Podcasts about Vietnam War

This week, I'm excited to share a special rebroadcast from the Origins Podcast archives: my original Origins Podcast conversation with Noam Chomsky.We recorded this dialog over six years ago, as an update to a conversation we'd held three years prior , before the political upheavals of Trump and Brexit.Listening back now, it's striking how much of what Noam said remains relevant, and in many cases, deeply prescient. As always, he was incisive, informative, provocative, and brilliant. We covered a huge range of topics, starting with the history of anti-intellectualism in America and the role of intellectuals during the Vietnam War , before moving into the nature of American exceptionalism.We also dove into the pressing foreign policy issues of the day, including North Korea, Syria, Israel, Venezuela, and Brazil. While many of the underlying causes may be the same, it's fascinating to see how some of these situations have played out in ways we might never have predicted.From his analysis of free speech debates to his critical concerns about nuclear weapons and the environment, it's a conversation that remains incredibly important.I hope you enjoy revisiting this fascinating conversation.As always, an ad-free video version of this podcast is also available to paid Critical Mass subscribers. Your subscriptions support the non-profit Origins Project Foundation, which produces the podcast. The audio version is available free on the Critical Mass site and on all podcast sites, and the video version will also be available on the Origins Project YouTube. Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Guests: Mark Moyar, Jason M. Gehrke, & Tom Conner Host Scot Bertram talks with Mark Moyar, the William P. Harris Chair in Military History at Hillsdale College, about his recent essay on the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Jason Gehrke, assistant professor of history at Hillsdale College, discusses his recent essay on the nature of America First foreign policy. And Tom Conner, professor emeritus of history at Hillsdale College, gives a survey of the history of the Luxembourg American Cemetery.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Counter Momentum of Spin, with Dr. Franco Musio – The war was initially met with acceptance by the US population, though following the Tet Offensive in 1968 and Walter Cronkite's pronouncements on CBS News that the war was a losing proposition, resentment of American involvement steadily grew. Technological evolution allowed for increasingly sophisticated aircraft and weaponry, which...

During the Civil War, “Soldier's Heart” was the name given to the symptoms we now associate with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. While the condition has had many names in the decades – and wars – that have followed, its toll on soldiers has not abated. Between 11 and 15 percent of Vietnam War veterans are still suffering from PTSD, 50 years after the end of the war. The new documentary “Healing a Soldier's Heart” follows four veterans reckoning with PTSD and with moral injury – the psychological harm we experience when we violate our moral code. We talk with the filmmaker, a Vietnam War veteran and a psychologist about what it looks like to heal. Related link(s): Watch the documentary “Healing a Soldier's Heart” Moral Injury – PTSD: National Center for PTSD For Family and Friends – PTSD: National Center for PTSD Moral Injury and Distress Scale (MIDS) – PTSD Guests: Shira Maguen, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, UCSF Medical School; staff psychologist, San Francisco VA Medical Center PTSD Program Stephen Olsson, director and producer, “Healing A Soldier's Heart” Levie Isaacks, decorated Vietnam Army platoon leader (Bronze Star for heroism) and veteran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guest: Ken BurnsHe's an Award-Winning Filmmaker known for his documentary films and television series, many of which chronicle American history and culture. Some of his most popular works include the Civil War, Baseball, Jazz, the National Parks, Prohibition, the Roosevelts, the Vietnam War, and Country Music. Behind the majestic shots and carefully chosen words, there's another character always in the frame: the weather. From outracing clouds to chasing snow that just won't fall, even filmmaker Ken Burns has learned that Mother Nature doesn't always take direction. While shooting his newest series The American Revolution, weather wasn't just a backdrop — it was a full-fledged co-star. Today, we'll talk with Ken about the challenges and surprises of filming history in real weather, how climate and geography shaped the American Revolution, and why sometimes the best storyteller is the sky.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Ken Burns and His Work01:10 The Role of Weather in Filmmaking02:22 The American Revolution: A Complex Narrative04:19 Challenges of Capturing Weather in Filmmaking07:14 The Importance of Authenticity in Storytelling09:36 Weather's Impact on Historical Events12:13 Technological Advancements and Their Influence14:27 The Unpredictability of History17:31 The Drama of Real Weather in StorytellingSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

Folks… did you think spooky season was over? It ain't truly finished yet! Reaching into November now, the autumnal season has brought us to a little mash-up of Horror Adjacent™️ and Veterans Day graces. We're covering our second South Korean film of the show. In the jungles of Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, a Korean squad, led by Lieutenant Choi, heads into the mist and fog of a mysterious island to rescue a missing platoon. Will they get out alive? Somehow connecting the horror genre with the horrors of war itself, director Kong Su-chang brings us an interesting combination of artful and subtle scares with the injured psyches of soldiers aching to return home. Join Chris and Kevin as they delve into the mysterious jungles of warfare, silhouettes, and ghosts. Hear us out as we make our point for R-point!

[00:07:23] – The Black Committee: America's First Mass Surveillance ProgramBeito explains Senator Hugo Black's seizure of millions of private telegrams to spy on FDR's opponents — a little-known episode that prefigured today's surveillance state and “national security” abuses. [00:27:29] – The Newport Sex Scandal and FDR's Moral HypocrisyKnight and Beito expose Roosevelt's secret Navy operation that used entrapment to target suspected homosexual sailors — a scandal later erased from mainstream history. [00:39:31] – Going Off Gold: Roosevelt's Monetary RevolutionThe discussion covers how FDR's abandonment of the gold standard and arbitrary price-fixing launched America's age of fiat currency, inflation, and centralized economic manipulation. [00:49:16] – The “Fake News” Law That Almost HappenedBeito recounts a 1930s proposal to criminalize “false news” under FDR's influence — an early prototype of modern truth policing and digital censorship laws. [01:00:16] – The 72-Dose Childhood Vaccine LawsuitKnight reviews a lawsuit claiming the CDC never tested the combined safety of its full childhood vaccine schedule, arguing the agency hides behind untested assumptions of safety. [01:14:46] – Eli Lilly Bribery and Big Pharma CorruptionKnight reports on a Texas lawsuit accusing Eli Lilly of paying doctors to push high-profit drugs, tying it to systemic collusion between pharmaceutical giants and captured regulators. [01:24:23] – James Bradley on Vietnam: Precious FreedomAuthor James Bradley joins to discuss his book Precious Freedom, reframing the Vietnam War from the Vietnamese perspective and exposing decades of U.S. and media propaganda. [01:36:39] – Media Lies and CIA MythsBradley reveals how the U.S. and its allies fabricated the idea of “North and South Vietnam” as separate nations, a CIA-backed myth used to justify decades of warfare. [02:22:00] – Fourth Turning Politics and the Rise of Authoritarian SaviorsKnight and Bonta examine how historical cycles of crisis create conditions for strongmen like FDR, Trump, and others who exploit social chaos to centralize power. [03:02:17] – De-Dollarization and the End of U.S. Financial SupremacyBonta closes by warning that the weaponization of the dollar is accelerating the global shift toward BRICS and gold-backed trade systems, threatening the foundation of American economic dominance. Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHTFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

There is money pouring in from gamblers on Nick Saban being the next coach at LSU... Whodathunkit? Is it real? We thank the Veterans and JC gives a loser a history lesson about the Vietnam War. Joyce is up next on VHS Dates. Portal talent... is that a current issue or nah? The Nana's Porch Chat Box is wide open today in honor of Veterans Day, we interact accordingly... there's a little basketball but not much. Zion Elee? Who knows. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

LtCOL. Karen Kwiatkowski : A Vietnam War is Coming to Venezuela.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“You can't be afraid to jump.” — Clay Novak "Let's get left of the boom. We should be doing the same thing for veteran suicide." This Veterans Day, join Reena Friedman Watts and her dad, Wayne, as they sit down with Lt. Col. Clay Novak (Ret.), combat veteran, author of the new book Rebellis, and co-host of The Elsa Kurt Show. Clay shares his hard-earned lessons on leadership, resilience, fatherhood, and life after combat — and weighs in on today's politics and world events. Elsa Kurt, known as The Blonde Kamala, a political commentator, co-host of the podcast, and married to a police officer and veteran. Together, they bring candid, no-holds-barred insights on freedom, service, and navigating the modern world. Clay shares his journey from military life to becoming a podcaster and author, revealing the lessons learned along the way. He discusses the challenges and camaraderie of military service, the stark contrasts between his experiences and those of veterans from previous generations, and how these insights inform his writing and advocacy work today. With humor and sincerity, Clay opens up about the realities of combat, the importance of community for veterans, and the critical issue of suicide prevention within the veteran population. He emphasizes the need for belonging and the role that camaraderie plays in helping veterans cope with life after service. As they explore Clay's creative endeavors, including his writing process and the inspiration behind his characters, Reena and Wayne engage in a heartfelt conversation that highlights the importance of mentorship, resilience, and the power of storytelling. This episode is not only a testament to the sacrifices made by those in uniform but also a celebration of the legacy they leave behind. Keywords Veterans, Military Service, Podcasting, Author, Suicide Prevention, Fatherhood, Politics, Community, Resilience, Storytelling, Creative Writing, Camaraderie, Life Lessons, Personal Growth, Legacy, Advocacy (00:00) Reena friedman watts brings you the better call dream daddy show (02:13) I co host the podcast with Elsa Kurt, and it's politics of the day (07:14) You grew up in the suburbs in a blue collar family (10:39) How do you think your time in the service differed from Vietnam (16:57) Talk to me about friendly fire during the Vietnam War (18:51) Getting wounded in Afghanistan was incredibly difficult and probably tragic (24:42) It's 22 veterans a day, on average commit suicide (29:04) Talk a little bit about how you have gotten creative since leaving the military (34:41) Keep Moving, Keep Shooting is Terry Davis, that's the main character (37:10) I'm curious about the artwork and the thought behind the cover design (40:01) Would you compare publishing your book to jumping out of a plane (44:43) Clay Novak: Please get my books into libraries. Please do. I think that's benefits everybody (48:05) 22 veterans commit suicide every year, according to Better Call Daddy (53:42) The point is, is that he wants to talk about politics. And writing about it and predicting Connect with Clay Novak Clay Novak's Website Connect with Reena Friedman Watts Better Call Daddy Website | LinkedIn | Instagram YouTube Thank you for tuning in to Better Call Daddy—where wisdom and heart meet!

Before there were military consultants on movie sets, there were officers like Jon McBride — servicemen who understood how stories shape public perception. On this Veterans Day episode of Below the Line, we look at how the Navy's storytellers helped connect the worlds of service and cinema. This week, Skid is joined by Jon McBride, a former U.S. Navy officer whose service from 1964 to 1968 led him from the deck of the USS Kitty Hawk to the Navy's Public Affairs Office in Hollywood — bridging two worlds that rarely meet but often influence one another. We explore: Jon's path from Yale graduate to Naval officer during the Vietnam War era, and how chance and persistence steered him toward public affairs Life aboard the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk, where he volunteered for the ship's public information role — discovering a talent for storytelling under pressure How a Pentagon connection set Jon on the path to Hollywood, joining the Navy's West Coast Public Affairs Office on Sunset Boulevard The Navy's relationship with the film industry — reviewing scripts, assigning project officers, and shaping depictions of sailors on screen Behind-the-scenes memories from Operation: Entertainment, Yours, Mine and Ours, and an unexpected day serving as Dionne Warwick's “agent” Encounters with Ray Charles, the Blue Angels, and the surreal overlap between show business and service How McBride's later work with the grassroots Beyond War movement reframed his understanding of conflict and communication Episodes like this one reflect a recurring theme for Below the Line — the shared discipline, teamwork, and creative purpose that link filmmaking and military service. Jon's story captures that connection with humor, humility, and a deep sense of how storytelling itself can serve a mission.

James Bradley, acclaimed author of Flags of Our Fathers, joins Steve Gruber to discuss his new novel, Precious Freedom. Exploring the Vietnam War from a unique perspective, Bradley examines how the Vietnamese achieved a victory over the world's most powerful military, despite the immense tragedy the war brought to both America and Vietnam. He shares the historical research, personal reflections, and storytelling that inspired this compelling narrative, offering listeners a deeper understanding of a complex chapter in history.

Send us a textJoin us in a sit down interview with retired Ogden Police legend Spence Phillips. From the jungles of Vietnam where he served in the Army to the Streets of Ogden from the 70's on, Spence brings his articulate, humorous, and unique perspective to the show. Listen to his first hand accounts of the Vietnam War and Policing in his era. He would never say this about himself, but Spence is a bona fide hero for reasons you'll hear, and we are indebted to him for giving us some of his time. Happy Veterans Day and thank you for your service. Ogden, Ogden Utah, Junction City, True Crime, Historic 25th Street, Two-Bit Street, Ogden True Crime, Utah True Crime, Police, Police Podcast, Tales of Policing, History, History Podcast

Mexican Americans were disproportionately killed and injured during the Vietnam War. Historian Dr. Gene Chávez has said the contributions and stories of those service members are often overlooked, but his recent project with the Library of Congress will help preserve those stories.

Dalton began this tribute edition of Crosstalk, with the following from historian William Federer from his series, "How We Got Here": "On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, WWI ended. Though the ceasefire, called armistice, was signed at 5am in the morning, it specified that 11 am would be the time the actual fighting would cease. Tragically, in the intervening 6 hours of fighting, an additional 11,000 more were killed. Following WWI (the war to end all wars), President Warren Harding, in 1921, had the remains of an unknown soldier killed in France brought to Arlington Cemetery to be buried in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Inscribed on the tomb are the words: 'Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known but to God.'" "In 1926, President Coolidge began issuing proclamations honoring veterans every year and in 1938, the day became a legal holiday. In 1954, the name Armistice Day was changed to Veterans Day to honor all soldiers of all American wars. 4 million Americans served in WWI. 16 million served in WWII. Nearly 7 million served in the Korean War. Nearly 9 million served in the Vietnam War. From the first Gulf War till the present, 7.4 million men and women served in the military." Memorial Day honors those who died while serving, while Veterans Day honors living soldiers. This broadcast served to allow listeners to honor the latter for their efforts.

11/11/25: Joel Heitkamp is broadcasting from the North Dakota Veterans Home in Lisbon, and is joined again by Bill Anderson, a Marine that served in the Vietnam War. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this special Veterans Day episode of "Next Steps 4 Seniors: Conversations on Aging" host Wendy Jones honors Veterans Day with guest Vito Pampiloma, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. Vito shares his military experiences, reflects on the significance of Veterans Day, and discusses the sacrifices and challenges faced by veterans. Together, they emphasize the importance of recognizing all who serve, educating younger generations, and supporting veterans year-round. The conversation highlights the enduring bonds among veterans and encourages listeners to show gratitude through everyday acts of kindness and support, ensuring the legacy of respect for those who have served continues. Timestamps Introduction to the Show and Guest (00:00:00)Wendy introduces the show, its purpose, and welcomes Vito, a decorated Vietnam veteran. Vito’s Military Background (00:01:04)Vito shares his draft in 1965, training, and service as a door gunner in Vietnam. Origin and History of Veterans Day (00:02:15)Discussion of Armistice Day, its transformation to Veterans Day in 1954, and its significance. Who is a Veteran? (00:03:20)Clarifies the definition of a veteran and the importance of support personnel. Current U.S. Military Presence Worldwide (00:04:37)Vito explains the number of active duty personnel and U.S. military presence in over 60 countries. Honoring Veterans and Their Sacrifices (00:05:53)Reflects on the hardships faced by veterans from various wars and the ongoing impact on their lives. Passing the Torch to the Next Generation (00:08:45)Emphasizes the importance of teaching younger generations about freedom and sacrifice. Veteran Friendships and the Unspoken Bond (00:09:21)Vito shares personal stories about lifelong bonds with fellow veterans. World War II: Scale and Sacrifice (00:11:52)Wendy and Vito discuss WWII statistics, the D-Day landing, and the logistics of the war. D-Day Recap for Students (00:12:51)Vito gives a brief overview of the D-Day invasion and its significance. Vietnam War Memories and Army Nurses (00:14:05)Vito recounts experiences in Vietnam, highlights the role of army nurses, and mentions Bob Hope’s support. Standing with Veterans Today (00:17:29)Encouragement to honor and support veterans, both on Veterans Day and throughout the year. Current Military Recruiting and Ongoing Support (00:18:10)Notes high recruiting numbers and suggests ways to support veterans year-round. Honoring the Oldest Veterans (00:19:14)Wendy shares about the dwindling number of WWII veterans and the importance of personal gestures. The Greatest Generation and Continuing the Legacy (00:20:18)Vito reflects on the WWII generation and the responsibility of subsequent generations. Final Thoughts and Gratitude (00:21:27)Wendy and Vito express gratitude to veterans and urge listeners not to take freedom for granted.Learn more : https://nextsteps4seniors.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hawaii and the rest of the nation are honoring our heroes on this Veterans Day. At the Waikiki Natatorium War Memorial, a moment of silence was held in tribute of the 10,000 Hawaii veterans who served in World War I. The House is set to vote as early as tomorrow afternoon on a measure to fund the government, after the Senate broke the stalemate last night, passing a bill to end the longest government shutdown in American history. And Former President Barack Obama surprised veterans of the Korean and Vietnam Wars when their honor flight landed in Washington, D.C.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The last verse in Romans 12 speaks ofdealing with the issue of evil in this world. Today'sVeterans Day and I want to take time to thank our veterans. I hope that youhave someone you know that is a veteran and you can give them a personal thankyou for their service to our country. I'm convinced that the Bible teachesthere are four world empires beginning with the Babylonian Empire, then ofcourse the Medo-Persian Empire, then the Grecian Empire, then the Roman Empire(Daniel 2:36-45). The last kingdom that'll be on planet Earth is the kingdom ofour Lord Jesus Christ in His millennial reign. That's what I believe prophetic Scriptureteaches. Which means the Chinese will never rule the world. The Muslimcountries will never rule the world. ISIS will not rule the world. We don'thave to worry about that.  Butwhat keeps them from taking over right now? I'm convinced China would invadeAmerica in a moment's notice if they thought they could win. But my friend,there is something that stands in their way. That is the United Statesmilitary. The might of the United States military. I'm convinced God probablyraised this country up, even though it's not in prophecy, to be that peoplethat stand against evil of this world in the end times. Romans 13 is addressingthis subject of dealing with evil through nations and governments that God hasordained and raised up. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but toevil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and youwill have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. Butif you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he isGod's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. (Romans13:3-4). “Heis God's minister”, that'sthe people that God appointed to administered that government. This includesthe soldiers that work in that government, the police officers. And, “If youdo evil, be afraid for He does not bear the sword in vain. For He is God'sminister and avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil”. I believeGod has raised up America to stand against the evil of this world.  Thankyou veterans!!!! We would not be free today to worship, to share, to give, togo as we do with the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world. We would not enjoywhat we enjoy in this great country, America, if it was not for you. Yourwillingness to sacrifice your life when you signed up, when you were drafted,if you were my age back in the days of the Vietnam War. But you served. Youwere willing to sacrifice your life for our country. We can't say thank youenough. Just like I'm a minister as a pastor, you are a minister of God to dealwith the evil of this world.  Haveministered to God through the word of God, through the local church, you'vebeen a minister of God. Now,I'm also convinced the church is really special in God's agenda today. Part ofGod's agenda today is that through the church, we spread the Gospel of peace,the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have the responsibility to be soldiers of thecross. I'm afraid as believers in the church, we have lost the mentality ofwhat it is to be a soldier. That's why Paul, who was a good faithful soldier ofthe cross, said in second Timothy 2:2, That we, “Therefore must endurehardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ”. A soldier is committed to hardships,to live the hard tough life and be willing to die for the sake of the Gospel. Jesusnever promised us a life of ease as His followers! Weas a church are to be like soldiers. We want to be like Paul, keep the faith,share the good news of Christ and let the world know there's an answer to thebrokenness in their lives. That answer is Jesus Christ Himself. Again,thank you veterans for serving.  Godbless you!

REWIND! This episode was originally uploaded in September, 2023. Mary Beth Tinker, along with her brother and other students, took part in a protest against the US involvement in the Vietnam War. The protest at school lead to a case which reached all the way to the Supreme Court, and would forever change the way that students view their rights. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sir Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, is one of the most well-known entrepreneurs of our time, pioneering ventures in industries including music, telecommunications, banking and, of course, travel and tourism. At present, there are more than 40 Virgin businesses worldwide in more than 30 countries, according to Virgin Group. In this episode of Humans of Travel, Branson shares travel stories from his early childhood, and details his first entrepreneurial journey as the teenage founder of Student Magazine, a publication created in protest of the Vietnam War. Listeners will also hear the business lessons Branson learned throughout his life, his advice to travel advisors starting their own businesses and how to be adaptive during times of change. Branson also reflects on the creation of his adults-only cruise line, Virgin Voyages, why he decided to enter the cruise industry and how his First Mates (travel advisors) can best sell the line. This episode is sponsored by Windstar Cruises. RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE Virgin Group Virgin Voyages About Student Magazine ABOUT YOUR HOST Emma Weissmann is the Executive Editor of TravelAge West, a print magazine and website for travel advisors based in the Western U.S. She is also the co-host of Trade Secrets, a podcast created with sister publication Travel Weekly, and the Editor-in-Chief of print publication AGENTatHOME.TravelAge West also produces events including Future Leaders in Travel, Global Travel Marketplace West, the WAVE Awards gala ad the Napa Valley Leadership Forum. ABOUT THE SHOW TravelAge West’s award-winning podcast, “Humans of Travel,” features conversations with exceptional people who have compelling stories to tell. Listeners will hear from the travel industry’s notable authorities, high-profile executives, travel advisors and rising stars as they share the highs and lows that make them human.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As secretary of defense during the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara presided over one of the most haunting chapters in American military history. His legacy remains, in 2025, as polarizing and controversial as it was nearly 60 years ago. On this week's “Leaders and Legends” podcast, our conversation is with Philip and William Taubman, authors of “McNamara At War: A New History"See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Drop us a line! Let us know your out there!Grab your favorite stick and settle in for a powerful episode of the podcast. We're joined by Terry Knight, with stories that will leave you speechless. Terry takes us on a journey through his military career, including his experiences serving in the Vietnam War.But it's not all heavy stuff. We lighten things up with tales from Terry's radio career and, of course, plenty of cigar talk. We discuss his favorites, the perfect pairings, and the camaraderie that comes with sharing a good smoke.Whether you're a fellow veteran, a cigar aficionado, or just someone who appreciates a good story, this episode is for you. Terry's insights and experiences offer a unique perspective on service, life, and the simple pleasures that bring us together. Light up and listen in!Follow us on Facebook and Instagram!Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/LoomisCigarCartelInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/loomiscigarcartel/OREmail Us at info@loomiscigarcartel.com

From 2010 - Barak Goodman talks about the American Experience documentary film "My Lai' - an examination of the most horrific massacre of the Viet Nam War. We are resharing archival interviews with Goodman in the wake of the news that PBS has cancelled "American Experience" because of federal budget cuts. Goodman's recent film "Kissinger" turned out to be his last for American Experience (at least for the foreseeable future.)

This is a story about a 118-pound hairdresser when he was drafted into the Vietnam War, and in Vaughn's war, most men didn't survive their first three-month tour.

Ashley joins me to talk about the little known Phoenix Program , sometimes called Operation Phoenix, which was deployed during the Vietnam War. We will see how this ruthless program continues today. You can find Ashley at thinkchangerepeat@gmail.com and on X at https://x.com/think_change_2********************************************************Get your What is Truth Merch Here!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://whatistruthpodmerch.itemorder.com/shop/home/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find all my links here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/whatistruthpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To catch a live show, Please Follow me on Odysee and Rumble!Please rate 5 stars if you enjoy the content! For vast majority of my content follow me on Odysee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://odysee.com/@Weezy:a⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Now on Rumble!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rumble.com/user/Whatistruthpodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow me on Twitter!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/WhatTruthPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Join our Telegram channel Group⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://t.me/witweezy⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@WHATISTRUTHTV⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Listen on your Favorite podcast player!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.minds.com/weezytruth/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Daddygate Podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDaddyGatePodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you would like to "Tip" the show Click the Patreon Link. Support will help me improve the show. Much Love to all whom already have!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.patreon.com/What_is_Truth⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you would like to join the WHAT IS TRUTH? PODCAST private FACEBOOK group, hit the link! Private Facebook group⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/429145721412069/?ref=share⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email WHATISTRUTHPODCAST@gmail.com

5 Hours PG-13Here are episodes 6-10 of the Cold War series with Thomas777.The 'Cold War' Pt. 6 - Ho Chi Minh and the Origin of the Vietnam War w/ Thomas777The 'Cold War' Pt. 7 - Robert McNamara, Vietnam, and a World Turning 'Red' w/ Thomas777The Cold War Pt. 8 - How the On the Ground Battles in Vietnam Were Fought w/ Thomas777The 'Cold War' Pt. 9 - Battling the Khmer Rouge w/ Thomas777The 'Cold War' Pt. 10 - The Vietnam War Comes to an End w/ Thomas777Thomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-american-studies

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Explores forgotten solidarity with African liberation struggles through the life of Black Chicagoan Prexy Nesbitt. For many civil rights activists, the Vietnam War brought the dangers of US imperialism and the global nature of antiracist struggle into sharp relief. Martha Biondi tells the story of one such group of activists who built an internationalist movement in Chicago committed to liberation everywhere but especially to ending colonialism and apartheid in Africa. Among their leaders was Prexy Nesbitt. Steeped from an early age in stories of Garveyism and labor militancy, Nesbitt was powerfully influenced by his encounters with the exiled African radicals he met in Dar es Salaam, London, and across the United States. Operating domestically and abroad, Nesbitt's cohort worked closely with opponents of Portuguese and white minority rule in Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Rather than promoting a US conception of Black self-determination, they took ideas from African anticolonial leaders and injected them into US foreign policy debates. The biography of a man but even more so of a movement, We Are Internationalists: Prexy Nesbitt and the Fight for African Liberation (U California Press, 2025) reveals the underappreciated influence of a transformative Black solidarity project. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

The Annie Frey Show is pleased to welcome Sgt Thomas Becker onto the program to share some of his incredible stories of his time serving during the Vietnam War as Veteran's Day is coming up next week.

Today Brad and Ryan take the wheel for the Annie Frey Show, Ryan creates his own plan to re-open the government and asks callers if they agree or disagree, Sgt Thomas Becker who served in the Vietnam War shares some of his stories, plus an ongoing question today of will America ever have a balanced budget? All that and more right here.

Episode 3141 of the Vietnam Veteran News Podcast will feature a story about Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's visit to Hanoi where he hopes to fire up efforts to find MIA's from the Vietnam War. The featured story is titled: … Continue reading →

On Thursday, Joel was joined by former chaplain of the Erie VA Medical Center, Rev. David Fugate and Jim Hertner, retired real estate broker and former Navy Medic serving US Marines in the Vietnam War. We discussed the hidden wounds of war, including PTSD and moral injury.

Edward Luce, U.S. national editor and columnist at the Financial Times and author of Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America's Great Power Prophet,joins the show to discuss one of the most interesting characters of the Cold War, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. ▪️ Times 00:00 The Life and Legacy of Zbigniew Brzezinski 02:55 Carter's Foreign Policy and Brzezinski's Influence 05:56 Contrasting Worldviews: Brzezinski vs. Kissinger 08:52 The Formative Years: War and Identity 11:35 The Cold War Landscape and Brzezinski's Rise 14:34 Order vs. Justice: Diverging Philosophies 17:55 Brzezinski's Strategic Vision for the Cold War 20:57 The Vietnam War and Its Impact on Brzezinski 23:47 Brzezinski's Approach to Foreign Policy 28:35 The Rise of Jimmy Carter and the Trilateral Commission 32:12 Carter's Foreign Policy Challenges: The Middle East and Iran 37:15 Human Rights and the Shift from Nixon to Carter 45:27 Reagan's Continuity and Change: A New Era in Foreign Policy 51:19 The Iranian Revolution and Brzezinski's Legacy Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find a transcript of today's episode on our School of War Substack

On today's show, we hear that the Fayetteville Public Library is hosting a photo exhibit and film screening commemorating the Vietnam War. We also learn that some Fayetteville parents are concerned about a cell tower on school grounds. Plus, exploring the science behind stress eating.

In this episode, the last of the Vietnam War series, Sean and James discuss the postwar lives and careers of top American and Vietnamese leaders.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What does it take to transition from a high-pressure newsroom to the world of mystery novels? And how can personal tragedy shape a writer's voice? Join us as Merry and Cathy dive into these questions with the remarkable John DeDakis, a former CNN senior copy editor turned novelist and writing coach.

Watch on YouTube → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoaS6eftXdY John Stryker "Tilt" Meyer was a Green Beret team leader with MAC-V SOG, running top-secret recon missions across the fence into Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam. His six-man teams faced hundreds of enemy soldiers in triple-canopy jungle, extracted under heavy fire every single time, and carried the weight of stories they couldn't tell for two decades. In this raw conversation, John shares what it means to earn a Green Beret, how faith carried him through moments when the math said he shouldn't survive, and why he's spent years making sure the courage of his brothers, especially the 98 Green Berets still missing in action, is never forgotten. We talk about the NVA soldier who touched his boot and walked away, the Christmas Day extraction where helicopter blades held back flames, divine intervention in the jungle, losing his son in 2020, and the sacred duty to get the story right. This is about vulnerability under fire, brotherhood that transcends decades, and what happens when you finally break a silence that lasted 20 years. ABOUT THE GUEST John Stryker "Tilt" Meyer is a Green Beret veteran who served with MAC-V SOG during the Vietnam War, running classified cross-border recon missions from 1968-1969. He is the author of "Across the Fence," "On the Ground," and "SOG Chronicles," and hosts the SOGcast podcast preserving the stories of America's most classified Vietnam-era unit. John's Books: https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Stryker-Meyer/author/B002A510S4 John's SOGcast: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIEQamvEuqUfaXqwhSzl3ogh1CWYwbzY2 John's Website: https://www.jstrykermeyer.com/ RESOURCES MENTIONED Books by John Stryker Meyer: "Across the Fence: The Secret War in Vietnam" "On the Ground: The Secret War in Vietnam" "SOG Chronicles: Volume One" Recommended Reading: "Code Name: Dynamite" (Book 1 & 2) by Dick Thompson "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" by Lynn Black "The Dying Place" by Nick Brokhausen & Dave Maurer CHAPTERS: (00:00) Trailer (01:05) Intro (01:41) Meet John Stryker Meyer (04:57) Joining the Secret War (08:16) The Weight of Secrecy (13:11) Surviving Intense Missions (22:39) The Role of Indigenous Soldiers (31:55) Trust Between Ground and Sky (35:59) Remembering Fallen Comrades (40:10) Surviving the Jungle (44:08) Faith and Divine Intervention (47:08) The Journey to Storytelling (52:11) Publishing and Podcasting Success (01:00:00) The Legacy of Green Berets (01:05:45) Reflections on Patriotism and Current Threats (01:11:56) Family Pride and Future Generations (01:15:06) Rapid Fire Questions SPONSORS ElevenLabs: Thanks to ElevenLabs (⁠⁠https://elevenlabs.io⁠⁠) for supporting this episode and powering Tim's voice. SOCIAL: Website: https://nlupod.com/ X: ⁠⁠https://x.com/nlutimgreen Facebook:⁠ https://www.facebook.com/NLUpod Instagram:⁠⁠ https://www.instagram.com/nlupod LISTEN ON OTHER PLATFORMS Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nothing-left-unsaid/id1734094890 Audible: https://www.audible.com/podcast/Nothing-Left-Unsaid/B0CWTCRKGZ Castbox: https://castbox.fm/channel/id6405921?country=us Overcast: https://overcast.fm/itunes1734094890 iHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/263-nothing-left-unsaid-155769998/ PERSONAL Tackle ALS: ⁠⁠https://www.tackleals.com Tim Green Books: ⁠⁠https://authortimgreen.com Tim's New Book - ROCKET ARM: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062796895/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Robert S. McNamara, who was Secretary of Defense during JFK and LBJ’s administrations, and one of the chief architects of the Vietnam war, made a shocking confession in his 1995 memoir. He said “We were wrong, terribly wrong.” McNamara believed this as early as 1965, that the Vietnam War was unwinnable. Yet, instead of urging U.S. forces to exit, he continued to preside over the war as President Lyndon B. Johnson’s principal wartime advisor. It would be eight more years until the United States officially withdrew from Vietnam. By then, 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese had lost their lives. Why did McNamara fight so hard to escalate a war that he’d soon realize was beyond winning? Why was he so loyal to LBJ, whom he’d later describe as “crude, mean, vindictive, scheming, and untruthful”? While these questions are personal, the answers are vital to our understanding of the Vietnam War and American foreign policy at large. Today’s guest is Philip Taubman, author of “McNamara Wat War: A New History.” We look at McNamara’s early life and how he epitomized the 20th-century technocratic 'whiz kid' through his Harvard-honed data analysis skills, which he applied to optimize the firebombing of Tokyo during WWII and later revolutionized Ford Motor Company as president, using statistical efficiency to drive innovation. His technocratic approach shaped U.S. strategy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War, where he relied on data-driven decision-making, though with mixed results, notably escalating Vietnam based on flawed metrics like body counts. We look at how ultimately, McNamara’s war was not only in Vietnam. He was also at war with himself—riven by melancholy, guilt, zealous loyalty, and a profound inability to admit his flawed thinking about Vietnam before it was too late.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Vietnam War ended 50 years ago, and this song about the Vietnam War came out 40 years ago. Let's discuss. Hosted by @sliiiiip and @megamixdotcom, the Super Hits Podcast reviews a different retro single each episode! We're on all of the usual podcast platforms, so come find us. Come and give us a 5-star review!To correct us if we miss a fact or get something wrong, to request a single, or to just say hello, hit us up at superhitspodcast@gmail.comHere's our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://megamixdotcom.com/super-hits/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Here's our Instagram: @SuperHitsPodcastYou can also find playlists for all of the songs we've covered on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and Apple Music. Just search for Super Hits Podcast Playlist!

1. LONDINIUM 91 CE. Seven Warnings, Part I. Gaius and Germanicus, joined by retired centurions, convened at the Friends of History Debating Society to discuss Germanicus's list of seven maxims detailing how empires, specifically the US, engage in self-harm or self-destruction. Gaius offered the example of the emperor deciding Nigeria needs attention due to the killing of Christians, asserting America has no interest whatsoever in this venture. He contrasted this unnecessary entanglement with Rome's historical method of handling threats in its self-interest. Rome, when it decided to win, completely wiped out resisting enemies, as demonstrated by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and the earlier obliteration of Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee, around 4 BCE. The Romans even renamed Judea to Palestine to deny the populace their historical identity. Germanicus then presented the first four maxims routinely ignored by US war fighters: (1) Never let a foreign power define your interests and objectives—this warning cited historical entanglement examples, including the British in two World Wars and modern manipulation by Ukraine, NATO countries, and Israel; (2) Never let initial success fool you into thinking you're winning—Germanicus noted that this "victory disease" affected the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the US during the invasion of Iraq and the initial stages of the Ukraine war; (3) The failure chosen now is always better than the failure forced upon you later—this maxim addresses the destructive "stay the course" mentality, exemplified by the Vietnam War, driven by courtiers worried about reputation rather than effectiveness; (4) Judgment of the enemy should not be confirmed by internal biases—this bias leads to disastrous strategy, such as the initial belief that the Japanese could not fly effectively due to poor eyesight, viewing Pearl Harbor as a "freak." NERO

November 10, 2025 marks the U.S. Marines' 250th birthday and to celebrate, we are dedicating the entire month to the Corps, beginning with this discussion featuring Jim "Bullet" Markel.Bullet, who flew the Vought F-8 Crusader, describes flight training, meeting the love of his life, and flying combat operations over Vietnam—including a harrowing mission for which he was later awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-fighter-pilot-podcast/donations

In this episode, Sean and James discuss the 1989 film Born on the Fourth of July, directed by Oliver Stone and based on the autobiography of Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic. Tom Cruise stars as Kovic, a patriotic young man who enlists in the U.S. Marine Corps, only to be paralyzed in combat and deeply disillusioned by the war and its aftermath. The film follows Kovic’s journey from idealistic soldier to anti-war activist, chronicling his physical and emotional struggles, his alienation upon returning home, and his eventual transformation into a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. Take back your personal data with Incogni! Use code battles at the link below and get 60% off annual plans: https://incogni.com/battlesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Stubbs went to war at 18 and came back with medals, scars, and stories most never hear. In this episode, he opens up about a moment that changed his life and the decades-long mission that followed, plus we'll shed light on the parts of military service that don't make the history books. Listen in for a raw, real conversation that honors courage, connection, and the fight to be remembered. Key takeaways to listen for What the Purple Heart really means Why Mike volunteered for Vietnam and what happened the day he was shot The story behind Mike's Silver Star and how it was nearly forgotten What it meant to serve as a tunnel rat in Vietnam Mike's out-of-body experience that changed everything Resources mentioned in this episode Queen City Honor Flight VA Home Loans in 2025: Myths, Facts, and Game-Changing Updates with John Bell III Rebuilding Hope: How the VA Supports Veterans After Disasters – A Conversation with John Bell 364 - VA Home Loan with Executive Director, Mr. John Bell III June 17, 1967: The Battle of Xom Bo II by David J. Hearne About Mike Stubbs Mike is a highly decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, serving as a Machine Gunner and Tunnel Rat with the 2nd Battalion/28th Infantry/1st Infantry Division. A committed veterans advocate, he currently serves as Commander of MOPH Combat Wounded Veterans Chapter 634 and is a Board Member for Queen City Honor Flight. Stubbs' dedication has been recognized with significant honors, including the MOPH National Patriot of the Year (2014-2015) and induction into the North Carolina Military Veterans Hall of Fame Class of 2018. He continues to live the values learned in service by leading and supporting his fellow Veterans. Connect with Leigh Please subscribe to this podcast on your favorite podcast app at https://pod.link/1153262163, and never miss a beat from Leigh by visiting https://leighbrown.com. DM Leigh Brown on Instagram @ LeighThomasBrown.

Hello Meatsacks! Time for more Halloween week horror! This one was, as you can guess, released the week before yesterday's story, from this past May. And in it, we head to the tropical jungle of Vietnam's Annamese mountains. When on a dark, rainy night in January of 1968, PsyWar Detachment Six was conducting black ops meant to terrify and break the spirits of the Viet Cong.  Enjoy!This episode was scored by Logan Keith. We recommend listening with headphones to experience the full effect of all the creepy background noises. If you like this episode, please let us know wherever you rate and review podcasts. For more episodes of Nightmare Fuel - check out Scared to Death's podcast feed where I've been releasing two a month since February of 2024. Thanks!! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.