEO mantras that maybe can help you out. And then I think the last one is like, when we look at it, we kind of like get rid of this emotional, like highs and lows for consistency. like, it's really easy as a CEO to want to like, whoo.   like whiplash and I've done this to my team a lot and when I'm in it, it's like you're trying to figure it out. You're trying to get there and you're trying to just like force the movement. So we got new rules, new priorities, new frustrations and instability is when it like is what teams feel. They don't feel the pressure. And so your job as a CEO and as an OM, as leaders of the practices to make sure that you're driving the stability. Like they know that there's problems. Like you don't need to be fearless. We just need to have predictability and sometimes slowing the innovations or the changes or the evolution.   I called my team out and I was like, Hey guys, we are been in a shaking snow globe. Every role is different. We've got people going out maternally. We've got new people coming in. We're growing. The company is really like a three month old company, even though we're in business for almost 10 years. And that's such a shift. And when I had that aha moment and we're like, cool, no new initiatives roll out. Let's just get everybody really, really, really solid in their new job descriptions. Cause like we had it where poor Shelbi was like being an EA and a marketer and a sales and like   every single position and we've had to untangle that ball of yarn and Britt was doing the same thing and Tip was doing the same thing and I was doing the same thing. So you got to like hire new people and have new people in there. Well, sometimes just recognizing that. So it's like, stop rolling new initiatives. We were trying to change our operating system and change this and change that. And finally we're like, whoa, this is the chaos. Our team needs to feel stable. They need to feel like they can move forward with stability and consistency rather than feeling like.   Holy cow, I don't know how to use anything here. And so I think when we help offices, so I'm thinking of an office right now and we were going through a pretty radical leadership shift change. We didn't do anything else. I've had a coach tell me you make one major like personnel change per quarter, whether it's in or out. If you get more than that, it feels chaotic. And so when you can actually like go through that chaotic quarter and instead of having it, it's like we keep as much as we can the same. So meetings stay the same so people can count on that.   our expectations are the same. So we've got our KPIs, everybody, if you just hit your one number, we're good. And then like communication style. So you as a CEO, I realize that I'm here to show up, like gotta start setting like, these are foundational pieces, these are core pieces, these are things that are true to our company that our team can count on. And then there will be more seasons of growth. But I think like staying focused, production stronger because we cut out the noise. I think essentialism is a really, really, really great book. Or the one thing, another great book.   I think during those times where you feel like leadership is hard and I'm trapped is because you got so much going on, which is not wrong. It's there. Like we're going through a pressure cooker. We're trying to get to the other side. But I think when you can minimize, less is more. Like I said, pick one thing every day and realize the rest works out. This is when stability comes and what teams can trust when pressure's rising. It's also what you can count on as a CEO and an OM. We got to have that stability. And I actually think that's what I love about being a consultant is we're able to provide that stability.   while you're going through the changes and having someone constant. Like I have leaned on my coaches more through these growth periods than I have, gosh, probably in the last like five years and to have them just stabilize me, steady me so that way I can show up as a steady leader. And that's why I love what we do for our coaching is we coach doctors and team members because doctors, need a different type of coaching than teams do. You need to, we get you as a business owner, like being a freaking CEO versus a manager, two different worlds. How do we help you? This is why we have in-person mastermind. So you realize you're not alone.   One of my favorite comments at our last mastermind, we have in-person masterminds that we do and they're amazing. I literally had a client have ruptured eardrums and like begged her auntie to give her a sign up so she could come. I'm like that much love for these is far beyond what I imagined them to be. ⁓ But I remember at one of the masterminds, someone raised their hand and they said, Kiera, it's so great to realize all these other offices here are dealing with the same thing I am. I realized, I thought I was alone. And I think that this is the pressure cooker.   We think we're the only one there. We feel like we can't reach out to anybody. This is you need a community around you too, to reach out to friends. I have a dear friend and I call him and I was like, this frigging sucks and it's hard. And like, I just feel like I can't get through it. As you heard, I talked to my therapist. I have friends that I go to. I have really, really, really trusted mentors who have gone through what I've gone through that can guide me through. I don't just do this alone when it's hard. I have my husband and I also have myself. And I think sometimes the noise I need to center in too much is too crazy.   Therapy is literally there for me to help regulate my emotions and make sure like I stay as a human being very centered. What do need to do for meditations? How do I keep my mind sharp? That's what my therapist job is. So to talk about the business, it's not to give me any business advice. Like that's not her world. Her job is literally to give me mental stamina and sanity to come through. My gym trainer literally make my body freaking strong and like make sure I stay like healthy and eating well as I go through this. My business coach. I have one business coach and she helps with a lot of like the number. Like that's her only lane and that's what I use her for.   I have a traction coach who actually helps us quarterly and he's helping me with our leadership team transitions and evolution because he's been there and he does this in multi-million dollar businesses much larger than ours and can see the foresight. That's it. That's all the noise. It's the only people that get to talk to me during these times. And then I have a financial advisor if I'm needing to make any of those decisions financially. Each person has their lane and like I lean on my business coach probably the hardest of all because I'm like, all right, work through this with me, work this one out with me, help me with my team on this, work with my team on that.   That one's the one I use the absolute most. Like that is the tool that's used the most, but I use the other ones for different pieces. And I think when you look at this, like it can be hard, but I think it's hard when we do it alone versus when we do it. And we realize like, it doesn't have to be this forever. as a couple things, number one, go on a vacation if you can. ⁓ Number two, change it. It's not broken. It's just like, we're growing and it's evolving. Number three, stabilize your practice as much as you can. Four,   make sure that we are reducing the noise and reducing our focus. So that way we're really focused on this one or two. then number five, think is what number I'm on. I think is where I'm at. Number five is the CEO mantra and having it pick one thing, realize that like saying no to more and stabilizing is going to create a lot of happiness. These things like these hard seasons don't define great CEOs. And what I found is CEOs and OMS that are going through it. I'm like, you asked for this, you were bored and now you're annoyed because you're having to mull and you're having to grow and it's annoying.   But like you ultimately wanted this and your soul was craving this. So like, let's also celebrate that. ⁓ I also think like how you lead through this sets the tone for your team. And I think for you as a leader and a CEO, for you to take care of yourself, there's some days it's okay to call a timeout. It's okay to take a 10 minute calm timeout. I've really found love with Taoism. It's not religion. It's more of just mindsets and flow. A lot of people love the calm app, whatever it is for you, but have a space for you to just call timeout, allow your brain to calm down.   For me, I shut off at five o'clock and I go home. I don't care if there's other stuff that goes on. Guess what? It's going to work itself out and it forces me to work during the day rather than at home. I go for a walk as soon as I'm done. I change up my energy. I change up my rhythm. You might be driving home. So that changes it up for you. Have like a start and stop. Do things that inspire you. Make sure I'm working out three times a week and eating really healthy because I know that's going to sustain my energy. think for this is I know we're not looking for easy, but we're trying to have it where we're building for being sustainable. And I think for you like   Realizing that if it's harder now, you're not off track. Maybe there are some ways, and I do think having a coach, guide that can give you quote unquote the shortcuts or help you even like clear the fog and navigate forward is what we're obsessed with doing. ⁓ Most practices will go through these stretches and they go through them multiple times. ⁓ And I think it's like, you don't need less growth. You need stronger structure to support it. And I'm watching offices that have been killing it. And now they're going to the next layer and it's like, that's hard again. So it's going to be.   but I also believe as souls, like happiness equals progress. That's why we crave it. That's why we want to do it. When we're on the other side of what we forget, just like moms keep having babies cause they forget how hard labor was and they're like, yeah, like let's have another one. Same thing with businesses. Yeah, let's grow it again. Let's involve it. because we have this goal and this drive, I believe to serve more, to love more, to experience more, to have more fulfillment. That doesn't mean your practice has to be larger. It can, if that's your dream. It can also be more intentional, but I believe that like,   This is what you were called to do. And if this is something we can help you with, if you still feel stuck, like I said, I've got my core people. And if we can be one of those core people that can be cutting out the noise, driving you, driving your team, helping you get the stability as you go through it, don't do this alone. You don't have to. And you don't, it's like not necessary. And so reach out Hello@TheDentalATeam.com. Like I said, we will be able to help you have levels of confidence. And we've done this through every single phase of growth. Like I said, from startups, clear to multi-million, multi-locations. ⁓ And there's different.   different systems, different leadership, different pieces needed for every stage of growth, just like with children. And I think for you to just remember you're doing better than you think you are, give yourself the time out. It's okay to call it sick one day. It's not okay to call it sick every day or to not see patients cause you're overwhelmed. We've got to re-regulate. You do still need to show up as a boss, as a dentist, as a CEO. And you need to be the leader of your practice. And I'd love to help you guys. So reach out, Hello@TheDentalATeam.com or go on to our website, TheDentalATeam.com book a call, no pressure, just clarity, giving you a map, giving you guidance, giving you   I think just resources when it can feel noisy. And I want you to know that leadership is not proven on our easy days. It's truly revealed on the hard days. Who you show up as when it's hard is like really your leadership at a core and it's an evolution. So I want you to give yourself a freaking high five. I want you to look yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you love yourself, that you're doing really, really well, that you're really proud of yourself. And then you're going to go make it a great day. And we do one thing as we move through these hard seasons and reach out if we can help you.   ⁓ The future of your practice is being built right now, whether you like it or not. And I want you to remember that and who you are and how you show up is going to make all the difference. And so if we can help you reach out, and as always, I'm so grateful for you. I'm grateful for every one of you listening. And I hope that you know that and I hope that you feel that. And as always, thanks for listening. I'll catch you next time on the Dental A Team Podcast.

What does it really mean to lead without power but still make an impact? I had the chance to speak with Prince Gharios el Chemor, whose life blends royal history, humanitarian work, and a deep commitment to compassion and critical thinking. From his family's legacy in the Middle East to his upbringing in Brazil, Gharios shares how identity, purpose, and service shaped his path. As our conversation unfolds, you will hear how sovereignty today is less about ruling and more about responsibility. We explore education reform, the dangers of social division, and why compassion and critical thinking matter more than ever. Gharios also introduces his vision for the future through Logos One, a new education model designed to help people live with purpose. I believe you will find this episode both thought provoking and inspiring as you consider what it means to truly live with an Unstoppable Mindset. Highlights: 00:01:15 – Hear why titles mean nothing without purpose and service00:08:26 – Learn how identity and adversity shape a global perspective00:24:43 – Understand what sovereignty means in today's world beyond power00:36:43 – Discover how small acts of service can deeply impact lives00:43:31 – Learn why compassion and critical thinking are missing today01:02:04 – Understand what it truly means to live with an unstoppable mindset Bottom of Form About the Guest: HRH Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan is a diplomat, author, artist, and leader recognized internationally as the heir of the Ghassanid Dynasty, the Christian Arab royal house that once ruled much of the Levant. He's a multi-awarded humanitarian on four continents for his work in cultural preservation and minority rights. He played a central role in restoring the House's historical continuity and securing its recognition under international law, including The special consultative status at the United Nations. He was knighted under the authority of the late Pope Francis, holds the U.S. Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, multiple Congressional honors, and has been welcomed by heads of state, religious leaders, and academic institutions across four continents for his advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christian communities in the Middle East. Beyond diplomacy, Prince Gharios is an award-winning best-selling author of thirty-seven books spanning philosophy, international law, spirituality, governance systems, and martial arts. In 2014, he published the peer-reviewed Middle East: The Secret History, a groundbreaking work that earned him the 21st International Cultural Award Trentino–Abruzzo–Alto Adige (awarded by the Italian government) in the History category. Seven of his works reached number one on Amazon's bestseller list.   Since several of his titles achieved #1 across multiple categories, this actually represents thirteen #1 Best-Seller achievements overall.   His intellectual work includes the development of Skeptical Mysticism, the Law of the Triple Accord, and Neo-Holism, a framework that integrates reason, compassion, and systemic balance to address political and social crises. His works — including The Sovereign Perspective, Essentia, Sapientia, and Unitas — propose an integrated understanding of consciousness, ethics, and identity, bridging ancient wisdom traditions with contemporary science. Trained in acting and filmmaking, as well as holding a master certification in Aikido from the Aikikai Foundation in Japan, Prince Gharios embodies a rare synthesis of scholarship and lived experience. His humanitarian initiatives have provided food, education, and stability to thousands of displaced families throughout the Middle East. Whether in academic forums, interfaith dialogues, or grassroots relief missions, his message remains consistent: the future of humanity depends on restoring proportion, dignity, and truth — both within individuals and the societies they shape. Ways to connect with Prince Gharios: Website: www.PrinceGharios.org/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gharioselchemor/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/officialprincegharios/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@theroyalherald/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hrhprincegharios X: https://www.x.com/princegharios?lang=en TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@officialprincegharios Documentaries: The Christian Kings of the Middle East https://youtu.be/Xt5NBNGa0q8 The Royal Legacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAS2rq8Bt0&t=150s The Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TFkZk3qd3c&t=416s About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessiBe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can subscribe in your favorite podcast app. You can also support our podcast through our tip jar https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/unstoppable-mindset . Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes: Michael Hingson  00:04 What if the biggest thing holding you back isn't what's in front of you, but rather what you believe Welcome to unstoppable mindset where inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. I'm your host. Michael hingson, speaker, author and advocate for inclusion and possibilities. This podcast explores how the beliefs we carry shape the way we live, lead and connect with others. Each week, I talk with people who challenge assumptions, face adversity head on and show what's possible when we choose curiosity over fear, together, we focus on mindset resilience and the small shifts that lead to meaningful change. Let's get started. Greetings everyone and welcome to another episode of unstoppable mindset. It is fall in Victorville, California, and I guess in the whole northern hemisphere for that matter. So here we are once again, and we're going to have, I think, an interesting and a fun and a very thought provoking episode today, we get to chat with someone whom I never thought I would meet, but I got to meet him on LinkedIn, and then we've met in person, and now we're chatting. And he is a Prince, Prince Gharios el Chemor Chemor. And garrios lives in Los Angeles now, and that's an interesting story in of itself. He has written 37 books more than I've written, I can tell you. And he is involved with a lot of different kinds of activities, and I'm sure that he's going to talk about a lot of those and give us some interesting things to think about. So I'm just going to say, Gharios, welcome to unstoppable mindset. We're really glad you're here. Unless you want me to call you Prince, I'm either, either way. Prince Gharios el Chemor  02:04 Oh, thank you so much. It's my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me. And I always say that the only person I demand to call me your highness is my wife. But every time I do, she laughs on my face, so I'm thinking about stopping it. Yeah, and what does she call you? She called me Gary. I became Gary. Michael Hingson  02:23 You became Gary? Prince Gharios el Chemor  02:24 Yeah, because my wife is American, so well. Michael Hingson  02:28 But do you call her princess? No, no, oh, okay, you can Prince Gharios el Chemor  02:34 call me any way you want. I'm like, I'm not special, yeah, and I, you know, as I always like to say, you know, a title in a 21st Century from a deposed dynasty is absolutely useless as a as a person of honor, unless you know, you have, like a work like we do, like my family kept this tradition because we have a humanitarian work with the UN we can talk more about that later. But as I always say, princes are not making even street names these days anymore, so I still have to pay for Netflix like everybody else, Michael Hingson  03:18 yeah, but I'll bet you think of your wife as a princess, whether you call her that or not, because, Speaker 1  03:22 oh, she's, she's a queen. She's not Michael Hingson  03:25 even a prince. There you go. See now we're talking Yeah, as it should be. Well, yeah. So I let's start with this whole issue of a deposed dynasty, and little bit about, maybe your background, where you came from, and all that, and we'll go from there, sure. Prince Gharios el Chemor  03:47 Well, there's a, there's a some people are a little bit, you know, as, as Voltaire used to say, Napoleon, also, Churchill, History is written by the victors. So especially in the United States, people don't are not very aware of world history. So is people don't understand how some things work. And even in the Middle East, whereby my family originated. I'm European, from my mother's side, and I have a little like 3% Jewish. I'm British, French, Italian, and in from my father's side, I'm Christian, Arab, from where today is Lebanon. You're a Michael Hingson  04:40 conglomerate all over the place, Prince Gharios el Chemor  04:43 yeah, so I have all the all the conflicts, all the colonizers, the people that are colonized, all within an only person. I'm the, I'm the living un so, but I. Even in the Middle East, you know, because since we are like a Christian family, a Christian dynasty, even that history was, you know, political propaganda. So you're not going to promote your your enemies. So since the Muslim regimes took over our lands through history, so the story they tell is a very limited history. So in a lot of history books, people think that our rule ended in the seventh century. So people say, Well, how come you are claiming a kingdom that ended 14 centuries ago? And I always say, well, first and foremost, we rule other realms after that, even our cousins ruled until 1921, so the like 100 years ago in what today is hail in Saudi Arabia, is called Jabal shumar, Jabal shmor, which is our last name. So they were our Muslim cousins, because some part of the family was forced to convert and but and the family that escaped and went where today is Lebanon kept being Christian, which is my direct family, and the Christian branch rule until 1747, to the 18th century. So it's not like 14 centuries ago. But even if that was the case, according to international law, we have a president, which is Israel. So Israel revived a state that, you know, they didn't hold sovereignty for over 2000 years. So our claim, even if we considered the last kingdom, we have a whole kingdom, because we rule principalities up to that. We rule the Byzantine Empire too, but that was very briefly, but we had like principalities or Sheik dooms, as we call the very same politically, political unit as you have the UAE, as you have Bahrain, as you have Qatar, Kuwait. So is a is as sovereign as an empire, but is a small principality, so that those are the kinds of realms we ruled after we lost the main kingdom in the seventh century, but we we rule, as I said, my direct, direct family into the 18th century, and my cousins until 1921 so yeah, so it's A our claim. Theoretically, if you consider Israel legitimate, you have to consider our claim legitimate, although we don't actively pursue any kind of political restoration or active, you know, restoration of a territory, kingdom, or anything. On the contrary, we support all the duly established governments, the euro and de facto, because we think that there's a lot of people there wanting power, and we don't want to be another force to try to fight for power or anything like that. On the contrary, we want to help to bring balance. We want to serve. We want to help to bring, you know, a stability and dignity to the people we're not interested in political movements or topple any governments or anything like that, although I've been offered many, many times, and thank God, I'm not at all seduced by power, because I it's something that is an illusion, in my opinion. Michael Hingson  09:08 So the family has certainly been spread out. Where were you born? Prince Gharios el Chemor  09:14 Well, I was born and raised in Brazil, because we have, still some family members were able to stay in Lebanon, but there was a huge famine and persecution after my family lost the principality in scarta ze way, which is in the northern Lebanon, My great great great great, great grandfather was assassinated, and then his son had to flee and like, adopt different last names for their children, because the it's funny, because it could be a great movie, because the Sultan, Ottoman Sultan was a hunchback, so it was a perfect. Villain, so the hunchback Sultan wanted to kill all the members of my family, so they were able to hide for some time, but then, when the first war, already in the end of the 18th century, 19th century, it was a great don't know if I can use the word genocide, but it was a genocide of Christians because the Druze, they ally with the Ottomans and to destroy the Christians. And so started this movement in the mid 1800s until the culmination of the First World War, and then my family members and many Lebanese not just my family members, went to Brazil because Brazil is still the largest Catholic country in the world. So today you have in Brazil twice the number of Lebanese people. Then you have in Lebanon. You have around 4 million in Lebanon. You have over 8 million Lebanese in Brazil. And I made fun when I first met the Lebanese president, we had the first audience in 2017 I we just had a Lebanese descendant president in Brazil. So I said, Well, you know, the our Lebanese president has like, twice the number of Lebanese people than than here. So Isn't that ironic and funny? What did he say? No, he was laughing. He said, Yeah, you know. And it was funny because he was actually, his name was Michelle Temer. It was from Lebanese descent. And you have today, I think the Minister of Economy in Brazil is Haddad, which is also Lebanese. Yeah. So everyone has an uncle, a cousin, even in my family, we have a very funny situation, because half of the family of my cousins stayed in Lebanon, and the other half went to Brazil. So you had two brothers from the same father that one doesn't speak Arabic or French and the other doesn't speak Portuguese. So they used to visit each other with their kids and using like cell phones and other things because they they were like brothers and couldn't communicate, because one was born and raised in Brazil, and the other, and still today, like My Arabic is a joke and my cousins make fun of me, so we talk in English, because My Arabic is the Arabic of the 19th century. And again, my grandfather never used the word Lebanon, because there was no Lebanon when he left. Lebanon was created in 1946 so I think it's very interesting when a lot of people say about Palestine, oh, there's no Palestine. There was never a state called Palestine. Well, there's never a state called Lebanon, another state called Syria, and every state called Iraq, another state, any of the states that we have today, the Middle East, they're all created after the first war. So they're all creations by the British and the French. And also, a lot of people don't know that. Michael Hingson  13:34 So what was it like for you growing up? Because however you view it, you have a very rich family and rich ancestry. So what was it like for you growing up? Prince Gharios el Chemor  13:47 Well, it was very interesting because I I had a Lebanese grandmother and I had an Italian grandmother, so that's why I became fat. Thank God now I'm I lost weight, but yeah, I it was funny, because I inherited gout, so I was very sick with gout when I was, like, 27 years old, and I had to take cortisone. And I always tell the story, because I used to go to my Italian grandmother, she looked at me and say, My god, you're so fat. You're so terribly fat. You have to do something about that. But not today. Now eat so. So she was like, you know, I could always start I should always start a diet the next day that I visited her, because when I visited her, I had to eat. So that's how that's that how the dynamic works. But I had a very normal, let's say, upper middle class for. Upbringing, yeah, upbringing. But the thing is, because my father, when my grandfather, arrived in Brazil with his parents, he had, they had nothing. They had they escaped. They had to sell the marble from the palace. We had to bribe the Ottoman soldiers so they were able to escape. So they had, like they grabbed some jewelry and something. So they started from zero in Brazil, but then my grandfather in many Lebanese families started selling things door to door, and they made a fortune. My grandfather made a huge fortune. He had like medication distribution. He represented many laboratories for southern Brazil. And then he had real estate. He became very rich, and my father and my father was born, my grandfather was already very rich, so he had like a playboy upbringing, different than me. And then my father never worked one day in his life. So when I came, my family said, Well, let's not repeat the same mistake that, you know, we made with him. So let's, you know, ration things with him. So I started, well, I started working because I wanted but I started working, working it with 13 years old, and I always I cannot not work because I have a we talk about that I have a cognitive difference than regular people, what People call romantically gifted, which is a very is not as romantic and beautiful as people think is like, is like OCD or something like that, and hyper sensibility and stuff. So I always, I cannot not study something. I cannot not work. So is an obsession that I have. So that's why I wrote so many books. I've done so many things. Michael Hingson  17:24 So what was your job? What kind of work did you do? At 13 Prince Gharios el Chemor  17:29 I worked in a video store, like, like Blockbuster, but was like a small one, because I watched all the movies. So people love to see me recommending the movies and Yeah, and so I always work like, I was like, 1516 I was the marketing director of a magazine, so I was always like, precautious, let's Say, and yeah. So my life was always very normal. I was always blessed. Thank God. I never had any need like I I had. I suffered a lot. I was bullied and I had a because I was different. So people, you know, they because of the way I talked in school, and I was probably the worst soccer player that have ever lived. And so in Brazil, that's the thing. So I was highly bullied. I and but other than that, and of course, because I'm an empath, so, but I never had any, let's say, need of food or anything like that, like I always had a very blessed life. Michael Hingson  19:06 So you went to school in Israel and so on. Did you do college there? Or what did you do for college? Or did you in Brazil? Prince Gharios el Chemor  19:13 Well, I studied two things in Brazil. I studied in a Franciscan school, the regular school, and then for high school, there is a special course in Brazil which is the equivalent of the university for theater, like Dramatic Arts. So I've done that. And then for college, I've done a course that's called Marketing and PR. So I have this two, this two trainings, one in dramatic arts and the other one in a corporate PR. Actually, my course even taught propaganda. So we studied a lot of how states work with Prop. Ghana and things like that, Michael Hingson  20:03 two significantly different departments of study. How did you how did you combine those? Or, how did you justify having two different things, art and marketing, that's pretty different? Prince Gharios el Chemor  20:18 Well, not to me, because I always worked a lot with media. So I'm also a filmmaker and professional actor, a SAG actor. So I'm sag here, and I'm in Brazil. It's called sated. Is the sag equivalent there? I directed a lot of even some commercials and some shows. So to me, that's very they intersect and and I have this artistic side of me that is very obsessive too. So I always have to be painting. I always have to be singing and doing something creative, because that's, that's who I am. And some people don't understand, but people that actually I'm not again, I'm not claiming i i have any special talent or anything like that. I think there are people that think better than me, people that sing better than me, but people that have this, let's say, gift, they, they have a need of putting out their work is not, oh, I skewed to paint or skewed to sing or no, this is the need that you have to manifest this energy that you have inside of you. So I give you an example when when I had had the first flare of gout was because my first wife said that I could no longer paint because of the smell of the oil paint. So I stopped painting. And then I was like, full time, the time, the full free time I had I was exercising and I was swimming, I was I wasn't my the prime, healthy body I could ever had. I had that time, and then I start feeling this small pain, and I it became, what's the what's the term I psychologically, I don't remember now the term, but it became a disease because of I could not channel that energy, psychosomatic, exactly so, because I could not channel that energy for painting. Then I got the gout. Michael Hingson  23:06 So how long was it before you could go back to painting? Prince Gharios el Chemor  23:11 Well, then I discovered that I could. I created a technique that I can make the acrylic paint look as almost as good as the oil and and with significant less smell and mess. So I've been painting with acrylic since then. Michael Hingson  23:36 And you what happened to the gout? Did it basically go away? Prince Gharios el Chemor  23:41 Well, I got significantly bad, and I had to go and have a bariatric surgery, and because I was taking cortisone, like a heroin addict would take heroin. So because I got in this vicious circle of not being able to exercise, gaining weight, eating, being depressed. So I had, almost every two weeks, I have a very bad flare. So I was like, in the beginning, I would go to the doctor for the injections, then my grandfather would come in and give me the injections. And then I learned myself to give myself the injections. They were so frequent that I had to do it myself. But thank God for the past, let's say 18 years, I had probably a couple of flares. They're very mild, and just with oral medication, I was able to I'm cortisone free for like, Michael Hingson  24:44 18 years. That's great, yeah, well, you know, going back to some of the things we talked about earlier, in terms of you, you still identify. With the Royal House that that has not been directly in power, although I I would suspect you'd say that that you and your family do provide influence. But what does sovereignty mean to you in the 21st Century? Basically, when monarchy no longer rules, clearly, you have influence and so on. But what does sovereignty mean to you? Prince Gharios el Chemor  25:28 Yeah, there's there's another thing that people, people don't understand. I'll give you a very, very simple example about my family. My family, even though is not officially sovereign anymore, but my family in Lebanon, they still have a palace in a city called farhatta in northern Lebanon, and non stop be we've been serving the community to the point that when my my predecessor, which was Sheik Antonio's Ashmore, was alive, he passed, unfortunately, prematurely. He was 60 years old in 1970 122, years before I was born, and he would open the doors of the palace, and people go there and ask money for medication, as you know, to send the kids to school. He would, you know, help the community like a ruler would do so because, you know, Lebanon, back then was very poor country, and he was like very, very wealthy. So until today, his sons, my cousins, that are part of the Council of princes of the royal house of Ghassan. They still do that to the community there. So we it's like we never stop, you know, doing the the service that. So who wants to watch our documentary. They can Google it. We have it on YouTube. It's called the royal legacy and the Christian kingdom of the Middle East. You see that, for example, my family provided free water that are still being used by 200,000 people in northern Lebanon for free. So we give free water to 200,000 people 48 villages in Lebanon. So thanks to my family also, dialysis blood dialysis is free for all Lebanese citizens because my cousin bought some machines, and my cousin interact with the president, who was his personal friend back then. So the President made a decree, and today, until today, no one that needs dialysis has to pay so, but my cousin passed two years before I was born and his sons. His oldest son was 15, so he left a lot of businesses for his sons. So they didn't develop the Royal House to the point that in 2008 37 years later, I was the one that took over, and then I got permission from them also, which is, in Arab monarchies, you have something that called baya, so it's like the family agrees who's going to be the next head, the next leader, and they, they give the consent, because in Europe is the succession is primogeniture, like the oldest son or daughter inherits the position. But in the Arab systems is the best qualified person according to the Council of princes, or according to the will of the last hat. In my case, they are so busy. I always say I'm the poor cousin, because they're they're rich, they I'm the one that took over this responsibility, and I have the time. So that's how, how it's done. But sovereignty, as I always say, is is a word like peace and democracy that can mean anything and everything so but unfortunately, people don't understand what it means in international law, and today, according. According to the many conventions, or in the charter of United Nations, every single people has the right called the right of self determination. Is the is a cardinal right is every single people, and that doesn't depend on anything ever is like is a right that every single people have, so is in the 21st Century, is no longer acceptable to have colonialism. Prince Gharios el Chemor  30:32 So all all nations and all peoples have to have this right to to self determination, and I think that's unfortunately we've been having a sometimes that multilateralism and international law are not being very much respected, and we have to make sure that we we work together. Because a lot of people criticize United Nations, and I agree that maybe United Nations has a lot of things to improve, but so as everything else in mankind. So as I always say, when you your car has a flat tire, you don't throw away the car, you fix the tire. So I think it's a lot easier for us to fix the system we have, then get rid of it and go back to barbarism. Michael Hingson  31:26 So given given all of that, and given what your relatives are doing in Lebanon and so on, how do governments view your house and how do they view all of you today. Do they? Do you think there's opposition? Do they appreciate what you're doing, because you're not really trying to seek power as such? That probably helps some. But what? What do governments think of of you and all of you? Prince Gharios el Chemor  31:57 Yeah, well, some people the Lebanese Government, since the next president, we've been working together with them, because they seen the value that we bring. So during the covid through our one voice Foundation, we donated half a million dollars of baby formula. It's like 60 tons of baby formula and recently, amongst other small actions, but recently, this year, we we fed about 5000 people for a whole month. We thought it'd be 3000 but Caritas, which is the logistical organization for the Catholic Church, estimated in 5000 so it was like something around 1000 families, but for a whole month. So together with SOS world and giving hands Germany, we got together and Caritas, of course, which made a distribution so they're they are very like we just last Saturday, we had an intercultural, inter religious event under the patronage of The President General Joseph on so we've been working together with the government in Lebanon, because the President in Lebanon, people might not know, but the President has to be Christian. The Prime Minister has to be Sunni Muslim. The Speaker of the House must be Shia Muslim. Because, believe it or not, with all its problems. Lebanon is the only actual democracy in the Middle East, because all the 18 religions have the exact same rights according to the constitution. So but other regimes, for example, I love Jordan, and I've I lived in Jordan. I had a second residence in Jordan for two years, and we try to implement some educational projects there. Because I have, I have this, I even now have a name now. It's called the royal Gambit. It's, it's a project to prevent the radicalization of teenagers from radical organizations, and there's even a book about it that is also the royal Gambit, which is a better and cheaper way to fight terror than actually just try to fight the effects, not the the reasons, the sources of of the problem. And so I had some problems because of the fact that I'm Christian, because you know who the King Abdullah in Jordan is doing a great job. And the royal family in Jordan is amazing. And I had. Many, many friends from the royal family. But, you know, some people don't understand that, but who also has the power is not the ruler, but the person that put the paper in front of the ruler so the ruler can sign it. So sometimes the ruler has the best of the intentions, but a couple of people try to prevent that, because they don't want you to shine. And I found the same problem with the Catholic Church, too, unfortunately, and I'm Catholic, but a lot of things that I try to implement, and again, I just needed the stamp of the Catholic Church. I didn't ask for anything, and a lot of people, mostly lay men, seem to have the interest of the need to keep existing so they are relevant. And that's very sad. That's very sad because there's a lot of people that are have the best of intentions, that have a lot of holy men in the Catholic Church, like I give you Pope Francis, absolutely, but Cardinal Koch, which is a Swiss Cardinal, it's a dear friend and a great holy man. But you also have people that are not interested. Obviously, I'm not citing names, but people that just want to keep their positions, and they just want to the problems to still exist so they are relevant, because they are the ones giving aspirin to the terminal patient. Can I Oh, go ahead. No, no. Sorry. Michael Hingson  36:39 I was just gonna say, and sometimes you just have to walk very carefully with what you do because of that. Prince Gharios el Chemor  36:46 Oh yeah. I mean, I made a lot of people look bad, because in my ignorance, my naivete, I thought that okay, I have solutions for many problems, so let's solve the problems, right? Yeah. Why? Why should we keep suffering if we can actually solve the problems. But apparently, no they want to keep with the problem. Michael Hingson  37:07 So So you but you do a lot of work with persecuted Christian communities in the Middle East, and especially, you know, persecuted people. What's one moment or one person that really stands out to you from all of that work? Prince Gharios el Chemor  37:25 Well, I think that I have two moments, actually. One was in 2014 that I had this Egyptian boy I went to the school here in Los Angeles to talk about bully, because, as I said, I was bullied when I was a kid, and then this 10 year old boy asked to take a picture with me. He was Egyptian Copt. I have a very good relationship with the Copt Orthodox Church in I met with the Coptic Pope in in Cairo. So he he said, I want to take a picture with you, because you are my prince, because I'm also a Middle Eastern Christian. And that touched my heart. I had to hold very, very tired not to cry in front of him. And I said, Well, you know, if I can inspire one person, I'm happy, and the other person was in Jordan in 2016 because at the height of the Islamic State, this 40 families of Iraq, they escaped to Jordan, and they were being in the Melkite church in Jordan, took them in, and then they called me and said, we have this family. They have no food. They have nothing. They just arrived from Iraq. Said, okay, so I got my people there. We got food for this 40 families. And then I went there, and I met this old lady and and I immediately connect with her. And I said, are you okay? I said, Imagine this old lady having to skate from Iraq all the way here, you know, because they were just killing the Christians. It's ridiculous. And then she said, Yes, I'm fine. I'm being take good care and everything. But the problem is that I have to go because I have a high blood pressure problem. I have to go every day to the hospital, and then I have to stay there for I don't remember, she said, one hour waiting just to take her blood pressure twice a day. And then I said, Oh my God. I looked to my assistant and said, for the love of God, go to the nearest pharmacy and get her blood pressure machine. So. You went there, and, you know, sometimes is not, is not a money, you know, for, for, I don't know, 3050 bucks. I solved the problem and and then I gave it to her, and said, Okay, so from now on, this is for you, for you to take your blood pressure, but you also, if anyone needs you're going to be the guardian of this. So she was so happy. And again, is not just about the food, is not but about people. Must know that you care. I think that's the most important Michael Hingson  40:37 thing, yeah. But it's not about you. It's about it's about them, and the very fact that you do care, and you're not doing it to try to gain a lot of notoriety, is what I'm hearing you say. But rather, you're doing it because it's the right thing to do. Prince Gharios el Chemor  40:53 No, I have to correct you on this. I'm doing it because the feeling that you get. It's yeah. It's worth more than any money or any fame or anything, the feeling that that I got from it right? Knowing that I'm, I'm, I'm making that life a little better, yeah is better than anything I've ever tried. And that's what Michael Hingson  41:19 I'm that's what I'm saying. It's yeah, it's not about you're trying to become a big guy. No, you're doing it because it's the right thing to do and you want to help people, yeah. But I Prince Gharios el Chemor  41:30 get a lot from it too. Michael Hingson  41:33 Sure you do. Sure you do. Prince Gharios el Chemor  41:35 But to me, is, like, the feeling is, is, is amazing, Michael Hingson  41:39 sure, yeah, oh, I, I, I totally appreciate it, because it's the the way I feel. If I can inspire people, if I've been able to help one person, then I think I've done good, and I appreciate exactly what you're saying. Well, you, you work with a lot of different people. You work with presidents, billionaires, you work with scientists, priests, martial artists and so on. What have you learned about the universal desire under all of that? What do they all have in common? Prince Gharios el Chemor  42:14 Well, there is this beautiful poem that Elvis used to date when he he used to sing that song, welcome out of my shoes. And he used to say to every student that then shoot or saw things through his eyes, shouldn't watch it. Helpless. Hands well hard inside he dies. So help your brother along the way, no matter where it starts, because the same God that made you made him too, this man with broken hearts. So to me, I think it doesn't matter. That's another part of the poem that I don't remember. Like they may be kings, they might be beggars. We are all figuring things out. That, to me, is the most important thing we we have some might know a little better, some less better, but we are all figuring things out. Figuring things out. We are not special. We are special. We have a special thing about every single person we have. Every single person has something good and something special and some unique thing. But we are not better than anybody in terms of dignity and value. We are all the same, and we are all figuring things out. So when you see someone, you don't you don't know the battle that that's that person is going through. You don't know the suffering that that's that person is is going through. And that's why I say compassion is so important. We have to try to put ourselves in someone's place and and critical thinking and compassion, the two things that are missing in the Michael Hingson  44:04 world, in my opinion, yeah, tell me more about that. Yeah. Prince Gharios el Chemor  44:09 Well, we because of this, this thing called social media, which has great benefits too. We got together because of it, but unfortunately, give rise to some cognitive biases that we already have in one side and also gets us that that heard anonymity you know, when we are in a group or when we are Anonymous, we seem to do things that we wouldn't do otherwise if we were present and alone. There's a lot of psychological studies about it. So. We are living in times that we have this destructive zero sum division. And as I always say, is perfectly and healthy, perfectly fine and healthy to disagree, to have different opinions, as long as we are constructive about it. Let's say in politics. So you know, left and right and center is all fine if we think the way we want to think, as long as first, that idea comes from ourselves and not from some celebrity or politician that we like or dislike, but from our own critical thinking. And second, we have to realize that we're all on the same boat, a country, a state, a city is a community is a boat. So is, is not because you don't like the captain, that you're going to cheer for that boat to sink because you're going to die too. So we have to realize these things. We have to realize that we have to end this thing us against them in everything, in politics, in religion, in everything, because that's not going to get us anywhere. That's That's this destroying the critical thinking and destroying the compassion, and therefore everything become a zero sum, like you know, in order for me to succeed, you have to be destroyed, and that only leads to destruction. And unfortunately, social media is a catalyst to that. Michael Hingson  46:32 How do we do that? How do we we regain or get more compassion? How do we get people to think more critically and and, well, don't try to just do everything for themselves. Yeah, one thing Prince Gharios el Chemor  46:44 that people don't realize is that our brain was built, was hardwired to survive, not to be happy. So we evolved a lot technologically, but our brain is still from the caveman times in a and not just the brain like everything else, why we get gain weight? Because our body thinks we're still back in those times that we have food once a week, and then if we don't have food for many days. We have to storage the energy, otherwise we're going to die. So the same with something called tribalism. So we are trained, our mind is trained, to see everything that is different as as the enemy. So we have this natural neurological tendency of of of that. And then we have, of course, all the cognitive biases, and the greatest one is, as I always say, stupidity, which is not ignorance. We are all ignorant about something. It's impossible to know everything about everything. Stupidity is our resistance, emotional resistance to expertise and knowledge and education. So that's one of the main things, is laziness of thinking. So why would you lose time considering who God is, who's your relationship with the divine? If you can go once a week to a church, I don't see anything wrong in going to the church, please. But what I'm saying is some people go to the church because there they can get, like, a synthesized summary, and they just, it's easy, if they just take that and believe in that. Then they keep thinking the whole week about who God is, what's right and rights wrong, about religion and about ethics and moral and things like that. And the same with politics. Why should I try to understand politics? To try to understand what is a common good? If I can just look one politician that I like and just go for everything he says and and that's the problem. That's why in the social media, again, is a catalyst of that. Because you, you can be, you can insult, you can criticize you, you. We have another thing called the Dunning Kroger syndrome, which is, we think that the things that we know the least are we have. We have more security in the things that we know the least than the things that we actually know. Right? Yeah, so you put that, put it all together. We have confirmation biases because this algorithm in all social medias, they only bring you things that you to confirm what you already think. They realize what are your preferences, and then they just bring you the confirmation bias so you only hear one side of the story. Michael Hingson  49:59 How do we change. Change that mindset. Prince Gharios el Chemor  50:01 Oh, we have to. We have to break the cycle. We have to develop compassion. First. We have to to realize that that person might not look like you, might not like the same things as you, might not believe in the same things as you. But is a is is someone that you have to live with that person. You don't have to agree, but you have to live in the best possible way. Michael Hingson  50:26 But again, the issue is that there is a lot of that on it. I hear what you're saying, but how do we break that cycle? How do we change the mindset so that more people will start to learn that just because we're all different, it doesn't mean that we're all less capable or less than than ourselves. Prince Gharios el Chemor  50:47 Yeah, well, first we have to identify the stupidity. Where is this stupidity? Are we? Is a very hard process, but we have to see if our opinion is actually our own first and foremost, think, think yourself is your opinion is, I have an exercise for that which is a contemplation. So you try to, to meditate, uh, imagining a conflict that you have, and then you remember your own position in this conflict. Then you you go and you try to put yourself in the shoes of the person against you, why that person has those concepts, those ideas, those opinions. And then you try to go out and see both of you, and try to see without any dogs on the fight. You try to see the same, same conflict. You see it from at least three different perspectives. To understand it, Michael Hingson  51:52 we've got to start teaching those concepts to people, because all too many people have children. They don't bring them up any differently. They they don't, they don't look at a broader perspective and horizon. And that's and I hear that's what you're suggesting. But we've got to start. We've got to find ways to teach Prince Gharios el Chemor  52:10 that the best way is education. That's why I created logos, one which is a new educational system. Tell us about that? Yeah, well, because I was gifted, you know, a lot of gifted people have problems in school, because when you have like, a very deep giftness, you cannot conform with the with the system, with the mainstream system. So I can only thrive if I create my own systems. So that's why I developed a whole new system of philosophy, original. I completed Aristotle Plato's work. I refuted Machiavelli sprints. I completed some of Kant's works too, because I I have to create my own frameworks. And then I said, Well, you know, 95% of what I learned in school is useless. You're not going to never going to use it. You're never going to remember it. So why do you waste the most valuable asset we have, which is time. You know, not even Elon Musk can buy time, because time is nothing you can do to get more. So why do we basically throw away time in school in a time that we have our beautiful youth. And so why do we do that? And then I realized that, well, the actual things that you have, you really have to know you can learn in two years, which is basic math, basic history, language, you know, all these things in two years, you can learn that. So I created a system that is based on your vocation and your level. So since a child goes to goes to kindergarten, the child starts being tested by vocation and the level and everything. So this child is taken to there's one of 15 traits that can be combined to 30 point 5 billion different profiles. So today you go to school, you have only one profile. You have to follow that profile, right? So with my system, you can combine it and have 30 point 5 billion different profiles. So if you have more tendency to be an artist, you're going to be an artist. If you have a vocation and desire to be an engineer, you're going to put all your energy. All your all your time to do what you like, to do what you're born to do. I like to say that logos one was created for the child that they cannot stand still because they supposed to dance. So if you don't conform, if you don't sit still, if you don't do whatever the teacher tells you to do, you are a bad student. And that doesn't mean you're a bad student, because you're supposed to be the world's greatest dancer or the world's greatest painter, so or the world's greatest engineer if you are not good in sports. So the system we have now was created for the industrial revolution. So the world needed factory workers, people that conform and with AI, all bets are off. So my system integrates with AI, and it's self regulated and self improved by AI. So there's a book out also. It's called logos one, and that's the future of education. You're not going to be able to because, you know, we're going to have a huge change in professions. So probably the child that is in a first grade today, the profession of that child doesn't even exist yet. So I'm sure, because a lot of the depression and mental problems we have today and suffering that we have today in our society is because we have to work to make ends meet. We have to work to put food on a table, and that makes us work in things that are not very nice and are things that we are not happy to to work. And working is probably you spend most of your like life working, so you're going to be miserable if you are doing something you don't like or you're not born to do. So that's why we have all this, Prince Gharios el Chemor  57:11 this problems in the world. So with my system, people will be happy because they will be doing what they are meant to do they love to do. And they have, as I always say, we're going to have one Einstein in each corner, because we give the tools of this that person to be what that person was born to be. Michael Hingson  57:30 Has logos? One been implemented anywhere yet? Prince Gharios el Chemor  57:33 No, no. I would just formulated this year. I had this idea for 15, almost 20 years ago, and I finally put everything together. So now we are going out to get it to be implemented. Michael Hingson  57:49 You've written 37 books. Is there any kind of a common theme or thread that goes through all the books? Prince Gharios el Chemor  57:55 Yeah, actually, they're all part of the same ecosystem, let's say so, because I see everything is inter related. For example, I created a I formulated a universal law that's called the triple accord, which everything in the world is the result of a resonance between reason, empathy and compassion. So critical thinking, compassion and balance, measured by balance. So a government, a civilization, a relationship, a friendship, everything is measured by these three elements. So with that, I developed what's called New holism, which is a model of governance, a brand new, completely new system of political system, which I always say is not left, center, right is forward. And a new way of seeing politics, a new way of seeing transcending ideology. So the same thing with the skeptical mysticism, which is a brand new epistemology, brand new metaphysics, which finally got science and reason. I'm sorry, reason and faith together. I created a new it's called juice Vera, which is a new legal system and a new penal system. I created, as I said, the Royal Gambit. I create logos one and Magnus delta, which is the higher education continuation of logos one. I mean, everything I created, I wrote about, is either related to history, sovereignty, politics, philosophy, which to me, is everything together. And I also brought the. Eastern and Western philosophy together, because I studied a lot of Buddhism, Aikido, Japanese, Shinto, Zen, Buddhism. So I brought that with the Western philosophy. And so my system is a balance between both, because I found out that everything has to be in balance otherwise the system destroys itself. Michael Hingson  1:00:26 If you could transmit one sentence or say one thing to humanity that would be remembered in 200 years, what would it be? Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:00:36 Well, I always, I always think that. I think as James, James Sherman, that said that, and I always like to repeat it. It's we cannot go back and make a new start, but every moment we have the chance to make a new ending, it doesn't matter how old you are. Doesn't matter how you think your life is not good, but you can always make a new win. You can always change, even if it's so hard, you can always make it better. It's up to you, you know, Michael Hingson  1:01:16 and it really is. It is up to each of us, and if we want to make the world better place, we can do it, but it's up to us to do it, isn't it, Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:01:26 absolutely and remember that the person, not just a person, but all the animals, all the planes, all the environment, we are all part of the same. The Science already proven that we're all part we share the same frequency. So you know, tried everyone with kindness. There's another saying that says that kindness doesn't cost anything, and buys everything, buys you everything. So be kind to an animal, to a plant, be kind to a person. Be kind, be kind. Be kind, be kind. It's never going it's never too much, Michael Hingson  1:02:03 and be kind to yourself too. Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:02:05 Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that's the first person you have to love yourself before learning to love other other people. And again, back to what I said in the beginning. We're all figuring things out. Don't, don't feel bad because you are figuring things out. Because we are. All are in different levels, but we all are, yeah, Michael Hingson  1:02:23 well, this has absolutely been, I think, very thought provoking, and I think it's been been wonderful. Last question for you, how do you define unstoppable? What do you think unstoppable means? Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:02:38 Well, in my opinion, unstoppable is that that thing that makes you, that drive inside of you, that that you know, despite of everything, everything can go against you, but you still manage to, like Nelson Mandela said, something is impossible until it's done. That's what I think is unstoppable, like you keep moving, because, you know, the universe is in constant movement. There's a breath that the Japanese would call koku ryuku, so we always breathing. So you have to keep moving. You have to keep moving. Nothing stays static is good. Michael Hingson  1:03:27 One of the things that immediately comes to mind is that there was a guy named Roger Banister. He is the person who broke the four minute mile. And people said for years before he did it, no one can physically run faster than a mile in four minutes, and if you do, you'll die. That worked until, I think it was 1957 when he did it. And yeah, there's so many the Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:03:51 same with the car, the same with the car. Remember? Yeah, yeah. People thought that if the car went more than 35 miles an hour, or something like that, it will explode. Michael Hingson  1:04:01 Yeah, yep. Well, I want to thank you again for being here. I think you've given us lots to think about. If people want to reach out to you and learn more about what you do and so on. How do they do that? Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:04:13 They can visit my website. It's Prince gharios.org's Can you spell that? Yeah, Prince, like you say it and, G, H, A, R, i, o, s.org, altogether.org, Prince darius.org, okay, yeah, and yeah, or Google, me. I have social media, I have Instagram, I have Facebook, I'll be happy to LinkedIn. Michael Hingson  1:04:43 I know LinkedIn, Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:04:45 yes, how we got together, Speaker 2  1:04:47 yes, how we got Yeah, yeah. Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:04:49 So YouTube again, you Google, you go to YouTube. Is our channel is called Royal Herald. You can watch documentary about what we do. It's called the. Legacy and the Christian kings of the Middle East. So both have history. You can watch the royal legacy, and you get both the history and what we are doing now. So it's free. You don't have to do anything. You just go on YouTube. Is everything we do is free. Michael Hingson  1:05:19 Great. Well, thank you for being here, and I want to thank all of you for watching and listening today, wherever you are, please give us a five star rating and give us a great review. I think that garrios has given us a lot to think about today, and I hope that you all agree with that. I'd love to hear your thoughts as well. Feel free to email me at Michael H, i@accessibe.com that's m, I, C, H, A, E, L, H, I at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S, i, b, e.com, and garos for you and all of you listening, if you know anyone else who you think ought to be a guest on unstoppable mindset, please introduce us. We'd love to hear from you and from them, and we're always looking for more people to have come on so that we can show that we're all more unstoppable than we think we are. But again, Prince garrios, I want to thank you for being here. This has been absolutely wonderful. Prince Gharios el Chemor  1:06:15 Thank you. My brothers. Was my pleasure, and I'm always here whatever you need Michael Hingson  1:06:23 thank you for being here with me on unstoppable mindset. I hope today's conversation left you with a fresh perspective, a new insight, or at least something worth thinking about if you're ready to go deeper into the ideas that shape how we see ourselves and others, I have a free gift for you. Head over to Michael hingson.com and download my free ebook, blinded by fear. It explores the invisible beliefs that hold us back and shows you how to reframe them so you can move forward with clarity and confidence. Be sure to subscribe to our podcast, leave a review and share this show with someone who can use a reminder that growth starts with mindset. When people think differently, we all move forward together. Thanks again for listening. Keep learning, keep questioning and keep choosing to live with an unstoppable mindset you.

Toward the end of the Maggid section, we read the famous teaching of Rabban Gamliel: "Whoever did not say the following three things on Pesach has not fulfilled his obligation: Pesach, Masa, and Marror." Rabban Gamliel then proceeds to explain the meaning and significance of these three Misvot. The Pesach sacrifice was offered in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash to commemorate the miracle of the plague of the firstborn, when Hashem "skipped" ("Pasach") over Beneh Yisrael's homes on the night of the Exodus, protecting them from the plague. The Masa commemorates the fact that Beneh Yisrael left Egypt hastily, without having had time to prepare and to allow their dough to rise. And the Marror symbolizes the "bitterness" of slavery from which our ancestors were saved. At the Seder, we are obligated to discuss the meaning of these three Misvot. Many commentators noted that this passage is stated out of chronological sequence. The "bitterness" of slavery, quite obviously, preceded the plague of the firstborn and Beneh Yisrael's frantic departure from Egypt. Yet, surprisingly, Rabban Gamliel first discusses the Pesach sacrifice and Masa – which commemorate the events of the Exodus – and only then mentions the Marror, which represents the slavery that our ancestors endured prior to their redemption. Why is the Marror mentioned last? Numerous answers have been given to this question, one of which emerges from a deeper understanding of Rabban Gamliel's teaching. Many years ago, as a young Rabbi, I was approached by a group of young men in the community who asked me to deliver a weekly class, which they would host on a rotational basis. These fellows were not particularly observant, and I was very pleased that they expressed interest in a weekly Shiur (Torah class). But when I showed up for the first class, I was aghast. The table was set up for a card game, with chips, cigarettes and beer bottles. I felt very uncomfortable, and I asked the host what this was all about. He explained that this group meets every week for a card game, so they figured they would begin the evening with a Torah class. After that first class, I consulted with a certain great Rabbi to receive guidance. I did not think it was appropriate for me to give a Shiur to these people under these conditions. I'll never forget what the Rabbi told me. "What they do after the Shiur is none of your business," he said. "Your job is to teach them Torah. And the light of Torah will change them." I accepted the advice, and he proved correct. Gradually, all these young men discontinued their improper behavior. It did not happen immediately, but it happened. On another occasion, I was asked to deliver a weekly Torah class to a group of men on Shabbat. Every week, the man who hosted the Shiur in his home would get up and leave in the middle. I later found out that he left for work. Once again, I consulted with a great Rabbi in the community, asking if it was appropriate for me to continue teaching a Torah class in the home of a Shabbat desecrator who gets up to leave in the middle to go to work. "Are you going to wait for him to stop working on Shabbat before teaching him Torah?" the Rabbi told me. Now this man is fully observant, learns Torah for two hours every day, and gives large amounts of money to Sedaka. Three times every weekday, in the Amida prayer, we ask Hashem to help us repent. We ask, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha Ve'korbenu Malkenu La'abodatecha" – "Bring us back, our Father, to Your Torah, and draw us close, our King, to Your service." We ask that we be returned to Torah even before our service is complete. We do not wait until our behavior is perfect, until we have fully performed Teshuba, before learning Torah and trying to draw close to Hashem. To the contrary – we are to take the first steps even in our state of imperfection, as these steps will help us improve. This might be the deeper meaning of Rabban Gamliel's teaching about "Pesach, Masa, U'marror." The word "Pesach" means to skip. Rabban Gamliel is teaching us to "skip" right to the "Masa." In a different context, the Sages commented that the word "Masa" is associated with the word "Misva," for we must observe Misvot with zeal and alacrity just as the dough must be handled quickly and rigorously to avoid becoming Hametz. We are to skip to the stage of "Masa," of Misva observance, even before addressing the "Marror" – the "bitterness" of sin and religious failings. Theoretically, we should first cleanse ourselves of wrongdoing before coming to serve G-d. In practice, however, this does not work. If we refrain from Misvot until we fully repent from our misdeeds, we will likely never feel ready to begin our service of Hashem. Rabban Gamliel therefore urges us to skip the stage of "Marror," to begin performing Misvot even if our behavior is far from perfect – as the light of Misvot will help us improve. We begin the Seder with the words "Kadesh U'rhatz" – referring to Kiddush and hand-washing. The message here is that we should strive for "Kadesh" – for holiness, even before we have "washed" ourselves, before we are fully "cleansed" of wrongdoing. Hashem wants us to begin learning Torah and performing Misvot even if we are currently far from perfect, and to trust that the good habits we develop, and the spiritual power of Torah and Misva observance, will impact our souls and our behavior, and lead us to greater purity.

Jane Muir  - J. Muir & Associates P.A. On the Bold Truth: "But long story short, litigation has to be part of your comprehensive business plan." It is always best to have an attorney before you need one, especially in business. Jane Muir is a business attorney that has seen almost everything.  She started her law practice to help entrepreneurs navigate the law. From the basics of forming your business entity to protecting yourself through solid contracts and smart bookkeeping, Jane Muir shares invaluable advice for business owners at every stage. She discusses common pitfalls companies face, such as collecting unpaid invoices, navigating litigation, and when (or if) it's even worth chasing what you're owed. You'll also hear about the often-overlooked power of credit reporting, and why a solid business plan includes preparing for legal disputes, not just dreaming big. Jane Muir gets candid about her own journey: growing up in a family of lawyers, how market downturns led her to start her own practice, and why embracing technology and AI has helped her firm stand out and serve clients more efficiently. Plus, she recommends the essential business books every entrepreneur should read (hint: it's not all about law). Listen as Jane explains what to look for in a great business attorney and how an attorney can help you prevent and solve some issues you may come across. Enjoy! Visit Jane at: http://www.jmuirandassociates.com/ Sponsors: Live Video chat with our customers here with LiveSwitch: https://join.liveswitch.com/gfj3m6hnmguz Some videos have been recorded with Riverside: https://www.riverside.fm/?utm_campaign=campaign_5&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=rewardful&via=james-kademan   Podcast Overview: 00:00 Business Entity Options Explained 05:45 "Small Claims: Worth the Chase?" 08:51 "Litigation: A Business Strategy" 12:59 "Enforcing Judgments with Legal Writs" 16:03 "Fighting for Justice and Fees" 18:49 Settlements vs. Trials: Key Insights 21:01 Partnerships and Legal Financial Dynamics 26:20 Beginner Business Tax Tips 28:49 "Credit Reporting Agencies Explained" 33:02 "Gemini and AI Automations" 34:07 Automated Document and Scheduling System 39:03 "Spot, Read, Decide Quickly" 42:00 Vespa Insurance Coverage Gap 46:24 "Starting a Law Firm" 50:33 "Legal Challenges and Opportunities" 51:21 "Assessing Threats and Opportunities" 56:23 Bookkeeping: Your Business Backbone Podcast Transcription: Jane Muir [00:00:00]: in whatever that area is. You could be a painter or a social media marketing person, but if you're not getting your invoices out and getting paid, you're just not going to have a business. Well, that's really so important that we make sure everybody is aware that bookkeeping is the backbone of your business and you might not like it. It might be boring. So you got to find someone who's going to do it for you. But if you don't have your bookkeeping in order, then you're lost and you'll never be able to succeed. James [00:00:39]: You have found Authentic Business Adventures, the business program that brings you the struggle stories and triumph and successes of business owners across the land. Downloadable audio episodes can be found on the podcast link found at drawincustomers.com. We are locally underwritten by the Bank of Sun Prairie, Calls On Call Extraordinary Answering Service, The Bold Business Book, as well as LiveSwitch. Today we are welcoming/preparing to learn from Jane Muir of J. Muir and Associates, PA. Jane, how is it going today? Jane Muir [00:01:09]: It's a beautiful day in Coral Gables. How are you? James [00:01:12]: I am doing well. You know, you and I were chatting right before here about the initials after the name, J. Muir and Associates, the PA. So let's dig into some legal stuff right away. What is the PA? Jane Muir [00:01:26]: Every state has statutes that define the different types of corporate entities that they allow. And in order to tell the public what corporate entity you have, there are little letters at the end of the name of the company, like Inc. or LLC or Co. And those are designed to give notice of what rules and, um, rights and responsibilities apply to that corporate entity. Uh, my entity is called a professional association, which is specific to professionals who hold a license. It can apply to accountants, architects, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and it's essentially a partnership form. Um, which is an option just for licensed professionals. James [00:02:18]: Nice. So that would be in addition to, or instead of an LLC or S corporation, something like that? Jane Muir [00:02:26]: It would be instead of. James [00:02:27]: Uh, instead of. Jane Muir [00:02:28]: A professional group like lawyers or doctors, they can have a PA or a PLLC, or they can have another thing called a limited liability partnership, an LLP. Theoretically, they could have other types of entities to allow non-licensed professionals to participate. Like if, if I were going to start a non-law firm business, for instance, I can have anything I want. It could be an LLC, it can be an Inc. And in Florida, they allow us to kind of make a Frankenstein where we take features of the different statutes and make them into one. Corporate entity that has features of all of them. Uh, but really anything goes and the, the little letters at the end are supposed to just kind of give the public an idea of what to expect. James [00:03:24]: Interesting. Is that, is the PA thing newer or has that been around for a while? Jane Muir [00:03:29]: No, it's ancient. It's, it's one of the earliest corporate forms. James [00:03:33]: Oh, really? Jane Muir [00:03:34]: All right. James [00:03:35]: How cool is that? And just outta curiosity here, why did you or your team choose PA versus LLC or LLP or whatever? Jane Muir [00:03:44]: I think, well, I, I'm the sole shareholder of our firm. We have partners, but, um, I'm the sole shareholder and I just think it's a classic choice. It, to me, it conveys that we're traditional even though We're advanced in technology and we're advanced in, in our approach to managing matters. We, we do want to convey to the public that we're old school lawyers doing real legal work. James [00:04:18]: Right on. I love it. So let's dig into that, Jane. What is, what do you do? Jane Muir [00:04:24]: I'm a business lawyer. I'm located in Miami, Florida. Our firm has offices in Dade, uh, Palm Beach, and, um, opening soon in Alachua County. James [00:04:36]: Nice. Jane Muir [00:04:37]: And we help business owners with their legal issues from mainly contracts and, and issues relating to permits needed or, or business licenses, troubleshooting all kinds of random things that can pop up in a business. Uh, and then the remainder of our practice is commercial litigation. James [00:04:59]: Oh, that sounds like fun. Jane Muir [00:05:01]: I don't, yeah, we deal with a lot of conflict. James [00:05:05]: All right. All right. So let's dig into that cuz that sounds like fun, right? Uh, tell me about the conflicts that a typical business owner or business entity would run into. Jane Muir [00:05:15]: I would say mainly it's collecting money. All right. Or dealing with— James [00:05:20]: it always comes down to money, right? Jane Muir [00:05:21]: Yes. It's always money. James [00:05:23]: All right. Um, and is this because somebody put together a partnership that's bad or more, uh, vendor-customer type relationship? Jane Muir [00:05:32]: We do have the partnerships gone bad, but I would say the majority of our work is vendor and customer relationships. Like someone owes you and you need to sue to force them to pay. James [00:05:45]: All right. So in my extremely limited experience. There is a dollar amount threshold where it's just not worth chasing from the headache and the way the system is set up. I guess in the, the little experience that I had of going to small claims court, it was annoying. It was expensive. And in the end, even when I won, I still didn't get paid. So tell me a story from, uh, what you would like small business to know, small business owners to know when it comes to collecting money, when it comes to dollar amounts. Or who's worth chasing and things like that? Jane Muir [00:06:19]: What a great question. That's, that's my every day. I process that question. What, what the cost benefit analysis is for a litigation. So first you want to know how much is at issue. And let's say if it's under $50,000, I really don't, I usually tell people, don't throw your good money after bad. And the reason is because our average litigation has expenses of about $50,000. And takes 2 to 2.5 years to come to a conclusion. Jane Muir [00:06:50]: Wow. Our, our least expensive litigations are $10,000 to $15,000, and they either resolve early by settlement or we win by default. And then the most expensive litigation we've had so far was a 3-year litigation. It had expenses of like $800,000. We ended in a jury verdict of $6.3 million. So that justified the expense, but whether we're ever going to collect on that is still an open question. So question number 1 is how much is at issue? Does it make it worthwhile to pursue? Then you want to ask, is there a way to recover the fees if you win? Because you don't just want the money you lost, you want to get the fees back. So oftentimes when I consult a business owner, I'm looking at their agreements with their customers and they don't have a prevailing party fee provision, which makes it not really worthwhile to pursue. Jane Muir [00:07:51]: So you want to see if you can collect fees and then you want to see that there's a pocket to pull the money out of either insurance or a property that's not protected by homestead or some other exemption that makes it uncollectible,

Theoretically teams and individuals have everything to allow and encourage them within companies, and yet, the bigger a company gets the more tasks and work get duplicated leading to increasing costs. Collaboration between teams and departments is often more challenging than it needs to be, so it is not that surprising that these companies might have a harder time getting involved in the open source projects they are relying on.In this episode of the My Open Source Experience podcast open source experts talk about the challenges and solutions they found to enable and encourage more collaboration within their companies and open source communities alike.Learn more about:- How OSS collaboration ensures smooth relationships with stakeholders with Austen Bryan- Overcoming internal collaboration challenges with InnerSource with Wolfgang Gehring- Using OSS and working on it upstream with Stormy Peters- InnerSource vs Open Source with Magnus Buhrgard- Common OSS fears and practices with Ashan Senevirathne- You need allies to succeed with Philipp Ahmann- How to build an open source strategy in the public sector with Federico Gonzalez Waite#opensource #community #collaboration #experience #podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rambam writes that Matanot La'ebyonim – giving charity to the poor on Purim – is the most important of all the Purim obligations. If a person has a limited budget, he should prioritize Matanot La'ebyonim and allocate more for this purpose than for the Purim feast and Mishloah Manot. The reason, the Rambam explains, is that there is no greater joy than lifting the spirits of those who struggle. This Misva brings joy to the recipient, to the donor, and also to the Shechina, as it were. The Ba'al Ha'maor (Rav Zerahya Ha'levi, Provence, 12 th century) cites the ruling of Rabbenu Efrayim (late 11 th -early 12 th century) that Matanot La'ebyonim must be given to the poor specifically on Purim day. In ancient times, villages were allowed under certain circumstances to read the Megilla earlier – on the 11 th , 12 th , or 13 th of Adar. Nevertheless, Rabbenu Efrayim ruled, even when the Megilla was read earlier, the gifts to the poor needed to be given on Purim day – the 14 th of Adar. This money, Rabbenu Efrayim explained, is given for the purpose of helping the needy enjoy a Purim feast. If one gives charity before Purim, the money might be spent before Purim. Therefore, while it is of course always a great Misva to assist the needy, the particular Misva of Matanot La'ebyonim – which is geared toward helping the poor properly celebrate Purim – can be fulfilled only on Purim day itself. This position is cited as Halacha by the Shulhan Aruch as well as later Poskim. The Peri Megadim (Rav Yosef Teomim, 1727-1792) maintained that one may give Matanot La'ebyonim on the night of Purim, as by then, one can be certain that the money will be spent on food for Purim day. However, the Shulhan Aruch and later Poskim maintain that the money should be given on Purim day, and not the previous night. It is common to fulfill this Misva by giving money to a Rabbi before Purim and appointing him as one's "agent" to distribute the funds to the needy on Purim. Many people are not likely to encounter a needy person on Purim itself, so they instead give the money to a Rabbi who knows those in need of assistance, so he can give it to them on Purim day. If one who does not live in Jerusalem gives the money to a Rabbi who will distribute the funds in Jerusalem on the 15 th of Adar – when Purim is celebrated in Jerusalem – then he does not fulfill the Misva, because he must give charity on the day that he observes as Purim (the 14 th of Adar). While the preferred manner of fulfilling this obligation is by giving cash, one satisfies his requirement also by writing a check and giving it to a needy person. Since the recipient can take the check to the bank and receive cash to be used for purchasing food, this qualifies as Matanot La'ebyonim. Even if Purim falls on Sunday, when banks are closed, the recipient can sign the check and give it to the casher in a store, or to a friend or neighbor in exchange for cash. Hence, one can, if necessary, fulfill this Misva by giving a check. One does not, however, fulfill this Misva by donating to the needy by charging his credit card. When one charges his credit card, the money is transferred only several days later, and so this does not qualify as a gift given on Purim itself. Theoretically, one can fulfill the Misva by charging his credit card several days before Purim, if he knows that the funds will be transferred on Purim day, though this is, of course, not very practical. Summary: One is required to give Matanot La'ebyonim (gifts to the poor) on Purim day. One can fulfill his requirement by giving money before Purim to somebody – like a Rabbi – who will distribute the money to the needy on Purim day. It is preferable to fulfill this Misva with cash, but if necessary, one fulfills the requirement also with a check. One cannot fulfill this obligation by charging a credit card.

Courage is not loud. Sometimes it is a 13-year-old girl standing in a courtroom, promising to defend dignity no matter the cost.  Noura Ghazi's life was shaped by detention, disappearance, and resistance long before she became a human rights lawyer. Growing up in Damascus with a father repeatedly imprisoned for political opposition, she chose early to confront injustice through law rather than violence. From defending political prisoners during the Syrian revolution to marrying her husband inside a prison and later founding No Photo Zone, Noura has built a life rooted in resilience, civil rights advocacy, and unwavering belief in human dignity.  Now living in France as a political refugee, she continues her work supporting families of detainees, survivors of torture, and the disappeared. Her story is not simply about survival. It is about choosing mindset over fear, purpose over despair, and love even in the shadow of loss. This conversation invites reflection on what it means to remain Unstoppable when freedom, justice, and even safety are uncertain.  Highlights:  00:07:06 – A defining childhood moment reveals how a confrontation in a Syrian courtroom shaped Noura's lifelong commitment to defending political prisoners.  00:12:51 – The unpredictable nature of Syria's exceptional courts exposes how justice without standards creates generational instability and fear.  00:17:32 – The emotional aftermath of her father's release illustrates how imprisonment reshapes entire families, not just the person detained.  00:23:47 – Noura's pursuit of human rights education demonstrates how intentional learning becomes an act of resistance in restrictive systems.  00:32:10 – The early days of the Syrian revolution clarify how violence escalates when peaceful protest is met with force.  00:37:27 – Her marriage inside a prison and the global advocacy campaign that followed reflect how personal love can fuel public courage.  00:50:59 – A candid reflection on PTSD reveals how trauma can coexist with purpose and even deepen empathy for others.  About the Guest:   Noura Ghazi's life has been shaped by a single, unwavering mission: to defend dignity, freedom, and justice in the face of dictatorship. Born in Damascus into a family deeply rooted in political resistance, she witnessed firsthand the cost of speaking out when her father was detained, tortured, and disappeared multiple times. That lived experience became her calling. Since 2004, she has defended political prisoners before Syria's Supreme Security State Court, and when the Syrian revolution began in 2011, she fully committed herself to supporting detainees and the families of the disappeared. Even after her husband, activist Bassel Khartabil Safadi, was detained, disappeared, and ultimately executed, she continued her advocacy with extraordinary resolve.  Forced into exile in 2018 after repeated threats and arrest warrants, Noura founded NoPhotoZone to provide legal aid, psychological support, and international advocacy for victims of detention, torture, enforced disappearance, and displacement across Syria, Lebanon, and Turkey. Her mission is not only to seek justice for the imprisoned and the missing, but to restore agency and hope to families living in uncertainty and trauma. Recognized globally for her courage and leadership, Noura remains committed to amplifying the voices of the silenced and ensuring that even in the darkest systems, human rights and human dignity are never forgotten.  https://nouraghazi.org/   https://nophotozone.org/   Book – Waiting by Noura Ghazi - https://www.lulu.com/shop/noura-ghazi-safadi/waiting/paperback/product-1jz2kz2j.html?page=1&pageSize=4   About the Host:  Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog.  Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards.  https://michaelhingson.com   https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/   https://twitter.com/mhingson   https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson   https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/  Thanks for listening!  Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page.  Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below!  Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can follow the podcast on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.  Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you are enjoying the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. Michael Hingson  00:09 Well, welcome everyone to another episode of unstoppable mindset. Today, we get to chat with Nora Ghazi, who lives in, I believe, France right now. She was born in Syria. She'll tell us about that, and she has had an interesting life, and I would say, a life that has had lots of challenges and some treachery along the way. But we'll get to all of that, and I will leave it to her to describe most of that, but I just want to tell you all we really appreciate you being here and hope you enjoy the episode. So Nora, how are you? Noura Ghazi  00:49 Thank you, Michael, for having me in this great broadcast, doing well. Michael Hingson  00:57 Well, there you go. Well, why don't we start? I love to start this way. Why don't you tell us kind of about the early Nora, growing up and so on, where you grew up, what anything you want to talk about, regarding being a younger person and all of that and and however we want to proceed, we'll go from there. Noura Ghazi  01:17 Okay, so since I was a child, my childhood wasn't like normal, like all the kids at my age, because my father was like a leader in opposition party against the previous Syrian regime. Michael Hingson  01:34 So you were born in Syria? Noura Ghazi  01:37 Yes, I work in Damascus. I'm from Damascus, but I have some like multiple origin that I'm proud of. But yes, I'm from Damascus. So since I was five years old, my father was disappeared and because he was wanted with other, like fellows at his party and other, let's say aliens, parties of opposition against the previous regime. So he disappeared for six years, then he was detained and transferred to what was named the supreme security state court. So it was during my adultness, let's say so since I was a child like I had at that time, only one sister, which is one year younger than me, we were moving a lot. We had no place to live. So my mother used to take us each few days to stay at some, someone place, let's say so it caused to us like changing schools all, all the time, which means changing friends. So it was very weird. And at that age, okay, I I knew the words of like cause, the words of leader or dictatorship. I used to say these words, but without knowing what does it mean. Then, when my father detained, it was his ninth detention. Actually, my mother was pregnant with my brother, so my brother was born while my father was in prison. And while he was in prison, the last time he disappeared for one year, three months, he was in like a kind of isolation in security facility. Then he was referred to this court. So in one of the sessions of the trials, I had a fight with the officer who, like who was leading the patrol that bring my father and other prisoners of conscience. So at the end of this fight, I promised my father and the officer that, okay, I will grow up and become a human rights lawyer and defend political prisoners, which I did at the end. Michael Hingson  04:05 So what? What was the officer doing? He was taking people to the court. Noura Ghazi  04:12 Yes, because Okay, so there is many kind of prisons now. They became like, more familiar to like public opinion because of, like 15 years of violence in Syria. So there was, like the the central civil prison in Damascus, which we call ADRA prison, and we have said, NIA jail, military prison. So those two prisons, they were like, holding detainees in them. So they they used to bring detainees to the court in busses, like a kind of military busses, with patrol of like civil police and military police. So the officer was like. Heading the patrol that was bringing my fathers from other prison. Michael Hingson  05:05 So you, so you, what was the fight about with the officer and your father and so on? What? How? Well, yeah, what was the fight? Noura Ghazi  05:16 It's very good question, although at that time, it was a very like scary situation, but now I laughed a lot about it. Okay, so they used to to catch all the prisoners in one chain with the handcuffs. So we used to come to hug and kiss my father before entering the court. So I was doing what I used to do during the trials, or just upon the trials, and then one of the policemen, like pushed me away. So I got nervous, and my father got nervous. So the officer provoked me. He was like a kind of insulting that my father is a detainee, and he is like he's coming to this court. So I, like I replied that I'm proud of my father and his friends what they are doing. So he somehow, he threats me to detain me like my father, and at that time, I was very angry, and I curse the father Assad just in on the like in the door, at the door of the court, and there was people and and Like all the the policemen, like they were just pointing their weapon to me, and there was some moments of silence. Then they took all the detainees into the court. So at this moment, while I'm entering the court behind them, I said, I will grow up and become a human rights lawyer to defend political prisoners. Michael Hingson  07:02 What did the officers say to that? Noura Ghazi  07:06 Because they used to look to us as because we are. We were against father Assad and the dictatorship, so they used to see us, even if we are kids, as enemies. Michael Hingson  07:22 Yeah, so the officer but, but he didn't detain you. I was Noura Ghazi  07:27 only 13 years, yeah, okay, they used to to arrest the kids, but they didn't. Michael Hingson  07:37 So did the officer react to your comment? You're going to grow up to become a civil rights lawyer? Noura Ghazi  07:43 He was shocked, was he? But I don't know if he knew that I become a human yes, there at the end, yeah. Michael Hingson  07:54 And meanwhile, what did your father do or say? Noura Ghazi  07:58 He was shocked also, but he was very proud, and until now, he like every time, because I'm also like, very close to to his friends who I used to visit in prison. Then I become a human rights lawyer, and I was the youngest lawyer in Syria. I was only 22 years old when I started to practice law. So during the the revolution in Syria, which started in 2011 some of his friends were detained, and I was their lawyer also. So I'm very close to them. So until now, they remember this story and laugh about it, because no one could curse or say anything not good about father Assad or or the family, even in secret. So it's still, like, very funny, and I'm still like, stuck somehow in, like, in this career and the kind of activism I'm doing, because just I got angry of the officer 30 years ago. So at this, at that moment, I've decided what I will be in the future. I'm just doing it well. Michael Hingson  09:20 From everything I've read, it sounds like you do a good job. Noura Ghazi  09:25 I cannot say it's a job, because usually you you do a job, you get paid for your job, you go at a certain time and come back at a certain time. You do certain tasks. But for me, it's like a continuing fight, non violent fight, of course, for dignity, for freedom, for justice, right, for reveal the truth of those who were disappeared and got missing. So yes, until now, I'm doing this, so I don't have that. Are the luxury to to be paid all the time, or to be to have weekends or to work until like certain hour at night. I cannot say I'm enjoying it, but this is the reason why I'm still alive, because I have a motive to help and support other people who are victims to dictatorship and violence. Michael Hingson  10:25 So your father went into court and what happened? Noura Ghazi  10:31 He was sentenced. At the end, he was sentenced to three years in prison. And it's a funny story, another funny story, actually, because, like the other latines at that at that trial, like it was only my father and other two prisoners who sent who were sentenced to three years in prison, while other people, the minimum was seven years in Prison, until 15 years in prison. So my mother and us, we felt like we are embarrassed and shy because, okay, our father will will be released like in few months, but other prisoners will stay much longer. So it's something very embarrassing to our friends who whom their fathers got sentenced to like more. Michael Hingson  11:30 Did you ever find out why it was only three years? Noura Ghazi  11:33 We don't know because it's an exceptional court, so it's up to the judge and the judge at that time, like it's it's very similar to what is happening now and what happened after 2011 so it's a kind of continuing reality in in Syria since like 63 which was the first time my father was detained. It was in 63 just after the what they called the eighth March revolution. So my father was only 11 years old when he was detained the first time because he participated in a protest. So it's up to the judge. It's not like a real court with like the the fair trial standards. So it's it's only once you know, the judge said the sentences for each one. So two prisoners got confused. They couldn't differentiate like Which sentence to whom, so they asked like again, so he forgot, so he said them again in different way. So it's something like, very spontaneously, yeah, very just moody, not any standard. Michael Hingson  12:51 Well, so Did your father then serve the three years and was released. Or what happened? Noura Ghazi  12:58 He was released on the day that he should be released, he disappeared for few days. We didn't know what happened. Then he was released. Finally he came. We used to live with my my grandma, so I was the one who opened the door, and I saw just my father. So we we knew later that okay, he was moved again to a security facility because he refused to sign a paper that say that he will not practice any oppositional action against the authority. So he refused, yeah, yeah. Michael Hingson  13:43 Well, I mean, I'm sure there's, there's a continuing story, what happened to him after that. So he came home, Noura Ghazi  13:53 he came out to my grandma. It was a big surprise, like full of joy, but full of tears as well. Michael Hingson  14:01 And you're you were 16 now, right? Noura Ghazi  14:04 I was when he was raised. I was 15, yeah, okay, yeah. And my sister was 14. My brother was two years and a half, so for him, okay, the father is this person that we visit behind bars every Monday, not this one who stay with us. So for him, it was weird. For my brother, he was very like little kid to understand. Then my father went to to see his parents as well. Then we came back to our apartment that we couldn't live more than few months because my father was detained. So at this night, everything was very, very, very new, like because before the three years he he was disappeared for six years, so there was. Nine years. We don't live with my father, so my brother used to sleep just next to my mom, actually my sister and me, but okay, we were like a teenager, so it's okay. So my brother couldn't sleep. Because why he keep, he kept asking why my father is sleeping with us while he's not with his friend at that place. And he was traumatized for many days. But usually when, like a political prisoner released, usually, like, we have a kind of two, three weeks of people visiting the family to say, Okay, it's it's good. We're happy for you that he was released. So the first two, three weeks were full of people and like, social events, etc. Then the, the real problem started. So my father studied law, but he was fired from university for security reasons at the the last year of his study, and as he was sentenced so he couldn't work, my mother used to work, and so like suddenly he started to feel that okay, He's not able to work. He's not able to fulfill the needs of his family. He's not able to spend on the family. The problems between him and my mother started. We couldn't as like my sister and me as teenagers. We couldn't really accept him. We couldn't see that. He's the same person that we used to visit in prison. He was very friendly. We used to talk about everything in life, including the very personal things that usually daughters don't speak with fathers about it. But then he became a father, which we we we weren't used to it, and he was shocked also. So I can say that this, this situation, at least on emotional and psychological level, for me, it lasted for 15 years. I couldn't accept him very well, even my my sister and and the brother and it happens to all like prisoners, political prisoners, especially who spent long time in prison. Michael Hingson  17:32 So now is your father and well, are your father and your mother still alive? Or are they around? Noura Ghazi  17:41 They are still alive. They are still in Damascus, Michael Hingson  17:44 and they're still in Damascus. Yes, how is I guess I'll just ask it now, how is Syria different today than it was in the Assad regime, Noura Ghazi  17:56 like most of Syrians, and now we should differentiate about what Syrians will talk. We're talking so like those Syrians, like the majority of Syrians, and I'm meaning here, I'm sorry, I shouldn't be very direct. Now, the Arab Sunni Syrians, most of them, they are very happy. They are calling what happened in in last eight December, that it's the deliberation of Syria, but for other minorities, like religious or ethnic minorities, of course, it's almost the same. For me, I feel that okay, we have the same dictatorship now, the same corruption, the same of like lack of freedom of expression. But the the added that we have now is that we have Islamist who control Syria. We have extremists who control Syria. They intervene even in personal freedoms. They they are like, like, they are committing crimes against minorities, like it started last March, against alawed. It started last July, against Druze. Now it is starting against Kurdish, and unfortunately, the international community turning like an attorney, like, okay. They are okay with with it, because they want, like their own interest, their own benefits. They have another crisis in the world to take care and to think about, not Syria. So the most important for the international community is to have a stable situation in Syria, to be like, like, no kind of like, no fight zone in the Middle East, and they don't care about Syrian people. And this is very frustrating for those who. Who have the same beliefs that I have. Michael Hingson  20:04 So in a lot of ways, you're saying it hasn't, hasn't really changed, and only the, only the faces and names have changed, but not the actions or the results Noura Ghazi  20:16 the faces and names, and most important, the sects, has changed. So it was very obvious for me that most of Syrians, they don't mind to be controlled by dictator. They only mind what is the sect of this dictator? Michael Hingson  20:35 Unfortunately. Well, yeah. Well, let's go back to you. So your father was released, and you had already made your decision about what you wanted to be, what how does school work over there? Did you go to a, what we would call a high school? Or how does all that work? Noura Ghazi  20:58 Yeah, high school, I was among the like the student who got the highest score in Damascus. I was the fourth one on Damascus when I finished. We call it back like Baccalaureate in Syria, which came from French. And I studied law, and I was also very, like, really hard, hard study person. So I was graduated in four years. Actually, nobody in Syria used to finish studying law in Damascus University only in four years. Like some people stayed more than 10 years because it it was very difficult, and it's different than like law college or law school or university of law, depending on the country, than other countries, because we only like study law. Theoretically, we don't have any practice because we were 1000s of students, it was the like the maximum university that include students. And I registered immediately in the Bar Association in Damascus, and I started because we have, like, a kind, it's, it's similar to stage for two years, like under the supervision of another lawyer who was my uncle at the first and then we we have to choose a topic in certain domain of flow, to write a kind of book which is like, it's similar to thesis, to apply it, to approve it, and then to have the kind of interactive examination, then we have the the final graduated. So all of them to be like a practice lawyer. It's around six years, a little bit more. So my specialist was in criminal law, and my thesis, what about what we call the the impossible crime. It was complicated topic. I have to say that in Syria at that time, I'm talking about end of of 90s, beginning of 2000 so we don't have any kind of study related to human rights. We weren't allowed even to spell this word like human rights. So then in 2005 and 2006 I started to study human rights under international laws related to human rights in Jordan. So I became like a kind of certified human rights defenders and the trainer also, Michael Hingson  23:47 okay, and so you said you started practice and you finished school when you started practice, when you were 22 Yes, okay, I'm curious what, what were things like after September 11, of course, you know, we had the terrorist attacks and so on. Did any of that affect anything over in Syria, where you lived, Noura Ghazi  24:15 of course, like, we stayed talking, watching the news for like four months, like until now we remember, like September 11. But you know, I now when I remember, it was a shock, usually for the Arab world, or Arab people like America is against the Arab world. So everything happened against it was like, this was like, let's say 2030, years ago. Everything that caused any harm to America, they celebrate it. So that. At that time, I was 19 years old, and okay, it's the first time we we hear that a person who was terrorist do like is doing this kind in in us, which is like a miracle for us. But then I started to to think, okay, they it's not an army. They are. There are civilians. Those civilians could be against the the policies of the US government. They could be like, This is not a kind of fight for freedom or for rights or for any like, really, like, fair cause. This is a terrorist action against civilians. And then we started, I'm very lucky because I'm from very educated family. So we started to think about, like, okay, bin Laden. And like, which we have a president from Qaeda now in Syria, like, you can imagine how I feel now. Like, I Okay, all the world is against al Qaeda, and they celebrated that the President in Syria is from al Qaeda. So it's, it's very it's, it's, really, it's not logical at all. But the funniest thing that happened, because, like, the name of Usama bin Laden, was keeping on every like, every one tongue. So I have my my oldest uncle. His name is Usama, and he lives in Germany for 40, more than 40 years, actually. So my brother was a child, and he started to cry, and he came to my mother and asked her, I'm afraid, is my uncle the same Usama? So we were laughing all, and we said, No, it's another Usama. This is the Usama. This is Osama bin Laden, who is like from is like a terrorist group, etc. But like this unfortunate incident started to bring to my mind some like the concept of non violence, the concept of that, okay, no civilian in any place in the world should be harmed for any reason, Because we never been told this in Syria and mostly in most of of countries like the word fight is very linked to armed fights, which I totally disagree with. Michael Hingson  27:56 Well, the when people ask me about September 11 and and so on. One of the things that I say is this wasn't a religious war. This wasn't a religious attack. This was terrorist. This was, I put it in terms of of Americans. These were thugs who decided they wanted to have their way with people. But this is not the way the Muslim the Islamic religion is there is peaceful and peace loving as as anyone, and we really need to understand that. And I realize that there are a lot of people in this country who don't really understand all about that, and they don't understand that. In reality, there's a lot of peace loving people in the Middle East, but hopefully we'll be able to educate people over time, and that's one of the reasons I tell the story that I do, because I do believe that what happened is 19 people attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and so on, and they don't represent the the typical viewpoint of most people, religious wise in the Middle East. And I can understand why a lot of people think that the United States doesn't like Arabs, and I'm not sure that that's totally true, but I can appreciate what you're saying. Noura Ghazi  29:28 Yeah, I'm talking about specific communities actually, who they are, like totally against Israel, and they believe that you us is supporting Israel. So that's that's why they have their like this like attitude towards us and or like that US is trying to invest all the resources in the in the Middle East, etc. But what you were mentioning. Is really very important, because those 19 persons, they like kind of they, they cause the very bad reputation for for Muslims, for Middle Eastern because for for for other people from other countries, other culture or other religion, they will not understand that, okay, that, as you said, they don't represent Muslims. And in all religions, we have the extremist and we have those peaceful persons who keep their their religion as a kind of direct connection with God. They respect everyone, and normally in in in Syria, most of of the population like this, but now having a terrorist as a President, I'm not able to believe how there is a lot of Syrians that support him. Mm, hmm. Because when Al Qaeda started in Syria at the beginning, under the name of japet Al Nusra, then, which with July, who is now Ahmad Al shara, was the leader, and he's the leader of the country now most of Syrians, especially the the the Sunni Syrians, were against this, like terrorist groups, because the most harm they cause is for for Sunnis in Syria, because all other minorities, they will think about every Sunni that they, He or she, like, believe and behave like those, which is totally not true. Michael Hingson  31:47 Yeah, I hear you. Well, so September 11 happened, and then eventually you started doing criminal law. And if we go forward to what 2011 with the Syrian revolution? Yeah, and so what was, what was that revolution about? Noura Ghazi  32:10 It was okay. It started as a reaction against detaining kids from school. Okay, of course, this like the Syrian people, including me, we were very affected and inspired about what was happening in Egypt and Tunisia. But okay, so the security arrested and tortured those kids in their south of Syria. So people came out in demonstration to ask for their freedom and the security attack those protesters with, like, with weapons, so couple of persons died. So then it was, it started to be like a kind of revolution, let's say, yeah, the the problem for me, for lot of people like me, that the the previous Syrian regime was very violent against protesters and the previous president, Bashar Assad, he refused to listen to to to those people, he started to, like dissipated from the reality. So this like, much violence that was against us, like, I remember during some protest, there was not like, small weapon toward us. There was a tank that bombing us as protesters, peaceful, non violent, non armed protesters. So this violence led to another violence, like a kind of reaction by those who defected from the army, etc. And here, my father used to say, when the opposition started to to carry weapon in a country that, like the majority of it, is from certain religion, this could lead to a kind of Jihadist methodology. And this is what happened. So for for people like us, which we are very little comparing of like, the other beliefs of other people like we were, we started to be against the Syrian regime, then against the jihadist groups, then against that, like a kind of international, certain International, or, let's say original intervention, like Iran and Russia. So we were fighting everywhere, and no one. No one wanted us because those like educated, secular, non violent people, they. Form a kind of danger for every one of those parties. But what happened with me is that I met my late husband during a revolution at the very early of 2011 and having the relationship with me was my own revolution. So I was living on parallel like two revolution, a personal one and the public one. And then, like he was detained just two weeks before our our wedding. He was disappeared, actually, for nine months, then he was moved to the same prison that my father was in, to the central prison in Damascus that we got married in prison by coincidence. I don't know if coincidence is the right word in this situation, but my late husband was a very well known programmer and activist. So we were he was kind of, let's say, famous, and I was a lawyer and lawyer that defend human rights defenders and political prisoners. And the husband was detained, so I used to visit him in prison and visit other prisoners that I was their lawyers. And because my like, we have this personal aspect that okay, the couple that got married in prison and that, okay, I'm activist as a lawyer, and my late husband was a well known programmer. So we created a very huge campaign, a global campaign. So we invested this campaign to like, to shed the light about detention, torture, disappearance, exceptional courts, then, like also summary execution in Syria. So then, after almost three years of visiting him regularly, he disappeared again in 2015 and in 2017 I knew that he was sentenced to death, and I knew the exact date of his execution, just in 2018 which was two days ago. It was October 5. So this is what happened then. I had to leave Syria in 2018 so I left to Lebanon. Michael Hingson  37:27 So you left Syria and went to Lebanon? Noura Ghazi  37:33 Yes, the The plan was to stay only six months in Lebanon because I was wanted and I was threatened like I lived a terrible life, really, like lot of Syrians who were activists also, but the plan was that I will stay in Lebanon for six months, then I will leave to to UK because I had A scholarship to get a master in international law. But only two months after I left to Lebanon, I decided to stay in Lebanon to establish the organization that I'm I'm leading until now, which was a project between my late husband and me. Its name is no photo zone, so it was a very big decision, but I'm not regrets. Michael Hingson  38:23 You, you practice criminal law, you practiced human rights, you visited your your fiance, as it were, and then, well, then your husband in prison and so on. Wasn't all of that pretty risky for you? Noura Ghazi  38:42 Yes, very risky. I, I lived in under like, different kind of risk. Like, okay, I have the risk that, okay, I'm, I'm doing my activism against the previous regime publicly because I also, I was co founder of the First Family or victim Association in Syria families for freedom. So we, we were, like, doing a kind of advocacy in Europe, and I used to come back to Syria, so I was under this risk, but also I was under the risk of the like, going to prison, because the way to prison and the prison itself were under bombing. It was in like a point that separate the opposition militias and the regime militias. So they were bombing each other and bombing the prison and bombing the way to prison. So for three years, and specifically for like, in, let's say, 2014 specifically, I was among, like, I was almost the only lawyer that visited the prison, and I, I didn't mind this. I faced death more than 100 time, only on the way to prison, two times the person next to me in the like transportation. It's a kind of small bus. He died and fell down on me, but I had a strong belief that I will not die, Michael Hingson  40:21 and then what? Why do you think that they never detained you or or put you in prison? Do you have any thoughts? Noura Ghazi  40:29 I had many arrests weren't against me, but each time there was something that solve it somehow. So the first couple of Earths weren't actually when, when my late husband was detained, he he made a kind of deal with them that, okay, he will give all the information, everything about his activism in return. They, they canceled the arrest warrant against me. Then literally, until now, I don't know how it was solved. Like I, I had to sleep in garden with my cats for many nights. I i spent couple of months that I cannot go to any like to family, be house or to friend house, because I will cause problem for them, my my parents, my brother and sister, and even, like my sister, ex, until like just three months before the fall of the Syrian regime, they were under like, investigation By the security, lot of harassment against them so, but I don't know, like, I'm, I'm survive for a reason that I don't really realize how, Michael Hingson  41:52 wow, it, it's, it certainly is pretty amazing. Did you ever write a book or anything about all of this, Noura Ghazi  42:02 I used to write, always the only book like, let's say, literature or emotional book. It was about love in prison. Its name is waiting. And I wrote this book in English and basil. My late husband translated it. Sorry. I wrote it in Arabic, and Basset translated it into English in prison. So it was a process of smuggling the poems in Arabic and smuggling the them in English, again out of the prison. And we published the book online just after basil disappearance in 2015 then we created the the hard copies, and I did the signature in in Beirut in, like, early 2018 but like, it's, it's online, and it's a very, like light book, let's say very romantic. It's about love in prison. I'm really keen to write again, like maybe a kind of self narrative or about the stories that I lived and i i I heard during my my journey. Unfortunately, like to write needs like this a little stable situation, but I did write many like legal or human rights book or like guides or studies, etc. Michael Hingson  43:34 Now is waiting still available online? Noura Ghazi  43:37 Yes, it's still available online. Michael Hingson  43:40 Okay? It would be great if you could, if you have a picture of the book cover, if you could send that to me, because I'd like to put that in the notes. I would appreciate it if you would, okay, for sure. But anyway, so the the company you founded, what is it called Noura Ghazi  44:02 it's a non government, a non profit organization. Its name is no photo zone. Michael Hingson  44:07 And how did you come up with that name? Noura Ghazi  44:12 It was Vasil who come up with this name, because our main focus is on prisoners of conscious and disappeared. So for him, it was that okay, those places that they put disappeared in them. They are they. There is no cameras to show the others what is happening. So we should be the the like in the place of cameras to tell the world what is happening. So that's why no photos on me, like, means that prisons or like unofficial detention centers, because they're it's an all photo zone, right? Michael Hingson  44:54 And no photo zone is is still operating today. Noura Ghazi  44:58 It's still operating. We are extending our work, although, like we have lots of financial challenges because of, like, funds issues, but for us, the main issue, we provide legal services to victims of torture, detention, disappearance and their families. So we operate in Syria, Lebanon and Turkey. We are a French woman led organization, but we have registration in Turkey and Syria, and like in seven years now, almost seven years, we could provide our services to more than 3000 families who most of them are women, and they are responsible about kids who they don't have fathers. So we defend political prisoners. We search the disappeared. We provide the legal services related to personal and civil status. We provided the services related to identification documents, because it's a very big issue in Syria. Beside we provide rehabilitation, like full rehabilitation programs for survivors of detention or torture, and also advocacy. Of course, it's a very important part of our our work, even with the lack of fund, we've decided in the team, because most of the team, or all the team, they they were themselves victims of detention, or family members of victims, even the non Syrian because we have many non Syrian member in the team. So for us, it's a cause. It's not like a work that we're doing and getting paid. So we're, we're suffering this this year with the fund issues, because there is a lot of change related to the world and Syrian issues, which affected the fund policies. So hopefully we'll be, we'll be fine next year, hopefully, and we're trying to survive with our beneficiaries this year, Michael Hingson  47:02 yeah, well, you, you started receiving, and I assume no photo zone started receiving awards, and eventually you moved out of Lebanon. Tell me more about all of that. Noura Ghazi  47:16 During my journey, I I got many international recognition or a word, including two by Amnesty International. But after almost two years, like just after covid, like the start of covid, I was thinking that I should have another residence permit in another country because, like, it became very difficult for Syrians to get a residence in Lebanon. So I I moved to Turkey, and I was between Lebanon and Turkey. Then I got a call from the French Embassy in Turkey telling me that there is a new kind of a word, which is Marianne award, or Marianne program, that initiated by the French president. And they it's for human rights defenders across the world, and they will give this award for 15 human rights defender from 15 country. And I was listening, I thought they want me to nominate someone. Then they told me that the French government are honored to choose you as a Syrian human rights defender. So it was a program for six months, so I moved to Paris with my cat and dog. Then they extended the program and to become nine months. And at the almost at the end of the program, the both of Lebanese and Turkish authorities refused to renew my residence permit, so I had to stay in France to apply for asylum and a political refugee currently. Michael Hingson  49:10 And so you're in France. Are you still in Paris? Noura Ghazi  49:13 I'm still yes in Paris. I learned French very fast, like in four months. Okay, I'm not perfect, but I learned French. Michael Hingson  49:25 So what did your dog and cat think about all that? Sorry, what did your dog and cat think about moving to France? Noura Ghazi  49:33 They are French, actually, originally, they are friends. Michael Hingson  49:36 Oh, there you go. Noura Ghazi  49:38 My, my poor dog had like he he was English educated, so we used to communicate in English. Then when I was still in Lebanon, I thought, okay, a lot of Syrians are coming to my place, and they don't speak English, so I have to teach him Arabic. Then we moved to Turkish. So I had to teach him Turkish. Then we came to. France. So now my dog understand more than four languages, Michael Hingson  50:06 good for him, and and, of course, your cat is really the boss of the whole thing, right? Noura Ghazi  50:12 Of course, she is like, the center of the universe, Michael Hingson  50:16 yeah, yeah, just ask her. She'll tell you. And she's Noura Ghazi  50:20 very white, so she is 14 years. Oh, it's old, yes. Michael Hingson  50:29 Well, I have a cat we rescued in 2015 we think she was five then. So we think that my cat is 15 going on 16. So, and she moves around and does very well. Noura Ghazi  50:46 Yeah, my cat as well. Michael Hingson  50:49 Yeah. Well, that's the way it should be. So with all the things that you've been dealing with and all the stress, have you had? Noura Ghazi  50:59 PTSD, yes, I started, of course, like it's the minimum, actually, I have PTSD and the TSD, and I started to feel, or let's say, I could know that the what is happening with me is PTSD two years ago. I before, like, couple of months before, I started to feel like something unusual in my body, in my mind. At the beginning, we thought there is a problem in the brain. Then the psychologist and psychiatrist said that it's a huge level of PTSD, which is like the minimum, and like, we should start the journey of of treatment, which is like the behavior treatment and medical treatment as well. Like, some people could stay 10 years. Some people need to go to hospital. It's not the best thing, but sometimes I feel I'm grateful that I'm having PTSD because I'm able to deal with people who are in the same situation. I could feel them, understand them, so I could help them more, because I understand and as a human rights defender and like victim of lot of kind of violations, so I'm very aware about the like, let's call it the first aid, the psychological first aid support. And this is helpful somehow. Okay, I'm suffering, but this suffering is useful for others Michael Hingson  52:47 well and clearly, you are at a point where you can talk about it, which says a lot, because you're able to deal with it well enough to be able to talk about it, which I think is probably pretty important, don't you think? Noura Ghazi  53:03 Yeah, actually, the last at the first time I talked about it very publicly in a conference in Stockholm, it was last October, and then I thought it's important to talk about it. And I'm also thinking to do something more about PTSD, especially the PTSD related to to prisons, torture, etc, this kind of violations, because sharing experience is very important. So I'm still thinking about a kind of certain way to to like, to spread my experience with PTSD, especially that I have lot of changes in in my life recently, because I got married again, and even the the good incident that people who have PTSD, even if they have, like good incident, but it cause a kind of escalation with PTSD, Michael Hingson  54:00 yeah, but you got married again, so you have somebody you can talk with. Noura Ghazi  54:06 Yes, I got married five months ago. The most important that I could fall in love again. So I met my husband in in Paris. He's a Lebanese artist who live in Paris. And yeah, I have, I have a family now, like we have now three cats and a dog and us as couple. But it's very new for me, like this kind of marriage, that a marriage which I live with a partner, because the marriage I used to is that visit the husband in prison. I'm getting used to it. Michael Hingson  54:43 And just as always, the cat runs everything, right? Yes, of course, of course. So tell me about the freedom prize in Normandy. Noura Ghazi  54:55 Oh, it was like one of the best thing I had in my life. I. Was nominated for the freedom prize, which is launched by usually they are like young people who who nominate the the nominees for this prize, but it's launched by the government of Normandy region in France and the International Institute for Human Rights and peace. So among hundreds of files and, like many kind of round of, like short listing, there was me, a Belarusian activist who is detained, and a Palestinian photographer. So like, just knowing that I was nominated among more than 700 person was a privilege for me. The winner was the Palestinian photographer, but it was the first time they invite the other nominee to the celebration, which was on the same date of like liberating Normandy region during the Second World War. So I chose, I thought for my for couple of days about what I will wear, because I need to deliver a message. So I, I I came up with an idea about a white dress with 101 names in blue. Those names are for disappeared and detainees in Syria. So like there was, there was seven persons who worked on this dress, and I had the chance to wear it and to deliver my message and to give a speech in a very important day that even like those fighters during the Second World War who are still alive, they they came from us. They came from lot of countries. I had the privilege to see them directly, to touch them, to tell them thank you, and to deliver my message in front of an audience of 4500 persons. And it's like I love this dress, and like this event was one of the best thing I had in my life. Michael Hingson  57:21 Do you have a picture of you in the dress? Yes, I would think you do. Well, if you want, we'd love to put that in the show notes as well, especially because you're honoring all those people with the names and so on. Kind of cool. Well, okay, so, so Syria, you're, you're saying, in a lot of ways, hasn't, hasn't really changed a whole lot. It's, it's still a lot of dictatorship oriented kinds of things, and they discriminate against certain sex and and so on. And that's extremely unfortunate, because I don't think that that's the impression that people have over here, Noura Ghazi  58:02 exactly I had a chance to visit Syria, a kind of exceptional visit by the French government, because, as political refugees were not allowed to visit our country of origin. And of course, like after eight years, like out of Syria after six years without seeing my family. Of course, I was very happy, but I was very traumatized, and I I came back to Paris in in July 21 and since that time, I feel I'm not the same person before going to Syria. I'm full of frustration. I feel that, okay, I just wasted 14 years of my life for nothing. But hopefully I'm I'm trying to get better because okay, I know, like much of human rights violations mean that my kind of work and activism is more needed, yeah, Michael Hingson  59:03 so you'll so you'll continue to speak out and and fight for freedom. Noura Ghazi  59:10 Yes, I continue, and I will continue fighting for freedom, for dignity, for justice, for civil rights, and also raising awareness about PTSD and how we could invest even our pain for the sake of helping others. Michael Hingson  59:29 Well, I want to tell you that it's been an honor to have you on the podcast, and I am so glad we we got a chance to talk and to do this because having met you previously, in our introductory conversation, it was very clear that there was a story that needed to be told, and I hope that a lot of people will take an interest, and that it will will allow what you do to continue to grow, if people would like to reach out to you. And and help or learn more. How do they do that? Noura Ghazi  1:00:05 We you have the the link of my website that people could connect me, because it includes my my email, my personal email, and I always reply. So I'm happy to to talk with the to contact with people, and it also include all the all my social media, Michael Hingson  1:00:23 right? What? What's the website for? No photo zone. Noura Ghazi  1:00:27 It's no photo zone.org. No photo zone.org. Michael Hingson  1:00:30 I thought it was, but I just wanted you to say it. I wanted you to say it. Noura Ghazi  1:00:35 It's included in my website. Michael Hingson  1:00:37 Yeah, I've got it all and and it will all be in the show notes, but I just thought I would get you to say no photo zone.org Well, I want to thank you for being here. This has been a wonderful time to have a chance to talk, and I appreciate you taking the time to, I hope, educate lots of people. So thank you very much for doing that, and I want to thank all of you for listening and watching. We'd love you to give us a five star rating. Give us a review. We really appreciate ratings and reviews. So wherever you're watching or listening to this podcast, please give us a five star rating. Please review the podcast for us. We value that, and I know that Nora will will appreciate that as well. Also, if you if you know any guests, and Nora you as well, if you know anyone who you think ought to be a guest on the podcast, we would really appreciate it. If you would let us know you can reach me. At Michael M, I, C, H, A, E, L, H, I at accessibe, A, C, C, E, S, S, i, b, e.com, love to hear from you. Love to hear your thoughts about the podcast. So Nora, very much my I want to thank you again. This has been great. Thank you very much for being here. Noura Ghazi  1:01:56 Thank you Michael, and thank you for those who are listening, and we're still in touch.

What. A. Photo. What a stunning, extraordinary, scandal-defining, generation-defining photo. A gaunt man. His eyes wide, somehow focusing on nothing and everything at once, as if haunted by a vision he cannot unsee. His face is haggard. His pale fingers clasped. The light of the photographer's flash reflected in red in his pupil. What is the position he's in? Is he trying to hide? If so, he did a terrrrrible job. Is he willing the plush leather seats of his vehicle to swallow him whole? And what is that expression? Is it the humiliation of Police detention? The shock and embarrassment of being held against your will? Or is it the gravity of this moment, this realisation? Does Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor finally see that he, a man born into the most extreme privilege is now mired in the most profound shame. Charged? As of yet, no. Convicted? Certainly not. But surely irredeemable in his disgrace. What a moment. What an extraordinary fall from grace. What a photo. Once again, we are reminded, aren't we, of a photograph's unique power. There's nothing like it. The Reuters photographer at the other end of the lens fired off six frames. Two had Police in the shot. Two were blank. One was out of focus. And this, the frame that endured. A photograph that says more than any headline in British tabloids ever could. It was as if it were meant to be. In a strange poetic way, photographs now book-end Andrew's disgrace. It was a photograph that first tied him to Epstein and Virginia Giuffre. The then-Prince stands with his body facing towards her, his hand around her waist. It was a photograph in the latest Epstein dump of Andrew on all fours, above a female on the ground. Once again, the flash reflects red in pupils. And so it was that when he was filmed and photographed on his 66th birthday leaving the Aylsham Police Station, it is the photograph we remember. A friend noted yesterday what an astoundingly undignified episode this has been. From the photographs themselves to the pathetic communications of Sarah Fergusson scattered throughout the files, to the image of a flubbering man on the BBC's Newsnight, waffling about Pizza Express. I bet you're sweating now, Andy. I thought the King's statement yesterday was excellent. Might he have felt a strange relief at having already stripped his brother of his Royal titles? Perhaps. There are still plenty of valid questions about why the Palace didn't do a whole lot more, a whole lot sooner. But the statement was strong and uncompromising. He continued with his engagements. And in the face of a reputational crisis for the Palace, he was a vision of relative stability. Who can say now what indignities remain for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor? He spent his 65th birthday in a palace and his 66th in a police station. Theoretically if he's charged and convicted, he could face time in prison. That photograph of him being driven away cut a pitiful vision. One that very few people will forget. From Andrew's perspective, worse could yet still be to come. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This conversation delves into the intricacies of Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) and its significant tax benefits for founders. MICHAEL ARLEIN, Partner at Patterson Belknap, explains the eligibility criteria, the importance of strategic planning, and the potential pitfalls that can arise. The discussion also covers the implications of state taxes and the advantages of gifting strategies. We cover innovative approaches like the “GOAT” trust to maximize tax-free gains. Founders are encouraged to engage with legal experts early in their business journey to fully leverage QSBS opportunities. https://youtu.be/lfBt0j7BlW0?si=LufZ8j2YtgdspLMJ Takeaways from “QSBS For Founders” QSBS is a powerful tax benefit for founders.The maximum exclusion amount has increased to $15 million.Careful planning is essential to avoid QSBS pitfalls.Gifting QSBS stock can multiply tax exemptions.State tax implications vary; California does not recognize QSBS.Discounting shares can aid in estate planning.Converting from an S-Corp to a C-Corp can preserve QSBS benefits.Early engagement with legal counsel is crucial for founders.Innovative strategies like the GOAT trust can maximize benefits.Almost all businesses should consider QSBS eligibility. Chapters 00:00 Understanding QSBS: A Founder’s Guide.02:56 Navigating the QSBS Landscape: Common Pitfalls.06:07 Maximizing QSBS Benefits: Stacking Strategies.08:42 The Importance of Timing: Gifting and Valuation.12:03 State Tax Implications: The QSBS Challenge.14:52 Entity Structures and QSBS: What Founders Need to Know.17:37 Transitioning to C-Corp: Strategies for S-Corps and LLCs.20:29 Who Should Pay Attention to QSBS?23:44 Innovative Business Structures: Technology and QSBS-26:36 Early Stage Strategies: Cloning Yourself on the Cap Table- Transcript of “QSBS for Founders” Frazer Rice (00:01.109)Welcome aboard, Michael. Michael Arlein (00:03.096)Thank you. Good to be here. Frazer Rice (00:04.617)So let’s get started here. QSBS, Qualified Small Business Stock, is something that certainly all founders should be aware of. It’s a tax feature. It’s probably one of the nicest goodies that the federal government gives to people who are starting businesses. Take us through a little bit about what happens there. For founders, you’re going to hear the numbers 1202, which is the section that is quoted here. Take us through a little bit about what happens at QSBS and why it’s a powerful feature. Michael Arlein (00:37.496)Sure, that sounds good. To your point, the New York Times called QSBS a lavish tax dodge that is easily multiplied. And I happen to. I’m not aware of any other provision of the tax code that can save anyone as much money as QSBS. It’s really incredible. I think the policy reasons behind the provisions are that they’re designed to encourage entrepreneurship. Everyone on both sides of the political aisle is in favor of. The basic premise of it is that if you create a company.You own the stock for five years. The company’s in the form of a C corporation, It’s not in one of a series of restricted industries. Mainly service industries, that when you sell the stock, you can exclude from paying tax $10 million, the first $10 million of your gain. That’s the old rule, which I’m still dealing with, that that’s for stock that was issued before July 4th, 2025. And now QSBS has gotten even better. So if you get stock after that date. You hold it for actually now three years, you can exclude ultimately up to $15 million from tax. So we’re now dealing with two different regimes. I’m still stuck in the old regime. Most of the people I’m dealing with got their stock before last July. But I’ll try and point out the differences as we go along. Frazer Rice (02:29.066)Sure, as you said, there are a bunch of things you have to jump through. To make sure that you can sort of apply and then to further comply with the rules associated with it. Things like services. Making sure that maybe you don’t have too much cash and that it’s deployed correctly. Making sure that the original stock issuance persists throughout. What are some of the things that you tell your clients? How do you walk them through the process so that they don’t trip on themselves and lose this nice tax advantage? Michael Arlein (03:09.676)Yeah, there are some landmines, things that you can step on and blow it. There’s some weird rules around redemptions. Like if you have redemptions. Let’s say you create a company and then there’s three co-founders. Then very early on, one of the co-founders wants out or you want to kick them out. And then the mechanism for that is the company kind of buys back their stock. You know, there’s complicated rules that can, you know, blow up QSBS for the entire company. I think some people start their businesses as LLCs or S-Corps or things like that, and then later convert them. And that has to be done very, very carefully with good tax advice. Otherwise that can also blow things up. When I talk to founders, it’s pretty clear their business qualifies. They didn’t screw anything up. Frazer Rice (04:19.626)So the OBBBA in a sense turbocharged a little bit the tax savings. That five year requirement that you talked about. You can now get some of the benefits even as early as three years. And then the dollar amounts got expanded. In addition, and this was not necessarily OBBBA related. The ability to take one exemption and maybe multiply it via stacking continues to be a powerful tool. For those people who are walking into your office now. How do you get them when they sit down situated so that they do that planning upfront? Michael Arlein (05:08.598)Yeah, that’s, you we kind of buried the lead. The benefit of QSBS: it would be incredible if you could just pay no tax on 10 or $15 million. But what’s even more incredible is that you can stack or multiply the number of exemptions. You have using a provision of the code. It says that if you gift QSBS stock to some other person or entity. That that person or entity can take their own up to 10 or 15, their own QSBS exemption. I’m just gonna say it’s 15. We understand that’s for newly stocked. So, classic move for a founder would be to set up trusts for children. There’s a special kind of a trust for a spouse. You can do this with sometimes people make trust for their parents, their siblings. There are certain states where you can actually make a trust for yourself. Usually when people come to my office, the conversation is around creating entities. Typically trusts, and then gifting shares to those trusts. that As a family, you could go from 15 million tax free to 30 or 45 or 60 million tax free. The record I had one guy who had a very large family. He married, he had kids and was very close not only with his parents. With his siblings, his nieces, his nephews, even his aunts, uncles, and cousins. He created 23 trusts, which on paper at least would save up to $230 million. Wow. Yeah. Frazer Rice (07:08.896)There’s a danger with that though, with those 23 trusts had to be different. I imagine the IRS would say, wait a minute, we see what you’re doing. Stacking all of these different things is theoretically nice and all, but is there a way to create differences within those trusts so that the IRS doesn’t view them as one big pot? Michael Arlein (07:39.692)Yeah, great question. So you can’t create multiple identical trusts. Meaning I can’t create five trusts for my child. The IRS has rules that consider those trusts as one trust and would have only one exemptions. So, one of the limiting factors on creating trust is often, who are the people you’re willing to gift to? You know, so this guy with the 23, he actually was willing to create trust for his cousins, his aunts, uncles. Now, those individuals were the beneficiaries of the trusts, which means that they were eligible to receive money from the trust. But those trusts were designed so that when those people passed away, the money would circulate back to his children. So, you we never talked about it, but it’s possible that in his head, his plan was that he would maybe provide some benefit to his cousin. Maybe he’d say to his cousin, hey, if there’s $5 million in this trust and you need a little money, I’ll make some distributions to you, but I’m going to request that the trustee kind of withhold most of the money. And then when you die, it’ll come back and benefit my kids. So there are nuances there. But generally speaking, most people aren’t willing to do that. They’re not close enough with their cousins and their aunts and their uncles. So they end up maybe creating trusts, you know, for their kids, for their parents, sometimes, you know, for their spouse and maybe sometimes they go a little beyond that, but not that far. One thing that’s important is that the U.S. Frazer Rice (09:33.472)One thing that’s important is that the the QSBS is a capital gains tax Concept meaning you’re you’re saving on the tax. From a QSBS for Founders standpoint when the the founder sells the business, and you have to pay capital gains tax on that front. Part of the reason I’m skewing this toward founders is that there’s an gift in a state exemption of 15 million dollars. So it’s important to get these assets into these trusts as early as possible and with as low evaluation as possible. That in many ways is where the real leverage is. Does that square with your thinking? Michael Arlein (10:11.019)Yeah, absolutely. We have a permanent $15 million lifetime gifting limit. $30 million for spouses. And when you gift stock into these trusts, you’re typically gifting at a common stock valuation. People are familiar, founders are familiar with common stock valuations because they do that for purposes of issuing stock options, you know, the so-called 409A valuation. Now, a gift tax appraisal is different than a 409A valuation, but in many ways, they’re very similar. S0 founders know that, you know, they could be raising a preferred round at $10 a share, but their 409A common stock valuation is still $2 a share. So you can get a lot of gifting done. You can give a lot of shares away. You know, using your $15 million exemption, even if the company is very valuable. So we see founders doing this sort of gifting, you know, late in the game, even right before a transaction or an IPO. But if you had a crystal ball, or at least, you know, you were willing to take some risk, obviously, the earlier you do it, the better, because you could gift… I mean, theoretically, if you set up trusts and you gifted shares the day after you created your company, they would be worth essentially nothing. And so you wouldn’t have to use hardly any of your gifting exemption. The problem is most people, A, aren’t thinking about that on the day they create their company. They don’t have anyone whispering in their ear and telling them to do that. And number two, they wouldn’t want to spend the money on legal fees to set up structures because at that point they’re like, don’t know what this is going to be worth. This could be zero. This could go out of business in a year. So there’s a trade off that I see between doing this later in the process where you’re gaining visibility into outcomes, maybe for younger people sometimes, you know, there’s visibility into their family lives. Maybe when they founded the company they were single. Then if they wait five years they marry, they’ll have children, i.e. people who they could create trust for. But the cost of doing that is that you’re gifting at a higher value. Frazer Rice (12:46.591)One of the considerations that people don’t understand is the state tax implication. QSBS is a federal concept that a lot of states join onto and link to. But a state like California isn’t. And so sometimes that can be an untoward surprise to people that there’s a state tax that happens that they may not have expected. Michael Arlein (13:16.299)Yeah, it’s kind of bizarre that California, the home of Silicon Valley, doesn’t recognize QSBS. But most states do. My home state of New Jersey, in fact, very recently joined the QSBS club and now recognizes it at the state level. There are a few other states, I think. Pennsylvania, I don’t think recognizes it, but the vast majority of states do. But unfortunately, if you live in California, you’re probably only in quotes saving the federal tax. But the federal tax on $15 million, 23.8 % of 15 is a pretty big number. Frazer Rice (14:01.086)No question and absolutely worth doing. one of the things that I find happens is that from an income capital gains tax perspective, we’re on top of it with the QSBS. When we get into the estate planning world, we use the concept of discounting, meaning putting QSBS shares or any shares for that matter into other entities so that you get discounting for lack of marketability and the ability to make decisions around it. Are there any tripwires on that front as far as putting things into other LLCs so that you don’t, maybe in a sense that in trying to really maximize the estate planning and the estate tax avoidance that you create issues that might cause problems with your QSBS tax avoidance usefulness there. Michael Arlein (15:02.413)Yes. Again, the rules under Section 1202 of the code for QSBS have some strange traps for the unwary and some gray areas. And one of those gray areas is around transferring interests in partnership type entities, which would mean like an LLC or a partnership. that owns QSBS. So essentially, it’s very clear that if you have QSBS stock and you gift it into one of these entities we’ve been talking about, that that entity would take the QSBS attribute and be able to enjoy the benefits of QSBS. If the QSBS is held in an entity like an LLC, let’s say you set up a, well. Let’s say a realistic example is that you made an investment in a venture capital fund that invested in an early stage company that’s QSBS. And now you’re a limited partner in that fund and you know that that fund is going to have a large exit in this QSBS position and that you’re going to get the benefits of that, but it’s going to exceed $15 million. So you say, what I should do is I should take my interest in this venture capital fund. I should give them to trust for my kids so that when the fund distributes those shares or distributes the proceeds from selling that company, it’ll be split among various entities and I’ll be able to stack QSPS. The transfer of an interest in a fund that owns QSPS, there’s a gray area about whether the recipient of that fund interest would actually have QSPS and it’s generally viewed as something to be avoided. Frazer Rice (17:08.944)In a sense putting it at risk. A question that I think pops up is that there are people who started businesses maybe pre that July 4th date that you were talking about and maybe they chose an entity like an S Corp or an LLC that isn’t sort of a good qualifying C Corp and they’re looking and saying you know what I may be able to sell this business three to five years or beyond and take advantage of this QSBS. Are there avenues to be able to change that tax elections so that you can begin that QSBS and what’s the analysis around? Michael Arlein (17:44.972)Yeah, in fact, a fairly common structure is, and we haven’t really gotten into these details, but it’s a great question. So QSBS is actually the greater of $15 million or 10 times your basis. Now we ignore the basis rule for the most part because the vast majority of founders do not have basis. They create their company and they put nothing into it. With a bank account with $10,000 in it, and they’re not contributing actual dollars into their business. And so the 10 times basis rule doesn’t actually apply. But there’s a way for a founder to take advantage of that, and this strategy is actually called PACKING. And the packing strategy involves starting your business as an LLC and with an LLC and then converting it to a C corporation. with an LLC, when you convert, there’s an attribution of basis to the founder based on the value of the LLC’s assets. Theoretically, if you started off as an LLC, and before the LLC hit $75 million value of its assets, $75 million being sort of the cutoff for qualifying for small business, you have to acquire your stock before your company assets are worth $75 million. Theoretically, let’s say you did that when it was $74 million, then if your basis was $74 million, 10 times your basis would be $740 million, you would have up to $740 million tax free. So people kind of play this game. I think for a lot of companies, it’s not realistic to be an LLC because venture cap, if you’re going to raise venture funds, they want you to be a C Corp. This works for bootstrapped companies, but most companies are forming a C corporations. You know, there is a path to convert from an S-Corp to a C-Corp and preserve QSPS for Founders. I’m no expert in that. All I can tell you is that it has to be done very carefully and very specifically. And I’ve seen a lot of people who didn’t know they needed to do anything specific and they do not qualify for QSPS. Frazer Rice (20:45.085)As we sort of, I’m not going to say wind down here because we may have some other topics that pop up. But when someone walks through their door, I guess maybe the way to think about it is, who does this apply to? You said the services industry. So accounting, finance, that type of thing- NO. For those things that venture tries to invest in, whether it’s software or other processes, who is really should be paying attention to this? Michael Arlein (21:16.491)I mean, I think almost anyone should be paying attention to this because it may be that you don’t qualify, but often people do. And more often than not, you do. This has broad application for most businesses. There are excluded industries, architects and lawyers and accountants. But if you’re doing something in the tech world, you’re probably going to qualify. It’s good to get some advice from the corporate lawyer who’s helping you create your business. I think one of the considerations of whether you form as a C Corp or an LLC is probably the availability of QSBS status. You know, I think stacking strategies, it’s worth having a conversation probably sooner than later with a lawyer to find out what the menu of stacking options is. I talk to people all the time and we decide it’s premature for them to do something. And then they call me back a year or two later and all the time I’m calls from people who say, hey, we spoke a few years ago and now Frazer Rice (22:34.013)Alright. Michael Arlein (22:39.913)the time is right. So it’s good to get educated, learn what the options are. QSBS stacking is not just about giving shares to your kids. There are strategies that are specifically designed for single people where you can create these benefits for yourself and You know, it’s too good to be missed. if you, I do talk to people who say to me, they’re usually on their second venture or third venture and they say to me, I really screwed this up the first time around. I paid no attention to it and I was focused on my business and I just screwed it up. I literally cost myself millions or tens of millions of dollars had I done it correctly. And now that’s why I’m calling you, because I want to do it correctly the second time around. Frazer Rice (23:33.278)Part and parcel with that, I ran into somebody really more of what’s called a media personality. And usually the way I think of it is that the QSBS isn’t necessarily available for people whose value is centered around them as a personality or them as a brand. But I said, you know what, the QSBS component, while it might not apply here, if your business morphs into something where you’re developing other things, slash maybe you turn into a media production company or, youbecome involved in a technology that drives other things, that you shouldn’t dismiss that. The pivot in the business from sort of a personality generated to something a little bit more business process generated might be something to think about, not only from a strategy standpoint, not that you necessarily wanna do things purely for tax reasons, but if that’s a natural consequence, that’s something to think about. Has that ever popped up in your world? Michael Arlein (24:31.915)Yeah, for sure. Every business these days is technology enabled. And I think sometimes businesses that you wouldn’t think of as being technology businesses are doing enough technology things that they can claim that they’re a technology business and not a business providing a particular kind of service. So, you know, with the help of a clever accountant or a tax lawyer, this is not an area that I operate in. I’m more about multiplying QSBS once you have it. But there are tax lawyers and corporate lawyers and accountants who can advise you how to make your business eligible for QSBS by leaning into, as you said, things that you’re doing that may be…you know, eligible versus other parts of your business that would not be. Also, you know, you can, sometimes you see companies that are divided, right? Like, so there’s a company who provides counseling services, like, you know, they’re actually hire psychotherapists that will counsel you, you know, online, like on a Zoom. and their business is split. There’s a medical services company that employs all the counselors and medical services is one of the excluded industries. But then they also have a completely separate business that is their technology platform. And the way they structured it, the value is really in the technology platform. That business is QSBS eligible because it’s a completely separate company. Frazer Rice (26:28.771)That’s a great example. part of the purpose of the question was to elicit that, is that people may say, well, we fall squarely into one classification when maybe some underlying thought might lend itself to structuring from a tax perspective that might be useful later on. OK, now as we wind down, for someone who is, at this point, starting a company when they’re forming these things, not that you, QSBS for Founders should drive the world, but how do they get involved with the discussions so that they do the right things early? Michael Arlein (27:06.401)Yeah, I mean, I do have a very specific strategy that I love for people who are about to form a company. And it really works best in that scenario of an early stage company that’s just about to launch. The way I describe this to founders is that you can and should clone yourself on the cap table. So if you start off a company and you own all of the shares, you’re basically eligible for 15 million tax free. That’s great. But what if you could clone yourself and there were three Frazers on the cap table, then Frazer would have $45 million tax free. So how do you do this? You can do it with trusts. And the beautiful thing is if you have other people create trust for you, then you can be the beneficiary of the trust and control it as well. And I have sort of branded and named this strategy a GOAT trust, which of course has the double meaning, know, greatest of all time. Frazer Rice (28:21.02) QSBS for FoundersRight. Michael Arlein (28:21.165) QSBS for FoundersBut actually stands for gift optimized to alleviate taxes. The essentials of it are is that we would work with your parents, the founders parents, we would work with your grandma, your uncle, and we would spin up some trusts that they create for the benefit of you as the founder. You would have all sorts of control and access to those trusts and they make a gift into those trusts, probably something fairly modest. Then those trusts on the day of formation buy up some of the common stock. And so those are your clones. You know, you’re having your cake and eating it too. You’re getting, you know, QSBS stacking for Founders. You’re getting some other benefits we haven’t even talked about. Those trusts can be exempt from a state tax and state level income tax. And you control those trusts and benefit from them. So we’ve essentially cloned you on the cap table. And that is a beautiful strategy that most people miss out on because they don’t do it. And then they come to me a few years later and they own the stock and it’s valuable and then we have to do the more traditional stacking strategies. Frazer Rice (29:40.432)Really cool stuff. Michael, how do people get in touch with you if they have these problems slash opportunities? Michael Arlein (29:48.525)Sure, well they can Google me. I have a nice web presence. We have our…Founder Focus Practice Group that I lead at the firm, which is very specifically tailored to provide legal services to founders, personal legal services. And I focus on the tax side of that and QSBS stacking for Founders. My email, msarlein at pbwt.com. Phone number 212-336-2588. Frazer Rice (30:23.324) QSBS For FoundersThat will all be in the show notes. Michael, thanks for being on. Michael Arlein (30:26.753) QSBS For FoundersThank you. FAMILY OFFICE MYTHS https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/ QSBS for Founders QSBS for Founders

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/film

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/art

How do we compare across languages, media, and histories, all without flattening differences? And what might Hong Kong teach us about doing comparison differently? Alvin K. Wong examines these and other questions in Unruly Comparison: Queerness, Hong Kong, and the Sinophone (Duke UP, 2025), a wide-ranging and thought-provoking study of queerness in Hong Kong. Bringing together Sinophone literature, independent and commercial cinema, documentary films, and visual art, the book asks how Hong Kong's queer productions might help us rethink the work of comparison itself. Rather than treating Hong Kong as a marginal or derivative space — a space defined by British colonialism, China-centrism, or global capitalism — this book approaches the city as a site of methodological possibilities. The key concept the book advances, “unruly comparison,” replacing neat equivalences and stable categories with incommensurability and transnational connections and linking Hong Kong to other places, times, and queer spaces across the Sinophone. Theoretically deft, the book is filled with a wide range of fascinating material, including work by filmmakers including Wong Kar-wai, Scud, and Fruit Chan; transnational and transgender visual cultures; documentaries about Southeast Asian domestic workers and queer intimacies; and poetry about language and precarity. This book will appeal to those interested in queer theory, Hong Kong studies, Sinophone studies, and comparative approaches. Listeners should also check out Alvin Wong's co-edited volume Keywords in Queer Sinophone Studies(Routledge, 2020) and the Society of Sinophone Studies webpage (of which Alvin is currently chair!).  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

Recently, people have been thinking about trits. And I don't mean the Costa Rican ice cream sandwich. Meaning ternary or base three compute. A three-value logic scheme different from the two-value binary logic we are so familiar with. A few months ago, it made the rounds when news broke that Huawei patented a ternary computing circuit that can do AI. Ternary logic has been explored for a long time. Most famously during the 1960s in the Soviet Union with the SETUN computer. Trits have certain inherent benefits over bits. At least theoretically. In today's video, a highly requested topic. We explore ternary computing.

Recently, people have been thinking about trits. And I don't mean the Costa Rican ice cream sandwich. Meaning ternary or base three compute. A three-value logic scheme different from the two-value binary logic we are so familiar with. A few months ago, it made the rounds when news broke that Huawei patented a ternary computing circuit that can do AI. Ternary logic has been explored for a long time. Most famously during the 1960s in the Soviet Union with the SETUN computer. Trits have certain inherent benefits over bits. At least theoretically. In today's video, a highly requested topic. We explore ternary computing.

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The City and the Hospital (Chicago 2023) focuses on an urban paradox: American hospitals are imagined as sites of healing and care, and yet the people who live and work in nearby neighborhoods have some of the worst health outcomes in the nation. One part urban sociology and one part policy analysis, this book reports insights from a collaborative research team that investigated three sites (Hartford, Cleveland, Aurora, CO) and conducted more than two hundred interviews for this study. The book explores how collective memory operates, how “anchor institutions” connect with the people living in their midst, and the very meaning of “community” itself. Theoretically rich and empirically insightful, the book will be of interest to scholars, scientists, advocates, and administrators in medical setting and in any powerful organization (universities, museums) that may inadvertently cause harm to those nearest to them in their efforts to do good. This interview was a collaborative effort among Professor Laura Stark and students at Vanderbilt University in the course, “American Medicine & the World.” Please email Laura with any feedback on the interview or questions about how to design collaborative interview projects for the classroom. email: laura.stark@vanderbilt.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is not out of the realm of possibility that Fred Warner could return to action for the 49ers if they make the playoffs

How is the world of work depicted on page and on screen? In Culture, Capital and Carnival: Modern Media and the Representation of Work Dr Will Kitchen, an Associate Lecturer at Arts University Bournemouth explores this question using a series of literary and media case studies. Drawing on Bakhtin's theories of the carnivalesque, the book assesses the possibilities of media texts, including histories, literature, films and sitcoms, to offer alternative visions of work. More critically, the analysis highlights media's role in reinforcing exploitation and alienation within its seemingly playful and positive engagements with work. Theoretically rich, but accessible for the general reader, the book is essential reading across the humanities and social sciences, as well as for anyone interested in understanding how media shapes our understanding of work today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

How is the world of work depicted on page and on screen? In Culture, Capital and Carnival: Modern Media and the Representation of Work Dr Will Kitchen, an Associate Lecturer at Arts University Bournemouth explores this question using a series of literary and media case studies. Drawing on Bakhtin's theories of the carnivalesque, the book assesses the possibilities of media texts, including histories, literature, films and sitcoms, to offer alternative visions of work. More critically, the analysis highlights media's role in reinforcing exploitation and alienation within its seemingly playful and positive engagements with work. Theoretically rich, but accessible for the general reader, the book is essential reading across the humanities and social sciences, as well as for anyone interested in understanding how media shapes our understanding of work today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

How is the world of work depicted on page and on screen? In Culture, Capital and Carnival: Modern Media and the Representation of Work Dr Will Kitchen, an Associate Lecturer at Arts University Bournemouth explores this question using a series of literary and media case studies. Drawing on Bakhtin's theories of the carnivalesque, the book assesses the possibilities of media texts, including histories, literature, films and sitcoms, to offer alternative visions of work. More critically, the analysis highlights media's role in reinforcing exploitation and alienation within its seemingly playful and positive engagements with work. Theoretically rich, but accessible for the general reader, the book is essential reading across the humanities and social sciences, as well as for anyone interested in understanding how media shapes our understanding of work today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

How is the world of work depicted on page and on screen? In Culture, Capital and Carnival: Modern Media and the Representation of Work Dr Will Kitchen, an Associate Lecturer at Arts University Bournemouth explores this question using a series of literary and media case studies. Drawing on Bakhtin's theories of the carnivalesque, the book assesses the possibilities of media texts, including histories, literature, films and sitcoms, to offer alternative visions of work. More critically, the analysis highlights media's role in reinforcing exploitation and alienation within its seemingly playful and positive engagements with work. Theoretically rich, but accessible for the general reader, the book is essential reading across the humanities and social sciences, as well as for anyone interested in understanding how media shapes our understanding of work today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

The form of meditation we do in Zen, unless we're working on a koan, is called shikantaza – nothing but sitting – or silent illumination. It's been called a “method of no method,” in which we let go of any striving whatsoever – even to control our meditative experience. So can we do “bad zazen?” Theoretically, there's no such thing, and yet it sure feels like there is! What is this about?

Agricultural byproducts like corn stover, wood chips, and soybean husks typically get left to decompose and release carbon dioxide. Don't call them “waste” though; some farmers use these byproducts as field cover to improve soil health. And industry uses a fraction of this biomass as feedstock for valuable products like ethanol, electricity, and heat. Theoretically, it's a vastly underutilized resource.  The problem is that agricultural residue is really hard to collect. The economics of gathering, sorting, processing, and refining are tough. On top of that, it makes for a crappy fuel. It's low energy density and high carbon, compared to oil, for example. So in what applications does agricultural residue make the most sense? And how do you economically collect the material at scale? In this episode, Shayle talks to Peter Reinhardt, co-founder and CEO of Charm Industrial, a carbon removal startup that collects agricultural residue and refines it in the field into what it calls “bio-oil.” It then injects the bio-oil underground for sequestration. Together, Peter and Shayle discuss the use cases and collection of agricultural residue, covering topics like: How the difficult economics of collecting and transporting biomass have killed centralized biomass projects, except in a few niche examples Why Peter says the processing and densification are key to improving the economics The tradeoffs between big, centralized processing facilities and Charm's on-field mobile pyrolysis units The case for using agricultural residue for applications where the carbon content matters, like iron-making, sustainable aviation fuel, and carbon removal What's driving carbon removal buyers and what it takes to build trust with them Resources: Catalyst: Fuzzy math and food competition: The pitfalls of sourcing biomass for carbon removal   Open Circuit: What we learned from the ethanol disaster   Catalyst: Shopify's head of sustainability on the realities of the carbon removal market   Catalyst: From biowaste to ‘biogold'   Credits: Hosted by Shayle Kann. Produced and edited by Daniel Woldorff. Original music and engineering by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is our executive editor.  Catalyst is brought to you by Anza, a solar and energy storage development and procurement platform helping clients make optimal decisions, saving significant time, money, and reducing risk. Subscribers instantly access pricing, product, and supplier data. Learn more at ⁠go.anzarenewables.com/latitude⁠.  Catalyst is supported by EnergyHub. EnergyHub helps utilities build next-generation virtual power plants that unlock reliable flexibility at every level of the grid. See how EnergyHub helps unlock the power of flexibility at scale, and deliver more value through cross-DER dispatch with their leading Edge DERMS platform by visiting ⁠energyhub.com⁠. Catalyst is brought to you by Antenna Group, the public relations and strategic marketing agency of choice for climate and energy leaders. If you're a startup, investor, or global corporation that's looking to tell your climate story, demonstrate your impact, or accelerate your growth, Antenna Group's team of industry insiders is ready to help. Learn more at ⁠⁠antennagroup.com⁠⁠.

For decades, nuclear has struggled with cost overruns and delays — Georgia's Vogtle plant being the latest example. Kairos Power co-founder and CEO Mike Laufer thinks the solution is to flip the script: focus first on non-nuclear demonstrations and then iterate quickly.  It's a counterintuitive and potentially risky strategy . Rapid iteration isn't the way engineers or funders like the DOE have traditionally developed nuclear plants. Kairos also combined two technologies — TRISO fuel and molten salt — into a first-of-a-kind design. Theoretically it would be safer, but Kairos was also tackling one of the hardest problems in engineering: building a reactor from scratch. After eight years of development, its approach has led to three engineering test units, a novel contracting model with the Department of Energy, and a landmark partnership with TVA and Google to deliver nuclear power to data centers.  So how did Kairos pull it off? In this episode, Lara talked with Mike about how Kairos executed its ambitious iterative approach without overextending itself. They also cover why Kairos chose to vertically integrate and build its own in-house machine shop, plus what technical setbacks taught the team.  Credits: Hosted by Lara Pierpoint. Produced by Daniel Woldorff and Erin Hardick. Edited by Anne Bailey. Technical direction by Sean Marquand. Stephen Lacey is executive editor. The Green Blueprint is a co-production of Latitude Media and Trellis Climate. Subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or anywhere you get podcasts. For more reporting on the companies featured in this podcast, subscribe to Latitude Media's newsletter.

Theoretically, we understand the difference between success and happiness. But there’s a big gap between theory and reality. What bridges that gap is often, courage. Suppose you worked hard, have a great job in a competitive field, are well paid and highly regarded, but you’re not really happy… Would you have the courage to walk away from your success and take a chance doing something that might bring you very little, except, possibly, happiness? That was the question Skye Jackson answered with, “Yes.” Skye was an entertainment lawyer in Hollywood. She had a great job at The Walt Disney Company. Until 2024. That’s when Skye traded her well-paid job dealing in the precise meaning of words in legal contracts, for a low-to-no pay job dealing in the ambiguous meaning of words, as a poet. Today, Skye is a published and well-recognized poet, a professor of creative writing, literature and poetry at Xavier University, and Chairwoman of the New Orleans Poetry Festival Board. When it came time for Crystal Burke to make a change, she wanted something different not just for herself, but for every other woman in the country. As a registered nurse practitioner for over 15 years, mostly in the fields of oncology and palliative care, Crystal knows a lot about the functioning of the human body. But when she started experiencing symptoms of perimenopause in her 30’s, she was blindsided. Finding that her symptoms were influencing almost every aspect of her life, and simultaneously discovering that doctors, even OB-GYN’s, didn’t seem to know how to treat her, or other women in her position, Crystal decided to do something to change that. In 2024, Crystal and her medical doctor husband, Steven Youngblood, founded The Menopause Clinic. It’s a tele-health-based clinic where any woman with an internet connection can consult with medical providers who specialize in recognizing and treating perimenopause – which is a phase of pre-menopause - and menopause. You’ve no doubt noticed there are a lot of memes out there encouraging women to empower themselves. “You Go Girl.” “You Do You.” “Live Your Best Life.” And plenty more. One of the reasons these women-centric slogans exist at all is, in many walks of life, things are still predominantly male dominated. There are women though – Skye and Crystal are two of them – who are – for want of a better expression – taking the bull by the horns. Crystal's The Menopause Clinic is a revolutionary idea for women’s healthcare that seems way overdue. And Skye has a voice that resonates with a lot of people, especially young Black women - Skye's poetry seems to give them both her perspective and a vocabulary to reflect on themselves. Out to Lunch was recorded live over lunch at Columns in Uptown New Orleans. You can find photos from this show by Jill Lafleur at itsneworleans.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What do children believe in? In Growing Up Godless: Non-Religious Childhoods in Contemporary England (Princeton UP, 2025) Anna Strhan, a Reader in the Department of Sociology at the University of York and Rachael Shillitoe, a senior social scientist in the UK civil service and honorary fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of York use ethnography and interviews with young people and parents at a variety of schools in England to examine current forms of non-religiosity. The book explores how children make meaning and sense of their world, offering an account that foregrounds their sense of ethical commitments and their beliefs in key humanistic ideas. Theoretically rich, and with a wealth of fascinating empirical material, the book will be of interest across the humanities and social sciences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What do children believe in? In Growing Up Godless: Non-Religious Childhoods in Contemporary England (Princeton UP, 2025) Anna Strhan, a Reader in the Department of Sociology at the University of York and Rachael Shillitoe, a senior social scientist in the UK civil service and honorary fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of York use ethnography and interviews with young people and parents at a variety of schools in England to examine current forms of non-religiosity. The book explores how children make meaning and sense of their world, offering an account that foregrounds their sense of ethical commitments and their beliefs in key humanistic ideas. Theoretically rich, and with a wealth of fascinating empirical material, the book will be of interest across the humanities and social sciences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

What do children believe in? In Growing Up Godless: Non-Religious Childhoods in Contemporary England (Princeton UP, 2025) Anna Strhan, a Reader in the Department of Sociology at the University of York and Rachael Shillitoe, a senior social scientist in the UK civil service and honorary fellow in the Department of Sociology at the University of York use ethnography and interviews with young people and parents at a variety of schools in England to examine current forms of non-religiosity. The book explores how children make meaning and sense of their world, offering an account that foregrounds their sense of ethical commitments and their beliefs in key humanistic ideas. Theoretically rich, and with a wealth of fascinating empirical material, the book will be of interest across the humanities and social sciences. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Canadian coyboys: they're nicer, but they don't like milk.https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/125157226-flawlessSimilar BooksThe Bodyguard by Katherine Centerhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58724801-the-bodyguardThe Deal by Elle Kennedyhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/45484397-the-dealLove, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwoodhttps://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61326735-love-theoreticallyhttps://www.youtube.com/@notanotherheroinehttps://patreon.com/notanotherheroine

******Support the channel******Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thedissenterPayPal: paypal.me/thedissenterPayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: https://tinyurl.com/yb3acuuyPayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9lPayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpzPayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9mPayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: https://tinyurl.com/y95uvkao ******Follow me on******Website: https://www.thedissenter.net/The Dissenter Goodreads list: https://shorturl.at/7BMoBFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedissenteryt/Twitter: https://x.com/TheDissenterYT This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: http://enlites.com/ Dr. Matti Häyry is Professor of Philosophy at Aalto University School of Business, Finland. Dr. Häyry's main fields of interest have been moral and political philosophy and philosophical bioethics. His practical topics in bioethics have ranged from abortion, euthanasia, and resource allocation to genetics, systems biology, and synthetic biology. Theoretically, his work has centered on the main normative doctrines of European moral and political philosophy. He is the co-author of Pure Cloning.In this episode, we focus on Pure Cloning. We first define pure and impure cloning. We go through theological objections to human cloning; theoretical moralities, including utilitarianism, deontology, and teleological moralities; ideological rationalities, including the Georgetown principles, and the Barcelona Declaration; and feminist bioethics. Finally, we discuss the relationship between pure cloning and reproduction in general, and the link with antinatalism.--A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ALEX CHAU, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, VALENTIN STEINMANN, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, LUCY, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, CAROLA FEEST, MAURO JÚNIOR, 航 豊川, TONY BARRETT, NIKOLAI VISHNEVSKY, STEVEN GANGESTAD, TED FARRIS, HUGO B., JAMES, JORDAN MANSFIELD, CHARLOTTE ALLEN, PETER STOYKO, DAVID TONNER, LEE BECK, PATRICK DALTON-HOLMES, NICK KRASNEY, AND RACHEL ZAK!A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, NICK GOLDEN, CHRISTINE GLASS, IGOR NIKIFOROVSKI, PER KRAULIS, AND JOSHUA WOOD!AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!

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

Recently, Ashley and I have had the privilege of meeting with some young couples and talking to them as they're just coming into marriage or preparing to be married. They often ask us a variety of questions, as you would expect from anyone talking to a couple who's been married for a while. One of the big issues that consistently comes up early in marriage—and continues to show up later—is the issue of money. That's been true in our marriage as well. It makes sense that money and finances are also a very real issue for business owners, especially those who are married and both spouses work in the business. So let's have that discussion. I think it's really helpful, and I want to drill it down to one financial dashboard that can bring clarity. Because that's our ultimate goal—to liberate you from chaos and make time for what matters most. By the way, my name is Scott Beebe. If we haven't met yet, I'm part of the Business On Purpose team. A lot of times we meet people who say, “Hey, I've got a vision for what I want to do.” Great! We help you write that down. We've got a vision story framework that does that well. One of the next steps is to build out your financial dashboard. This involves subdividing your cash accounts and will help you gain a much clearer picture of your actual financial health. Instead of lumping everything into one, two, or three bank accounts, it requires about six or more. Now, I know that sounds hard, but I promise it's not. Once we do that, we can begin to isolate the cash in your business and start tracking different aspects of your finances. By breaking your finances into categories, you can more easily monitor the flow of cash. We like to say “flow of cash” instead of just “cash flow,” because for many, that term brings to mind complex reports. This method also allows you to allocate resources effectively and make informed decisions—because now you can actually see where the cash goes. It's kind of like Dave Ramsey for business. Having that level of monetary organization lets you track progress toward any kind of goals—generosity goals, profit goals, reinvestment goals, and more. You can adjust your strategy as needed. Visioning and financial planning is not a one-time event. (And when I say financial planning, I don't mean what a financial planner does—I mean you allocating cash to plan the future of your business.) It's something we must regularly revisit and refine as the business grows and evolves. So, what can you do first? Start with a simple spreadsheet to track your cash balance every single week. You might ask, “Can we do this in QuickBooks or Xero?” Theoretically, yes. But you usually won't—and it serves as a great discipline to do it manually. That foundational step of a spreadsheet allows you to create a realistic budget for the year ahead. Look at your existing profit and loss statements and chart of accounts. If you don't know where to start, look at last year's P&L. That's a great starting point. Don't worry about being precise with your budget at first. Budgeting is more of an art than a science. Once you've got your vision statement and a basic financial dashboard in place, it's time to build out your organizational structure. So now you've got a vision and a financial dashboard—now build an organizational structure to know who's going to handle the financial “fuel” driving the business forward. Think of this like creating a skeleton for your business, similar to the human body. Instead of focusing on specific individual names, focus on the roles. We say “role first, people agnostic.” This lets you structure your business based on responsibilities instead of personalities. Next, identify and map out each process required to run your business. You've got a vision, a simple dashboard, subdivided bank accounts, and a consistent snapshot of those accounts. Now you can create an org chart to know who's doing what—and then define what they're doing. These processes fall into four core systems: marketing, sales, operations, and admin. List the processes under each of these categories. You don't need detail yet—just broad items like “website,” “social media,” or “outbound calls.” This gives you an overview of your operations. Once that's in place, you can map out your company culture using what we call the “Anchor.” You've got your vision, your cash tracking, your roles, and your processes. But how do you build culture into that? Use the Anchor. Create another spreadsheet. List the weeks of the year across the top and your cultural elements along the left-hand side. These could include team meetings, performance reviews, birthday celebrations, anniversary celebrations, training schedules, and more. Then plot these cultural events across the calendar. Assign one person to manage the Anchor and you'll have a visual representation of your business's RPM culture—Repetition, Predictability, and Meaning. It's about creating a framework. It doesn't have to be perfect from the start. The goal is to have these pieces in place and work them with consistency. As you implement these steps, you'll gain a much clearer picture of your business's structure, finances, and culture. It allows you to make better decisions and build a stronger foundation for growth. So we started with money—realizing that money is just fuel. It's a tool to pursue your vision, build clarity around your structure, understand your processes, and foster your culture using simple, actionable tools. If you don't know where to start, here are five good tools to begin with: Vision Story – Lay out where you're going. Financial Dashboard – Track your cash. Organizational Structure – Clarify roles and responsibilities. Processes – Know what needs to be done. Anchor – Build and maintain your culture. That's the glue that holds everything together. So just like those young couples ask, “Where do we start with money?” I've just walked you through five simple tools to start building intentionality into your business. Why? So you can be liberated from chaos and make time for what matters most. Hey—make sure to go to mybusinessonpurpose.com. You can check us out there. And if you go to mybusinessonpurpose.com/healthy, you can take a five-minute health assessment to understand the strength and sustainability of your business's backend.   Want help building a clear financial dashboard? Visit mybusinessonpurpose.com/ask to connect with a BOP coach. To check the health of your business, visit mybusinessonpurpose.com/healthy today! SIGN UP for our Newsletter HER➡️ https://www.boproadmap.com/newsletter For blogs and updates, visit our site HERE ➡️ https://www.mybusinessonpurpose.com/blog/ LISTEN to the Business On Purpose Podcast HERE ➡️ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/my-business-on-purpose/id969222210 SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel HERE ➡️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbPR8lTHY0ay4c0iqncOztg?sub_confirmation=1

ACOFAE Podcast Presents: Jessica's Genre: Love, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwood. Celebrating Jessica Marie's half birthday with her genre of choice, ACOFAE dives into the Romance genre with Ali Hazelwood's Love, Theoretically. Surprising maybe someone, Laura Marie loved this story that is filled with Academia, it's politics, people pleasing, and learning how to truly be yourself. Oh and also unlearning the need for male validation. ACOFAE loves that. Elsie is a Physicist and needs a job badly. Jack is a Physicist and has met Elsie before in different circumstances. Shenanigans ensue that are as delightful as they are meaningful. Throw in a delightful female friendship dynamic and a grand gesture at the end and Laura Marie and Jessica Marie are eating this story up. Why are men. TW / CW: domestic violence, toxic relationships For additional TW/CW information for your future reads, head to this site for more: https://triggerwarningdatabase.com/ Spoilers: Love, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwood and The Love Hypothesis by Ali Hazelwood Mentions: ACOMAF by Sarah J. Maas (SJM) and Twilight *Thank you for listening to us! Please subscribe and leave a 5-star review and follow us on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/acofaepodcast/) at @ACOFAEpodcast and on our TikToks! TikTok: ACOFAELaura : Laura Marie (https://www.tiktok.com/@acofaelaura?) ( https://www.tiktok.com/@acofaelaura) ACOFAEJessica : Jessica Marie (https://www.tiktok.com/@acofaejessica?) (https://www.tiktok.com/@acofaejessica) Instagram: @ACOFAEpodcast (https://www.instagram.com/acofaepodcast/) https://www.instagram.com/acofaepodcast/ @ACOFAELaura (https://www.instagram.com/acofaelaura/) https://www.instagram.com/acofaelaura/

2 hour and 14 minutes The Sponsors Thank you to Underground Printing for making this all possible. Rishi and Ryan have been our biggest supporters from the beginning. Check out their wide selection of officially licensed Michigan fan gear at their 3 store locations in Ann Arbor or learn about their custom apparel business at undergroundshirts.com. Our associate sponsors are: Peak Wealth Management, Matt Demorest - Realtor and Lender, Ann Arbor Elder Law, Michigan Law Grad, Human Element, Sharon's Heating & Air Conditioning, The Sklars Brothers, the Autograph: Fandom Rewarded app, Champions Circle, Winewood Organics, Community Pest Solutions, and Venue by 4M where usually record this. 1. Men's Basketball Transfer Portal Starts at 1:00 Yaxel Lendeborg sounds Belgian but isn't, this starts out as a World War I podcast. Cadeau is a former five star who started for UNC, he has a Xavier Simpson assist rate but is not the most productive shooter. He also has an elevated turnover rate. Why this move feels like a wash coming from Tre Donaldson. Morez Johnson Jr. fits in well with Cadaeu, also he can thunder dunk the ball into the center of the universe. Illinois' offense would take a slight hit when Johnson is on the floor, but they get a +10 rebound rate with him. His best basket is a dunk. Unfortunately, the day Yaxel Lendeborg committed to Michigan he gave an interview where he said he wants an NBA contract and Michigan is the backup plan. Theoretically he's Danny Wolf but mean. Michigan needs a backup center but is otherwise in good shape. All signs point towards Nimari Burnett coming back. Brian is mad that Duke went 20 minutes without a turnover. We discuss Michigan's projected seed with the Yaxel situation and without the Yaxel situation.  2. Hot Takes and The State of College Athletics Starts at 42:40 Takes hotter than the best night club in Yaxel Lendeborg, Belgium. The state of things seem a bit perilous. Tre Donaldson hit the transfer portal with a broken heart emoji, what happened? It sucks that you don't really get to know players for multiple years up until their graduation. Part of the joy of college sports is watching players step up that you didn't expect to step up. The Big Ten needs an angry coach now that Fran is gone and Mick Cronin will step up. They should give schools incentives for keeping/graduating their players. The 1-4 seeds are all getting better and fans might get frustrated that more upsets don't happen. People want the chaos. Even Michael Jordan played three years in college, imagine if all the best players did that. This doesn't effect football quite as much. Fans and coaches all want roster continuity. Dusty May seems relatively well-positioned to maintain a lot of players. 3. Spring Football Bits Starts at 1:19:47 Spring Football is still happening. Updates on the offensive line, Evan Link has turned a corner after the Ohio State game. Crippen will be just fine at center. Andrew Babaloa won't be ready because he's a freshman and that's okay. Donaven McCulley is the real deal at wide receiver and everyone else is competing for the remaining spots. The running backs are good. The defensive line is not replacing Mason Graham and Kenneth Grant but it has depth. Are the redshirt freshman defensive ends turning the corner? It's being said that they are. Safety updates, with and without Rod Moore. They'll probably look for a punter in the portal.  4. Michigan Hockey Updates Starts at 1:55:27 Who hit the portal and what impact does that have? Michigan needs to get high-end defensive players. Does Gavin McKenna come to Michigan? He could be the number one overall pick. Why is Cameron Korpi in the portal? Is Michigan trying to get a CHL goalie? Or other CHL players? The CHL isn't happy about NIL.  MUSIC: "Consideration"—Rihanna ft. SZA "I'm Allowed"—Buffalo Tom "When I Get There"—Grady Strange “Across 110th Street”—JJ Johnson and his Orchestra