Podcasts about Westchester

Pastor Randy Solomon brings a message from 2 Kings 5 on Naaman. Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

In this college football preview we take a look at the Division II West Chester University Golden Rams. In 2024, West Chester started 0-4 before rallying to win four of their last six games to finish the campaign 4-6 (4-3 in the Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference). Duke Greco is in his second season as head coach and Matt Leon caught up with him this week to get some insight into his 2025 squad. West Chester opens its 2025 campaign on the road at Bentley University on Saturday, September 6th. The game will start at 1:00 p.m.

Pastor Jim Warren concludes our mini-series on the High Priestly Prayer with a message from John 17:20-26. Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

John in Westchester, NY, called Ken to ask him how Lisa Cook got the job as Fed Governor. Jim in Long Island, NY, calls Ken to rant about Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries's tax policy for disabled veterans.

John in Westchester, NY, called Ken to ask him how Lisa Cook got the job as Fed Governor. Jim in Long Island, NY, calls Ken to rant about Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries's tax policy for disabled veterans. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pastor Joyce Swingle compares disbelief today to that of Paul's audience he was addressing in I Corinthians 1:17-2:5.  Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Mara in Nevada called Mark to ask him his opinion on a new fan club name for Mark Simone! John in Westchester, NY, calls Mark to say it's nothing new with how Mayor Adam's advisor tried to bribe someone.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mara in Nevada called Mark to ask him his opinion on a new fan club name for Mark Simone! John in Westchester, NY, calls Mark to say it's nothing new with how Mayor Adam's advisor tried to bribe someone.

When it comes to marketing, the boldest ideas often come from imagining a future no one else can see, then making it real.That's exactly what Stanley Kubrick achieved with 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that married meticulous research with visionary storytelling to create the most realistic depiction of space the world had ever seen. In this episode, we explore the marketing lessons behind it with special guest Josh Golden, CMO at Quad.Together, we dive into how marketers can embrace risk, iterate through failure, compete on imagination rather than resources, and create experiences—both digital and physical—that deliver the elusive “wow” factor. All while staying relevant, resonant, and ready to invent the future.About our guest, Josh GoldenAs Chief Marketing Officer at Quad, Josh Golden is architecting the evolution of Quad as a marketing experience company. He leads a highly collaborative team that works with marketers around the world to clear the path for a frictionless solution to easily communicate with their optimal audience.Quad's clients are the lifeblood of its operations, driving the company's evolution and influencing its every action. Josh is helping the company combine Quad's history as a manufacturer and commercial printer with this marketer-obsessed philosophy to best support client growth and eliminate the interference that otherwise causes them to lose time, money, and customers.Since assuming his role, Josh has defined the Quad brand narrative, developed the company's “marketing experience” framing, implemented a new Quad design system and initiated brand and product marketing campaigns for key verticals.With more than three decades of experience in marketing, branding, media, and content, Josh is one of the most prolific connectors in the marketing industry. Prior to joining Quad in 2021, Josh was President and Publisher of Ad Age where he spurred transformative growth for the venerable, 90-year trade publication and media brand. His passion for driving evolution was also on display as Vice President, Global Digital Marketing, at Xerox; Group Director of Digital Marketing at NBC Universal; Chief Digital Officer at Grey Group; Managing Director, Digital at Havas; and head of the first digital division at Young & Rubicam.A self-proclaimed “professional groupie,” Josh avidly follows and cheers people who pursue their passions. He likes playing a little semi-aggressive tennis and makes a killer “cheater” banana bread. He lives in Westchester, NY with his wife and two teenage children.Josh received his MBA from New York University and his B.S. in communications from Ithaca College.What B2B Companies Can Learn From 2001: A Space Odyssey:Embrace the process, not just the end product. Kubrick went through a massive number of iterations before landing on the film we know and love today. Josh says, “There is not one singular moment; it's a series of failures.” In marketing, abandoned ideas aren't wasted. They're the iterations that lead to something great. Like Kubrick, be willing to test, discard, and refine until you find the version that truly resonates. The process is the work.AI can execute, but humans inspire. Hal, the AI in 2001, could run the ship, but couldn't imagine a better way forward. Josh says, “ Humans have the capacity to do the wow factor.” AI can give you the exact steps to execute a campaign, but it can't create the unexpected spark that makes it unforgettable. Your job as a marketer is to deliver that human insight and surprise that AI can't replicate.Inspiration doesn't have to start from scratch.2001 began as a loose adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke's short story The Sentinel, but evolved far beyond it. Josh reflects, “You're ultimately gonna go rewrite it in your own way.” In marketing, you can take inspiration from existing ideas, but the magic comes from reshaping them into something uniquely yours.Quote“There's moments that we all have as marketers where real ideas happen, and I celebrate those…but in truth…There is not one singular moment. It's a series of failures…That inspiration is evident in the film, and it's evident that in the actual process of trying and failing and trying and failing and trying and failing, and then getting to a point where you're like, wow, this is actually kind of okay.'”Time Stamps[00:55] Meet Josh Golden, CMO at Quad[01:27] The Role of CMO at Quad[02:54] Overview of 2001: A Space Odyssey[21:45] B2B Marketing Lessons from 2001: A Space Odyssey[25:28] The AI Character and Its Implications[26:42] AI vs. Human Creativity[43:21] Final Thoughts & TakeawaysLinksConnect with Josh on LinkedInLearn more about QuadAbout Remarkable!Remarkable! is created by the team at Caspian Studios, the premier B2B Podcast-as-a-Service company. Caspian creates both nonfiction and fiction series for B2B companies. If you want a fiction series check out our new offering - The Business Thriller - Hollywood style storytelling for B2B. Learn more at CaspianStudios.com. In today's episode, you heard from Ian Faison (CEO of Caspian Studios) and Meredith Gooderham (Head of Production). Remarkable was produced this week by Jess Avellino, mixed by Scott Goodrich, and our theme song is “Solomon” by FALAK. Create something remarkable. Rise above the noise.

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

“Whenever I think of people who have gone through something, I'm always like, but they were human before this. Before they were monsters, they were human. Before they were zombies, they were human.” — Tiffany D. JacksonSome of the most unsettling monsters don't come from nightmares or ghost stories. They walk among us in daylight, smiling widely and blending in. They can be shaped by our environments, our circumstances, or people's choices—and in stories, as in life, they challenge us to look closer and see the human before the horror.Tiffany D. Jackson is the New York Times bestselling author of Allegedly, The Weight of Blood, Blood in the Water, and many more. She received of the Margaret E. Edwards Award, honoring her significant and lasting contribution to teen literature. She blends real-world horrors with the sharp tension of a thriller, always keeping our emotions and nerves on edge!In this episode, Tiffany shares how her own encounters with “unintentional monsters” have shaped her writing. She opens up about how growing up between Brooklyn and Westchester sharpened her view of the world and the people in it. Tiffany also talks about finding her voice in film school, why stories like Monday's Not Coming are drawn from real-life cases, and how fiction is her way of building empathy where the headlines fall short. Buckle up for a gripping episode from Tiffany's very first anecdote about a childhood horror.***Tiffany's reading challenge celebrates African-American horrors and thrillers, genres she's been questioned for writing.Peruse selected titles and Tiffany's full reading challenge for free at thereadingculturepod.com/tiffany-d-jacksonThis week's Beanstack Featured Librarian is once again Kelly Shelton, an elementary librarian for Garland ISD in Garland, Texas. She shares how building a strong reading culture goes beyond the library—into the hallways, the bus line, and even your students' plays!Show ChaptersChapter 1: Unintentional MonstersChapter 2: Take Me Back to Brooklyn Chapter 3: What Happened to You?Chapter 4: A Safe HarborChapter 5: Their Eyes Were Watching GodChapter 6: Core MemoriesChapter 7: Reading ChallengeChapter 8: Beanstack Featured LibrarianLinksThe Reading CultureThe Reading Culture Newsletter SignupFollow The Reading Culture on Instagram (for giveaways and bonus content)Tiffany D. JacksonTiffany D. Jackson InstagramTheir Eyes Were Watching GodSister SouljahLockdown TV SeriesBeanstack resources to build your community's reading cultureJordan Lloyd BookeyHost and Production CreditsHost: Jordan Lloyd BookeyProducers: Mel Webb and Lower Street MediaScript Editors: Josia Lamberto-Egan, Mel Webb, Jordan Lloyd Bookey

Today on the podcast Lisa interviews Rachel Short. Rachel is the Associate Pastor at 938 Church, which she helped plant in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Lisa and Rachel lean in to the nuances of men and women leading churches together, highlighting several practical tips and actions taken by her and her team that help them navigate these waters.

Bengals Legend and NFL Hall of Famer Anthony Munoz joins the show for the first half hour! He and Lance discuss his foundation and the TopGolf Tailgate at Top Golf in West Chester on September 4th. They also discuss the outlook for the Bengals thus far in the pre-season and for the season ahead.

Bengals Legend and NFL Hall of Famer Anthony Munoz joins the show for the first half hour! He and Lance discuss his foundation and the TopGolf Tailgate at Top Golf in West Chester on September 4th. They also discuss the outlook for the Bengals thus far in the pre-season and for the season ahead.

For students with autism and other neurodevelopmental differences, finding the right school environment can make all the difference. What does can the right environment look like:

Pastor Linda Warren concludes our series in "A Prophet's Life: Lessons Learned From Those Called to Communicate God's Truth," with a message from Daniel 12:5-13. Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Pastor Joyce Swingle focuses on unity with God in this message from Jesus's prayer for His disciples in John 17:6-19.  Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Yorktown boys lacrosse icon Brian Carcaterra honors the legacy of the late Charlie Murphy, the founder of Westchester's first high school lacrosse program at Yorktown in the mid-1960's on Westchester Talk Radio (westchestertalkradio.com), The Sports Report with John Marino, produced by Sharc Creative. Charlie will be inducted with the rest of the Class of 2025 into the Westchester Sports Hall-of-Fame on November 6th at the County Center in White Plains.

On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025 the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, Joan Franzino spoke with Melissa Mascia, owner and founder of Beyond Beautiful By Melissa, sharing insights and celebrating her success in true Best of Westchester style.

On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025 the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, Bob Marrone sat down with Dan Singer, CEO of Robison, for an engaging conversation. It was truly a night to remember!

 On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025, the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, Patricia Stark interviewed Debra Quintana, manager of The Golden Shoestring, adding another memorable moment to an unforgettable night. 

On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025 the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, Bob Marrone sat down with Jimmy Fink, legendary radio personality from 107.1 The Peak, for a lively and memorable conversation.

On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025 the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, host Bob Marrone spoke with Talia Spector, a PR and marketing professional whose agency represents Dillon's Small Batch Distillers, adding a spirited twist to the night's festivities.

On Wednesday, July 23rd 2025, the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, host Joan Franzino sat down with Tayla Harper-Johnson and Steven Schwartz, chefs and instructors from Zwilling Cooking Studio, offering guests a flavorful glimpse into Westchester's culinary excellence.

On Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025, the Glen Island Harbour Club in New Rochelle came alive for Westchester Magazine's 2025 Best of Westchester Party... a night of pure excitement from start to finish. This dazzling celebration showcased the very best of the county, with incredible food, phenomenal entertainment, and standout brands and boutiques all under one spectacular roof. Guests sipped, sampled, and danced the night away in a vibrant atmosphere brimming with community pride. Westchester Talk Radio was on hand to join the celebration, with hosts chatting live with winners and capturing the evening's energy. Among the highlights, host Joan Franzino sat down with Stephen, Dan, and Shane, owners of Valley Greens Dispensary, for an insightful conversation celebrating their success and contributions to the community.

Behind every surgeon's mask is a story you'd never expect—like navigating residency during a divorce, surviving cancer, and still finding time to write books that inspire the next generation.   In this episode, Dr. Tali Lando, a pediatric ENT surgeon, shares her deeply personal and professional journey—from being the only doctor in a large Jewish family to surviving a grueling residency during a divorce, experiencing a miscarriage during fellowship, and ultimately thriving as a surgeon, mother of three, and published author. She candidly discusses the challenges of balancing her demanding career with motherhood, the chaos behind the polished image, and how she carved out time to write two impactful books, including her latest, Breathless: Surgical Tales from the Brink and Back. Through stories both heart-wrenching and humorous, Dr. Lando reflects on resilience, the unpredictability of medicine, and the power of narrative to heal, teach, and inspire.   Tune in to hear a powerful, unfiltered conversation that will leave you inspired, moved, and reminded of the strength it takes to heal others while healing yourself.   Episode Highlights: ●      About Dr. Tali Lando ●      How her childhood fascination with neonatology evolved into a career in Pediatric Ear, Nose and Throat Surgeon ●      Overcoming her personal hardships ●      Juggling a demanding surgical career with the chaos of family life ●      Her path to becoming an author and the process of writing her books ●      Stories from her first book, “Hell and Back” ●      Insights from her new book, Breathless: Surgical Tales from the Brink and Back ●      Her dreams of reaching medical students, creating an audiobook, and adapting her work into a TV series ●      The importance of storytelling, resilience, and finding purpose in the most difficult moments   About Dr. Tali Lando: Dr. Tali Lando is a pediatric otolaryngologist, author, speaker, and breast cancer survivor whose compelling voice bridges the worlds of medicine and memoir. Fellowship-trained at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a graduate of the Cornell-Columbia ENT residency program, Dr. Lando holds honors from Weill Cornell Medical College and graduated summa cum laude in neuroscience from Columbia University. Her debut memoir, Hell and Back: Doctor and Patient, Wife and Mom, Dragon Slayer, has been widely acclaimed for its raw honesty and fierce humor. Her second book, “Breathless: Surgical Tales from the Brink and Back” is now available for pre-order on amazon. Her voice is real, raw, full, and heartfelt. Her writing is enthralling, superb, and unflinchingly honest—an edge-of-your-seat experience that resonates deeply with readers. Her stories are vivid and complex, with evolving storylines that unfold like episodes from a gripping, high-stakes medical drama. A frequent guest on podcasts and in online media, Dr. Lando also connects with a wide audience through her Instagram videos, which are a hit with followers for their wit, insight, and authenticity. A former New York City girl and now a mother of three daughters in Westchester, she brings authenticity, medical insight, and humanity to every stage she steps on and every story she tells.  Her upcoming book, Breathless (releasing this fall), offers an edge-of-your seat, gripping, deeply human look into the world of pediatric  surgery. “A testament to the precision, resilience, and compassion that define the very best of medicine… A must-read for anyone entering the world of medicine or seeking purpose in their surgical journey.” Dr. Lando continues to inspire with her candor, compassion, and unwavering commitment to both her patients and the next generation of physicians.  To Pre-Order Breathless: Surgical Tales from the Brink (and Back): https://www.amazon.com/Breathless-Surgical-Tales-Brink-Back/dp/1948238535/   Connect with Dr. Tali Lando: ●      Website | drtalilando.com ●      Linked In | www.linkedin.com/in/tali-lando ●      Instagram | @drtalilando

Learn more at TheCityLife.org

This is the All Local noon update for August 5, 2025.

The Knicks are making a shocking move! According to reports, the Knicks are adding a former first round pick to their Westchester Knicks team. The Knicks are adding 2019 former first round pick Romeo Langford to Westchester, giving him another chance at a comeback to the NBA. At 25 years old, this may be his last chance to make an impact and join an NBA team. But the Knicks finding ways to add talent to the team while cap limited just continues to prove why Leon Rose was meant to be President of the Knicks... Troy Mahabir breaks all of this down! SHOW CHAPTERS: 00:00 - Intro 00:37 - Knicks Add Former First Round Pick 01:14 - Knicks Adding Romeo Langford To G-League Team 03:55 - A Call Up Could Be Coming If Langford Actually Shows Out 05:53 - Langford Has Every Opportunity To Earn A Chance In The NBA 07:55 - Yabusele Should Be The Perfect Example For Older Players 09:42 - No One Saw This News Coming! 10:48 - This Move Cost The Knicks NOTHING LISTEN NOW TO GET YOUR KNICKS FIX! Catch the latest special interviews, shorts, fan interactions, and more by following the show! Don't forget to turn on notifications so you don't miss another episode! Rather Watch the latest Knicks Recap episode? Catch us on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/@TheKnicksRecap Follow The Knicks Recap on all social media platforms! Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheKnicksRecap Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/TheKnicksRecap/ Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/u/TheKnicksRecap?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheKnicksRecap/ Rather Listen to The Knicks Recap on a different platform? Catch us on ALL of your favorite streaming platforms: Apple Podcast: https://apple.co/3SKSl8o Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3QrEfr6 iHeart Radio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-knicks-recap-a-new-yor-100895112/ Amazon Music: https://amzn.to/3QoZrOd Other Pod Channels: https://anchor.fm/the-knicks-recap Grab our MERCH featuring some of the graphics you've seen us create to take your Knicks fandom to the NEXT LEVEL: MAIN STORE: https://theknicksrecap.myspreadshop.com/ CashApp: $TheKnicksRecap Have a comment about the show, an interview, or a graphic idea? Reach out to The Knicks Recap on ALL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS!

Pastor Joyce Swingle brings a message about equipping for spiritual warfare from Dan. 10:15-11:1, in the continuance of our series "A Prophet's Life: Lessons Learned From Those Called to Communicate God's Truth."  Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Good energy is like a secret superpower. You can't see it—but you feel it. It uplifts, comforts, and lingers long after the moment has passed. I've been told I carry that kind of energy—and if you do too, you know it's not something you turn on, it's just who you are. But here's the best part: when two people with good energy meet along life's path, something special happens. It's like the universe nods and says… 'Yep, this connection matters.' That's the vibe of today's post and podcast. I'd like you to meet Marcus John. He is ‘good energy'. He and I go way back to when he was a young doorman in a building I lived in in Westchester, NY. There was just something special about him from the minute I met him and I loved talking to him and loved that I could always make him laugh. When life threw me an ovarian cancer curveball back then, I chose Marcus to be my trusted driver to and from my chemo journey in NYC. I knew that he had just the right kind of good energy to help keep my spirits up as I tried to plow through the challenge of staying alive. We talked a lot about ‘a lot' on those rides. And he saw me at my worst. The rides started with my own hair attached to my head, then morphed into 'bald me' wearing wigs with names we'd joke about, and culminated with 'swollen me' just trying to hang in and push through. Lucky for me I did. Marcus was a light during my darkest time. Marcus and I both moved on from that building but stayed in touch over the years. Last week he sent me a birthday text reminding me how much I adored him and his beautiful energy. I quickly threw out a lunch invite and we both immediately made it happen. Why? Because our connection matters and because it's important that we all try harder to see people ‘in person' that matter to us. We sure had some great laughs at lunch at the Cheesecake Factory which I chose because Marcus is now a ‘vegan' and the Cheesecake Factory offers spectacular vegan options. Turns out Marcus is now a wildly creative vegan chef with a heart (and menu) full of love. From artichoke croquettes to his walnut meat chopped cheese sliders. and his signature ‘Rasta Pasta', Marcus is on a mission to turn soul food into food for your soul. His company Beyond Bussin is redefining what vegan food can be—and where it can go next (yes, a food truck is in the works!) By the way… I learned something new. When the kids say something is “bussin',” they mean it's really, really good—especially when it comes to food. So when Chef Marcus John named his vegan company “Beyond Bussin,” he was saying: This food goes beyond delicious. It's next level. “Vegan food can be delicious, nutritious, and comforting—like your favorite comfort food. You shouldn't have to sacrifice joy to eat well.” – Marcus And Marcus and I both agree:   "Good energy can't die. You are the good energy that changes what's around you."   Where to Find Marcus: Sundays: Riverdale Craft Market (260th & Riverdale Ave, Bronx) On a Restaurant Menu: ‘Off The Hook', Yonkers (Rasta Pasta & Artichoke Croquettes) IG: @BeyondBussin Catering: Available for vegan-friendly events and celebrations   Enjoy this heartwarming and hilarious Wellness Wednesday episode of The Debbie Nigro Show, featuring special guest and star vegan chef Marcus John, founder of Beyond Bussin.

Today we're focusing on the topic of “power” with the Chief Brand Officer of the New York Liberty WNBA team, Shana Stephenson. She grew up in a sports-loving family in New York, and after years of working in marketing at ESPN and running her own businesses in the sports industry, in 2018, Stephenson joined the NY Liberty. Since then, she's led the team through a major rebrand as it moved from Westchester to Brooklyn and helped create its beloved mascot, Ellie the Elephant. With Stephenson at the branding helm, the NY Liberty has cemented its place as a leader in the industry, securing partnerships with brands like Away and Fenty and seeing a 665% increase in social media engagement. In this episode, she dives the development and evolution of Ellie the Elephant, what goes into branding a WNBA team, and the power of women's sports. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Melanie Solomon opens our new mini-series on John 17, with a teaching from John 17:1-5. Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Beyond the Resume Podcast with Andrew Germansky (Building Housing that Heals)In this episode of Beyond the Resume, hosts Chris Papa and Lisa Flicker sit down with Andrew Germansky, Senior Vice President of Real Estate at Westhab, a leading nonprofit affordable housing developer and shelter operator in New York. Andrew discusses his journey from history major to housing leader, the innovations Westhab is bringing to affordable and supportive housing, and why ending homelessness requires bold thinking, public-private partnerships, and a reimagined approach to shelter development.From shelter design innovations to why affordable housing is national infrastructure, this conversation dives deep into what it takes to develop housing that heals and stabilizes communities.Chapters(00:00) Meet Andrew Germansky + Westhab's MissionAndrew reflects on joining his first podcast and introduces Westhab's work across affordable housing, shelters, and services in NYC, Westchester, and Rockland.(05:29) Building Better Shelters: Zoning, Pushback & EquityAndrew explains NYC's shelter models, the "fair share" placement philosophy, and how Westhab works to integrate shelters into underserved neighborhoods with dignity and purpose.(11:14) Who Experiences Homelessness — and How We HelpThe discussion breaks myths about homelessness, highlighting Westhab's case management approach, family-focused shelters, and the holistic services that help residents transition into stability.(14:35) From History Major to Housing DeveloperAndrew shares his path from studying history to affordable housing, his early roles at Omni New York, and the career pivot that led him to lead real estate development at Westhab.(18:49) Nonprofit vs. For-Profit Development: Collaboration & Trade-offsA thoughtful exploration of the relationship between private capital and mission-driven development — and why both are essential to solving the housing crisis.(27:40) Designing Without Red Tape: Parking, Politics & PossibilityIf zoning and budgets weren't barriers, Andrew says we could build far more housing — especially by eliminating parking mandates that waste space and increase costs.(32:36) Projects, Podcasts & People Who InspireAndrew highlights Dayspring Commons as his most meaningful project, shares real estate podcast recs (like BiggerPockets), and names the mentors who shaped his leadership style.

Pastor Randy Solomon preaches on Daniel 10:1-14 in our series "A Prophet's Life: Lessons Learned from Those Called to Communicate God's Truth." Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

In part 2 of our interview, Westchester SC Majority Owner Mitch Baruchowitz joins D and Z to discuss the ups and downs of an expansion franchise, the team's performance this season, and the potential impact of promotion and relegation in US soccer.

 T J Cawley | Mayor of Morrisville, USA TJ grew up in Westchester, NY and played soccer and tennis. He was also in the Junior Olympics for fencing. TJ attended college at the University of Virginia where he continued fencing, becoming the State Foil Fencing Collegiate Champion. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Commerce with concentrations in Marketing and Finance from UVa's McIntire School of Commerce. TJ had successful careers in high tech, banking, and pharmaceutical financial management, before transitioning full time to community service and being a stay at home dad. TJ was elected to Morrisville Town Council where he served from 2013-2017, and was elected Mayor in 2017 and re-elected in 2021.Mayor TJ enjoys coaching youth sports, supporting volunteer efforts of all types, serving on both national and local boards/advisory committees and spending time with his wife, three children and two dogs 

In this episode of the Council of Dudes, we sit down with Joe Kay, the founder of Ice & Iron, to talk about the movement bringing men back into their power through cold exposure, breathwork, intentional conversation, and community. We explore:     •    The origin and mission of Ice & Iron     •    The importance of accountability, masculine connection, and shared discomfort     •    Why so many men are feeling lost and how to break the cycle     •    Creating spaces where men can thrive (like Ice & Iron and Agora Social Club) This one is for any man seeking purpose, brotherhood, and transformation.

Dr. Bob in Long Island NY called to say you can tell who is distracted by watching certain news networks. The Epstein Case is a distraction to take away any success President Trump is having. Rob in Westchester calls Mark to say that Tulsi Gabbard, could be in trouble for her handling of the Russia Probe documents, if it doesn't go well. The Russia Probe includes Barack Obama. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Bob in Long Island NY called to say you can tell who is distracted by watching certain news networks. The Epstein Case is a distraction to take away any success President Trump is having. Rob in Westchester calls Mark to say that Tulsi Gabbard, could be in trouble for her handling of the Russia Probe documents, if it doesn't go well. The Russia Probe includes Barack Obama.

In this episode of Health Matters we discuss how to breathe easier this summer with Dr. Kalliope Tsirilakis, a pediatric pulmonologist at NewYork-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine. She explains why heat and wildfires make air quality worse in the summer, and shares tips on how to protect lung health.___Kalliope Tsirilakis, M.D. is the director of pediatric pulmonology and the Pediatric Asthma Center at NewYork-Presbyterian Queens. She is also an assistant attending pediatrician at NewYork-Presbyterian Komansky Children's Hospital and an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine. A lifelong New Yorker, born in Brooklyn and raised in Westchester, she graduated from Weill Cornell Medicine and completed her residency in pediatrics at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Tsirilakis continued her training at the Children's Hospital at Montefiore in the Bronx, where she completed a fellowship in pediatric respiratory medicine. She is board certified in pediatrics and pediatric pulmonology. Her expertise includes the full spectrum of pediatric pulmonary conditions, with special expertise in severe asthma, patient education, quality improvement, flexible bronchoscopy, and aerodigestive disorders.___Health Matters is your weekly dose of health and wellness information, from the leading experts. Join host Courtney Allison to get news you can use in your own life. New episodes drop each Wednesday.If you are looking for practical health tips and trustworthy information from world-class doctors and medical experts you will enjoy listening to Health Matters. Health Matters was created to share stories of science, care, and wellness that are happening every day at NewYork-Presbyterian, one of the nation's most comprehensive, integrated academic healthcare systems. In keeping with NewYork-Presbyterian's long legacy of medical breakthroughs and innovation, Health Matters features the latest news, insights, and health tips from our trusted experts; inspiring first-hand accounts from patients and caregivers; and updates on the latest research and innovations in patient care, all in collaboration with our renowned medical schools, Columbia and Weill Cornell Medicine. To learn more visit: https://healthmatters.nyp.org

James "Trig" Rosseau interviews Deborah Mack, a visionary fashion entrepreneur. Formerly a judicial court worker in Connecticut, Deborah turned her lifelong passion for fashion into a thriving business called DAM Fashions, a luxury outerwear line emphasizing timeless style and sustainable innovation. Deborah shares her journey from working in the state court system for 20 years to moving to Pennsylvania, starting an organic dry-cleaning business, and finally leaping into fashion design. She discusses the challenges she faced, including the initial struggles with e-commerce and the transition to focusing on custom-made designs. The interview highlights Deborah's dedication, resilience, and commitment to following her passion regardless of age. Deborah's boutique in Westchester is now expanding to include custom bridal wear, and she emphasizes the importance of having a solid support system, praying about one's decisions, and understanding that following one's passion is a lifelong journey. The episode underscores the transformative power of pursuing one's dreams and the impact of meticulous craftsmanship in the fashion industry.

Dawn welcomes in Beth Ann Rosica, resident of West Chester, who has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. Rosica covers education issues for Broad + Liberty, and recently wrote a great piece highlighting how local districts have responded to Trump administration changes regarding Title IX and Trans individuals in sports. Also, Rosica responds to the Bob Costas interview with Kayal and Dawn, and expresses the importance of parents paying attention to and involving themselves in their children's education.

Pastor Linda Warren continues our series on "A Prophet's Life: Lessons From the Lives of Those Called to Communicate God's Truth," with a message on Daniel 9: 20-23. Click the arrow below, or if you're reading this in an email you can click this link, to play the service: This service is available for download free on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to our podcast. Search for "Westchester Chapel" on the iTunes Store. If you want to know more about starting a relationship with Jesus Christ visit www.WestchesterChapel.org/salvation.

Hassan El-Tayyeb of the Friends Committee on National Legislation returns with an update on the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the growing movement to end U.S. support for the assault. Then, Mackenzie Knight Boyle from the Federation of American Scientists walks us through the scale and secrecy of the U.S. nuclear weapons program — and the risks it poses to the world. Finally, constitutional scholar Bruce Fein joins us to call out the unchecked power and ethical failures of the Supreme Court.Hassan El-Tayyab is the lead lobbyist on Middle East policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Mr. El-Tayyab co-chairs the U.S. Ceasefire Coalition and leads the Friends Committee's work to end the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, advocate for Palestinian human rights, and advance diplomacy with Iran.(The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation) militarizes aid and is run by private armed contractors. It violates all these principles of neutrality, independence, impartiality. And we even saw the GHF's own executive director, Jake Wood, resign in protest in May, saying that he couldn't work in a way that didn't adhere to these humanitarian principles.Hassan El-TayyabMackenzie Knight-Boyle is a Senior Research Associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, where she co-authors the Nuclear Notebook––an authoritative open-source estimate of global nuclear forces and trends.Probably the scariest false alarm was in 1979, A training cassette that was simulating a massive attack with nuclear missiles from the Soviet Union on the United States was mistakenly entered into the primary computer system of North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD. And it was then broadcast to other command centers as if it was going out in the National Command Authority alert system. And because of that, the proper procedures were followed for a situation like this, where the fighter jets took off. The nuclear bombers, carrying nuclear weapons, were put into the sky, missile crews were put on high alert, which means the missiles are ready to launch within seconds. And the president's doomsday plane, which is essentially the war room in the sky for the president in emergency situations, was also put into the air. And it took six minutes for them to realize that this was a training cassette that had been mistakenly put into the system.Mackenzie Knight-BoyleBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.There can be good faith disagreements over the interpretation of the Constitution. But when you have a course of action which so systematically shows a favoritism towards limitless executive power towards corporations as well with regard to money and politics, no longer does it seem to be a matter of good faith, a disagreement, but it's a matter of advancing the partisan political interests of the president, the presidency, and that is, I think, an impeachable offense.Bruce Fein (on impeaching Supreme Court justices)News 7/4/251. The New York City Board of Elections has released the final results in the Democratic Mayoral primary – after accounting for reallocation of votes via ranked-choice tabulations. The final results are stunning. Zohran Mamdani, up by approximately seven points on election night, has emerged with a whopping 12-point victory over disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Perhaps even more impressive, Mamdani completely reshaped the electorate. According to the New York Times, he turned out young people in record numbers to the point that the largest voter bloc in this election was 18–29-year-olds, a complete reversal of usual trends.2. Speaking of reversing trends, it is worth reviewing Zohran's victory in light of the groups he won by large margins. Namely men, including young men of all backgrounds, as well as Latino and Asian voters, per Jacobin. These are groups that Democrats have notably lost ground with, including in New York City, and have devoted considerable resources to winning back to their coalition. Zohran's win therefore should give Democrats a new sense of optimism and they should seek to embrace the winning course that he has charted.3. Of course, being the Democratic Party, they are instead doing the opposite. Despite his earthquake victory, few high-profile New York Democrats have endorsed Zohran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has not, nor has Governor Kathy Hochul, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, or other powerful New York House Democrats like Gregory Meeks. The other U.S. Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, has been openly hostile, calling Zohran “permissive [of] violence against Jews,” in an interview with Brian Lehrer on WNYC. This is of course racist, inflammatory and flatly untrue. Under pressure from other Democrats, Gillibrand retracted her statement, and “apologized for mischaracterizing Mamdani's record and for her tone on the call,” according to POLITICO. This however gives us a taste of the kind of dirty tricks and defamatory rhetoric the party could deploy against Mamdani between now and November.4. That said, Zohran is picking up significant backing locally – an indication that those actually on the ground know which way the wind is blowing. On Monday, Mamdani was endorsed by the NYC Central Labor Council-AFL-CIO. The NYCCLC is “the nation's largest regional labor federation…[bringing] together 300 unions… [and representing] more than 1 million workers.” On Tuesday, he won the endorsement of New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, who represents Westchester, according to reporter Vaughn Golden. Zohran has already earned the endorsement of New York Attorney General Tish James. Expect this divergence between national and local Democratic figures to continue.5. In stark contrast to Zohran, whose political brand is defined by seemingly endless energy, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman shocked observers this week when he complained about having to do the bare minimum as a U.S. Senator. According to Rolling Stone, during Senate deliberations on the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Fetterman was quoted saying “I just want to go home. I've missed our entire trip to the beach.” Fetterman's comments are particularly galling seeing as he has been chronically absent from Senate hearings, committee meetings and even votes. In other words, Fetterman is complaining about doing the bare minimum for the people of Pennsylvania, but is failing to do even that.6. The bill did of course pass, with Vice-President JD Vance voting to break a 50-50 tie vote in the Senate. On Twitter, Vance justified his vote from criticism regarding its massive cuts to Medicaid by saying “The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass.” AOC called his vote, “An absolute and utter betrayal of working families.”7. In more news related to the bill, Trump and Elon Musk have been trading threats regarding its passage. On Monday, TIME reported Elon Musk tweeted, “If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day. Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uni-party, so that the people actually have a voice.” Musk added, “Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame…they will lose their primary next year, if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.” Musk has also reportedly thrown his financial weight behind Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, perhaps the most vocal critic of Trump in the House Republican caucus. Trump is already backing a primary challenge against Massie; Musk intervening on the other side has turned this race into a climactic proxy battle between the two figures once called “co-presidents.”8. Trump, for his part, threatened to deport Elon Musk. Asked about this directly, Trump told reporters, “We'll have to take a look. We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible? He gets a lot of subsidies,” per USA Today. This is of course true. Musk's companies have received billions in corporate welfare from the federal government over the years. It is unclear how much the stock value of, for instance Tesla, would suffer from the money faucet being turned off.9. Entertaining as Trump's threats to deport Musk are however, we should not lose sight of the ever-darker reality of deportation setting in nationwide. NOLA.com reports “An Iranian woman who has lived in the United States for 47 years, has no criminal record, and is married to a US citizen was detained by ICE as she gardened outside her New Orleans home.” Expect to hear more stories of secret police rounding up law abiding Americans in the days to come.10. Finally, in more positive news, Reuters reports China is quietly moving to rebuild Cuba's energy grid. This report notes that “Officials…announced China was participating in a project to modernize Cuba's entire electrical grid, with 55 solar parks to be built in 2025, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 MW - a massive undertaking that, when complete, would represent nearly two-thirds of present-day demand.” Cuba joined China's international infrastructure development program Belt and Road in 2018. This report notes that China is taking on the development role that Russia formerly played in Havana, but has been unable to deliver on since it embarked on its special military operation-turned-quagmire in Ukraine. Cuba's energy grid has experienced continue failures for the past several years for myriad reasons, exacerbated by Trump's increasingly draconian sanctions regime. This is just another example of a reality becoming increasingly clear to much of the world: the U.S. tears down developing countries' infrastructure, China helps build it up.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In this week's episode, both of our storytellers share tales of well-intentioned choices gone wrong.Part 1: In fourth grade, Ro Moran is thrilled to be trusted with the class pet iguana, Iggy, for the night. But by morning, something is very wrong. Part 2: As an exchange student studying superconducting oxides, Karoline Mueller tries to save money by gold-coating a cheap crucible instead of using a solid gold one. Ro is an award-winning empanada eater with a penchant for storytelling. His credits include Prose of Pie, Tiny Tales, Story Boom, Story Collider En Español, and producing the Westchester-based 'Say Word' show. He is most remembered for his groundbreaking trio with his 14yr and 3 yr old . They've since broken up due to ‘creative differences'. When Ro isn't telling tales, he is a social justice warrior for human rights non profits. Karoline is the youngest of 4 siblings. Growing up in Germany, the family interests included music, art, nature, and building things. From fairly young, there was no question in her mind but she would study music and teach private music lessons. Her plan got smashed in the audition process and she was not accepted into a conservatory program. It took her some time to recover from this huge disappointment. In a relatively random way, she stumbled on the book, Urban Systems in Crisis, by a biochemist and network thinker and was fascinated by this new way of solving problems. She was reminded of fun chemistry demonstrations and enrolled at the Saarland University in Chemistry. Despite low confidence in her English, Karoline pursued a semester abroad and came to the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston. Delighted by the amazingly supportive mentorship at the center, she decided to return for her Ph.D. in Chemistry. She has been working there as researcher and student mentor ever since. Karoline's passion for science outreach grew over the years and now she takes great pleasure in organizing presentations and demonstrations of superconductivity.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Miami Marlins' eight-game winning streak came to an end last night, and they may have gotten hosed because an umpire was daydreaming. Is AJ Greer hosting a Stanley Cup party in Westchester proof that Miami is becoming a hockey town? Or is it because the Miami Heat refuse to choose a direction? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of The Adam Carolla Show, financier and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci joins Adam to talk politics, culture, and the shifting landscape of American cities. They kick things off by examining how Zohran Mamdani mobilized young voters in New York and why the Left's embrace of socialism continues to resonate with younger generations. Adam and Anthony unpack cultural responses to political change, explore why Jewish voters often lean progressive, and dive into the tribal roots of antisemitism. Scaramucci also weighs in on California's transformation from a red state to a blue one, and Adam reacts to the viral clip of the San Francisco mayor being booed out of a Pride parade.Later on in the show, Elisha Krauss joins Adam to reflect on the six-month mark since the California wildfires, revisiting a tense podcast recorded right after Adam was forced to evacuate. They talk about the slow pace of rebuilding and the lack of leadership in the aftermath. Then, they break down AOC's comments about her high school yearbook photo, and the continued scrutiny over her Bronx vs. Westchester upbringing. Finally, they react to Charlize Theron's jab at Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez, after the couple's over-the-top $50 million wedding bash.Get it on.FOR MORE WITH ANTHONY SCARAMUCCI:BOOK: The Little Book of Bitcoin (Nov 2024)PODCAST: The Rest is Politics USPODCAST: Open BookINSTAGRAM & TWITTER: @scaramucciFOR MORE WITH ELISHA KRAUSS: INSTAGRAM: @elishakraussWEBSITE: elishakrauss.com JOURNAL: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/elisha-krauss/Thank you for supporting our sponsors:BetOnlineHomes.comoreillyauto.com/ADAMPluto.tvSIMPLISAFE.COM/ADAMOpenPhone.com/adamLIVE SHOWS: July 10 - Irvine, CA (Live Podcast)July 11-12 - Covina, CA (4 Shows)July 16 - Rosemont, ILJuly 17 - Plymouth, WISee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Megyn Kelly is joined by Walter Kirn, editor of the "Unbound" Substack, to discuss Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez's flashy and tacky Venice wedding, the PR-curated guest list full of celebrities who have no actual connection to the couple, why the public has turned against this gross display in our culture, the hypocrisy of leftist celeb flying private to the Bezos–Sanchez wedding, the critiques about the "oligarchy" while they celebrate oligarch Bezos, the ridiculous "pajama party" that happened, NYC Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's revolutionary socialist posturing despite his elitist upbringing, his new comment that there should be "no billionaires," his racially divisive messaging and Communist comments in the past, the growing and disturbing appeal of socialism among young Americans, the broken promises of higher education and massive increases in student debt, AOC falsely claiming she grew up in the Bronx despite being raised in affluent Westchester, her rebranding from Sandy Cortez to AOC, graphic and inappropriate displays at Pride parades in New York and beyond, whether the LGB community is hurt by these ongoing antics, and more.More from Walter: https://walterkirn.substack.com/Home Title Lock: Go to https://hometitlelock.com/megynkelly and use promo code MEGYN to get a FREE title history report and a FREE TRIAL of their Triple Lock Protection! For details visit https://hometitlelock.com/warrantyByrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today.Riverbend Ranch: Visit https://riverbendranch.com/ | Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Tuttle Twins: Go to https://TuttleTwins.com/history today