POPULARITY
Categories
189 episodes with twenty
222 episodes with twenty
104 episodes with twenty
146 episodes with twenty
84 episodes with twenty
136 episodes with twenty
65 episodes with twenty
98 episodes with twenty
84 episodes with twenty
83 episodes with twenty
81 episodes with twenty
81 episodes with twenty
37 episodes with twenty
133 episodes with twenty
97 episodes with twenty
48 episodes with twenty
55 episodes with twenty
31 episodes with twenty
32 episodes with twenty
92 episodes with twenty
63 episodes with twenty
53 episodes with twenty
31 episodes with twenty
40 episodes with twenty
84 episodes with twenty
34 episodes with twenty
72 episodes with twenty
54 episodes with twenty
46 episodes with twenty
72 episodes with twenty
34 episodes with twenty
29 episodes with twenty
46 episodes with twenty
62 episodes with twenty
103 episodes with twenty
45 episodes with twenty
20 episodes with twenty
108 episodes with twenty
40 episodes with twenty
33 episodes with twenty
53 episodes with twenty
87 episodes with twenty
41 episodes with twenty
46 episodes with twenty
38 episodes with twenty
38 episodes with twenty
25 episodes with twenty
43 episodes with twenty
50 episodes with twenty
35 episodes with twenty
44 episodes with twenty
27 episodes with twenty
33 episodes with twenty
29 episodes with twenty
The Sixers lose in to Detroit and are almost eliminated from NBA Cup contention. We talk about the load Maxey is shouldering, Grimes' struggles, and the return of Dominick Barlow. Then we address a Paul George trade theory, discuss a potential Jazz trade idea, whether Morey had to sign Embiid to the extension, and Daryl's appearance in an online chess tournament. Sign up for Fly The Process New Orleans here: https://www.rightstorickysanchez.com/p/fly The Rights To Ricky Sanchez is presented by Draft Kings SportsbookBecome a MortgageCS Ricky VIP at mortgagecs.com/rickyLL Pavorsky Jewelers is where Ricky listeners go and get engagedSurfside Iced Tea and Vodka is the official canned cocktail of The Ricky.Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit ccpg dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void in Ontario. Restrictions apply. Bet must win to receive Bonus Bets which expire in 7 days. Minimum odds required. Additional terms at D K N G dot co slash audio. Limited time offer.
Evening Prayer for Saturday, November 15, 2025 (Eve of the Twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost, or the Twenty-second Sunday after Trinity [Proper 28]).Psalm and Scripture readings (60-day Psalter):Psalms 39, 41Isaiah 28Luke 2:1-21Click here to access the text for the Daily Office at DailyOffice2019.com.Click here to support The Daily Office Podcast with a one-time gift or a recurring donation.
Send us a textGUEST: ALEX NEWMAN, president, Liberty Sentinel MediaIt's America's largest and most well-known city. It's the financial center of the country and even the world for free markets. Twenty-four years ago, the most prominent buildings in the city—the World Trade Center—crumbled to the ground after Islamists hijacked commercial airplanes and flew them into the buildings, causing nearly 3000 deaths.So how to explain that New York City just elected a Muslim socialist to be its mayor?Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani is not moderate. He is anti-Israel at his core. And he's anti-American—he is a self-identifying member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which opposes traditional American values of limited government, individual liberties, and free markets. In short, Mamdani is the personification of the “Red-Green Alliance,” the intersectional partnership of Communists and Islamists with the common goal of toppling America and Christianity.The left won almost everywhere in the first election since President Trump entered the White House this past January. Virginians voted for a Democrat super-majority in their state. Seattle elected a Democrat Socialist for mayor and Minneapolis nearly did as well.In a recent program, we discussed the rise of Islam in Western Europe and how the line may have been crossed for an Islamic future. But is the same thing happening in America, in places like New York City, Dearborn, Michigan, Minneapolis, and in Texas, where a large Islamic development is being proposed near Dallas?Alex Newman, Christian author and journalist at Liberty Sentinel Media, joins us this weekend on The Christian Worldview to discuss the rise of Islam in America and why it needs to be stopped. He will also discuss other events nationally and abroad, including the rise in political violence on the left and anti-Israel sentiment on the right.----------------------Manger in Danger for a donation for $30 or more - A new family Christmas tradition!
Send us a textA young teacher, a locked apartment, and twenty wounds that refuse to settle into a single story. We dive into the Ellen Greenberg case with a clear-eyed look at the timeline, the 911 call that primed the response, and how a scene labeled too soon can close doors that should have stayed open. We talk through the concierge logs, the missing hallway footage, and the mechanics of a latch that became the centerpiece of a suicide narrative.From there, we pull apart the evidence that sparked years of debate: shallow punctures versus a single fatal stab to the heart, bruises in different stages of healing, and medications that complicate judgment but don't resolve pattern or force. We explore why some see hesitancy marks while others see overreach, and how toxicology, body mechanics, and wound placement can support more than one conclusion. The most telling conflict may be institutional—a medical examiner's homicide ruling set against law enforcement's suicide determination—exposing the cost of early certainty and the weight of a mishandled scene.Along the way, we consider the texts about job stress, the dynamics of a new engagement under pressure, and the optics of removing electronics after cleanup. None of it is definitive; all of it matters. What emerges is less a tidy answer than a hard lesson: when investigators let first words guide the work, families lose faith and truth gets buried under procedure. Listen for the timeline, stay for the evidence, and decide where you land on the locked-room puzzle. If this episode moved you, subscribe, share it with a friend, and leave a review with the one detail that most shaped your view.You've Got to Be Critting MeMagic, mayhem, and moral dilemmas, an actual play with heart and hilarity!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotifywww.texaswineandtruecrime.com
This is Mark and Rita's first-ever podcast interview! The Schrocks are fellow Christians and engineer specialists at NASA's Mission Control in Houston, Texas and share with us what working at Mission Control is like. We talk about everything from landing on the moon, to Space Shuttle missions and even what they think of aliens! And of course, we talk about how we believe it all points to the glory of God. Human space exploration is good, but it isn't safe. Mark is the chief design engineer behind the Space Shuttle's Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver which was first performed on STS-114, the first shuttle mission after the tragic loss of Columbia in February of 2003. Twenty-one shuttle missions performed Mark's RPM. Discovery: STS-114, STS-121, STS-116, STS-120, STS-124, STS-119, STS-128, STS-131, STS-133 Atlantis: STS-115, STS-117, STS-122, STS-129, STS-132, STS-135 Endeavor: STS-118, STS-123, STS-126, STS-127, STS-130, STS-134. Dan's full interview with Charlie Duke. Sound clips from Mission Control: NASA/Johnson Space Center. Reading of Psalm 19 at the beginning is Apollo 16 astronaut and CAPCOM of Apollo 11 Charlie Duke. Thumbnail image: Mark and Rita Schrock. If you zoom in, you can find Rita standing center in a black shirt and khakis. Mark is standing directly left, to Rita's right. Astronauts at the International Space Station took the autographed picture of the Mission Control Visiting Vehicle Officer group to space and hung it on a window with Earth hanging silently in the background. Podbean enables our podcast to be on Apple Podcasts and other major podcast platforms. To support Good Heavens! on Podbean as a patron, you can use the Podbean app, or go to https://patron.podbean.com/goodheavens. This goes to Wayne Spencer. If you would like to give to the ministry of Watchman Fellowship or to Daniel Ray, you can donate at https://www.watchman.org/daniel. Donations to Watchman are tax deductible.
It's a BEAR IT ALL edition of Plenty of Twenty!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
BFTA storyteller Frank shares the joy, confusion, chaos, utter fear, and deepest gratitude when he and his partner Brad adopted and raised two boys, ages 4 and 2, from the foster care system. Twenty years ago, when Frank adopted the boys, trauma was not in the public awareness as it is today, and he was told that these little boys, who had spent some time in a meth house, might well have some challenges…..but he never could have expected what awaited.Can love overcome trauma? Can stability and structure and patience and compassion adequately compensate for profound early childhood neglect and abuse? Frank's story is just one example, but it's a beautiful one, these two dads trying to find a way to heal deep attachment wounds without a roadmap. Support the show! https://www.buzzsprout.com/396871/supportBFTA episode recommendations/Podcast pagehttps://www.craigheacockmd.com/podcast-page/Support the show
Alidad Hamidi: When Product Owners Facilitate Vision Instead of Owning It Read the full Show Notes and search through the world's largest audio library on Agile and Scrum directly on the Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast website: http://bit.ly/SMTP_ShowNotes. The Great Product Owner: Co-Creating Vision Through Discovery "The best product owner I worked with was not a product owner, but a project manager. And she didn't realize that she's acting as a product owner." - Alidad Hamidi The irony wasn't lost on Alidad. The best Product Owner he ever worked with didn't have "Product Owner" in her title—she was a project manager who didn't even realize she was acting in that capacity. The team was working on a strategic project worth millions, but confusion reigned about what value they were creating. Alidad planned an inception workshop to create alignment among stakeholders, marketing, operations, advisors, and the team. Twenty minutes into the session, Alidad asked a simple question: "How do we know the customer has this problem, and they're gonna pay for it?" Silence. No one knew. To her immense credit, the project manager didn't retreat or deflect. Instead, she jumped in: "What do we need to do?" Alidad suggested assumptions mapping, and two days later, the entire team and stakeholders gathered for the workshop. What happened next was magic. "She didn't become a proxy," Alidad emphasizes. She didn't say, "I'll go find out and come back to you." Instead, she brought everyone together—team, stakeholders, and customers—into the same room. The results were dramatic. The team was about to invest millions integrating with an external vendor. Through the assumption mapping workshop, they uncovered huge risks and realized customers didn't actually want that solution. "We need to pivot," she declared. Instead of the expensive integration, they developed educational modules and scripts for customer support and advisors. The team sat with advisors, listening to actual customer calls, creating solutions based on real needs rather than assumptions. The insight transformed not just the project but the project manager herself. She took these discovery practices across the entire organization, teaching everyone how to conduct proper discovery and fundamentally shifting the product development paradigm. One person, willing to facilitate rather than dictate, made this impact. "Product owner can facilitate creation of that [vision]," Alidad explains. "It's not just product owner or a team. It's the broader stakeholder and customer community that need to co-create that." Self-reflection Question: Are you facilitating the creation of vision with your stakeholders and customers, or are you becoming a proxy between the team and the real sources of insight? The Bad Product Owner: Creating Barriers Instead of Connections "He did the opposite, just creating barriers between the team and the environment." - Alidad Hamidi The Product Owner was new to the organization, technically skilled, and genuinely well-intentioned. The team was developing solutions for clinicians—complex healthcare work requiring deep domain understanding. Being new, the PO naturally leaned into his strength: technical expertise. He spent enormous amounts of time with the team, drilling into details, specifying exactly how everything should look, and giving the team ready-made solutions instead of problems to solve. Alidad kept telling him: "Mate, you need to spend more time with our stakeholder, you need to understand their perspective." But the PO didn't engage with users or stakeholders. He stayed comfortable in his technical wheelhouse, designing solutions in isolation. The results were predictable and painful. Halfway through work, the PO would realize, "Oh, we really don't need that." Or worse, the team would complete something and deliver it to crickets—no one used it because no one wanted it. "Great person, but it created a really bad dynamic," Alidad reflects. What should have been the PO's job—understanding the environment, stakeholder needs, and market trends—never happened. Instead of putting people in front of the environment to learn and adapt, he created barriers between the team and reality. Years later, Alidad's perspective has matured. He initially resented this PO but came to realize: "He was just being human, and he didn't have the right support and the environment for him." Sometimes people learn only after making mistakes. The coaching opportunity isn't to shame or blame but to focus on reflection from failures and supporting learning. Alidad encouraged forums with stakeholders where the PO and team could interact directly, seeing each other's work and constraints. The goal isn't perfection—it's creating conditions where Product Owners can connect teams to customers rather than standing between them. Self-reflection Question: What barriers might you be unintentionally creating between your team and the customers or stakeholders they need to serve, and what would it take to remove yourself from the middle? [The Scrum Master Toolbox Podcast Recommends]
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After Pentecost
It's an early-season Chicago Bulls episode featuring a few staples of their young core: Ayo Dosunmu, Matas Buzelis, and Josh Giddey. The trio dives into so much, giving a true inside look into the start of their season, including their hot start, why they love the chemistry in their locker room, and their goals for the season.They also get into some of their basketball origins and careers, including what it means for Ayo and Matas to be from the Chicago area playing and for the Bulls, Ayo's career at Illinois and Matas' at G-League Ignite, and what Josh takes with him from the beginning of his career on the Oklahoma City Thunder.They also have high-level basketball conversations about teaching vs. inheriting toughness, adapting to your role in the NBA, what it takes to be a winning player, and much more. Let's go!Download the DraftKings Sports book app and use code YOUNGMAN. That's code YOUNGMAN, bet five bucks and get 3 months of League Pass plus get $300 inbonus bets if your bet wins. In partnership with Draft Kings—The Crown Is Yours. Gambling problem? Callone eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven sevenseven or visit ccpg dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void inOntario. Restrictions apply. Bet must win to receiveBonus Bets which expire in 7 days. Minimum oddsrequired. NBA League Pass auto-renews until cancelled. Additional terms at D K N G dot co slash audio.Limited time offer.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Boedi and Bill break down everything that happened at the 2025 Pan-American Cyclocross Championships. Check out CXTV at www.cyclocrosstv.com. Check out the Cyclocross Radio pre-race playlist Cyclocross Radio is sponsored by Hammerhead and the Hammerhead Karoo cycling computer. For a limited time, our listeners can get a free heart-rate monitor with the purchase of a Hammerhead Karoo. Visit hammerhead.io right now and use promo code CXRADIO at checkout to get yours today. Go to cxhairsdistro.com and get a Wout Me Worry, Van der Poel Rules, and This Is Real Cyclocross Weather shirt for 20 percent off. Use the code WEATHER at checkout. Twenty percent! Check out the Grassroots National Calendar and other cool stuff at cxhairs.com. Cyclocross Radio is part of the Wide Angle Podium podcast network. Support independent cycling media by joining the Wide Angle Podium at wideanglepodium.com/donate. Also, check out The CXHAIRS Bulletin at https://cxhairs.substack.com/. Follow @wideanglepodium on Instagram for live race updates Follow Micheal on Twitter at @landsoftly and Instagram at @yeahyouride. Follow Bill on Instagram at @cxhairs and @cxhairsbulletin. You can find Cyclocross Radio and all of the Wide Angle Podium shows on Apple Podcasts if that's how you consume podcasts. Please rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, even if it's not how you consume podcasts.
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After Pentecost*Early birds- I'm sorry I had the wrong episode up first. I'll do better tomorrow.
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After Pentecost
Twenty years of Dancing with the Stars - and Tori and Easton have thoughts. They’re reliving the wildest moments, emotional tributes, and unexpected laughs from this week’s milestone episode. Get ready for glitter, gossip, and a few hot takes you didn’t see coming!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Twenty years of Dancing with the Stars - and Tori and Easton have thoughts. They’re reliving the wildest moments, emotional tributes, and unexpected laughs from this week’s milestone episode. Get ready for glitter, gossip, and a few hot takes you didn’t see coming!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
It's a "BUTLER? I Hardly Know Her" edition of Plenty of Twenty!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
What Holly Randall REALLY Thinks About Porn, Kink, and Penis Size Today we did the thing: Keely interviews... Holly. Sex & relationship coach Keely Rankin takes over the host chair and grills me (lovingly) on everything—growing up with porn-producer parents, why I still prefer being behind the camera, and how a leak accidentally nudged me into posting my own nudes. We get into industry stigma, awards (yes, AVN Hall of Fame), and why landing in the Podcast Pantheon alongside This American Life and Serial felt surreal. We talk fantasy vs. reality on set, how “opening to camera” actually works, and why most women prefer “boyfriend-size” for everyday life. We unpack foreplay (mental and physical), consent checklists, and the difference between power and exploitation. I share a personal story about my dad that still makes me cry, the joy/terror of motherhood, and my wish for the adult industry: that choosing this career doesn't brand you for life.Plus: directing on micro-budgets, the OnlyFans pivot, boundaries with performers, and why I still geek out over great photographs.Finish like a pro. Load Boost is doctor-formulated to improve taste, volume, and semen health — no gimmicks, just science. Use code HOLLY or click this link for 10% off your order! https://vb.health/supplements-for-sex/?utm_source=holly&coupon-code=holly New players, download the DraftKings Casino app and use code HRU.Play five bucks and get five hundred spins on Cash Eruption slots over ten days. That's code HRU, at DraftKings Casino—home of the largest jackpot win in online casino history. In partnership with DraftKings Casino. The Crown is Yours. Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred GAMBLER. In Connecticut, help is available for problem gambling call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit C C P G dot org. Please play responsibly. Twenty-one plus. Physically present in Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia only. Void in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. Non-withdrawable Casino Spins issued as fifty Spins per day for ten days, valid for featured game only and expire each day after twenty four hours.Find me on all social media platforms - HollyLinks.comHit up linktr.ee/HollyAds for exclusive deals, spicy discounts, and perks so good your wallet might blush.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/holly-randall-unfiltered--6630320/support.
Twenty years of Dancing with the Stars - and Tori and Easton have thoughts. They’re reliving the wildest moments, emotional tributes, and unexpected laughs from this week’s milestone episode. Get ready for glitter, gossip, and a few hot takes you didn’t see coming!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You're over-giving because you're terrified no one will see your value. You know you're doing it. You're even aware it's exhausting you. But awareness without understanding why you do it? That just fuels the shame cycle. Emma came to this coaching session with a question about imposter syndrome. Twenty-five years of teaching, consistently getting great results with her clients, and still doubting whether she's doing enough or good enough. Still uncomfortable asking for money. Still over-giving in every session because maybe, just maybe, if she gives enough, they'll finally see her value. But here's what I don't coach to: I don't coach to imposter syndrome. I coach to the operating system underneath producing that symptom. Within minutes, we uncovered what was really running the show. Emma watched her mom overwork her entire childhood. Watched her put herself last, neglect her health, tie her worth to productivity, and never value herself. Emma loved her mom. So she learned this is what you do. You work until you're exhausted. You give until there's nothing left. You prove your value through doing. And now, decades later, Emma's middle-aged, looking in the mirror, and seeing her mom staring back at her. In this coaching episode, you'll hear me guide Emma through: Why she's been working so hard to get her clients' acceptance and what part of her is driving that hustle for approval The exact moment she realized she's been modeling her mom's pattern of tying worth to productivity without even knowing she picked it up How loving someone who couldn't value themselves creates an unconscious loyalty to suffering—and why it feels like betrayal to treat yourself better than they treated themselves The practice of emotional neutrality when asking for money so she can witness the discomfort without letting it run her choices Why "I want more money" and "I want freedom" are abstract goals that keep high-achievers trapped in chasing their tail instead of actually creating what they want How to stop recreating your parent's life and become the conscious creator of your own by getting crystal clear on your values and boundaries The tool for parenting the part of you that innocently picked up misinformed stories about your value—so you can take different action even while feeling uncomfortable This episode is for you if: You've built success but still feel like you have to over-give to prove your value You're aware of your patterns but can't seem to change them, which just makes you feel more shame You watched a parent sacrifice themselves through overwork and now you're doing the same thing You're uncomfortable asking for money even though you deliver exceptional results You chase "more money" or "freedom" but never feel like you're actually getting there You want to understand what it's like to work with a Master Coach who sees the operating system underneath your surface symptoms This is what it sounds like to work with a coach who doesn't address what you think the problem is. I go after the beliefs and identity driving the behavior. If you've been telling yourself it's just imposter syndrome when it's actually about worthiness, tune in. Ready to explore your own patterns? What pattern are you repeating that you watched growing up? What are you getting from over-giving, from tying your worth to productivity, from staying exhausted, that you won't admit? Emma came in thinking we'd coach on imposter syndrome. But the real work was uncovering the operating system underneath that was running her life. And I'm willing to bet there's an operating system running yours too. If you're done perpetuating the suffering, if you're ready to stop recreating what you watched and start becoming the conscious creator of your own life, book a free Congruency Audit with my team at lisacarpenter.ca/audit. We'll identify what's working, what's out of sync, and the single biggest opportunity to bring your life, work, and self back into congruence. What pattern are you ready to stop repeating? Connect with Lisa: Website: lisacarpenter.ca Podcast: lisacarpenter.ca/podcast Coaching + Retreats: lisacarpenter.ca/coachingretreat If you listen on Spotify: Open the Spotify app on your phone. Search for Lisa Carpenter and open her podcast page. Tap the three dots under the podcast description. Choose Rate show from the menu. Select your star rating and tap Submit.
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After Pentecost
How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer 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@nexfirm.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 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.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.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@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.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@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and 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 an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.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@nexfirm.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@substack.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.substack.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, November 26. 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
Twenty years of Dancing with the Stars - and Tori and Easton have thoughts. They’re reliving the wildest moments, emotional tributes, and unexpected laughs from this week’s milestone episode. Get ready for glitter, gossip, and a few hot takes you didn’t see coming!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Join Dr. Shine on What's Your Shine? The Happy Podcast for a wildly fun and surprisingly meaningful conversation with Billy & Tiffany Roussel — the couple who dated their way through the alphabet. Yes, the alphabet. Twenty-six letters. Twenty-six dates. From "A is for Antipasto" all the way to "Z is for Zebras in Denmark." In this episode, Billy and Tiffany share how a simple idea — choose a letter and plan a surprise date around it — turned into a two-year experiment in presence, creativity, and choosing each other on purpose. What starts as a playful challenge becomes something deeper: a journey into vulnerability, partnership, and rediscovering the joy of making memories. Listeners will hear behind-the-scenes stories of their most outrageous dates, their funniest mishaps, and the unexpected emotional growth that came from stretching beyond comfort zones. Tiffany reveals what it was like to perform a literal interpretive dance as her reveal for the letter "I", while Billy opens up about what it took to plan experiences with meaning instead of simply checking a box. They didn't just finish the alphabet — they finished different. Different as individuals, and different as a couple. This episode is proof that intentionality fuels connection, that curiosity makes room for delight, and that love grows when you create opportunities to see each other with fresh eyes. Key Takeaways: How Alphabet Dating reignited creativity in their relationship Why shared experiences build deeper emotional bonds than routine "dinner and a movie" dates Simple steps to start your own version of Alphabet Dating What happens when you consistently choose surprise, adventure, and joy By the end, you'll be asking yourself: If love is spelled with action, what letter will you start with? Hit play — and get ready to be inspired to date differently.
Twenty years of Dancing with the Stars - and Tori and Easton have thoughts. They’re reliving the wildest moments, emotional tributes, and unexpected laughs from this week’s milestone episode. Get ready for glitter, gossip, and a few hot takes you didn’t see coming!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Get ready for the ultimate Backyard Brawl preview! In this video, we're breaking down the upcoming men's college basketball showdown between your WVU Mountaineers and the Pitt Panthers. We're diving deep into three crucial keys to victory for WVU, giving you the insights you need to know for a Mountaineer win. Plus, we'll highlight the key Pitt players to watch out for who could make a difference on the court. Don't miss out on this essential preview before the big game! Let us know your predictions in the comments below! _________________________________________ Sources: Song: Smoke Rising Music by: CreatorMix.com Video: https://youtu.be/_oaZzkn0bW4 Team Rankings.com __________________________________________ ⭐️Sponsors: ⭐️ DraftKings Sportsbook: https://www.draftkings.com/ Appalachia Digital: http://appalachiadigital.com/couz/ Get Your Tailgating Stuff HERE: http://victorytailgate.pxf.io/CouzCornhole Couz's Corner Merch Store: https://couz-shop.fourthwall.com/ Follow Couz's Corner on SWVLE: https://www.swvle.com/couzwalker Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGQsDxC1nVegCKqyoMKnL9w/join Other Ways To contribute to the channel: Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Justin-Walker-516 PayPal: https://paypal.me/couzscorner?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US Fanatics link: http://fanatics.93n6tx.net/eKxbVr Subscribe: https://youtube.com/c/CouzsCornerSports Socials: Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/couzwalker TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@couzscorner? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/couzscorner206/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Couzs-Corner-113327741384316 This channel is dedicated to covering college football, with a big focus on the West Virginia Mountaineers and the Big 12 Conference. It also features conference realignment news & rumors, game breakdowns and predictions, special guest interviews, livestreams and a lot more. FTC Legal Disclaimer - Some links found in the description box of my videos may be affiliate links, meaning I will make commission on sales you make through my link. This is at no extra cost to you to use my links/codes, it's just one more way to support me and my channel! Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit ccpg dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Fees may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void in Ontario.
Huge news for Mountaineer Nation! In this video, we're breaking down the massive commitment from this talented offensive lineman who's flipping from an ACC school to join the WVU Football program! What does this mean for the future of the offensive line? We'll dive into all the details, discuss his potential, and get hyped for what's to come! We will also talk about a talented defensive back who flipped to WVU from Miami (Ohio). We will break down his recruiting profile, talk about his film and give you the general thoughts on this commitment for the 2026 recruting class for Rich Rodriguez and the Mountaineer staff. Don't miss out on the latest WVU Football recruiting updates and analysis! #WVUFootball #Mountaineers #CollegeFootball #WVURecruiting ________________________________________ Sources: Song: Smoke Rising Music by: CreatorMix.com Video: https://youtu.be/_oaZzkn0bW4 247 Sports On3/Rivals ________________________________________ ⭐️Sponsors: ⭐️ DraftKings Sportsbook: https://www.draftkings.com/ Appalachia Digital: http://appalachiadigital.com/couz/ Get Your Tailgating Stuff HERE: http://victorytailgate.pxf.io/CouzCornhole Couz's Corner Merch Store: https://couz-shop.fourthwall.com/ Follow Couz's Corner on SWVLE: https://www.swvle.com/couzwalker Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGQsDxC1nVegCKqyoMKnL9w/join Other Ways To contribute to the channel: Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Justin-Walker-516 PayPal: https://paypal.me/couzscorner?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US Fanatics link: http://fanatics.93n6tx.net/eKxbVr Subscribe: https://youtube.com/c/CouzsCornerSports Socials: Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/couzwalker TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@couzscorner? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/couzscorner206/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Couzs-Corner-113327741384316 This channel is dedicated to covering college football, with a big focus on the West Virginia Mountaineers and the Big 12 Conference. It also features conference realignment news & rumors, game breakdowns and predictions, special guest interviews, livestreams and a lot more. FTC Legal Disclaimer - Some links found in the description box of my videos may be affiliate links, meaning I will make commission on sales you make through my link. This is at no extra cost to you to use my links/codes, it's just one more way to support me and my channel! Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit ccpg dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Fees may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void in Ontario.
Of Questions and Hope Job 19:23-27a, Luke 20:27-38 The Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity Sunday, November 9, 2025 Ryan Allbritten, Youth Pastor Church of the Redeemer, Nashville, TN www.Redeemer-Nashville.net
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After PentecostHere is a link to the Crowder song.
If you, like me, have lived most of your life in fear of foundation, this week's guest is your saviour. Because this woman saved us no-makeup makeup girls' lives. Back in 1991, Bobbi Brown was a makeup artist frustrated by the fact that most makeup looked like a mask. So she produced a range of 10 lipsticks that actually matched people's lips. Shocker! Those lipsticks were the start of something huge: the first eponymous make up artist led beauty brand. A brand that Bobbi sold to Estee Lauder just four years later for a reported $74.5million dollars Then, after 22 years at Estee Lauder, Bobbi left the company. Suddenly. Then… silence. What nobody knew at the time was that at the age of 37 she had signed a 25 year non-compete. Twenty five years! And she used that time to regain her mojo. Then, Bobbi reappeared with her brilliant new brand Jones Road, (hands up I'm a big fan) and now she's decided it's time to tell her own story, in her own words in her autobiography, Still Bobbi. Back in 2022, to celebrate the launch of Jones Road, Bobbi joined me from her house in the Hamptons to talk about how she reinvented yourself in her sixties. We also discussed the emotional wrench of leaving her name and her legacy behind, how to get what you want at work (and at home), seeing the beauty in growing older and the joy of nobody trying to fix you. * You can buy all the books mentioned in this podcast at The Shift bookshop on Bookshop.org, including Still Bobbi by Bobbi Brown as well as the book that inspired this podcast, The Shift: how I lost and found myself after 40 - and you can too, by me. * If you enjoyed this episode and you fancy buying me a coffee, pop over to my page on buymeacoffee.com. • And if you'd like to support the work that goes into making this podcast and get a weekly newsletter plus loads more content including exclusive transcripts of the podcast, why not join The Shift community, come and have a look around at www.theshiftwithsambaker.substack.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We break down the 2025 Bank of America Study of Philanthropy with the researchers who created it — exploring what this concentration means for nonprofit sustainability and the future of philanthropy. There's a number that keeps showing up in conversations about American philanthropy. And it tells two completely different stories depending on how you read it.Over the past decade, charitable giving from affluent households increased more than 30%. That's remarkable. That suggests a sector that's thriving. Resilient. Responding to need.But here's the other story that same data tells.Donor participation dropped from 91% to 81%. Twenty million American households stopped giving to charity entirely. First-time donor retention? Below 20%.Fewer people are writing checks. They're just writing much bigger ones.So which story matters more? The one about record-breaking totals? Or the one about democratic participation collapsing?To answer that question, I wanted to talk with the researchers who created the data in the first place.Amir Pasic is the Dean of Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. It's the world's first and only school devoted entirely to the study of generosity. He oversees Giving USA — the longest-running report on American charitable giving.Bill Jarvis is the Managing Director at Bank of America Private Bank. He's spent nearly two decades tracking how wealthy Americans give through the Bank of America Study of Philanthropy. He bridges wealth management and charitable giving in ways few others can.Together, they've surveyed over 15,000 affluent households since 2006. Their 2025 findings reveal a sector at a crossroads.And that crossroads is exactly what we're exploring today.Listeners, now you can text us your comments or questions by clicking this link.*** If you liked this episode, please help spread the word. Share with your friends or co-workers, post it to social media, “follow” or “subscribe” in your podcast app, or write a review on Apple Podcasts. We could not do this without you! We love hearing feedback from our community, so please email us with your questions or comments — including topics you'd like us to cover in future episodes — at podcast@designbycosmic.com Thank you for all that you do for your cause and for being part of the movement to move humanity and the planet forward.
The Buncefield explosion occurred when a gasoline storage tank overfilled after both its level gauge and independent high-level switch failed. Gasoline vapor formed a massive cloud that ignited, causing significant damage to surrounding business parks. Fortunately, the Sunday morning timing prevented fatalities, though 43 injuries occurred. The incident revealed critical gaps in safety control verification, testing procedures, and maintenance regimes. Twenty years later, the disaster emphasizes the importance of recognizing weak signals, maintaining bund integrity, and ensuring operators actively monitor tank filling operations rather than relying solely on automated systems.
Mountaineer Nation, are you ready for a major upgrade?! The WVU Board of Governors just gave the green light to the next phase of the most ambitious facility enhancement projects ever at West Virginia University. This isn't just a lick of paint—it's a massive move that will shape the future of WVU Football and WVU Basketball for generations. In this video, we dive deep into the recent announcement regarding the premium seating projects at Milan Puskar Stadium (the huge West Tower overhaul) and Hope Coliseum (new loge/ledge seats). Get all the official details, including: *
Luke 20:27-40. C.H. Jahnke. Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost -C http://www.standrewlcms.org / Donate
Twenty years ago, a genocidal campaign in the Darfur region of Sudan shocked the world. Now, videos and images of new atrocities have captured global attention once more.Declan Walsh, who has been covering Sudan, discusses one of the worst humanitarian conflicts in decades, and how gold is fueling it.Guest: Declan Walsh, the chief Africa correspondent for The New York Times.Background reading: From December: The gold rush at the heart of a civil war.News Analysis: The world seems unable, or unwilling, to do much to stop a new struggle on an old battlefield as atrocities sweep villages and towns.Photo: Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesFor more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
It's a National Princess Day edition of Plenty of Twenty!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Get your Veteran's Month shirts! https://www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/unsubscribe-podcast LIVE SHOW TICKETS: https://unsubcrew.com/liveshows DRINK ECHELON: https://drinkechelon.com/ Watch this episode ad-free and uncensored on Pepperbox! https://www.pepperbox.tv/ WATCH THE AFTERSHOW & BTS ON PATREON! https://www.patreon.com/UnsubscribePodcast P.O BOX: Unsubscribe Podcast 17503 La Cantera Pkwy Ste 104 Box 624 San Antonio TX 78257 MERCH: https://www.bunkerbranding.com/collections/unsubscribe-podcast ------------------------------ THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! TRUE CLASSIC Upgrade your wardrobe and save on @trueclassic at http://trueclassic.com/UNSUB #trueclassicpod PONCHO OUTDOORS Gear up for fall with Poncho, every piece is built for comfort, performance, and lasting style. Go to http://ponchoutdoors.com/unsub and enter your email for $10 off your first order. DRAFT KINGS Download the DraftKings Sports book app and use code UNSUB. That's code UNSUB, bet five bucks and get 3 months of League Pass plus get $300 in bonus bets if your bet wins. In partnership with Draft Kings — The Crown Is Yours. Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit https://www.ccpg.org/ Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void in Ontario. Restrictions apply. Bet must win to receive Bonus Bets which expire in 7 days. Minimum odds required. NBA League Pass auto-renews until cancelled. Additional terms at https://www.dkng.co/audio Limited time offer. GHOSTBED Get an extra 25% off when you use code UNSUBSCRIBE at checkout. Go to http://ghostbed.com/unsubscribe to get started. ------------------------------ UNSUB MERCH: https://www.bunkerbranding.com/pages/unsubscribe-podcast ------------------------------ FOLLOW OUR SOCIALS! Unsubscribe Podcast https://www.instagram.com/unsubscribepodcast https://www.tiktok.com/@unsubscribepodcast https://x.com/unsubscribecast Eli Doubletap https://www.instagram.com/eli_doubletap/ https://x.com/Eli_Doubletap https://www.youtube.com/c/EliDoubletap Brandon Herrera https://www.youtube.com/@BrandonHerrera https://x.com/TheAKGuy https://www.instagram.com/realbrandonherrera Donut Operator https://www.youtube.com/@DonutOperator https://x.com/DonutOperator https://www.instagram.com/donutoperator The Fat Electrician https://www.youtube.com/@the_fat_electrician https://thefatelectrician.com/ https://www.instagram.com/the_fat_electrician https://www.tiktok.com/@the_fat_electrician ------------------------------ unsubscribe pod podcast episode ep unsub funny comedy military army comedian texas podcasts #podcast #comedy #funnypodcast Chapters 0:00 Welcome To Unsub! 6:09 Major Capers' Military Background 15:20 The Python 22:57 The Panama Jungle 25:50 Force Recon 27:33 Jump School 29:08 Diving School 36:10 Major Capers' Marriage & Family Life 45:45 Dealing With PTSD After War 53:14 The Medal of Honor Mission 1:03:40 Ask A Marine Campaign 1:16:10 War Stories 1:20:45 The POW Mission 1:27:55 Lap 1:32:00 Major Capers' Son 1:35:45 Jim's Books Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
He lost his best friend. I lost my dad. Twenty-five years after September 11th, we sit down to talk about that day, the years of grief that followed, and the love that still connects us.In this powerful conversation, my Uncle Augie — my dad's best friend — shares what it was like inside the World Trade Center that morning, how survival guilt shaped his life, and the lessons we've both learned about love, loss, and legacy.
Jacob and Aaron take a look at the readings for the Twenty-third Sunday after Pentecost, which are Malachi 4:1-2a, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13, and Luke 21:5-19.
Twenty years ago, four friends met at Georgia Tech, each driven by a unique passion for innovation, creativity, and excellence. Their paths diverged after graduation, leading them into different industries, but their shared love for wine remained a constant. Reuniting two decades later, they decided to blend their diverse skills and experiences to create a wine brand that reflects their journey and the spirit of collaboration that started in their college days. This brand isn't just about producing high-quality wine; it's about telling a story of friendship, perseverance, and a deep-rooted love for the craft. Charlie Fauroat joins Justin to discuss this growing wine brand!
Twenty years ago, Third Rail Repertory Theatre launched itself onto the Portland theatre scene with a production called “Recent Tragic Events,” set just after the attacks of 9/11. That play, written by Craig Wright, put Third Rail Rep on the map, winning a number of local theatre honors. While many theatres have come and gone in that time, Third Rail is among those that were able to survive the pandemic and other economic pressures. It’s celebrating 20 years by reprising that first show, “Recent Tragic Events.” We talk with director Scott Yarbrough, who was also the company’s founding artistic director, about how the play resonates today.
Year C, Proper 28, Twenty-third Sunday After Pentecost
The first episode of our six -part series on the 2005 Ashes - often regarded as the greatest Test series of all time. Twenty years on Simon Hughes and Simon Mann relive the drama of those Tests with its participants including Michael Vaughan, Freddie Flintoff, Glenn McGrath, Justin Langer, Adam Gilchrist, Andrew Strauss and Simon Jones, interspersed with the memories of Shane Warne. This first episode recalls the build up to the series, why it was so momentous and how England were going to handle the all-conquering Aussies who had held the Ashes urn for 16 years #cricket #england #australia #ashes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Trendon Watford had a triple double against the Raptors and did everything we always wanted Ben Simmons to do, Embiid even compared the two. We talk about his arrival, Embiid's continued improvement, and Maxey's continued excellence. We also declare Oubre untradeable for tax purposes. Then we discuss PG and Barlow's continued absences, Meow Mix getting bullied, and then Yaron Weitzman joins us to talk about his new book, A Hollywood Ending: The Dreams and Drama of the Lebron Lakers. Get Yaron's book here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/736427/a-hollywood-ending-by-yaron-weitzman/ Sign up for Fly The Process New Orleans here: https://www.rightstorickysanchez.com/p/fly Get the Ricky hat Spike is wearing here: http://bit.ly/43krcQHThe Rights To Ricky Sanchez is presented by Draft Kings SportsbookLL Pavorsky Jewelers is where Ricky listeners go and get engaged. Adam Ksebe is the official realtor of The Ricky at 302-864-8643Surfside Iced Tea and Vodka is the official canned cocktail of The Ricky. Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred Gambler. In New York, call eight seven seven eight HOPENY or text HOPENY (four six seven three six nine). In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling. Call eight eight eight seven eight nine seven seven seven seven or visit ccpg dot org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (Kansas). Pass-thru of per wager tax may apply in Illinois. Twenty-one plus age and eligibility varies by jurisdiction. Void in Ontario. Restrictions apply. Bet must win to receive Bonus Bets which expire in 7 days. Minimum odds required. NBA League Pass auto-renews until cancelled. Additional terms at D K N G dot co slash audio. Limited time offer.
Emma Kelly, wife of Vikings center Ryan Kelly, opens up about the hardest parts of NFL life nobody talks about. Emma wanted to share her story about losing their daughter Mary Kate at 20 weeks and delivering two-pound twins in a different state. She's getting real about her birth trauma, NICU life, the loneliness of being an NFL wife, why people need to stop saying "just relax," and how her surprise third pregnancy brought healing. This one will make you cry and realize how much strength it takes behind the scenes.Sponsors:Peloton: Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push, and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross Training Tread+ at onepeloton.comAbercrombie: Shop Abercrombie in the app, online and in stores.Rula: Visit Rula.com/sunday to get started.Needed: Head over to thisisneeded.com and use code SUNDAY for 20% off your first order. Draftkings: Download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use code SSC. That's code SSC for new customers to get $200 in bonus bets instantly, when you just bet five bucks. Only at DraftKings Sportsbook - the crown is yours. *Gambling problem? Call one eight hundred GAMBLER or in West Virginia visit www.oneeighthundredgamber.net. Please play responsibly. Twenty-one plus.Avocado: With code sunday, you'll save an extra $25 on Crib and Kids Mattresses on top of their holiday sale! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Morning Prayer for Sunday, November 9, 2025 (The Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost, or the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity [Proper 27]).Psalm and Scripture readings (60-day Psalter):Psalm 252 Kings 22Acts 12:25-13:12Click here to access the text for the Daily Office at DailyOffice2019.com.Click here to support The Daily Office Podcast with a one-time gift or a recurring donation.
Not many people can say that a Booker prize nomination feels like deja vu … but Kiran Desai is one of those rare people. Twenty years after her first win, Kiran is back on the Booker shortlist with her long-awaited new novel, The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny. It's an expansive book that traces the paths of two young Indians as they criss-cross the world and each others' lives. It's a love story, a family saga, and an exploration of the things that bring us together… and the forces that keep us apart. This week, Kiran joins Mattea to talk about crafting a novel for two decades, being the daughter of a writer and the wonder of loneliness. Liked this conversation? Keep listening:Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's triumphant return to fictionWhat would it take to become the first Cherokee astronaut?
NBA Storyline Updates, Creation, faith over proof, and a TikTok from a priest. Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity: Gen. 1:1–2:3,Eph. 6:10–17, John 4:46–54
The US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr is on a mission to make America healthy again. One of his health-promotion ideas is to reduce chronic illness, specifically diabetes. And has part of his campaign he said that: "a typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes in his lifetime, over a 40 or 50 year career. Today, 1 out of every 3 kids who walks through his office door is prediabetic or diabetic. Twenty years ago, there was no diabetes in China, today 50% of the population is diabetic' Diabetes does carry a huge burden of health, but are his numbers right and how much of a problem is diabetes in the US and around the globe? We speak to diabetes expert and co-author of the Diabetes Atlas, Professor Dianna Magliano to find out more. Presenter: Tim Harford Producer: Lizzy McNeill Series Producer: Tom Colls Studio Manager: Rod Farquhar Editor: Richard Vadon
Evening Prayer for Saturday, November 8, 2025 (Eve of the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost, or the Twenty-first Sunday after Trinity [Proper 27]).Psalm and Scripture readings (60-day Psalter):Psalms 23-24Isaiah 21Mark 14:26-52Click here to access the text for the Daily Office at DailyOffice2019.com.Click here to support The Daily Office Podcast with a one-time gift or a recurring donation.
It's a special HOLLYWOOD HOTTIES edition of Plenty of Twenty! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
