Podcasts about Thornburg

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

Part 2 of 2. Two years after the murder of 32-year-old Lauren Whitener, a potential suspect emerged when the dismembered bodies of three people were found burning in a Fort Worth dumpster. The person who murdered them, Jason Alan Thornburg, was apprehended relatively quickly and readily confessed to two other murders as well. A few years before Thornburg's conviction for the three murders, the prime suspect in Lauren's murder, Rodney Aric Maxwell, was released on bond after sitting in a Wise County jail for almost 6 months. Not long after that, the charges against him were dismissed. Although Sheriff Lane Akin insists Maxwell is their guy, none of the evidence they originally used against him linked him to Lauren's murder at all.If you have any information about the murder of Lauren Anee Whitener, please contact the Wise County Sheriff's Office at 940-627-5971 or Texas Crime Stoppers at 940-627-8477You can support gone cold and listen to the show ad-free at patreon.com/gonecoldpodcastFind us at https://www.gonecold.comFor Gone Cold merch, visit https://gonecold.dashery.comFollow gone cold on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, YouTube, and X. Search @gonecoldpodcast at all or just click linknbio.com/gonecoldpodcastSources: The Wise County Messenger, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Dallas Morning News, NBCdfw.com, Fox4news.com, CBSnews.com, WFAA.com, and Court Documents #JusticeForLaurenWhitener #WiseCounty #WiseCountyTX #TX #Texas #TrueCrime #TexasTrueCrime #ColdCase #TrueCrimePodcast #Podcast #ColdCase #Unsolved #Murder #UnsolvedMurder #UnsolvedMysteries #Homicide #CrimeStories #PodcastRecommendations #CrimeJunkie #MysteryPodcast #TrueCrimeObsessed #CrimeDocs #InvestigationDiscovery #PodcastAddict #TrueCrimeFan #CriminalJustice #ForensicFilesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gone-cold-texas-true-crime--3203003/support.

Jeff Thornburg helped build Raptor at SpaceX. Now he's building something new: a spacecraft designed for rapid maneuverability across orbits powered by solar thermal propulsion.In this episode of Valley of Depth, we get into the technical, strategic, and commercial implications of in-space mobility and why it matters now. Topics include:The hardest parts of building a rocket engine (and why most startups get it wrong)The origins of the Raptor engine and lessons from SpaceXWhy Portal is betting on solar thermal propulsionHow Supernova enables fast, responsive movement across LEO, MEO, and GEOThe case for refueling in orbit and designing without dependenciesWhy defense needs faster spacecraft and what commercial use cases followHow Thornburg sees Starship changing the economics of spaceand much more… • Chapters •00:00 – Intro01:44 – What drew Jeff to creating engines?05:13 – Why is building rocket engines still so difficult?11:50 – Jeff's time at SpaceX17:52 – Stratolaunch and Commonwealth Fusion and why Jeff moved on22:50 – Origin of Portal25:25 – Commercial use case27:00 – 5 year vision for Portal's architecture32:01 – Pricing34:52 – Solar thermal propulsion38:14 – What comes after Portal's Supernova?41:15 – Customer traction and Supernova flight45:44 – Competition in solar thermal propulsion49:20 – Fundraising prior to the first launch51:18 – Portal in the next 10 years54:53 – State of Starship • Show notes •Jeff's socials — https://x.com/JeffThornburgAntares' socials — https://x.com/PortalSpaceSysAntares' website — https://www.portalsystems.space/Mo's socials — https://twitter.com/itsmoislamPayload's socials — https://twitter.com/payloadspace / https://www.linkedin.com/company/payloadspaceIgnition's socials — https://twitter.com/ignitionnuclear /  https://www.linkedin.com/company/ignition-nuclear/Tectonic's socials  — https://twitter.com/tectonicdefense / https://www.linkedin.com/company/tectonicdefense/Valley of Depth archive — Listen: https://pod.payloadspace.com/ • About us •Valley of Depth is a podcast about the technologies that matter — and the people building them. Brought to you by Arkaea Media, the team behind Payload (space), Ignition (nuclear energy), and Tectonic (defense tech), this show goes beyond headlines and hype. We talk to founders, investors, government officials, and military leaders shaping the future of national security and deep tech. From breakthrough science to strategic policy, we dive into the high-stakes decisions behind the world's hardest technologies.Payload: www.payloadspace.comIgnition: www.ignition-news.comTectonic: www.tectonicdefense.com

As we continue our tour of the US National Science Foundation Regional Innovation Engines, today we're headed to North Carolina.Tim Bertram and Jesse Thornburg of the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine are taking us into the lab to give us a crash course in what regenerative medicine is, and how their Engine is helping regenerative medicine companies build, grow, and scale in the Piedmont Triad region through access to world-class resources, expertise, space, and collaboration opportunities to create economic impact.Tim is currently serving as CEO for the Regenerative Medicine Engine funded by the National Science Foundation, focusing on economic development through translation and commercialization of regenerative medical technologies. He was previously founder and CEO of four biotechnology companies, served on the board of directors of multiple companies, and worked on the development of 8 registered medical products while serving as a scientific leader and senior executive at Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE}, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, and The Procter & Gamble Company {NYSE: PG}. He started his career as a faculty member at the University of Illinois, was a visiting scientist at the National Institutes of Health, authored over 150 publications and invented over 100 patents.Jesse has worked as a researcher and in operations, building diverse research teams in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and Clinical Translational Science Institute.  His business experience stems from starting and operating a successful business and setting up a trust to provide capital to help growing businesses scale. Dr. Thornburg is passionate about helping businesses and economic ecosystems change lives.Listen to the full episode to hear:How advances in regenerative medicine can positively impact outcomes for both patients and the healthcare system at largeHow the Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medicine Engine is working to develop an integrated supply chain for regenerative therapies in order to scaleHow the regenerative medicine ecosystem encompasses patients, workforce, researchers, entrepreneurs, businesses, and moreHow the Regenerative Medicine Engine is fostering collaboration among companies that is pushing growth forwardWhat we stand to lose regionally, nationally, and even globally if we don't continue to invest in regenerative medicineLearn more about Tim Bertram:Connect On LinkedInLearn more about Jesse Thornburg:Connect on LinkedInLearn more about Anika Horn:Social VenturersSign up for Impact CuratorInstagram: @socialventurersResources:Piedmont Triad Regenerative Medical EngineStan ParkerFettechJoshua BogerAnthony Atala: Printing a human kidney | TED Talk

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature"s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

VettaFi's Head of Research Todd Rosenbluth discussed the Thornburg International Equity ETF (TXUE) on this week's “ETF of the Week” podcast with Chuck Jaffe of “Money Life.” Join us for our Midyear Market Outlook Symposium, where we'll talk through recent market action and explore opportunities in asset classes, styles, factors, and themes going forward. Register now here: https://www.etftrends.com/webcasts/midyear-market-outlook-symposium-2025/?partnerref=trends_nav

In this episode of the Wise Decision Maker Show, Dr. Gleb Tsipursky speaks to Nick Sarokhanian, Head of AI Practice at Barnes & Thornburg, about the legal implications of Gen AI.You can learn about Barnes & Thornburg at https://btlaw.com/en

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efdLouisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109 [Arg: 3.24.2025] Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe

Louisiana's congressional districts, which it redrew following the 2020 census, currently sit in a state of legal uncertainty.The map initially only had one majority-black district. However, following a 2022 case called Robinson v. Ardoin (later Laundry), which held that it violated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana re-drew the map to include two majority-black congressional districts.In January 2024, a different set of plaintiffs sued alleging the new map violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A 2-1 panel agreed the new map violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and enjoined the new map. Given the timing, the case briefly went up to the Supreme Court which granted an emergency application for stay, citing Purcell v. Gonzalez. That allowed the 2022 map to be used for the 2024 elections.Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, this time with a range of issues for the court to address including: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Join us for a post-oral argument Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Prof. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law School

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

Dr. Thornburg is a renowned dermatologist and aesthetics expert. Her practice is based in Rapid City, South Dakota. Today she launches her brand new book “Chasing Beauty”! This episode is not just a promotion of the book but a dive into medicine, Lycia's story, and the strength of chasing your dreams. You will love this one!

Something to whet your appetite. Get listener benefits (early bird releases, bonus episodes, ad-free listening at Supporting Cast: https://humanmonsters.supportingcast.fm The Leader One Studios/Human Monsters Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/leaderone HUMO merch available here: https://leader-one-studios-shop.fourthwall.com/products/human-monsters-unisex-t-shirt Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Un tueur en série. Trois victimes. Des actes inimaginables de cannibalisme. Plongez dans l'enquête la plus dérangeante de l'année. Découvrez l'histoire choquante de Jason Thornburg, le cannibale condamné à mort. Un thriller criminel effrayant qui ne vous laissera pas indifférentVous pouvez me retrouver sur :

CONNECT WITH JULIE MATTSON:• Website: https://pushinguplilies.com• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pushinguplilies

The annual BACC FFA Alumni Toy and Craft Show is coming up Sunday, December 1, 2024.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can the markets' pro-growth, risk-on message of the past week be trusted? And how has it changed the setup into the year's final stretch? Our all-star panel of Sofi's Liz Young, Metlift's Drew Matus and Thornburg's Emily Leveille break down where they stand. Plus, Sherry Paul of Morgan Stanley Private Wealth breaks down her year-end playbook. And, we run through what to watch from Instacart, Occidental Petroleum and Flutter when those names report in Overtime. 

In today's episode of "AI Lawyer Talking Tech," we delve into the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence within the legal sector. From the rise of intelligent document management systems and the ethical use of AI in the workplace, to major leadership shifts at top legal tech companies, AI is reshaping how legal professionals operate. We'll explore how firms are leveraging AI to enhance productivity, address compliance challenges, and push innovation forward, while also facing new regulatory and ethical hurdles. Tune in as we unpack these developments and highlight the key trends driving change in the legal industry. The role of the CAIO: Guiding the strategy, personnel & technology for AI delivery22 Oct 2024Thomson Reuters InstituteLitera Names Avaneesh Marwaha as CEO to Drive Product Innovation and Elevate Customer Experience22 Oct 2024Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyNetDocuments Introduces a New Era of Intelligent Document Management at Inspire21 Oct 2024Legal Technology News - Legal IT Professionals | Everything legal technologyHow in-house law departments are prioritizing their budgets21 Oct 2024Thomson Reuters InstituteDOL Issues Guidance on AI and Worker Well-Being Best Practices21 Oct 2024LittlerAmidst AI Crackdown Hype, FTC Stakes Out Aggressive New Position on Unfairness and Means and Instrumentalities Liability21 Oct 2024Kelley Drye & Warren LLPColorado Privacy Act Updates21 Oct 2024WilmerHaleDay Pitney Welcomes Attorney Laura Land Himelstein to Technology, Telecommunications, Outsourcing and Data Privacy Teams21 Oct 2024Day PitneyAlexi Unveils New Era of AI-Powered Litigation Solutions with Expanded Features22 Oct 2024Bluefield Daily TelegraphCybersecurity experts say law firms need to act more proactively on cyber risk22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostThe Global Legal Post launches Artificial Intelligence comparative law guide22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostUK and US corporates lack budgets to maintain regulatory compliance, study finds22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostComplex EU data rules hindering data-driven business models, survey finds22 Oct 2024The Global Legal Post'A very attractive offering' - the Big Four's growing legal services reach22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostNovartis legal and compliance solutions head jumps to EY for new legal managed services role22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostClient-centricity in the legal profession: challenges and opportunities22 Oct 2024The Global Legal PostUK's most disruptive lawyer helping tech founders to scale in the UK & booming UAE market22 Oct 2024London Daily NewsHong Kong Arbitration Week 2024: 12 Angry Robots and Crowd-Sourced Dispute Resolution – Justice in the Digital Age22 Oct 2024Kluwer Arbitration BlogLegal Issues Around AI Are Real. And Complex.22 Oct 2024JD SupraLarge law firms negative about impact of GenAI on finances21 Oct 2024Legal FuturesBarnes & Thornburg, Stand Together Foundation and Koch Pro Bono Initiative Partner Together on New Pro Bono Program21 Oct 2024Barnes & ThornburgParents Sue School Over AI Punishment21 Oct 2024Plagiarism TodayThe AI Apocalypse has Likely Already Hit Maryland's Appellate Courts—What Mischief Can Be Expected, And What if Any Rules Should Apply?21 Oct 2024Maryland Appellate BlogThe Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Law Firms21 Oct 2024Citrin CoopermanConsidering Hiring Your First GC?21 Oct 2024JD SupraIreland's Groundbreaking Legal Reform: Barristers Now Allowed to Partner in Law Firms21 Oct 2024Lawyer MonthlyLitera's Former CEO Returns to that Role, As Current CEO Moves Into Temporary Advisory Role21 Oct 2024LawSitesThis lawyer focused on publishing her technology law research21 Oct 2024ABA JournalStuck in the middle?21 Oct 2024Law Society Gazette

With the popularity of recreational and medical marijuana how is a company to enforce a drug policy? Just finding employees that don't use marijuana is a struggle but ignoring the possible risks and harm drug use can have in the workplace is not the answer any of us can afford to practice. Doug Oldham from Barnes and Thornburg in Columbus, Ohio joins Pandy to discuss how to craft an effective drug policy when considering marijuana in the workplace.

In this special edition of the CMO Series Podcast we're taking you back to a special moment from our first-ever stateside CMO Series Live Conference held in New York City this past summer. The day started with an incredible session led by Trish Lilley, now the Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer at Barnes & Thornburg. With over 25 years of experience in legal marketing, Trish has a wealth of knowledge, and she didn't hold back in sharing it. Her masterclass focused on driving meaningful transformation within firms and offered practical advice for CMOs on how to gain influence both within their teams and across firm leadership. In this episode of the Passle CMO Series Podcast, we're thrilled to bring you the full recording of Trish's session. You'll hear her insights on everything from building stronger relationships with stakeholders to demonstrating executive presence, as well as some fantastic anecdotes from her remarkable career in legal marketing.

Is there enough good news to keep stocks climbing toward new record highs? Hightower's Stephanie Link, BMO's Brian Belski and Thornburg's Emily Leveille break down their forecasts. Plus, EMJ's Eric Jackson tells us which tech name he recently sold out of… but is considering getting back into. And, we run you through what's at stake from Zoom's earnings report after the bell. 

Unlock the keys to effective business structuring, master tax optimization, and learn how to build solid business credit in this enlightening discussion. Gain crucial insights into protecting your assets and enhancing profitability, whether you're starting fresh or scaling up. Dive into this episode for practical advice and essential strategies that every entrepreneur needs to thrive in today's competitive business landscape.

Unlock the keys to effective business structuring, master tax optimization, and learn how to build solid business credit in this enlightening discussion. Gain crucial insights into protecting your assets and enhancing profitability, whether you're starting fresh or scaling up. Dive into this episode for practical advice and essential strategies that every entrepreneur needs to thrive in today's competitive business landscape.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Allen v Milligan. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Alabama's 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U-S House seats violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? The case was decided on June 8, 2023. The Supreme Court held that The district court correctly applied binding Supreme Court precedent to conclude that Alabama's redistricting map likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Court's decision in Thornburg v Gingles sets out a three-part framework for evaluating claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, the plaintiffs must prove that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district (measured by criteria such as contiguity and compactness). Second, the plaintiffs must show that the minority group is politically cohesive. Third, the plaintiffs must show that under the totality of the circumstances, the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters. The majority applied that three-part framework to the facts in the record and agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their challenge. The plaintiffs submitted maps demonstrating the traditional districting criteria, and the district court found “no serious dispute” that Black voters are politically cohesive or that the challenged districts' white majority consistently defeated Black voters' preferred candidates. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion except for a discussion of the difference between race-consciousness and race-predominance. He concurred separately to emphasize and clarify four additional points. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined in full, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito joined in part. Justice Thomas argued that Section 2 of the VRA does not require Alabama to redraw its congressional districts so that Black voters can control a number of seats proportional to Black voters in its population. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Gorsuch joined arguing that the majority's understanding of Gingles—specifically its understanding of the phrase “reasonably configured” within the context of the first precondition—is flawed, and that a correct understanding would lead to a different result in this case. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

SEASON 6, BONUS PODCASTMJ - The MusicalJuly 9-12, 2024Broadway Grand RapidsMore info: broadwaygrandrapids.com/mjIn this podcast, John Gonzalez of Behind the Mitten interviews J. Daughtry, who plays Berry Gordy in the National Broadway Tour of "MJ - The Musical."He is a seasoned pro who came into theatre in a non-traditional way. He was teaching at a private school in Maryland, when his principal tapped him to fill in when the school's theater teacher suddendly passed away. They knew he could sing, but they didn't realize how talented he was. It was the school principal who pushed him to audition in New York.He has since performed on Broadway ("The Color Purple," "Beautiful," "Ain't Too Proud") and also toured the country on National tours ("Miss Saigon," "The Color Purple," "Motown: The Musical"). He also continues to perform his music professionally and is a two-time Grammy nominee as well as a winner of multiple Stellar and Dove Awards.He is a graduate of Bethune Cookman University. He is a Theatrical, Gospel and R&B singer/actor on both stage and screen. He is originally from Bartow, Florida, and he talks about why loves about that part of the country."MJ" is a multi Tony Award-winning new musical centered around the making of the 1992 Dangerous World Tour. It was created by Tony Award-winning Director/Choreographer Christopher Wheeldon and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Lynn Nottage. "MJ" is making its Michigan premiere at the Devos Performance Hall in  Grand Rapids.PERFORMANCESTuesday, July 9, 2024 - 7:30pmWednesday, July 10, 2024 - 7:30pmThursday, July 11, 2024 - 7:30pmFriday, July 12, 2024 - 7:30pmSaturday, July 13, 2024 - 2:00pmSaturday, July 13, 2024 - 7:30pmSunday, July 14, 2024 - 1:00pmSunday, July 14, 2024 - 6:30pmThis Grand Rapids engagement is welcomed by Barnes & Thornburg, LLP; Corewell Health; Edify North; UFP Industries.

In episode 552, Megan chats to Parker Thornburg about his recent experience of buying an existing blog, how it is different to starting a new one and practical advice for succeeding as a blogger regardless of which path you choose. Parker Thornburg worked at Yahoo for 8 years in Omaha, NE. After Parker left Yahoo to enter the startup world, he told his manager of 8 years that he wanted to stay connected and possibly even own a business together someday. That day came in April 2023 when they purchased a food blog, Foodness Gracious, that had been established since 2012. They continue to work full-time jobs while spending all of their spare time trying to grow Foodness Gracious. Parker has an amazing wife of 23 years and three great children aged 18, 16 and 11. In this episode, you'll learn about which factors you should evaluate before buying or selling an existing blog (or starting a new one), including time, energy, goals, and budget, and making sure your passion aligns with the blog's niche and target audience. Key points discussed: - Time and energy considerations are important when deciding to buy or sell a blog: How much time and effort is required to keep the blog going and is it worth it? - Passion for the topic is important: Don't pursue a niche that you do not really feel passionate about. - Know your strengths and weaknesses: Outsource tasks that you feel less confident in and focus on tasks that you are skilled at. - Change the blog design only if it really makes an improvement: Analyze your analytics to know what impact your design had. - Audience engagement must be maintained during transitions: Try to smoothly transition ownership by respecting the previous owner's vision and followers. - Social media isn't always traffic-driving: You can focus on posting regularly for followers but don't have to obsess over engagement metrics. - Intentionality helps prevent burnout: To maintain a healthy work-life balance set clear boundaries. Connect with Parker Thornburg Website | Instagram

Anthony J. Burba, Partner, Barnes & Thornburg, Henry C. Leventis, United States Attorney, Middle District of Tennessee, and Ted Lotchin, Chief Compliance Officer, UNC Health, discuss new and developing risks and opportunities amid the changing health care compliance landscape. They cover the DOJ's main areas of focus, key compliance trends and priorities, challenges related to self-disclosure, and the increased utilization of technology in health care. Anthony, Henry, and Ted spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2024 Advising Providers: Legal Strategies for AMCs, Physicians, and Hospitals, in New Orleans, LA.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Acquiring an existing food blog, navigating traffic drops, and reimagining a site to make it your own with Parker Thornburg from Foodness Gracious. ----- Welcome to episode 457 of The Food Blogger Pro Podcast! This week on the podcast, Bjork interviews Parker Thornburg from Foodness Gracious. How to Acquire and Grow a Food Blog Starting a food blog or business is hard work. It can take months (years!) of determination, practice, and consistency before you start to see results. So what if you just… skipped ahead?! That's exactly what Parker Thornburg and his business partner did when they acquired the existing food blog, Foodness Gracious. But just because the site was up and running (with thousands of recipes!) doesn't mean the transition has been an easy or seamless one. In this interview, Parker shares more about the process of acquiring a site, what the transition has been like, how they've navigated hiring and traffic drops, and have started to come out the other side. Whether or not you're thinking about acquiring a site (or selling your own), there are lots of great lessons to be learned for anyone! In this episode, you'll learn: More about Parker's professional background (including time at Yahoo and a start-up). Why Parker decided to acquire an existing food blog. About the process of acquiring a site and using a brokerage site. What factors to consider when acquiring a site (including calculating potential profits). How they hired their team and what the early days of the site looked like after acquisition (including lots of lessons learned). How Parker and his business partner have navigated traffic drops since acquiring their site. The importance of consistency and habits when trying something new. How he balances his full-time job, family life, and growing Foodness Gracious. What he wants the legacy of this site to be. Resources: Foodness Gracious Buy Then Build: How Acquisition Entrepreneurs Outsmart the Startup Game QuietLight Empire Flippers 032: Buying & Selling Websites with Mark Daoust from Quiet Light 159: Different Ways to Create an Income Online with Mark Daoust Mediavine beehiiv Maray Atomic Habits: An Easy & Proven Way to Build Good Habits & Break Bad Ones Snackdive Follow Foodness Gracious on Instagram and Facebook Join the Food Blogger Pro Podcast Facebook Group ----- This episode is sponsored by CultivateWP and Memberful. Learn more about our sponsors at foodbloggerpro.com/sponsors. Interested in working with us too? Learn more about our sponsorship opportunities and how to get started here. If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions for interviews, be sure to email them to podcast@foodbloggerpro.com. Learn more about joining the Food Blogger Pro community at foodbloggerpro.com/membership.

My guest for today's interview is Joshua Franklin, a distinguished attorney dedicated to honorable achievement in every facet of his career. Hailing from Brooklyn, NY, and a proud graduate of an HBCU, Joshua currently resides in Minnesota, where he has left an indelible mark on the legal landscape. With a wealth of experience ranging from serving at prestigious firms like Barnes & Thornburg, LLP to his current role facilitating connections between attorneys and small to midsize firms, Joshua brings a unique perspective to the table. Beyond his legal career, Joshua is deeply committed to building sustainable equity in urban communities through innovation and small business initiatives. He is a passionate advocate for fairness and justice, regularly contributing to industry discussions and advocating for favorable legal frameworks. Joshua's dedication to mentorship and professional development also shines through, as he actively guides aspiring entrepreneurs, start-ups, students, and young professionals.

Back at it again with another great episode!This episode is sponsored by RogersHood.com Save 10% code IDM on your order!Featuring Dr. Brian Thornburg DO PA, Board Certified Pediatrician and owner of Thornburg Wellness in sunny Florida."Our journey began in a medical office with a dream of making lasting changes beyond the four walls of the examination room. Our approach combines common sense, scientific research, and natural methods, which has helped thousands of children and their families connect with lasting, vibrant health.At Dr. Thornburg Wellness, we are not influenced by 'Big Pharma.' Instead, our products are carefully selected for their quality, efficacy, and safety. We offer a range of supplements free from harmful chemicals and additives so that you can feel confident in your family's health.We are committed to taking our message beyond the medical practice and to the people.”Learn more https://drthornburg.com/Sponsor RogersHood.comGet involved InformedDissentMedia.comSupport the showFor more Informed Dissent visit our website at Informed Dissent Media Follow us on Social media @InformedDissentMedia

Back at it again with another great episode!This episode is sponsored by RogersHood.com Save 10% code IDM on your order!Featuring Dr. Brian Thornburg DO PA, Board Certified Pediatrician and owner of Thornburg Wellness in sunny Florida."Our journey began in a medical office with a dream of making lasting changes beyond the four walls of the examination room. Our approach combines common sense, scientific research, and natural methods, which has helped thousands of children and their families connect with lasting, vibrant health.At Dr. Thornburg Wellness, we are not influenced by 'Big Pharma.' Instead, our products are carefully selected for their quality, efficacy, and safety. We offer a range of supplements free from harmful chemicals and additives so that you can feel confident in your family's health.We are committed to taking our message beyond the medical practice and to the people.”Learn more https://drthornburg.com/Sponsor RogersHood.comGet involved InformedDissentMedia.comSupport the showFor more Informed Dissent visit our website at Informed Dissent Media Follow us on Social media @InformedDissentMedia

We kick off our new "Love & Legal Tech" series this week where we embark on a journey to explore the personal and professional lives of couples in the legal tech industry. We are excited to interview couples who share in the excitement of weaving their professional endeavors into their personal relationships. We think this is going to be a great series where couples get a chance to tell their stories of how they balance what one of our guests describes as "Work-Life-Integration." Our inaugural guests, Alex Macdonald and Cassie Vertovec share their unique story of how a solid professional collaboration slowly turned into a deep, personal connection.  Alex, the Chief Strategy Officer at McCarter and English, LLP, and Cassie, the Practice Director of Corporate and Director of Practice Strategies at Barnes & Thornburg, began their journey in the legal tech world at Seyfarth Shaw.  Over the years they have found themselves leading teams together, moving across the country, isolating together during the pandemic, and most recently working in similar firms. They navigated their careers with mutual respect and understanding, highlighting the importance of communication and shared values in both their professional and personal lives. They provide insights into the dynamics of working as a couple while maintaining a balance between work and persona life. Which is no easy feat as they are both intertwined with the legal profession. Their story is a testament to the idea that professional collaboration can lead to personal growth and deeper connections. Our hopes with the "Love & Legal Tech" series are that we not only offer a glimpse into the lives of a couple navigating love and legal tech but also shed light on broader themes within the legal industry, including the shift towards greater tech integration and the challenges and opportunities it presents. Our sincere thanks to Cassie and Alex for sharing their story with us on this series premiere. Listen on mobile platforms:  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠ |  ⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠ Contact Us:  Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@gebauerm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@glambert⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Threads: @glambertpod or @gebauerm66Email: geekinreviewpodcast@gmail.comMusic: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Jerry David DeCicca⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠Transcript

Beth and Debbie engage in a candid conversation with Sarah Evenson, Director of Law School Programs at Barnes and Thornburg. Sarah shares her unique journey from practicing law to legal management, highlighting the pivotal moments that shaped her career. The episode explores leadership insights, challenges faced, and valuable tips for recruiting and retaining talent, emphasizing the power of authenticity and compassion in professional growth.    Check out the show notes for this episode on our website.   Connect with us: Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Since Thornburg Investment Management's last conversation with CEF Insights, some market dynamics have changed. Amid resilient economic growth, daunting federal deficits, an upcoming election and other factors, Thornburg's Christian Hoffmann shares the latest views on its global multi-asset strategy for income, potential opportunities, and the broader market outlook for 2024. Listen to the episode and view the transcript below.   Thornburg is a privately held global investment firm delivering on strategy for institutions, financial professionals, and investors worldwide, and offers a variety of products including closed-end funds. Its Thornburg Income Builder Opportunities Trust (TBLD), allocates between global equities and fixed income to support an income stream as well as total return for investors.

Original Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2833leAfE9g&t=1242s Dr. E. Michael Jones visits the local public access channel studio in downtown South Bend to discuss with Peter Helland his understanding of the very controversial decision to continue to retain the retired Jewish lawyer of Barnes and Thornburg, Alan Feldbaum, to his high position within the St. Joseph County Public Library. Many local citizens and particularly mothers, represented by county council member, Amy Drake, want him replaced. Feldbaum has been insisting that the children section contain books like "Flamer" and "This Book is Gay." The mothers and many others feel this makes it morally unsafe for their children to be in the children's section of the library. Amy Drake thought for sure the three Republican conservative county commissioners would support her. Instead as Dr. Jones says, they stabbed her in the back. While this extremely important 10 am meeting was taking place, only two hours later at 12 o'clock the Republicans were holding a meeting at the Juday Creek golf course to listen to "conservative" radio talk show host Casey Hendrickson and common council member Eli Wax give a talk on "Understanding Israel" in light of the war in Gaza. After the hour talk Jones was given the first question. Jones said the talk was an insult to the intelligence of the audience. Hendrickson immediately started "sparring" with Jones. Finally Hendrickson said: "I know who you are. The ADL says you are an antisemite." This galvanized the crowd against Jones. But fortunately Mike came with some friends that created a buffer for him. Mike never was allowed to say his peace at the meeting but now on public access and youtube he can get his important message out: Both political parties in St. Joseph County and South Bend are controlled way too much by the Jewish citizens and outside Jewish influence he says. And this is happening all over the country. He says we must take back our country and get representatives that actually represent the majority. ——— NOW AVAILABLE! The Holocaust Narrative: https://www.fidelitypress.org/the-holocaust-narrative _______ Dr. Jones Books: fidelitypress.org/ Subscribe to Culture Wars Magazine: culturewars.com Donate: culturewars.com/donate Follow: https://culturewars.com/links

Adam Sparkman, client portfolio manager at Thornburg -- part of the team running TBLD, the Thornburg Income Builder Opportunity Trust -- says that current market conditions favor the flexibility of a multi-asset approach, noting that  "it's a different menu within fixed income entering 2024 than it was a couple of years ago." The changes in the rate environment have allowed the firm to increase credit quality. "We're taking less credit lisk and we're looking to add a bit of duration," Sparkman says. On the equity side of things, Sparkman says international investments -- especially in Europe -- are trading at relative discounts, making them particularly attractive now.

Alan Mills, often referred to as “The Godfather” of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, is a partner at the Indianapolis office.  Moreso, Alan is the first African-American/Black employee, attorney, and partner at Barnes & Thornburg.  He has built a career, reputation, and legacy on doing great legal work and increasing the diverse representation of attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg and at all levels and facets of the legal industry. Alan is a connector and is responsible for helping attorneys across this country, particularly diverse attorneys, obtain and thrive in legal careers in firms, corporations, government, and elsewhere.  In this episode, Alan drops some knowledge and wisdom on the evolution of the legal community and its practices here in Indiana as he prepares for his impending retirement at the end of 2023 after 41 years as a lawyer.

Robust economic growth surprised investors this year, but significant geopolitical tensions and other factors bring uncertainty. As 2024 approaches, Thornburg Investment Management's Ben Kirby discusses its global strategy for providing long-term investors with income despite current market challenges, and views on the broader market outlook. Listen to the episode and view the transcript below. Thornburg is a privately held global investment firm delivering on strategy for institutions, financial professionals, and investors worldwide, and offers a variety of products including closed-end funds. Its Thornburg Income Builder Opportunities Trust (TBLD) allocates between global equities and fixed income to support an income stream as well as total return for investors.

Thornburg PM Josh Rubin joins Dan Keeler, founder of Frontier Markets News, for a stroll through key emerging and frontier markets regions. He digs into the impact of recent developments in China, investment opportunities in the Middle East, why Saudi Arabia appears to be tightening its friendships with a host of nations that are not considered exactly friendly to the West, and how a slight change in sentiment among global investors could tip off much greater changes in emerging markets.

Paranormal investigators Laura Kenna and Deanna Thornburg (Texas Investigators of the Paranormal Society) talk about a close call with the Unabomber, how a paranormal experience was involved in the creation of the Stand Your Ground law in Texas, and an experience at the Menger Hotel in San Antonio. For more info about Texas Investigators of the Paranormal Society (TIPS): For events: Check out DFW Thrillseekers ( all welcome) on Meetup https://meetu.ps/c/3ZXV6/hV81C/aFor updates: Check out Texas investigators of the paranormal society TIPS on Meetup https://meetu.ps/c/2x4XT/hV81C/a

Chip Hutzler, Partner, HMS Valuation Partners, speaks with Robert Homchick, Davis Wright Tremaine, John Kelly, Barnes & Thornburg, and Kim Harvey Looney, K&L Gates, about some of the special considerations facing private equity in health care. They discuss the regulatory environment private equity faces, diligence concerns, and managing risk. Robert, John, and Kim spoke about this topic at AHLA's 2023 Health Care Transactions Program in Nashville, TN. Sponsored by HMS Valuation Partners.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court handed down a major voting rights decision in the Allen v. Milligan case. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and found that Alabama's 2022 congressional map likely violated Section 2. This comes as a surprising victory for voting rights and the Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) test after a series of other Supreme Court cases that have narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act, including the Brnovich v. DNC case in 2021 and Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts and was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh along with the liberal justices. In this episode, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel and Rick Hasen of UCLA School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Allen decision; discuss why Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh voted with the liberal justices to uphold the Gingles framework; what other conservative justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch wrote in dissent; and what this means for redistricting and voting rights in 2024 and beyond.  Resources: Allen v. Milligan (June 2023) Jason Torchinsky, Amicus Brief on Behalf of the National Republican Redistricting Trust Rick Hasen, “John Roberts Throws a Curveball,” NYT (June 8, 2023) Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (1965)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.    Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

It's YOUR time to #EdUp In this episode,  YOUR guests are Malika Clinkscales, Senior Associate Vice President, HBCU Center for Coaching & Excellence at InsideTrack, & Dr. Ka'rin Thornburg, Director of Partnership Engagement, Program Development & Effectiveness for the Partnership for Education Advancement YOUR host is Dr. Joe Sallustio & YOUR sponsors are Element451's ENGAGE Summit⁠ & Anthology Together 2023 What does belonging actually mean? Why is coaching pivotal for recruiting & retaining students? What is Malika & Ka'rin's big announcement? Listen in to #EdUp! Thank YOU so much for tuning in. Join us on the next episode for YOUR time to EdUp! Connect with YOUR EdUp Team - Elvin Freytes & Dr. Joe Sallustio ● Join YOUR EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! We make education YOUR business! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/edup/message

Josh Rubin, portfolio manager at $40+ billion asset manager Thornburg's Developing World fund, joins us for a stroll through key emerging and frontier markets regions. He digs into the impact of recent developments in China, investment opportunities in the Middle East, why Saudi Arabia appears to be tightening its friendships with a host of nations that are not considered exactly friendly to the West, and how a slight change in sentiment among global investors could tip off much greater changes in emerging markets.

Rancho Cordova is the first city in Northern California to bring citywide, Gigabit plus broadband delivered by an extensive fiber network that, once built out, will reach every house and business in Rancho Cordova. It's just one of the initiatives that give Rancho Cordova it's Smart City status. Rancho Cordova FiberCity® will be more than just a superfast fiber internet connection to homes and businesses. It will futureproof the area for generations to come, bring you more choices of providers, boost its economy, and enable Smart City applications  to make for a great city to live, work and play    On today's show, we have a conversation with Alana Thornburg who is the Community Relations Specialist here in Rancho Cordova for fiber city powered by Sifinetworks. Alana is born and raised in Rancho Cordova so she knows and understands the city well. Sifinetworks is the company that under is FiberCity® brand will fund, build and operate city-wide, open access 100% fiber networks across the US and they are currently here in Rancho Cordova to make us the first fiber city in northern California.

Meet Evan "the bioethicist" Thornburg, an expert on misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories, who has found notoriety on Tik Tok, sits down with us to talk about health literacy, scientism, the exclusionary elitism of the medical and scientific realms which gate-keeps information and contributes to the public's mistrust, and the difficulty of science to compete with the sheer volume, creativity and sensationalism behind disinformation in our current infodemic.  Tiktok handle @gaygtownbae EVN the (Bio) EthicistCheck out our YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/@helpmakeitmakesense6769Shout out to Jeff Jeudy for providing our music!  https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-jeudy-a4640826/Thank you to Shared Harvest for sponsoring this conversation.  Find out about their heartwork at www.sharedharvestfund.orgSend us your questions and comments at DrToniandDrAimee@gmail.com

Host Gary J. Ross talks with Troy Zander, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, who started out practicing in the Ch. 11 bankruptcy space 30 years ago and then moved to the venture debt space, where he has been ever since. Troy represents lenders to tech and life science companies, sharing the distinctions between how venture debt deals are structured for each. Troy discusses the nuances of venture debt and its various forms, including dilutive vs. non-dilutive funding and asset-backed lending vs. cash flow lending. Silicon Valley Bank had been a major player in the venture debt space, so Troy and Gary finish the episode by briefly discussing the recent SVB collapse.

So let's talk about bioethical intervention... The medical community has a rich history of false information, and it even got to a point when the community itself was the perpetrator of fake news. Mis- and disinformation have become so prevalent that even in the age of the internet, it remains to be the most difficult challenge healthcare workers have to win against. But that doesn't mean that we will and shall remain silent against all the misinformation and disinformation that's been thrown our way, especially in the middle of the pandemic. That's why for this episode, I invited Evan Thornburg, a bioethicist and TikTok content creator who aims to battle public health disinformation and misinformation by educating people on issues concerning public health. Do not become a victim of these social media “experts” and their unverified and mostly untruthful claims. Join Evan and me as we talk about the importance of acknowledging and understanding the roots of both mis- and disinformation in the medical field. Gather tips on how to effectively combat fake news both as a content creator and as part of the audience. Why you need to check this episode: Discover how the internet has affected the overall situation of medical misinformation and disinformation, both positively and negatively; Find out why you should first acknowledge and validate the reasons of people who believe in conspiracy theories instead of dismissing them right away; and Learn why you should never talk to an audience in such a way that would make you sound like the smartest person in the room. “I don't want to explain ‘why this is wrong'. What I want to explain is what someone is doing. What I want to explain is the technique they're using. What I want to explain is how you can see this for yourself. Fortifying or sharpening everybody's abilities to identify the problem means that I don't have to be there every time a new concept comes out.” – Evan Thornburg Notable Quotes: “Misinformation has been a bit of a keystone in medicine when we start to look at it through the lens of the history of medicine, especially of black and brown bodies.” – Evan Thornburg “One of the things that I've learned in researching and trying to understand people's consumption of disinformation and misinformation and conspiracy theories is that they experience an intensity of fear and anxiety around health and health information. And I think it's fair to affirm that. I think the first place that a lot of folks go wrong is denying them that reality.” – Evan Thornburg “We've overbought into the marketplace of ideas. We've overdrunk that Kool-Aid too deep like the best idea will just naturally float on top. It doesn't. The most exciting idea, the most promoted idea, the most beneficial financially idea does.” – Evan Thornburg “We don't have a natural propensity towards integrity… Most people choose integrity when they think something has the integrity to it. But it's not a natural propensity for us to just know what's the thing with the most integrity.” – Evan Thornburg Sign up at www.listentodrberry.com  to join the mailing list. Remember to subscribe to the podcast and share the episode with a friend or family member. Listen on Apple Podcast, Google Play, Stitcher, Soundcloud, iHeartRadio, and Spotify Links/Resources: Evan's TikTok

Why do some identical twins have different fingerprints? Oh the 90s, era of the Hale-Bopp Comet and the Human Genome Project in science. Mapping the human genome was A Big Deal, and everyone from then-President Clinton to your high school biology teacher was pretty excited.  The genome project eventually led to the lesser-known but also very important Human Epigenome Project — health impacts beyond our genetic code. How are we impacted by environment and behavior, in addition to (or despite) the effects of our genes? Ruby and Anne are having this critical nature/nurture conversation with Kent Thornburg, PhD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU).  Just FYI, Dr. Thornburg's list of credentials, accomplishments, and accolades are far too long to reproduce here, but you can learn more about him and watch his Tedx Talk on the OHSU website: https://www.ohsu.edu/people/kent-l-thornburg-phd. We have so much technology, so much information — why are we sicker and with lower life expectancies than earlier generations? Because technology is a tool, much like a hammer. You can build with it, but you can also destroy. We've actually caused epigenetic changes through processed foods, decreased physical activity, increased stress, and other poor choices. Learn what the science of epigenetics actually studies and what we've discovered so far (including that fingerprint-twin question). And learn to take action that can help you be healthier and pass on better health to future generations. Learn more about Dr. Thornburg at OHSU and from the resources listed below, and of course, find Ruby and Anne and more episodes of The Whole Pineapple at https://thewholepineapple.com/. Kent Thornburg at Tedx Portland George Fox Journal: The 100-year effect with Kent Thornburg You Are What Your Grandparents Ate: What You Need to Know About Nutrition, Experience, Epigenetics and the Origins of Chronic Disease, By: Judith Finlayson, Forward by Kent Thornburg  Pregnant While Black: Advancing: Advancing Justice for Women's Health in America Link to Amazon Guest contact info: Bernadette Battilega (Kent Thorburg's assistant): battileg@ohsu.edu

Thank you for listening! Follow us on Facebook and Instagram. You may also watch this podcast on YouTube!You may also follow Sam Taggart on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok for more nuggets on D2D and Sales Tips.

Join Red Pill Revolution for an explosive episode as we dive deep into the truth behind the headlines and expose the lies and manipulation of mainstream media. Covering the most controversial and talked-about topics of the week, including Alec Baldwin's charges of involuntary manslaughter, Greta Thunberg's arrest, a controversy surrounding an NHL hockey player under fire for refusing to wear a lgbtq+ jersey, a feud between conservative entertainers Stephen crowder and the daily wire, and finally Jamie Lee Curtis's disturbing art display. Get ready for a wild ride.   Subscribe and leave a 5-star review! ----more---- Donate to support the show by going to https://givesendgo.com/redpillrevolution   Our website https://redpillrevolution.co/    Podcast Companion: https://redpillrevolution.substack.com   ----more---- Full Transcription    Welcome to the Revolution.  Hello and welcome to Red Pill Revolution, my name is Austin Adams, and today we have a jam packed episode for you guys covering the wildest and most controversial topics of the last week. First. We gotta get this one outta the way cuz it's kind of a big one.  is discussing Alec Baldwin's recent charge of involuntary manslaughter in the tragic, horrific death of Helena Hutchins. If you could recall on the set of Russ, we'll be diving into all the details of that case and examining his role in the absolutely preventable tragedy that occurred. After that, we will be discussing the recent arrest of teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg will be exposing the truth behind her recent so-called arrest and examining her role in the larger globalist agenda. We'll also be discussing the recent controversies surrounding Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Ivan Prove. And his decision to sit out during a warmup skate that involved wearing a gay pride themed hockey jersey. And, uh, he did so due to his religious beliefs and he got interviewed and it was, it was pretty interesting.   We'll also be discussing stephen Crowder, I'm sure you have heard of him, as well as the Daily Wire, ran by uh, Ben Shapiro. Um, basically incentivizing their creators to walk the line of big tech censorship in order to maintain their contracted. Which is obviously concerning if you're somebody who is interested in following influencers who are also interested in freedom of speech, right? I if you don't, if, if you have to be weary of speaking your actual opinion when you're one of these little single largest influencers in the space and you have to follow the guidelines of YouTube or fear getting doctor pay.  That's an issue, right? So, so we'll discuss that. We'll see. I, I have some differing opinions on the, the matter. I have some differing opinions on who was right, who was wrong. I don't think it's a clear cut answer but I will discuss where I think Stephen Crowder went wrong, where I think the Daily wire is going wrong, and talk about some of the interviews that I listened to surrounding this. Uh, Candace Owen spoke out about this. Basically, every single person from the Daily Wire spoke out about this, and Stephen Crowder has just been. Off on social media about it. So we'll talk about that. And then finally we'll be discussing the recent controversy surrounding actress Jamie Lee Curtis, and her display of a unbelievably disturbing piece of art that she posted that was in the background of a picture she posted on Instagram, which was showing a dead child inside of a suitcase hanging from the wall. In her office   it's just so, so disturbing to me how consistently this is coming up, right? How, how often we're seeing these depictions popping up in these wildly successful people's, uh, backgrounds and in their houses, and, you know, we'll talk about all of it. Welcome to Red Pill Revolution. My name is Austin Adams. Red Pill Revolution started out with me, realizing everything that I knew, everything that I believed, everything I interpreted about my life is through the lens of the information I was spoonfed as a child. Religion, politics, history, conspiracies, Hollywood medicine, money, food, all of it. Everything we know was tactfully written to influence your decisions and your view on reality by those in power. Now I'm on a mission, a mission to retrain and reeducate myself to find the true reality of what is behind that curtain. And I'm taking your ass with me. Welcome to the Revolution.   All right, to everyone's surprise, finally. Alec Baldwin is facing justice for his role in the tragic and preventable death of Helena Hutchins on the set of his movie. Rust. Prosecutors have actually announced that Baldwin will be charged with involuntary manslaughter and absolutely rightfully so. Recent findings show that Baldwin. Ammunition, live ammunition that was found on the set, mixed with fake ones, uh, with empty rounds. And then the rest of the film crew, basically they, what they found was to have a. Extremely consistent pattern of criminal disregard for safety, which resulted in the death of Hutchins. Now, Baldwin's not the only one who's actually being tried here and has been charged with these things. The armorer onset has also been charged, but we'll get to that in just a minute. The maximum punishment that Alec Baldwin can get out of this is five years. That's the maximum punish. And on, you know, obviously even if he gets the maximum punishment, he's gonna serve two years at some BS celebrity prison where he gets to have his cell phone and watch TV all day. Like it's, it's terrible to think that that is what they're going to give him is the maximum of five years. He literally shh, pointed a weapon on set without checking it, without any proper regard for the safety of firearm. And pulled the trigger, pointing it directly at this woman, which resulted in her death. That's willful negligence.  So the fact that five years is all they're talking about at this point is disgusting to me, and it only shows that if somebody else was, in this case, if there was a be like a, a, a, a bunch of buddies filming a, a. Documentary together, and as a result, one got shot and killed on set. You bet your ass if they're not Alec Baldwin, they're getting more serious charges than this. Absolutely positive. They're getting more serious charges in this. And the only reason that this is happening this way is because it's a mainstream set of a movie and it's Alec Baldwin, right?  I hope for the family of, of Helena Hutchins that, you know, he actually gets convicted of this, which will be, you know, kind of a stretch given how much money is gonna go behind his legal defense. But along with Alec Baldwin, the film's Armorer who is in charge of weapons on the side, Hannah Guterres Reid will also face two counts of involuntary manslaughter. According to New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack Al. I think that's how you pronounce her name, Altaz. A L T W I E S. Okay. The first assistant director, David Halls, has also been charged with neglect, with negligent use of a deadly weapon, which is likely to lead to six months of probation. This also goes to show that basically the entire crew had some way, shape, or form involvement in this, and then there is so many steps that should have been taken to where this should have been prevented. Right. There's no reason at all that this should have. But the person who pulled the trigger has a maximum potential sentence of five years now. Baldwin's attorney Luke Nikas, has released a statement claiming that his decision distorts Helena HUD's tragic death and represents a terrible miscarriage of justice, according to them right bs. But let's be real. The only miscarriage of justice here is that Baldwin will face only five. . Right? That's the, literally the only, the only thing that's wrong about this, uh, the only thing that's wrong about the judicial system in this case is not that they're trying Alec Baldwin, it's that they're only going to give him five years when he murdered this woman, a wife, right? Somebody who has loved ones waiting at home for them every single day. And this man's going to get five years and she gets  put six feet in the. Now, Baldwin's attorney claims that Baldwin had no reason to believe that there was a live bullet in the gun, but obviously that's no excuse for not checking when you're the one actually pulling the trigger. Right? Baldwin relied on the professionals with whom he worked with, is what the, the quote says here. Um, but at the end of the day, he's the one pulling the trigger. He's the one with the weapon. He's the one who is pointing it in her direction and fir. Anybody, anybody with any sort of firearms experience or firearms training, and you bet your ass that you should go through firearms training. If you're constantly holding weapons in all of these films would've checked that weapon would've had, at the very least. At the very least, been there when it was loaded. Right. And, and, and, and the bigger question here is why was there any live ammunition on the set to. What was the purpose of that? Why would there be any reason for there to be live ammunition on the set? No reason. No reason at all that that should have been the case.  Involuntary manslaughter is a fourth degree felony and is normally punishable by up to 18 months behind bars and a $5,000 fine, but a firearm enhancement. Now that would've been terrible, obviously if you just got 18 months, but because of a firearm enhancement on the charges, it could make the crime punishable by a mandatory sentence of five years in jail. Now, mandatory is a nice thing to hear there, right? This is the least that he obviously deserves for doing. Uh, Helena Hutchins family actually came out in support of this. They said that they support them actively engaging in going after him for these charges  five years is, is a slap on the wrist. Now, if you recall, like, I don't know, it was a, on the one year anniversary of him shooting her like as if there should be any anniversary there, Alec Baldwin posted on social media and commented, like had the caption that said one year ago today with a picture of her face super. Like almost like it was like her birthday or something like one year ago. Today I married my wife. No. One year ago. Today you shot a woman and killed her in front of you. Could you imagine being on this set? Could you imagine watching this gun go off and this woman die in front of you while on a movie set? How tragic for everybody on the set to have to have witnessed that and he's sitting here posting on Instagram as if it was. Birthday party or something like one year ago today, and then said nothing about it. He got roasted, absolutely roasted  in the comments for posting that, uh, but he stuck to his guns on it. He's, he's, uh, just a weird, weird character. Weird character, I don't see how they don't convict him for this with everything that's happened here. And again, like I said, just to set an example here, just to set an example, right? Make sure that everybody involved from now on, I don't know, maybe check the ammunition before you fire it as somebody on the film crew.    The next thing we're gonna discuss here is going to. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Greta Thornberg pretended to be arrested during a protest against the expansion of a coal mine in Germany. As many of you already know, a video of the incident surfaced recently went like crazy on social media. I know I saw all over Twitter on almost every single post where Greta went on there. You know, boasted about how she was there and how the police came. And, uh, all of these news networks came in and were like, Greta Thornberg, arrested. Greta Thornberg arrested. And then , the very first comment on every single one of the news channels was the video of her. And if you haven't seen the video, you gotta go watch. It was a video of her while these two cops were around her holding her there for pictures, like as if this was a, a, a meet and. and then there's all these pictures that go around of her being like held like she's a seven year old child by her parents playing, you know, when you would like get thrown around, like sitting there with this smug little smirk on her mouth. She knew what she was doing, so did her team. Right. She knew where they were going. It's, it's no coincidence that there was an entire media team there to capture this. At some random rally in Germany. Right? Yeah. Probably not a coincidence. Right. Let's, and, and this is the thing about Greta Thornberg. She's not some innocent little child, right? Who wants to save the world. No, she, she's a pawn. She's a pawn being used by a larger global agenda by, by mainstream news corporations, by people like the World Economic Forum elites, all of those major conglomerates out there that are using her as a face and this recently, this recent arrest is just literally just another example of her and her, you know, social media teams and, and, and videographers manipulation for their own gain. Right? Attention, attention, attention. Right. And there's probably no coincidence that it happened while the World Economic Forum meeting was actually going on. So anyways, in, in the video. Greta's participating in like what it says they call a sit-in right before being pulled away from police. But what's even crazier is the fact that later she's seen when she's being, like all these pictures came out of her being pulled by the police and then she's seen smiling and posing for, for the photographers while being held by the police officers. And then one of the police officers actually looks at her and goes, I didn't know you were famous. Can I get a selfie? Hm. Yeah, she wasn't getting arrested. She was taking another five minutes of fame to put on Twitter. Just like her, her back and forth banter with, with Andrew Tate. Right. And, and let's not forget here that the police actually came out and stated that Thornberg was not formally arrested and was just taken to a police fan and they had to take her ID and get her contact information. She was not. , right? She wasn't put in cuffs and thrown in the German jail.  Like I said, seems a little bit too convenient to me that you have how many, how many random col, like how many like rallies are there on a daily basis and how many times are there there unbelievable amounts of media coverage. Sit-in with 50 people at it right now. There was a video that went around of like these cops sprinting from one side of the other and just like mowing over some of these protestors. And then later they're taking selfies with Greta. Right? Like why? Why didn't they like tackle her like an outside linebacker like that? That's the video we wanted to see, but the video that we got was probably even better because it. Showing you a peak behind the curtain of what's actually going on here right now. Maybe the police weren't in. . Right. But there was enough, there was enough evidence here to show that, that they at least partook and were not, had, had not had any intention. And the mainstream media came out and ran with it. Right. Every tweet from every mainstream media company was talking about how she got arrested. No, she did not. She took a photo with cops, with, and, and got carried in the mud like a, like a little baby. So stupid and so. You see that and, and this is almost everything she's done, has been a publicity stunt, right? All of her speeches are written for her. All of her back and forth banter on Twitter is ran by a PR team. All of these things that she's doing is not by her own free will. She has a team behind her that is pushing her. And if you wanna know who's probably behind that team, rewind and listen to what I just talked about with the World Economic Forum and all of these political and business elites going, coming out and talking about how we should be eating bug. During the World Economic Forum meeting last week, right. It's, it's very, very evident that Greta Thornberg is playing a game and they're using the media to their advantage to. Keep this conversation going, right? They're using a literal child who, on her own Twitter page claims to be autistic. Like maybe, maybe not the, the forefront, you know, intellectual leader that we're looking for on, on the, the science behind potential changing of our global atmosphere and rising tides. like what is her, what is her actual, like, what are her credentials Did. Is she a scientist? There's literally no credentials that Greta Thornberg has to actually be in the, the position. And I say Thornberg because that's her damn name in whatever part of the, the metaverse that I come from because it was never Thunberg until the last two weeks. I promise you, I talked about this with Andrew TA thing. I know 100% it is the Bernstein Bears and it is gre. Thornberg, 100%. I am from the universe where it is. Thornberg, not Thunberg. Thunberg. How stupid. Anyways. Now we know. Right now we know 100% we see through all of the lies in the manipulation, right? This is not about saving the planet. This is about control and power. This is about raising the conversation of the World Economic Forum elites. This is about you stopping eating meat and starting to eat bugs. This is about you changing your vehicle from a vehicle that you can get gas and put it into the vehicle and drive wherever the hell you want, and changing that into an electric vehicle that they can turn off at a moment's. They don't want you driving a 1990 Jeep Wrangler. They want you driving a Tesla because they can press a button and now you have no transportation because you said something they didn't like on Twitter. This is about social credit scores, right? This is about your personal carbon footprint and obviously this publicity stunt. Was all in an effort to put her name back in the news after the injured Tate thing within a week or two. Like you think it's any coincidence that she's back in the news a week and a two later, right? Of course not. You think it's any coincidence that there happened to be a ton of journalists there waiting to take pictures and photos and videos of her Only at the right times? Besides the one angle that we got where we actually saw that it was a photo op, right? Like. Crazy. Crazy. All right. The next thing we're gonna discuss after this is going to be Jamie Lee Curtis, and her creepy, weird little art that she had on her wall. But before I do that, what I need you to do is go ahead and hit that subscribe button. All right. Leave a five star review. There's very few things that you can do in your day to get some positive karma and help a brother out, right? You're listening. You've been listening for 20 minutes now and obviously you're still here, so I would appreciate it if you are listening for the first time. If you have not subscribed yet, go ahead and hit that subscribe button. The next thing I need you to do is go over and leave a five star. All right. Now, I don't have the Daily Wire coming on here and paying me to do this. I'm just asking you to subscribe and leave a review. All right. The next thing I need you to do is go to red pill revolution.subs.com and sign up for the co podcast companion. Every single week, I put all of the articles, all of the links, all the videos, all the topics, the video podcasts, the audio podcasts, all of it directly to your email. And all you gotta do is go to red pill revolution.co or go directly to red pill revolution.ck.com and subscribe. Okay? It doesn't cost you anything. If you would like to become a paid subscriber, you can do so at the very bottom, and then I think it's like seven. . All right. And I and my family would appreciate it if you like what I'm doing here. Okay, so Subst. And I'm going to start bee putting, I'm going to start be Pudding. I'm going to start putting out some consistent articles and blog posts on the website. So make sure you check out Red pill revolution.co.com is for losers and I will see you there with all of the awesome new content that I'm going to be putting up there consistently. Uh, I think you guys are gonna be, uh, pretty happy with it all. Red pill revolution.dot com or red pill revolution dot c o. Alright, now the next thing is going to be that Jamie Lee Curtis has been caught with a unbelievably disturbing piece of art on her wall depicting a dead child in a suit. Hanging from a canvas in her office in a post on Instagram that was just in the background that she obviously did not realize that she had posted until a bunch of people commented on it, screenshotted it, and then she deleted it immediately. That is right, folks. The Freaky Friday mom is a bit more freaky than we originally Anticip. The art piece in question appears to be a child contorted, like a naked child contorted who looks to be dead or sleeping stuffed inside of a suitcase. Hmm. Makes you wonder a little bit if Jamie Lee Curtis has the same interior decorator as Tony Podesta and Jeffrey Epstein, because if you go look back at some of the photos that they had, it was just as. Right Now, my question around all of this is, who the hell are these artists? How much did this woman pay for this piece of disturbing art? And why do these artists think that people wanna purchase this in the first place, especially at a high price tag to somebody like Jamie Lee Curtis or Tony Podesta or Jeffrey Epstein. All of these people worth millions of dollars. There's no coincidences here, right? No coincidences at all that all these rich and powerful people have weird, sadistic, violent, and sexual art on their walls, right? So there's a market for it, right? Who are these artists? Is what we should be really going after too, right? Is not only the celebrity that did it and purchased the art and put it on their wall and posted a picture of it on, I. But also the artist who decided to draw this and sell it to them, like, don't just go after the celebrity, go after the artist. Let's, let's absolutely find out who these artists were. Who are the artists that Tony Podesta was purchasing his, his artwork from? How about Jeffrey Epstein? How about Jamie Lee Curtis? Let's figure that out. Let's find it out. Who were the artists? That did this, and then we start going after them too. It shouldn't just be about the celebrity who purchased it. It should be about the creator of art because that's who we need to question. What makes you believe that somebody out there wants to spend $27,000 or 220,000, however the hell much money you guys spend on this stupid piece of art depicting a dead, naked child in a suitcase? And why do you think that people want to buy. . Right? That seems to be a pretty good question to me. Right? Not only are we talking about the celebrities, but we're also talking about the artists. That should be a topic of conversation and this immediately on the backs of the Balenciaga situation, right? Immediately. Right. It's like this, this, this, it, it promotes and normalizes the sexualization of children in child. Right. It, it, it raises sincere questions about like, why, why are all these people in, in positions of power promoting that? Why would they want to stare at that every day when I walk into my office at work, the last thing I want on the wall when I'm having a business meeting is a painting of a naked child dead in a suitcase. Who would want that over their desk in their.  and then who's stupid enough to post a picture of it on Instagram, , apparently Jamie Lee Curtis. Right? And, and, and I guarantee you she is a holier than thou liberal pointing at everybody but herself and their actions for, for, you know, being what's wrong with humanity, right? No surprises. If that's the case. Now, I don't know if that's a hundred percent the case, but I would not be surprised at all. And Jamie Lee Curtis has not even come out and addressed this at all. She hasn't responded to this. She hasn't talked to any news outlets, none of it. You know what she did? She silenced the comments on Instagram. That's what she did. All she did was get rid of comments. I don't even want to hear from you about my dead child sexualized artwork on the wall in a suitcase. Don't wanna hear.  right now. Now, there's an interesting correlation if you wanna dive a little bit deeper into the meaning of art, which is why most people purchase it. What does it make you feel when you look at it, right? How does it make you feel? Some art makes you feel happy. Some art makes you, you know, look deeper into yourself and, and, and, or motivated or, you know, whatever those feelings are. Sad, mad, happy, right? Whatever that is, right? That's what art's supposed to do is drive. What emotion is this driving? Right? But back to the fact that she literally just didn't say a word about it, has yet to say a word about it, and then just disables comments cuz she doesn't want to hear about you being upset that she has a naked child on her wall in a suitcase appearing dead. Right. It, it's, it, it, and here's the problem that I have with this. Absolutely nothing happened with Balenciaga. Right? There was a couple weeks of outrage. Now I hope that their brand plummets and continues to plummet. I think that there's definitely been a little bit of a movement behind looking at people who are buying Balenciaga and promoting it and, and,  understanding that this is what they do, right? This is what they're, they, a lot of their artwork that they want to call it entailed these little subtweeting of child exploitation or sa satanism or Right. Whatever it was. Right? So, so, so we, in the same way that you see Kanye just get literally ripped apart and canceled, I guarantee you nobody's doing that to Jamie Lee Curtis. I don't think she's gonna lose her. Chase sapphire. , do you? Probably not. Right. So I, it's sad to see that there's not been more of a conversation around it. Right. And, and, and some people are outraged and some people are talking about it. But if she still gets work after this, like why would anybody wanna be associated with that? right? Who, who are these artists? Why? You know, the fact that she's not even talking about it, right? Not even responding to this. She doesn't even feel the need to, to, to, to put a statement out. Right? So, moving on now, the next thing we're gonna talk about, there's been a ton of controversy surrounding the Philadelphia Flyers and their defenseman, Ivan Prove. Provera, I think I'm saying that right. All right. For those of you who don't know, Provera basically declined to go out during the warmup skates before the game where the team was being made to wear, uh, pride jerseys, like, uh, rainbow pride, gay pride jerseys. Okay. Kind of a weird thing to have your team do in the first place. Um, but the reason that he didn't do it wasn't because he hates gay people. Right? The reason he doesn't do it, he did it, didn't do it, was because he is intolerant of other people, right? He, that's not the, that's not the case. He came out and said that the reason that he didn't want to do it was because of his religious beliefs. When asked about his religious beliefs, he said that he was a Russian Orthodox Christian. Okay. And they were just like pressing him, pressing him, pressing him at this news conference and he's like, if you have any hockey questions, I'm happy to answer them, but I, I don't see the point in me continuing to answer these questions right now. Obviously you guys know this. I'm a big proponent in the First Amendment, and that obviously includes the freedom of religion, right? That's kind of a big one in the United States here, right? The National Hockey League, the United States National Hockey League. . Right? It's a fundamental right now, often overlooked in today's world and undervalued in our society, but he has every right to live in practices of religion as he sees he has every right to decline to wear a pride jersey if that's what he wants to do. Right? And he's did it so respectfully. Like he, he, he didn't come out and condemn gay people and say that he didn't agree with it or the, the trans community. He didn't do any. . All he said was, it's for my religious reasons, I don't feel like wearing it. And he was just getting torn to shreds. Right. He was getting condemned. People were calling for him to be punished and to be fined. Right. A bunch of like crazy left, uh, news organizations were condemning him saying that he should have even gotten like a million dollar fine from the flyers and, and it's, it's crazy. He has absolutely every right to make a personal decision based on. Religious beliefs, and he should not be punished for that at all. Right. It's, IM, it's important to note, right? Like I already said, he, he, he showed no ill will at all towards the gay community, towards the LGBTQ plus Element P community. All he said was he made a personal decision based on his religious beliefs, and he stated that he respects everybody. He did. He didn't come out and condemn anyone, anybody. , right? All he said was, I, it's just not my thing. I'm not gonna go out there and, and, and promote that actively. And he shouldn't have to. He's not a show pony. He's an athlete. He's not an actor. He's not a a a, a brand ambassador. He got paid millions of dollars to go play hockey, not to go pay, play political games for the Philadelphia Flyers organization. And what's funny about this is you see the reaction and where nobody wants the NHL to be. The NHL the last three to four years has gotten extremely woke, right? I grew up playing hockey since I was three years old, till I was 18. I did pretty good. I played triple A hockey, uh, in, in, you know, a very, very competitive area growing up and. You know, the, the hockey community was always generally right leaning, I would say. Um, it was generally in, in more higher income areas, which has an association there. But, but it was never, like, it was never used. The NHL was never used in the same way the NBA was being used. It was never used in the same way. The NFL even like with, with, uh, what's his name? All the football players Right. Kneeling during the national anthem. That wasn't happening in the nhl Right? They weren't playing the political games. And, and recently, you know, the, the, the NHLs Twitter is like, uh, or for a while at least I know it was like a, a pride flag in the background. Like . I saw something from the Babylon bee that says, if Ivan Pavlov said , that, that if he wanted to, If he wanted to promote gay pride, he would've played soccer It was like the greatest, the Babylon Bead does not miss, not once, almost everything they post is just unbelievable. Um, alright. Let's see what else we got here. Oh yeah, his jersey sold out completely right. His number nine Jersey sold out on, on the online NHL shop and the fanatic store. Worldwide after he, he did this, right? So it goes to show you that there are many, many people out there that share his beliefs and share the value of, you know, share in believing the value of religious freedom in the right to personal choice, right? Politics should stay outta sports. There's no reason for it. Athletes should absolutely not be punished for making personal decisions based on their political, religious, uh, ideological beliefs, philosophical beliefs, none of it, right? I'm quite proud of the community for standing up and showing that with their dollars, right? Nobody was, nobody was, you know, at least from that perspective, like maybe some media companies and stuff were calling for him to get fined, but as, as a consumer base, the, the hockey community rallied around him and obviously showed with their money that they don't care for your pride. Jerseys in warmups. You got the wrong. Guys. Right? This is not the n l this is not the nba, right? And apparently this isn't the, uh, you know, , the World Cup of Soccer. Um, anyways, and as a reminder, the Supreme Court ruled seven to two. Right when you were called back in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker when it came to baking a cape for a gay couple around, around their religious beliefs. Supreme Court ruled seven to two overwhelmingly in favor of the baker to express its political beliefs, even in a business context. . Right. And this isn't even for him, a business context. If I, I, I promise you it does not say that he has to wear gay pride jerseys in his warmups, in his contract with the Philadelphia Flyers Right? I, I would be very, very surprised if that was the case, right? I, I'm pretty sure that's not, not what would've ended up being in his contract. Now, the next time they signed somebody, it might be after this happened, although they'll lose out on the Jersey sales, which would probably. . They don't care about that. They care about looking woke to the companies who are buying advertisements from them. Right? And that's the bigger problem with this. They're not even concerned about their base anymore. They're not concerned about what people want to consume because I promise you, a vast majority of the NHL consumer base is not liberal. Majority of the players who grew up playing hockey, at least in the United States, are not liberal. You're not going to find an Antifa member on basically any of the NHL teams. You're not gonna find somebody with a Black Lives Matter sticker on the back of their car, like I said, on very, very few NHL players cars. Right? It's not a liberal sport per se. Not definitely not as much as the NBA or the nfl, right? They, they're trying to make it that way so they can play ball with these big corporations who want them. , right? I don't know who owns the NHL at this point, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Disney. So anyways, I'm glad to see that that was the outcome, at least, right? I'm very happy to see that people spoke with their dollars and made this happen in this way where there was a positive outcome for him, right? I hope he got some royalties out of those jerseys. At the very least, . All right, the next thing we're gonna. Is going to be, um, Stephen Crowder and The Daily Wire. All right. In the world of conservative entertainment, uh, there has been rising tensions between two of the biggest players in the game. That is Stephen Crowder and the Daily Wire. The Daily Wire being. Owned, or at least ran, you know, the, the face of the Daily Wire is Ben Shapiro, right? You have people like Candace Owens, you have, you know, uh, Clavin, you have, uh, Brett Cooper, you have, you know, all of the mainstream, the largest influencers in the conservative space come from or are some way associated with Daily Wire. The few that aren't are like Tim Pool. And that's about it. Stephen Crowder, right? Those are like the two really, really big, huge, massive platforms that aren't in some way associated with the Daily Wire, which I think is awesome. I think it's really cool what the daily wire's trying to do with the Daily Wire plus. Coming out with movies with people like Gina Carrano, right? There's so much positivity coming out of there that I was like, really disappointed to see this come up, right? This, this, this is not a conversation I want to take a side in, right? I'm, I'm in full support of the Daily Wire. I really like Ben Shapiro's content. I love Jordan Peterson. You know, Brett Cooper's great her, her social media content and everything. Top notch. Uh, Candace Owens obviously one of the most intelligent and, and well-spoken people in the conservative space. Uh, the list goes on, right? Uh, the, the, what is the woman documentary? All of it. All of it, all of it is incredible stuff. So, and been a fan of Steven Crowded for quite some time. I love his content and his comedy, everything. So like, this is not something where I really wanna like, wear a jersey in this. Now I have opinions about all of it, and I'm gonna tell you all of them. , uh, but it hurts me to have to even, you know, choose sites here. I'm not exactly doing, but I'll tell you what I find wrong and right with both sides of the argument. And you can distinguish for yourself what you think my total overarching beliefs are. But I don't think I have a exact side that I believe in here anyways. So this week, Stephen Crowder came out and publicly accused the daily wire of designing their influencer's contracts to tow the line of big tech censorship policies, or at the very least, have to. Have their pay be docked for every single violation against them, right? So if you have a YouTube platform and you get demonetized, if you have a Facebook and you get a strike against you from YouTube or a, uh, demonetized from Facebook, or you get a violation from Instagram, every single one of those things has a like stepping percentage that you lose of your income as a result of being demonetized. Right now, I think there's. Something to be said about that, and we'll get into that in just a moment. But, we'll, let's go on. Um, in a video posted on his channel, Crowder stated that Big tech is in bed with Big con, big con being conservative, right? So talking about the Daily wire, daily wire's obviously the biggest conservative platform out there, right? So, and he went on to criticize. An offer that he received from the Daily Wire without specifically naming the company right sees the next day. The Daily Wire ceo, Jeremy Boring, posted a response video in which he confirmed that the company had initially offered Crowder a whopping $50 million contract, but also claimed that Crowder was misrepresent, had misrepresented what was in the. Right. Boring. Also denied that Daily Wire was working with big tech companies to censor conservative voices and stated that the company has also been a victim of big tax alleged censorship, obviously with all the people that you're talking about here. Right. So, um, he read the contract verbatim, right? That, uh, boring is is the, uh, ex or president or vice president of the Daily Wire, right? He, he was, um, and, and this is the, like one of the bigger problems here is that Crowder is like friends with these people and. Came out in this big like gotcha moment and re released a recording that he had a conversation with. Boring and boring. Said something about, it sounded to me like the discussion went like this. Like they were talking about how Crowder had a problem with the clause in the contract. And it wasn't a contract, it was a term sheet. And the difference between the term sheet and the contract is that one's binding and to be signed, the term sheet is to start the negotiations, right? So in the term sheet that they originally gave to Crowder, which generally ends. Causing negotiations, not, you know, recorded phone calls in released social media stuff. Uh, the term sheet said, you know what, those stepping down demonetization percentages were for his pay of that 50 million if he got demonetized on any of those platforms or strikes or whatever. Right. , and that's the problem with this, is that those strikes mean that you have to watch what you say. Right now there is a part of the Daily Wire, the Daily Wire Plus that's coming out where you can kind of negate that issue, right? The, the hope is that they replace YouTube with the Daily Wire Plus, I would assume, right? And in that case, hopefully they wouldn't have to, to watch their mouths and their opinions. But at the very least what happens is the Daily Wire takes on these smaller. Influencers and brings them up through their platform, right? That's the idea at least. So they take these contracts, they give them to the person, they pay them a salary, and then they take ownership of all of their content, right? All of the videos, all the podcasts, uh, per, you know, cost and advertisements and space, and they give you a salary, let you grow your brand, and then, you know, eventually your contract needs to be renewed. And hopefully you can, you know, renew it at a really, Millions of dollar contract like they were offering Crowder to begin with. And so where Crowder had a problem with that is he felt like if they're doing the same thing to up and coming influencers, right?  Saying that, you know, what about that young person that they're gonna be hiring to bring up through the ranks And you know, if they're gonna be, you know, have to watch everything they say and, and or fear of getting their percentages paid because people were like kind of pissed that he was even upset when they're offering him 50 million over four. Crowder went back and asked for 140 million in a pretty  interesting way of negotiation. Tried to get them to immediately triple the amount that they were offering him. Um, but anyway, so that was the term sheet. That was what he had a problem with. And then he came out and said, you know, in, released a recording, right, Crowder. Basically said that, uh, the, the feud started with these two figures when the large scared divisions, right? The, while Crowder accuses them of betraying conservative principles, right? The, the, the principle of freedom of speech, of not holding back what you're thinking and, and, and not having to give into big tech censorship right now. despite the tensions of the disagreement, right? I think the biggest thing here needs to be the freedom of speech aspect, right? We, we need to maintain on the right side, at least to the anti left side of things, the anti woke liberal ideology, that freedom of speech above. All right? So I get Crowder's point in that. I get why he came out and had a problem with this, but I don't get his approach in the way. He recorded a phone call with a friend and then released this gotcha clip. What the clip said. Stephen Crowder recorded the clip, and in the clip you see them kind of discussing the, the thing that I just talked about, which is the docking of pay based on percentages and, and if you get a violation from social media platforms and Crowder released a clip of him talking about, of boring talking. How they go about that salary way and say, you know, that's how we do it. We bring them on and they're wage slaves and they can grow their brand and build a following and then go off and, and be famous basically. Right? That's what we do. We bring them on, give 'em a salary if we think that they can make great content, and then we let them flourish later. Uh, you know, we, we allow them to, to build a platform while making.  at the same time instead of out here bootstrapping it like you, boy, trying to make it happen without anybody. So, Crowder released the clip of him saying wage slaves. He like slowed it down a bunch of times, wage slaves, word slaves, and, and, and it was, it was supposed to be this big Got you moment. Now I understand what he means by wage slave. Wage slave is not like this ridiculously insulting term. It just means that you are slave to the wages that you're making in order to make your bills. Right. I understand that concept. It's not this like crazy, you know? Idea that like Crowder was trying to play to his base and make it seem like boring was insulting all of these influencers on, on these types of salary contracts. I don't really see much wrong with what he said in the recording. I don't at all. I don't see any reason that it should have been this big gotcha moment. I don't see any reason that Crowder should have thought this was gonna like drive a ton of interest in, in his debate with these people. Right. So I, I don't agree with it. It seems wrong to me that Crowder and to begin with was recording a phone call with somebody he considered a friend, you know, boring. Came out and said in the tweet like, I, if I recorded it, I would've released the part where we talked about his kids and buying and how Christmas went and buying diapers for his nephew or son or something like that. Right? He's, he's basically saying like, man, , uh, I feel stupid because he was recording my phone calls all along, right? And these negotiations had happened like months ago. It wasn't like this was a super recent thing. And what Tim Poole found out live while on an episode with Candace Owens discussing this, was that from one of his audience members commenting was that. The big, you know, say like what the, whatever the URL that he had, like say no to Big Con or something like that.com that he registered, was registered 12 days before the negotiations like fell through or so before something happened that caused him to make this move. So what that led to everybody to believe is that this was calculated, right? That was like Candace Owen's position was that, you know, he's only doing this to make money. She called him a bad person. She said that, you know, he, he burned all these bridges with all these people and, and now he's like off on an island on his own. And now he's trying to build a following on his own platform because everybody said no to him at the amount of money that he was asking for the 140 million over four years or whatever. So understandable. That seems frustrating to me. That seems like kind of shady, that you would record a conversation with somebody you considered a friend if that's what happened, and then kind of weird for him to play this like gotcha clip that kind of really didn't have much to do with the actual, uh, negotiations that he had problems with. It seemed to me like he would've been better off coming out and actually having a discussion about how bad the contract clause. The cause of the right or libertarian movements that are happening right now. Because if I have to fear YouTube's strikes for my family to be fed, then I have to watch what I'm saying. every single time I speak on, on the microphone. Right? And that changes the way that if, if it's a, if you're making a hundred thousand dollars a year or $200,000 a year or whatever, Brett Cooper, or somebody who's newer like that is making a few hundred thousand dollars, I would assume that that money is important to you. If you're gonna get docked 20% of your pay, that's gonna significantly impact you. Or two, you could get down to like only 20% of your pay if you get demonetized on several. So if you're making like $200,000, $400,000 a year and you get docked 80% of that, then you're making what, like 40 grand like. Would be atrocious. Right. $80,000 a year for the type of work that they're doing and the breach that they have. Like that's crazy. And so I get that right. It makes sense that there would be, you know, some type of push towards trying to have these contracts not include something about YouTube censorship or Instagram violations or anything like that. I also get that the Daily Wire is a business who is expecting the monetization of their shows to pay for the salary of the person who they're paying to own their content of, right? So it is definitely an incentive to self-censor on one side of it. And the second side of it is, From a business perspective, it's only, it's kind of like a necessary evil in today's world, at least until the Daily Wire Plus gets to where it needs to be, to where it's generating enough revenue to pay for influencers to come in and build an audience specifically on their platform, and not the ones like YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, all of that, right? So I see both sides. . I don't know who's in the right and who's in the wrong. I do know that I don't necessarily agree with the way that Stephen Crowder came out and did this like gotcha moment recording. I don't think that that was really the right move, especially if you're, if he was a friend. Right. And, and, and I also kind of disagree with the way that he burned all these bridges in hopes of building. His own platform because the whole movement that ever that is going on here, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, freedom of religion, right? The, the political movement that we're hoping for is the anti woke, anti-censorship movement, right? And, and so on one side of it, again, I get why this would be frustrating for somebody to negotiating a contract, trying to make this movement move along and be better, right? But I also get the business perspective of the daily wire. I don't know. I'd be interested to see what you guys think, you know, comment, whatever on the videos here. You know, comment on YouTube. Uh, speaking of YouTube, go join the YouTube. If you're not on the YouTube, I post the video episodes every single week. Right. You can go to my Link Tree, any of the social medias, you can go to the sub. It will all be linked on their red pill revolution.dot com or red pill revolution.co. I will be updating the website here over the next week or two and we'll be starting to put out articles and blog posts and news articles that we're, uh, I'm going to be writing up for you guys and distributing them through the subs deck as well. So make sure you sign up. All right. Now, as far as this situation goes, I don't think this is good for the free speech movement, although Brett Cooper did come out and say, That, you know, Brett Cooper's, I think 22, 21, 22, um, phenomenal. Really like her content. She does a great, great job at, uh, obviously, like she's, she's very, very sharp. Um, her content on social media is, is very well done. Her lives, everything. She does a really good job at it. You know, all almo, all of the influencers at the Daily Wire are, are like top notch. And so that's why I don't think that this is, this is. right? This overall like tension. Now this is probably the most drama we've had in the Conservative party, at least since like Trump was in office. So  it is, it is, uh, an interesting time to be, you know, not on the left side of things. Uh, but Brett Cooper came out and said that this was not in her contract because o one thing that came to Owen said is that she had a problem with the fact. Steven Crowder specifically talked about young and upcoming influencers, and there's only one , young and upcoming influencer. And that's Brett Cooper, right? She's 22, 21, 22 years old. Um, maybe 23, I don't know. But right around there. And she's, you know, had she said, which is crazy to me that she had like 7,000 followers last year at this time. And now she has millions, which like, you know, daily. Call you, boy. I'll jump on there. Take Steven crowd's place. , and, uh, yeah, I'll, I'll, if you wanna pay me, uh, 50 million, I'll be happy to, to, to, I won't even talk about anything that you don't want me to talk about. I won't even bring it up. I won't. I'll, I'll try not to blink. I'll, uh, I, I'll, I'll, I'll do whatever you want. Just, just for 50 million. That's fine. I guess I'll do it. So Daley Wire, call your boy. I'm happy to take the 50 million contract and I'll censor myself some from literally saying anything you want me to, I'm happy to do it. Happy to do it. Call me up, you know, Austin Red pill revolution.co. Send me an email. Uh, anyways, but seriously, uh, Brett Cooper said that this was not in her. She said that, you know, and that was something Candace Owens kind of took issue with, was that he was specifically kind of alluding to her contract and, and she came out in a live video yesterday and said, that's not in my contract. I sounds like she negotiated out of it actually. Uh, which it also seems like Crowder could have actually negotiated his way out of it like many of these other people did. Um, but chose to, I don't know, do what he did instead. , but it doesn't seem like all of the people on the Daily Wire actually have that sort of clause in there. So is it in all of the new ones? Maybe. I don't know. I don't know. But it, it is definitely not a good look if we're trying to promote freedom of speech, if you're having to have your influencer self censor. Right? Uh, but for 50 million, eh, maybe  anyways, that. Is what I got for you guys. Thank you so much for listening. Go ahead over to red pill revolution.dot com. I will actually be posting articles about each one of these topics this week. Um, I'll be sending them out in the ck I will be, uh, sending out the, the podcast companion. Over the next day or two. Uh, look out for it. I'm gonna be cutting the clips. Doing, uh, this will be coming up the next day. So brad pill revolution.dot com. That is my big ask. If you are listening to the podcast, go over and subscribe to the YouTube or the Rumble channel, or both, even better. Uh, you can do so at the Link Tree, uh, link tree.com/the Austin Jadas. Um, you can find me on, I. At Rad Pill Revolt, uh, or at the Austin J. Adams, um, Twitter, the Austin J. Adams and Truth social TikTok got taken away, but I'm starting to build another one. Uh, we'll see how it goes. But anyways, thank you guys so much for listening from the bottom of my heart. I hope you have a wonderful day and welcome to the Revolution. Thank you.