Podcasts about Theoretically

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.

In this episode, host Helen Angus, CEO of AMS Healthcare, speaks with Dr. Cynthia Whitehead. Cynthia Whitehead is an education scientist, educator, and family physician. Her research examines the effects of power relations on various structures, systems, processes, and practices in health professions education, paying attention to who and what is advantaged or disadvantaged as a result. She aims to use her research findings to promote health and education practices that are compassionate, equitable, and effective. Working at the intersection of health and higher education, she sees exciting opportunities to harness the transformative potential of education in service of a healthier world.  Cynthia's program of research is anchored in critical historical analyses of health professions education. Knowing our history is vital for understanding our current contexts, avoiding past mistakes, preserving what works well, and appropriately adapting that which needs change. Aware of the need to deliberately collect multiple perspectives and voices in the history of health professions education—and at times dismayed by the absence and loss of documents—Cynthia is engaged in efforts to preserve relevant archival materials. She is also committed to helping to grow the community of scholars interested in studying the history of the field. Theoretically, Cynthia engages with the work of Michel Foucault, as well as post-colonialism, anticolonialism, and decoloniality. Some of her specific content areas of interest are globalized medical education, primary care education, accreditation, outcomes-based education, and education for collaboration.  Underpinning Cynthia's historical research is the knowledge that the creation of Euro-American models of higher education, health professions education, and healthcare institutions globally were intrinsically intertwined with European colonization of Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Australia. She understands that colonization has shaped and continues to perpetuate inequities in health professions education and research practices locally, nationally, and globally. Cynthia's involvement in the Toronto Addis Ababa Academic Collaboration (TAAAC) is one key partnership within which she collaboratively interrogates these processes. As a high income country researcher and white settler Canadian, she strives to listen, learn, and collaborate with humility, taking care that her work not inadvertently reproduce colonial academic practices.  Cynthia has provided education consultations and worked with educators, scholars, and learners in many countries, as well as with the World Health Organization. She has held many education leadership positions, and is involved in teaching, curricular design, program evaluation, and education administration locally, nationally, and internationally.  Cynthia is a Professor in the Department of Family and Community Medicine; Director and Scientist at the Wilson Centre, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and University Health Network; and an academic family doctor based clinically at Women's College Hospital. She holds the BMO Financial Group Chair in Health Professions Education Research at University Health Network. https://amshealthcare.ca/  

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

The business news at the moment is dominated by the falling price in oil. We're looking at some of the reasons behind this. So Richard, falling oil prices, what's it all about? Like any commodity, it's all about supply and demand.目前的商业新闻几乎都被油价下跌所主导。我们正在探讨这背后的一些原因。那么，理查德，油价下跌到底是怎么回事？和任何一种大宗商品一样，这归根结底还是供求关系的问题。So presumably you're saying that demand is going down? Demand is going down because the world economy is slowing, especially China. So therefore there is less demand for oil, so the price goes down. So there's a decrease in demand.所以你的意思是需求在下降？是的，需求在下降，因为全球经济正在放缓，尤其是中国。因此，对石油的需求减少，价格自然就下跌了，也就是说需求出现了下降。So what about supply then? Well, that's the double whammy. That's why the oil price has gone down so much, because there's been a surge in supply. From OPEC countries? No, from the US.那供给方面呢？这就是“双重打击”了。这也是油价大幅下跌的原因，因为供应量激增。是来自欧佩克国家吗？不，是来自美国。The US has doubled its production of oil since 2010. How come they've done that? Well, it's all about fracking. Right.自 2010 年以来，美国的石油产量翻了一番。他们为什么能做到这一点？这主要得益于水力压裂技术。对。They're producing oil from new deposits that they're finding in the US. So that's very successful for them. Successful for them.他们正在从美国本土新发现的油藏中开采石油，这对他们来说非常成功。确实是成功的。But again, it leads to a lower oil price. So how much are we talking about then for a barrel of oil, Richard? Well, from a high of $110 a barrel in 2014, it's now less than $50 a barrel. OK.但这同样也导致了油价下跌。那么现在一桶油大概多少钱呢，理查德？2014 年的时候最高达到每桶 110 美元，而现在已经跌到每桶 50 美元以下了。好。So obviously some of the OPEC countries are panicking about this? Yes, but it's affecting them very differently. Some are really suffering. For instance, Nigeria and Russia, they depend on oil.那么显然，一些欧佩克国家对此感到恐慌了？是的，但这对它们的影响各不相同。有些国家确实在承受巨大压力，比如尼日利亚和俄罗斯，它们高度依赖石油。Right. To keep their economy afloat. They are really suffering.没错。为了维持经济运转。它们确实遭受了严重冲击。What about Saudi Arabia? Well, they've got so much oil and they've got so much reserves of cash and oil that they're hoping to ride the storm out. And they, again, they're hoping that the low oil price will send the American frackers out of business. So it really is a supply and demand issue.那沙特阿拉伯呢？他们拥有大量石油资源，同时也积累了大量的现金和石油储备，希望能够挺过这场风暴。而且他们还希望低油价能把美国的页岩油生产商挤出市场。所以归根结底，这还是一个供需问题。Yes, but there's also another factor on supply, on the supply side, because obviously the sanctions have been lifted against Iran. Which is an oil-producing country. They used to produce an awful lot of oil, and obviously now they're going to be producing more again.是的，但在供应端还有另一个因素，那就是对伊朗的制裁已经被解除。伊朗是一个产油国，过去曾生产大量石油，而现在显然又将重新增加产量。Now that the sanctions have lifted. Exactly. So the outlook is for even lower prices.制裁解除之后。没错。所以前景是油价可能会进一步走低。You say that, Richard, but when I take the car to the garage to be filled up with petrol, the prices are going down. Slowly. Slowly.你是这么说的，理查德，但我把车开去加油站加油时，油价确实在下降，只是很慢，很慢。But why is it not going down at the same speed as the price of oil? Well, I think that's quite simple, really, because petrol companies, they're very, very reluctant to lower their prices, aren't they? And if their competitors aren't lowering their prices, they're not going to be lowering their prices. So prices are coming down. But as always happens, the prices go up quickly, but they come down slowly.但为什么油价没有像原油价格那样快速度下降呢？我觉得原因其实很简单，因为石油公司非常不情愿降价，对吧？如果竞争对手不降价，它们也不会降价。所以价格确实在下降，但一如既往，涨得快，跌得慢。Are there any winners in this scenario? Theoretically, yes. Theoretically, Europe, for instance, which is a net importer of oil, they should like it because, obviously, cheaper oil, it should stimulate the economy. But they're keeping quite quiet about this.在这种情况下有没有赢家呢？理论上是有的。比如欧洲，作为石油净进口地区，按理说应该欢迎油价下跌，因为更便宜的石油有助于刺激经济。但他们对此却相当低调。And obviously China as well. They're a big importer of oil. It should be better for them.当然还有中国，他们也是石油进口大国，油价下跌本应对他们更有利。But they're suffering from their economy as well. So there doesn't seem to be any big winners at the moment. So this is something that's going to be affecting the business world for quite some time to come then?但他们的经济本身也面临压力。因此，目前看来并没有真正的赢家。那么，这是否意味着油价问题还将在相当长的一段时间内持续影响商业世界呢？

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

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.

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/religion

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/british-studies

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

The Richter scale is used to measure the strength of an earthquake. Theoretically, the maximum reading that's possible is 10. The most powerful quake ever recorded was 9.5, which happened in Chile in 1960. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami for instance, was caused by a quake that measured 9.2 on the Richter scale, and it led to the death of 228,000 people. The 2011 Tohoku quake in Japan measured 9 on the Richter scale – it caused the Fukushima nuclear accident, and led to more than 19,500 deaths.  On July 30, the Kamchatka peninsula in Russia was hit by an earthquake of magnitude 8.8 – not far behind the deadly quakes of 2004 and 2011. It is the sixth most powerful quake ever recorded. It led to tsunami alerts in a dozen countries. But amazingly, and fortunately, for such a powerful quake, there were zero casualties.  Kamchatka is on the Circum-Pacific seismic belt or the so-called ‘Ring of Fire,' and is prone to seismic activity. So how did the region escape such a major earthquake with no casualties?  Guest: Christina Malyk, special correspondent with Sputnik, based in Moscow.  Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu  Edited by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian  Note: The term ‘Richter scale' used in the podcast and in the note above is meant to denote the strength of the quake on the moment magnitude scale, and not the Richter scale, which is no longer in use. The Kamchatka quake measured 8.8 on the moment magnitude scale. The term Richter scale remains a familiar one for the public and is frequently used but is technically incorrect. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Today on Welcome to Cloudlandia, Our discussion unravels the surprises of Ontario's geography, the nuances of tariff wars, and the timeless drive for ambition, ensuring you're well-equipped with insights into how technology continues to redefine the global landscape. Discover how NuCom's innovative app is revolutionizing sleep and relaxation. We dive into the specifics of how its unique audio tracks, like "Summer Night," are enhancing REM and deep sleep, all while adding a humorous twist with a comparison to Italian driving laws. With separate audio for each ear and playful suggestions for use, you'll learn how this app is setting new standards for flexibility and effectiveness in achieving tranquility. Finally, we ponder the evolving nature of trust in a world increasingly dominated by AI and digital interactions. Drawing inspiration from thinkers like Jacques Ellul and Thomas Sowell, we discuss the societal shifts driven by technological advances and the potential need for encryption to verify digital identities. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We discuss the intriguing journey from Ontario's cottages to the realm of international trade, focusing on how AI is reshaping trade agreements and challenging the predictability of global politics. Dean explores NuCom's innovative app designed to improve sleep and relaxation through unique audio tracks, highlighting its effectiveness in enhancing REM and deep sleep. We ponder the evolving nature of trust in a digital world increasingly dominated by AI, exploring how we can maintain authentic human interactions amid rapidly advancing generative tools. Dan shares a humorous story of two furniture companies' escalating marketing claims, setting the stage for a discussion on capitalism and the importance of direct referrals in business. We delve into the impact of technology on society, drawing insights from Jacques Ellul and Thomas Sowell, and compare AI's transformative potential to historical technological advancements like the printing press. Dean highlights the importance of personalized market strategies, exploring how personal solutions can evolve into valuable products for a wider audience. We explore the concept of ambition and agency, discussing how adaptability and a forward-looking mindset can help navigate new realities and unpredictable changes in the world. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan. Dan: Ah, Mr Jackson. General Jackson. General Jackson. Dictator Jackson Dean: Now there's two thoughts that are hard to contain in the brain at the same time. Are you in Toronto or at the cottage today? At the cottage, look at you, okay. Dan: Yeah, all is well, very nice day, yeah, except our water went out and so we can't get it fixed until tomorrow morning because it's cottage country. Till tomorrow morning because it's cottage country. And you know, this is not one of those 24-7 everybody's available places on the planet. Dean: Where do people in cottage country go to get away from the hustle and bustle of cottage country on the weekends? Dan: Yeah, it's a good question. It's a good question. It's a good question they go about two hours north. Dean: It feels like that's the appropriate amount of distance to make it feel like you're getting away. Dan: In the wild. Dean: Yeah. Dan: So we're having to use lake water for priming the vital plumbing. Dean: The plumbing you have to do. Dan: You have to have pails of water to do that and we'll do. Even though it feels like a third world situation, that's actually a first world problem. Dean: You're right, you're exactly right. Dan: Yeah, yeah, beautiful day, though. Nice and bright, and the water is surprisingly warm because we had a cold winter and the spring was really cold and we have a very deep lake. It's about um the depth meters on the boats go down to 300 feet, so that's a pretty deep lake that's a deep lake. Yeah, yeah, so here we are here's a factoid that blew my mind. The province of Ontario, which is huge it's 1,000 miles north to south and it's 1,200 miles east to west has 250,000 freshwater lakes, and that's half the freshwater lakes on the planet. Isn't that amazing? Dean: Yeah, I heard a little. There's some interesting Ontario facts. I remember being awed when I found out that you could drive the entire distance from Toronto to Florida north and still be in Ontario. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah, yeah. Dan: Yeah, If you go from the furthest east, which is Cornwall a little town called Cornwall to the furthest west, which is a town called Kenora Right, kenora to the furthest west, which is a town called canora right, uh, canora. It's the same distance from that as from washington dc to kansas city. Oh, that's amazing yeah I had a good. Dean: I had a friend who was from canora. He was an olympic decathlete, michael sm. He was on the Olympic decathlon team and that's where he was from Kenora, kenora. Dan: Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah, it's a lot of big. I mean most of it's bugs, you know most of it's bugs. It's not, you know, the 90% of the Ontario population lives within an hour 100 miles of the? U, lives within an hour a hundred miles of the US. Yeah, yeah, you know, I mean that's it's if you go from the east coast to the west coast of Canada. It's just a 3,200 mile ribbon, about a hundred miles high that's really can't. From a human standpoint, that's really Canada. Everything else is just bugs yeah. Dean: So it's very. I guess you've been following the latest in the tariff wars. You know again Canada with the oh yeah, well, we're going to tax all your digital things, okay. Dan: Okay, yeah, okay we're done. Yeah, we're done. That's it Good luck Stay tuned. Dean: We'll let you know how much we're going to charge you to do business. I mean, where does this posturing end, you know? Where do you see this heading? Dan: Well, when you say posturing, you're Well. Dean: I don't think I mean it's. Dan: There's a no. It's the reworking of every single trade agreement with every single country on the planet, which they can do now because they have AI. Yeah, I mean, you could never do this stuff before. That's why using past precedents of tariffs and everything else is meaningless. Dean: Well, here's an example. Dan: If the bombing of Iran, which happened in recent history, iran which happened in recent history, if that had happened 30 years ago, you would have had a real oil and gas crunch in the world. Everything would crunch, but because people have instant communications and they have the ability to adjust things immediately. Now, all those things which in the past they said well, if you do that, then this is going to happen. Now I don't think anything's going to happen, Everybody's just going to adjust. First of all, they've already built in what they're going to do before it happens. You know, if this happens, then this is what we're going to do. And everybody's interconnected, so messages go out, you know they drop the bomb, the news comes through and in that let's say hour's time for everybody involved. Probably you know 10 billion decisions have been made and agreed on and everybody's off and running again. Yes, yeah. Dean: Yeah, it's amazing how this everything can absorb. Dan: I think the AI changes politics. I think it changes, I think it changes everything. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Dean: Agreed, yeah, but, but, but not necessarily in any predictable way, mm-hmm. Right, exactly. Dan: Yeah. Dean: But meanwhile we are a timeless technology. Dan: We are. Dean: I was rereading you Are a Timeless Technology. Yeah, these books, Dan, are so good oh thank you. Yeah, I mean, they really are, and it's just more and more impressive when you see them all you know lined up 40 of them, or 44 of them, or whatever. I'm on 43. Dan: I'm on 43. 43 of them yeah, I'm on 43. I'm on 43. 43 of them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This one's called Always More Ambitious, and we talked about this in the recent In the free zone yeah. In the free zone that I'm seeing ambition as just the capability platform for all other capabilities. Dean: Yes, you know, you have ambition and you know or you don't. Dan: And then agency goes along with that concept that, depending on your ambition, you have the ability to adjust very, very quickly to new things. For example, getting here and, uh, it was very interesting. We got here yesterday and, um, we had an early dinner. We had an early steak dinner because we were going to a party and we didn't think that they would have the kind of steak at the party that we were right, they didn't have any steak at all. Oh, boy, and they had everything that I'm eating steak. The reason I'm eating steak is not to eat the stuff that's at the party. Right, exactly, yes, I mean, I'm just following in the paths of the mentor here, of the mentor here, anyway, anyway, um, so you know, all the water was working and everything, and when we went to the party we came home and the water didn't work and it's some electrical connection you know, that in the related to the pump and um and anyway, and I just adjusted. you know, it was still light out, so I got a bucket and I went down to the lake and I got a bucket full of water and I brought it up and you know, and I was really pleased with OK. Ok, scene change. Dean: Yeah right, Exactly yeah. Scene change. Dan: Ok, you, you gotta adjust to the new one, and I'm new reality, right yeah, new reality. Okay, what you thought was going to happen isn't going to happen. Something is going to happen and that's agency. That's really what agency is in the world. It's your ability to switch channels that there's a new situation and you have the ability not to say, oh, I'm, oh, why, jane? You know, and you know that long line of things where, maybe 10 years ago, I was really ticked off and you know and, uh, you know, you know, I checked if I had any irish whiskey, just to to dead dead in the pain. Dean: All right. Dan: Yeah, and I just adjusted. You know? Yeah, this morning I took a Pyrex you know, the bowls you use to mix things, the mixing bowls you know, yes and I just filled it up with water, put it in the microwave. It still works, the microwave. Went and I shaved, you know, and. Dean: I shaved Right. There you go. Dan: Yeah, you can do a washcloth bath if you need to. Warm water, yeah, but the interesting thing about it is that I think that you don't have agency unless you have ambition. In other words, you have to have a fix on the future, that you're going to achieve this, you're going to achieve this, you're going to achieve this, and it's out of that ambition that you constantly develop new capabilities. And then the other thing is you utilize all the capabilities you have if something goes you know goes unpredictable. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And my. Dan: Thing is that this is the world. Now, I mean, you know and so, and anyway it's, it's an interesting thing, you know but I'm really enjoying. I'm really enjoying my relationship with perplexity. I'm sort of a one master, I'm a one master dog. Dean: Right, exactly. Dan: Like I listened to Mike Koenigs and he's investigated 10 new AIs in the four weeks since I talked to him last. Dean: He's doing that there. Dan: I'm just going developing this working relationship with one. Dean: I don't even know. Dan: If it's, is it a good one? I don't even know if perplexity is one of the top ones, you know, but it's good for my purposes. Dean: Well, for certain things it is yeah, for just gathering and contextualizing internet search stuff. But you know I look at Mike, as you often talk about Joe Polish, that you know. You don't need to know everybody, you need to know Joe Polish. I just need to know Joe, anybody you want to meet, you just mention it to Joe and he can make it happen. And I'd look at Mike Koenigs like that with AI tools. We don't need to know all the AI tools. Dan: We just need to stay in touch with Mike. Dean: Mike and Lior and Evan, you know we're surrounded by people who are on the. Dan: Yeah. And Tom Labatt do you know Tom, yeah, well, tom has created this AI mindset course that he's doing. And and he he comes to every one of our 10 times. Our connector calls, you know the two hour Zoom calls. So we've got every month I have two for 10x and I have two for FreeZone and and he's in breakout groups and every time he's in a breakout group. He acquires another customer. Dean: Right. Dan: And then I'll have Mike talk about what he's discovered recently. His number goes into chat and you know know, 10 people phone him up and say what's this all about? And it's amazing the, the uh, what I would say the um, um progress in our strategic coach clients just acquiring ai knowledge and mindsets and capabilities just by having one person who I just get him to talk to on a Zoom call. Dean: Yeah, it's pretty amazing yeah. Dan: I think this is kind of how electricity got foothold. Did you get electricity in your house? Yeah, yeah, yeah and you have electric lights. Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, and you have electric lights. Yeah, yeah, I do, yeah, yeah, you know, it's, you know. And then all sorts of new electrical devices are being created. Dean: Yes, that's what I'm curious, charlotte about the, the, uh. What were the first sort of wave of electrified uh conveniences? You know that. Where did we? Where did we start? I know it started with lights, but then. Dan: Yeah, I think lights obviously were the first. Yeah, yeah. It would have taken some doing, I think actually. I mean, once you have a light bulb and they're being manufactured, it's a pretty easy. You can understand how quickly it could be adapted. But all the other things like electric heaters, that would take a lot of thinking. Dean: Before what we're used to as the kind of two or three prong, you know thing that we stick into the wall. Before that was invented, the the attachment was that you would plug it into the light socket. Dan: Oh yeah, that was how you would access the electricity. That's right, you had a little screw in. Right, you had a little screw in that you could put in. Yeah, I remember having those yeah. Dean: Very interesting, that's right. Dan: Right, yeah, yeah. And then you created lawn wires that you could, you know you could you know, it's like a pug, but you needed something to screw into the light socket. Dean: Yeah, yeah, yeah, very, I mean it's, it's so. Yeah, what a. What a time. We had a great um. I don't know if we recorded um. We uh, chad and I did a vcr formula workshop the day in toronto, in toronto, yeah, and that was a really the first time we'd done anything like a sort of formalized full-day exploration. It's amazing to see just how many you know shining a light for people on their VCR assets and thinking of it as currency and thinking of it as currency and it's amazing how, you know, seeing it apply to others kind of opens their eyes to the opportunities that they have. You know, yeah, it was really I'm very excited about the, just the adaptability of it. It's a really great framework. Dan: Have you gotten? Your NuCom yet? Dean: I have absolutely. Dan: I really love it what's your favorite? I have different. First of all, I use the one at night that sounds like crickets. Okay, yeah, you know, it's 10 hours, you can put it on for 10. It's called Summer Night and it's got some. There's a sort of faint music track to it. But my aura, I noticed my aura that my REM scores went up, my deep sleep scores went up and the numbers you know. Usually I'm in the high 70s. You know 79, 80, and they jumped to 86, 87. And that's just for sleep, which is great. So I've had about two weeks like that where I would say I'm probably my sleep scores I'll just pick a number there but it's probably up around 50, 15, 15, better in all the categories and that and. But the one thing is the readiness. The readiness because I play the trackster in the day. But the one thing is the readiness, the readiness because I play the trackster in the day. But the one that I really like to have on when I'm working is ignite okay yeah, it's a. It's a really terrific. It's really terrific, that's right I haven't used any of the daytime. Uh, yeah, the daytime yeah, yeah, and then the rescue is really great. Okay, yeah, and you know For people listening. Dean: We're talking about an app on iPhone called NuCom N-U N-U-Com, yeah, and it's basically, you know, waves, background music. I mean, it's masked by music, but it's essentially waves. Dan: Apparently. We were in Nashville last week and David Hasse is experimenting with it. He says what they have is that they have two separate tracks. I use earphones and one track comes in through your right ear, one comes and your brain has to put the two tracks together, and that's what uh, so it elevates the brain waves or kind of takes the brain waves down. And there's music. Dean: You know the music yeah over and uh, but I noticed mentioned to me that the music is incidental, that the music has nothing to do with it. Dan: No, that's exactly right, it just gives your brain something to hold on to Attached to yeah. And then Rescue is really great. I mean that one. Just you know if you have any upset or anything, or you're just really busy, or you're enjoying anything. You just put it on, it just calms you right down. Dean: Did you notice that the recommendation on Ignite is to not use more than 60 minutes a day? Dan: Yeah, I doubt if I do. I think it's about a 14-minute track. Oh, okay, yeah, interesting, yeah, but that's a suggestion. Dean: Yeah, it is a suggestion. That's right, that's funny. Dan: Now what you're talking about. There is a suggestion. That's right, Now what you're talking about. There is a suggestion. Dean: That's all suggested. That's right. Dan: That reminds me of I was in Italy, I was on the Amalfi Coast and Italians have a very interesting approach to laws and regulations, you know. So we were going down the street and I was sitting right next to the bus driver, we were on a bus and a whole group of people on the bus, and so we come down to a perpendicular stop. You know you can't go across, you have to turn, and the sign is clearly says to the, and the driver turns to the left, and I said I think that was a right-hand turn. He said merely a suggestion. I love it. Dean: That's great. Dan: Merely a suggestion. Yeah, that's funny, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's funny. Have lawsuits, you know, like something like this. I mean, it's a litigious country, the. Dean: United States. Dan: Yeah, and so you know they may be mentally unbalanced, you know they may be having all sorts of problems. And they said why don't we just put in recommended not to use it more than an hour? So I think that's really what it is. That's funny. Yeah, Like the Ten Commandments, you know, I mean the suggestions yeah, there are ten suggestions, you know, yeah, yeah, but break two of them at the same time and you're going to find out. It's more than a suggestion. Yeah, fool around and find out, yeah I think in terms of book titles, that's a good bit. Pull around and find out. That's right, exactly. So what would you say is uh, just going on the theme of pulling around and find out that you've discovered is that there's things with AI that probably shouldn't go down that road. Dean: Anything. Just philosophically, I'm more and more resolute in my idea of not spending any time learning the particular skill or learning the particular tool, because I really, if I look at it that fundamentally, if you think about it as a generative tool or as a collaboration, creating either images or words or picture or uh, you know, sound or video, that's the big four. Right, those are the underlying things. There's any number of rapidly evolving and more nuanced ways to do all of those things and you're starting to see some specialists in them now, like, I think, things like you know, eleven Labs has really focused on the voice emulation now and they're really like it is flawless. I mean, it's really super what you can do with generated, uh, voice. Now even they can get emotion and I think it's almost like the equivalent of musical notations, like you can say, you know, uh, you know pianissimo or or forte. You know you can give the intention of how you're supposed to play this piece. Uh, so you get a sense that they can say you know whispers, or quietly, or or excited, or giggles, or you know you can add the sentiment to the voice, and so you just think, just to know that, whatever you can imagine, you can get an audio that is flawless of your own voice or any voice that you want to create. You can create a. There is a tool or a set of tools that will allow you to prompt video, you know flawlessly, and that's going to constantly evolve. I mean, there are many tools that do like. It's kind of like this race that we're all in the first leg of the relay race here, and so it started out with Sora was able to create the video, and then the next you know, the VO three, you know less than a month ago, came out and is the far winner by now. So any time that you spend like learning that technical skill is I don't think that's going to be time well well spent, because there's any number of people who could do those things. So I think I'm more, you know, I'm more guessing and betting that imagination is going to be more valuable than industriousness in that. Dan: One thing, and I'd just like to get your take on this, that the crucial quality that makes human things work, human activities, human teamwork and everything is trust you know, and that you're actually dealing with something that you can trust. Ok, and I'm just wondering if the constant evolution of artificial intelligence is going to encourage people to make sure that they're actually dealing with the person in person, that you're actually dealing with another human being in person. Well, I see that in contact with this person or you've got some sort of encryption type mechanism that can guarantee you that the person that you're dealing with digitally is actually the person? And I'm just wondering, because humans, the need for trust overrides any kind of technology. Dean: I agree with you. I mean that's. I think we're going to see, I think we're going to see a more. We're going to react to that that we're going to value human, like I look at now that we are at a point that anything you see on video is immediately questioned that might be especially, yeah, especially if you, if it's introducing a new thought or it's counter to what you might think, or if it's trying to persuade you of something is. My immediate thought is is that real? You know, you know, I just wonder. You know what I was? I was thinking about Dan. You used to talk about the evolution of the signs. You know where it said the best Italian food on the street? Yeah, the evolution was in the town. Two furniture companies, yeah two furniture companies Best furniture. What was it? Dan: Yeah, best furniture companies, best furniture, what was it? Yeah, best furniture store on the street. So the other one comes back and says best, you know best furniture store in the town. And the other one says the other one comes back, state the other one comes back country. The other one comes back Western Hemisphere, the other one comes back planet, the other one comes back solar system and finally it's so far out, it's in the Milky Way. And the other one comes back and says best store on the street. Dean: Right, exactly, and I think that's where we're. I think that's where we're. Dan: Yeah. Anything to differentiate anything to differentiate, I mean the other thing is differentiation. You know, yeah, yeah, yeah and yeah, so no. I go back to Hayek. He's an economist, fa Hayek, and he said that he was talking about capitalism. And he said the big problem with capitalism is that it was named by its enemies. It was named by the whole group of people. You know, marx was the foremost person you know and he, you know, wrote a book, das Capital, you know, and everything else, and they thought it was all about capital. And he says actually, capital is actually a byproduct of the system. He said what capitalism is is an ever expanding system of increasing cooperation among strangers. He says it's just constant going out from ourselves where we can trust that we can cooperate with strangers. And he says most places in history and most places still on the planet, the only people you can trust are our friends and family our friends and family. That limits enormously cooperation, eliminates collaboration, eliminates innovation, eliminates everything if you can only trust the people that you know. He said that basically what capitalism is. It's got this amazing number of structures and processes and agreements and laws and everything that allow you to deal with someone you don't know halfway around the planet and money is exchanged and you feel okay about that and you know, there was a great book and I've recommended it again and again called the One-to-One Future. I've read it. Dean: I've read it. Yeah, yeah, this was written back in the 90s, yeah, and that was one of the things that they talked about was this privacy, that, and I don't see it happening as much, but we're certainly ready for it and and going to appreciate having a, an intermediary, having a trusted advocate for all of the things you know. That that's that we share everything with that one trusted person and trust them to vet and represent us out into the world. Dan: It's really interesting. It would have been at a Free Zone workshop, because those are the only workshops that I actually do, and somebody asked. Babs was in the room and they said that you know how many of your signups for the program you know, the last 12 months and you know we had just short of a thousand a thousand signups and you know, and we know what the influence was because we have the contact we have the, you know, we have the conversations between the salesperson and the person who signs up, and somebody asked how many of them come directly from direct referrals. It's 85%. It's not the only thing They'll read books. They'll see podcasts. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah and everything like that, but it's still that direct referral of someone whose judgment they totally trust is the deciding factor. Dean: Yes, yeah, amazing, right, and that's. Dan: I mean, here we are. We're 36 years down. We're using all kinds of marketing tools. We're using podcasts, we're using books. We're using books, we're using social media. And it struck me one day. I said how do people know me on social media? I said I never use social media. I've never. I've never. Actually, I don't even know how to. I don't even know how to use social media. Dean: I wouldn't know how to get on and everything else. Dan: So I went to our social media director and I said um, how am I on social media? He says dan, you're out there, there you're doing every day you're doing 100 things a day you know you know. and he went down the list of all the different uh platforms that I'm in and I said uh. I said oh, I didn't know that. I said, do I look good? He said oh, yeah. He says yeah, nothing but the best, but I'm just using it as a broadcast medium. You know, I'm not using it as an interactive medium. Right Well, I'm not. We're using it as an interactive medium, but I'm not. Dean: Right. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah, that's all that matters, right, I mean, and it's actually you, yeah, it's your words, but you're using, you know, keeping, like you say, somebody between you and the technology. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah, always keep a smart person. Right A smart person between yourself and the technology. Dean: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dan: Yeah. So yeah, I was at the party. I had this party that was sort of a beach, had this party that was sort of a beach. You know, we have an island, but there are about 15 couples of one kind or another at the party last night, most of whom I didn't know, but I got talking and they were talking about the technology and everything like that. it was about a three person and myself and we were talking and they said, geez, you know, I mean it's driving me crazy and everything like that. And one of them said, dan, how are you approaching this? And I said, well, I'm taking a sort of different approach. And I just went through and I described my relationship to television, my relationship to social media, my relationship to the you know, my iPhone and everything else. And they said, boy, that's a really different approach. And I said, yeah, and I said you know we're growing, you know the company's growing, and you know everybody who needs to find out. what they need to find out is finding that out and everything else. So yeah, but I don't have to be involved in any of it. Dean: Right, yeah, you know, you're proof that it's. You can be in it, but not of it. Dan: Yeah, I think that's part of the thing. Yeah, but there's kind of a well, we're probably on this podcast, we're developing sort of an AI wisdom, because I think wisdom what matters is that you can adapt a particular strategy and just think of it, you know, and just stick with it. There's just something that you can stick with and it doesn't cause you any harm. Yeah, the one thing that I have learned is that the input between me and perplexity has to be 50-50. And the way I do it, dean, is I trigger everything with a fast filter, so I'll do the best result. You have just one box. I put the best result. You have just one box, I put the best result. That becomes the anchor of the particular project that I'm working on with Perpuxy. I'll just take it and stick it in there. Then I'll write one of the success criteria, okay, and then I'll take the success criteria and I said okay, now I want to create two paragraphs. Okay, so I've got the anchor paragraph and I've got this new paragraph. I want to take the central message of this success criteria and I want to modify whatever I wrote down in the lead and bring it back as a 100-word introduction where the success criteria has 50 words. Okay. And then what I'll do is I go to a mindset scorecard and I'll start creating mindsets and I'll take a mindset and I said, okay, I want to take this mindset and I want to change the meaning of the two paragraphs and it comes down and then after a certain point I said okay, let's introduce another. So I'm going back and forth where it's delivering a product but then I'm creating something new and inserting it into the product, and it's kind of like this back and forth conversation. Dean: You're using perplexity for this Perplexity yeah. Yeah. Dan: Yeah, and it has a really nice feeling to it that it's doing some magic. You know it's doing magic tricks. It's carrying out instructions instantaneously. You know three or four seconds. And then I read what I wrote and then it gives me a new idea. Then I write down the idea in the pass filter or the mindset scorecard and then I insert that new idea and say, okay, modify everything above with this new thought, and it's really terrific, it really works really great, yeah, okay, and you know it's, and what's really interesting about? I'll go do this. And then, down at the bottom, it creates a unique summary of everything that we're talking about, and I didn't ask it for a summary, but it creates a summary. Dean: That's amazing, isn't it? Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dean: Yeah, this is. You know. I really enjoyed the new tool that we did in the FreeZone workshop. This time I forget what the tool is called. Dan: I had three. I had the six-year your best six years ever. Was it that one we also? Dean: had. Always More Ambitious, always well, always more ambitious was great too, but yeah, that uh. But that six year your best six years ever is. That's such a good thing that if you just imagine that that's the, the lens that you're looking at the present through that, you're always. It's a durable thing. I try and explain to people I've had this framework of thinking in terms of the next hundred weeks is kind of a the long-term like actionable thing that you can have a big impact in a hundred weeks on something. But it's gonna happen kind of a hundred days at a time, kind of like quarters I guess, if you think about two years. But I've really found that everything comes down to the real actionable things are the next 100 hours and the next 100 minutes. And those I can find that I can allocate those 50 minute focus finders that. I do those sessions, it's like that's really the only. It's the only thing is to the extent that we're able to get our turn our ambitions into actions that correlate with those right that align, aligning our actions with our ambitions because a lot of people are ambitious on theoretically ambitious, uh, as opposed to applied ambition. Dan: They're not actionably ambitious. Dean: Actionably ambitious. I think that there's something to that, Dan. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And it's frustrating yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah. Dan: I think that's a really good, theoretically ambitious, but not actionably ambitious, yeah, and I think that's a really good theoretically ambitious but not actually ambitious, yeah, and I think that theoretically ambitious just puts you totally in the gap really fast. Absolutely Okay, because you have no proof, you're never actually You're full of propositions. Yeah, I'm reading a book. Have you ever read any of Thomas Sowell? I? Dean: have not. Dan: Yeah, he's a 93, 94-year-old economist at Stanford University and he's got 60 years of work that he's done and he's got a great book. It's a book I'm going to read continually. I have about three or four books that I just read continually. One of them is called the Technological System by Jacques Hulot, a French sociologist, jacques Lull, french sociologist, and it does the best job of describing what technology does to people, what it does to organizations, when they're totally reactive to it. Dean: You know in other words. Dan: They have no sense of agency regarding technology. They're just being impacted, and it's really good. He wrote it probably in the 60s or 70s and it's just got a lot of great observations in it. Dean: And. Dan: I've read it. I've probably read it. I started reading it in 1980, and I've probably read it three or four times. One book fell apart because there was so much notes and online Really Wow. Yeah, the binding fell apart. Dean: What's it called again? It's called the. Dan: Technological System. Dean: The. Dan: Technological System. Jacques, you know Elal and there's quite a good YouTube interview with him If you want to look it up. It's about 25, 30 minutes and very, very, very engaging mind. He really gets you to think when he talks about it. But the book that I'm talking about right now, this is Thomas Sowell. It's called Intellectuals and Society and he said if you take all the intellectuals in the world and you put all their sense of how the world works, at best it could represent 1% of the knowledge that's needed for the world to run every day the other 99%, and he calls it the difference between specialized knowledge and mundane knowledge. Okay, so specialized knowledge is where somebody really goes deep, really goes deep into something and then develops. You know, if the whole world would just operate according to what I'm seeing here, it would be a better world. And he says, and he said that's the intellectual approach. You know, I've I've really thought this deeply, and therefore what I want now is for someone to impose this on the planet. So, I feel good. But, he says what actually makes the world work is just everybody going about their business and working out rules of, you know, teamwork, rules of action, transaction work. And he says and intellectuals have no access to this knowledge whatsoever because they're not involved in everyday life, they're off. You know they're looking down from a height and saying you know, I'd like to reorganize this whole thing, have the mundane knowledge are now being able to really get multiply the value that they're just getting out of their daily interactions at an exponentially high speed and that the intellectuals are probably. The intellectuals are just if they're using AI. They're just doing that to multiply their theories. But they're not actionable ambition, they're theoretical. Theoretically ambitious right, yeah, yeah. Dean: Yeah, that's really interesting looking at the uh, you know, I think that there's, you know, kind of a giant leap from proposition to proof. Oh yeah, in the in the vision column is like that's it's worth so much. Uh, because intellectually that that's the. It's a different skill set to turn a proof into a protocol and a protocol into a protected package. You know, those don't require creative solution and I'm finding the real like the hotspot leverage points, like in the capability column. It's ability is the multiplier of capability. Dan: Yeah. Dean: You know, because that then can affect capacity and cash, you know. Dan: Yeah, yeah, I mean, if you take it. I mean never have human beings had so many capabilities available to them but do they have any ability to go along with the capabilities? Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And I think that that part of that ability is to recognize it. You know, vision ability to recognize the excess capacity that they have, you know. Dan: And. Dean: I think that that trusted you know. Dan: The leverageable point in the reach column is the you know a heart level, like an endorsed uh being access to somebody else's um, to somebody else's trust level yeah, relationships yeah it's so it's amazing like I just like that I've seen so much opportunity AI introduced chat, gpt, that we're at a major this is a major jump, like language itself almost. I often go back and say I wonder who the first tribe? That was probably a tribe that developed a language so that they could communicate. You know where they could keep adding vocabulary. You know they could keep adding vocabulary and that they must have just taken over everything immediately. They just totally took over just because of their speed of teamwork, their speed of getting things done. And then the next one was writing when they could write. And then you have another jump, because with writing came reading and then the next one came printing. You know, and I thought that when the microchip came in and you had digital language, I said this is the next gem. But digital language is just a really, really fast form of printing actually. It's just fast, but artificial intelligence is a fundamental breakthrough. So, we're right at the beginning. Gutenberg is like 1455, and it must have been amazing to him and the people who knew about him that he could produce what it would take, you know, a hand writer would take months and months that he could produce one in a matter of you know hours. He could produce in hours, but as many as you wanted. Dean: I wonder what the trickle down, like you know the transition, how long it took to eliminate the scribe industry. Dan: Well, I will tell you this that they have statistics that within 40 years after Gutenberg there were 30,000 presses across northern Europe. So it took off like a rocket. You know it took off. And I mean, and you know, and it I mean in the next 150 years, we're just pure turmoil politically, economically, culturally in. Europe after that came and I think we're in that. We're in that period right now. We're feeling it, yeah, I think so too. Everybody's going to have to have a newcomer. Dean: Yeah, that's right. Dan: Probably on rescue all day 60 minutes at a time, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, anyway. What have we gotten today? What have we? What's the garden produced today? Dean: Well, I think that this, I think we had this thought of, I think you and I always come the two types of abilities. Well, the capability and the ability. No, theoretically ambitious and actionability Actionability- Theoretically ambitious and actionably ambitious. Dan: The vast majority of people are theoretically ambitious. Dean: They're not actionable. Yes. Dan: I think that's a good distinction. Dean: I do too. That was what I was going to say that level and I think that the you know, when you see more that the I think, being an idea person, like a visionary, it's very difficult to see that there's a lot of people that don't have that ability. But you don't, because we take it for granted that we have that ability to see things and and have that uh, access to that. It doesn't feel like you know almost like you can't uh, you've got the curse of knowledge. We know what it's like to constantly have vision and see things, that the way things could be, um, and not really realize that most people don't have that, and I think it's we discount it, um, or you can't discount it by thinking, well, that that can't be do you know what I? mean that there's got to be more to. It mean there's got to be, more to it. Well, that's the easy part or whatever, but it's not and that's yeah. I think that the more I saw Kevin Smith, the filmmaker, the director. He was on there's a series online called the Big Think and they have, you know, different notable people talking about just their life philosophies or the things, and he said something that on his, the moment he decided to move into being kevin smith professionally, that that, the more he just decided to double down on just being more kevin smith for a living it's like he's really without using the words of unique ability or those things that that was the big shift for him is just to realize that the unique view, vision, perspective that he has is the more he doubles down on that, the more successful things have been for him. Yep, yep. So there's nothing you know, you've been Dan Sullivan professionally or professional. Dan Sullivan for years. Dan: Yeah Well, 51, 51. Yeah, yeah, uh, it's created all sorts of tools. I mean uh you know, I remember the psychiatrist I went to the amen clinic to receive my um add diagnosis, you know because he's got. He's got about seven different types of ADD. Dean: Yes, which one do you? Dan: have. Yeah well, mine's not hyperactive at all. Dean: No me neither yeah. Dan: I mean it takes a lot to get me to move, Anyway, but mine is the constant being barbaric. It's sort of I'm thinking of this and then all of a sudden I think of something else. Dean: And then. Dan: now I've got two things to think about, and then the third one wants to join the party and everything else, and meanwhile I had something to do this morning and I just blew right past it. Dean: Anyway. Dan: Right, yeah, so anyway, but I had filled in. There's like 100 questions that you have to fill in online before they'll even accept you, and you know what's your day look like. You know mine pretty relaxed, good structure, everything like that. But the test, they do all sorts of brain scans. They test out concentration, they test out how long you can maintain attention on something. They do it at rest, they do it after exercise and everything like that. It's about three days. There's about nine hours of it that they do. And so we got together and she said you know, if you look at how you answered our questionnaire, online and you look at our test. These are in separate universes. They don't have any relationship to each other. To each other. She said I've never seen such a wide span between the two. So well, I'm sorry, you know we just pretty soon we got to what I do for a living and I said well, I create thinking tools for entrepreneurs. And so I told her, I gave her a couple of examples and she said well, I don't know who else you created these for, but you sure created them for yourself. And that's really what we do. Is that what we are best at in the marketplace is what we're trying to figure out for ourselves? Dean: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. Dan: We sell our therapies to others, that's right. We want to see if our self-therapies go beyond ourselves. Dean: Yeah, exactly. Dan: Yeah, yeah, all righty. Dean: Okay Dan. That was a good one, yeah, are we on next week? Dan: Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, Perfect, perfect, okay, I'll be back. Dean: I'll meet you here. Dan: Okay, thanks Bye, thanks Bye. Thanks for watching.

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/

On this episode Sarah and I bring almost every rating.  We are quite sure you will find something to add to your shelf.  If you've read any, do you agree with our ratings?  Let us know. Sarah's Shelf: What Does It Feel Like by Sophie Kinsella The Griffin Sisters' Greatest Hits by Jennifer Weiner There's Something About Mira by Sonali Dev   Jayme's Shelf: Love, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwood Nora Goes Off Script by Annabel Monaghan Out On a Limb by Hannah Bonam-Young

Theoretically can a man make a flight half an hour after the show finishes Chris Angel Mind freak chat There’s been a complaint about Belle More Gabagoodbye entries The guys guess Liam’s latest Tik Tok Join the Pod Squad Listen Live on the Nova Player App Follow us on Instagram - TikTok - Facebook - SnapchatSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I read a quote—I hope it's accurate, it was from Einstein. He said, "You can see the world as an ordinary course of events, or you can see everything as a miracle." And the poet Blake had mentioned how you can, through observation, appreciation and gratitude, actually notice within a drop of water the entire cosmos. So there's this sense of, when you look out and you see the rain, or you see the ocean, or you see the ability in another person, you can notice that all these things are coming from a source, and it's overwhelmingly amazing. When we have that sense of awe and gratitude and appreciation, this is the next stage of consciousness, opening consciousness, not being contracted and just resigned to the material body, but then it becomes more and more expansive. And what is it that's becoming more and more expansive? It's that emotion of gratitude that's the beginning of our spiritual awakening, besides just noticing that we're not our body, but also noticing that we're grateful for our life and that everything around us is amazing. There's not one thing around us that isn't unique and amazing. So this becomes more and more expansive as bhakti grows, and it grows unlimitedly, just as if you shine a light upwards towards the sky. Theoretically, it will expand unlimitedly like this, and our consciousness can expand like that, unlimitedly, through the process of appreciation and gratitude, otherwise known as bhakti. ------------------------------------------------------------ To connect with His Grace Vaiśeṣika Dāsa, please visit https://www.fanthespark.com/next-steps/ask-vaisesika-dasa/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Add to your wisdom literature collection: https://iskconsv.com/book-store/ https://www.bbtacademic.com/books/ https://thefourquestionsbook.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Join us live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FanTheSpark/ Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sound-bhakti/id1132423868 For the latest videos, subscribe https://www.youtube.com/@FanTheSpark For the latest in SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/fan-the-spark ------------------------------------------------------------ #vaisesikaprabhu #vaisesikadasa #vaisesikaprabhulectures #spirituality #bhaktiyoga #krishna #spiritualpurposeoflife #krishnaspirituality #spiritualusachannel #whybhaktiisimportant #whyspiritualityisimportant #vaisesika #spiritualconnection #thepowerofspiritualstudy #selfrealization #spirituallectures #spiritualstudy #spiritualexperience #spiritualpurposeoflife #spiritualquestions #spiritualquestionsanswered #trendingspiritualtopics #fanthespark #spiritualpowerofmeditation #spiritualgrowthlessons #secretsofspirituality #spiritualteachersonyoutube #spiritualhabits #spiritualclarity #bhagavadgita #srimadbhagavatam #spiritualbeings #kttvg #keepthetranscendentalvibrationgoing #spiritualpurpose

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    

Get 20% off + free shipping when you go to Manscaped.com and use code: BANNER at checkout. To be apart of the Discord, send voicemails or just follow the boys, click the link below!Discord Link https://discord.gg/AZ7bYRWcvnhttps://linktr.ee/Grabmybanner