Podcasts about zooming

Why do some people keep winning while others stay stuck? In this high-energy episode, Kevin and Alan pull back the curtain on a perspective that flips the usual advice upside down. With raw honesty, real stories, and bold predictions, they break down what actually drives success in business, love, health, and life. This isn't about trying harder, it's about seeing what most people miss. If you're ready for clarity, motivation, and the push you've been waiting for, press play and find out what's coming that no one talks about.Learn more about:

TSMC (TSM), also known as Taiwan Semiconductor, rose to all-time highs this week. Brett Crowther examines the technical conditions taking shape behind the upward move, something he says is just more than a "drift higher." On the relative near-term, he points to $277 as a recent support level fueling the recent jump in shares. Zooming out to a 1-year timeframe, he sees a similar pattern taking shape as shares have been "on a strong run" since April and using $225 as support. Brett highlights the MACD study on a short-term resetting as bullish momentum returns.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

In this Talk Dizzy to Me episode, vestibular physical therapists Dr. Abbie Ross, PT, NCS and Dr. Dani Tolman, PT sit down with Dr. Mike Studer, DPT, MHS, NCS, CEEAA, CWT, CSST, CSRP, CBFP, FAPTA to unpack neuroplasticity—what it is, how it works, and how to apply it in vestibular rehabilitation. We cover dual tasking, prediction error, fear-avoidant vs. fear-adapted movement, motivational interviewing, and patient-directed dosage using the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Mike shares practical clinic and real-life examples (driving, grocery stores, cooking), mic-drop lines you'll quote to patients, and how to talk to insurers using objective measures.If busy visuals or movement bother you, consider listening on Apple Podcasts/Spotify.Neuroplasticity = learning. It's not just more pathways; it's stronger, faster, better-fed pathways that consolidate during sleep.Dose the meaningful. Intensity, repetitions, salience, and task specificity drive consolidation (“put a post-it on that memory”).Exposure works. Habituation/adaptation creates prediction error (“that wasn't as bad as I expected”), reinforcing change via dopamine.Fear shows up in movement. Beyond fear-avoidant behavior, watch for fear-adapted movement (reduced head turns, co-contraction, slow/over-intentional strategies).Dual tasking is two goals, not ‘think-and-move' toward one goal. Use cognitive+motor or visual+motor loads that are personally salient.Autonomy accelerates progress. Let patients choose dosage (keep, dial down, or push), using motivational interviewing and OPTIMAL theory.No expiration date. Neuroplastic change remains possible well beyond 1 year—set expectations and use objective measures to justify care.Connect with MikeEmail: mike@mikestuder.comWebsite: mikestuder.comInstagram: @MikeStuderDPTBook: The Brain That Chooses ItselfTime Stamps03:29 Neuroplasticity defined 05:21 Core principles: intensity, repetitions, salience, task specificity, sleep consolidation09:35 Zooming into vestibular rehab10:06 VR as proof of neuroplasticity; predictive processing 11:32 Habituation/adaptation as exposure-based therapy; links to pain & psychology13:32 Fear, expectations, and patient education14:28 Therapeutic alliance: precision starts with the person17:42 Treating fear: exposure-response prevention & prediction error (dopamine wins)20:05 Dosage variables + motivational interviewing + OPTIMAL theory21:27 Threat perception, amygdala, and “roadblocking” fear pathways24:13 Fear-avoidant vs. fear-adapted movement (new concept in progress)26:11 Cognitive load, exhaustion, and dual-task intolerance29:32 Building alliance between sessions (check-ins)30:00 What dual tasking is (and isn't): two separate goals31:32 Clinic examples: cognitive+motor; visual+motor with busy backgrounds34:51 Real life: driving with kids, grocery stores, cooking; task switching vs. dual tasking38:40 Overtraining in clinic to empower life outside39:10 Progression: patient-controlled dosage (autonomy)43:27 Neuroplasticity at any age; caveats for degenerative conditions45:26 “Road crew at night” metaphor; why sleep matters47:13 The “1-year” myth; talking to insurers with objective measures49:27 Mic-drop linesHosted by:

When she saw me running backwards and forwards and getting confused, shouting "oh no I can't organise my thoughts because I'm running backwards and forwards and getting confused", my grandmother used to put a hand on my shoulder and say "more haste, less speed". I looked her square in the eye and said "oh my god you mad hag everyone knows time = distance / speed, that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard". Then I would fall asleep from not being able to find my keys. It is THAT spirit of GET IT DONE that Gav brings to the world when he drives a car: up to - and exceeding! - the speed limit. This time, however, he has been caught, and now the only Zooming he's doing is in a meeting with a speed awareness instructor! (That's a real joke: there are nearly FOUR in this episode.) Meanwhile, Joe brings an angry father into the show. A man who wants to know why his debutante offspring has been scandalised to death by our vulgar utterances. And Log has joined a gym that is expensive beyond reason and reckons he can put it against his tax bill if he says it was research for the podcast. "Western Streets" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Send us a textIn need of a creative jolt for your wildlife photography and get better, more captivating images (and memories)? In this episode of The Wild Photographer, Court shares a dozen practical ways to make wildlife images truly captivating. We cover when to crank your drive mode for expressive behavior, how getting low and shooting at eye level transforms background separation, and the simple distance ratio that creates creamy blur even at f/8. You'll learn to choose your background (not accept it), frame with natural elements, and zoom in on intriguing details for a story-driven series. Court also demos creative exposure tools—spot metering for dramatic light, in-camera white balance shifts for mood—and several motion techniques, from slow-shutter pans to zoom/rotate effects. Finally, we break composition “rules” on purpose, using exaggerated negative space and dead-center symmetry when the scene calls for it. If you're ready to move from documentation to impact, this one's for you.Chapter Markers00:00 Introduction to Captivating Wildlife Photography00:44 Thanks to Sponsors04:20 Introduction04:59 Understanding Drive Motor for Wildlife Photography08:23 Get Low (and on eye level)10:27 Utilizing Shallow Depth of Field15:09 Zooming in on Animal Details18:16 Framing your Shots20:02 The Allure of Spot Metering23:28 Matching (or playing with) White Balance26:23 Intentional Motion Blur Techniques28:35 Other Uses of Slow Shutter31:03 Composition Techniques34:08 Choosing the Your Background37:28 ConclusionCourt's Websites Check out Court's photo portfolio here: shop.courtwhelan.com Sign up for Court's photo, conservation and travel blog at www.courtwhelan.com Follow Court on YouTube (@courtwhelan) for more photography tips View Court's personal and recommended camera gear Sponsors and Promo Codes:LensRentals.com - WildPhoto15 for 15% offShimodaDesigns.com - Whelan10 for 10% offArthelper.Ai - Mention this podcast for a 6 month free trial of Pro Version AG1 - Daily (and Travel) Nutrition (use link for free travel packs and other goodies)

Canada's housing market is being battered from every angle, and the cracks are widening into a full-blown crisis. Population growth, the single biggest driver of housing demand, has nearly stalled. Statistics Canada reported Q2 growth of just 47,000 people — a 0.1% increase and the second-slowest pace since 1946, excluding the pandemic. For a country that has leaned heavily on immigration to fuel housing, GDP, and tax revenues, this 80-year low is seismic. Developers who banked on endless inflows are now sitting on record inventories, while Vancouver and Toronto — the markets most dependent on population surges — are already showing demand erosion and softening rents.At the same time, supply battles are intensifying. Century Group's Tsawwassen redevelopment was slashed from 1,433 homes to just 600 after NIMBY pushback, despite meeting planning requirements. In Burnaby, petitions against densification threaten to stall family housing. This kind of resistance highlights how hard it will be for cities to meet ambitious housing targets.Meanwhile, renters are gaining some leverage. Vancouver rents are falling, down 9.3% year-over-year to $2,825, and rental starts have surged to record highs. Landlords are offering concessions, a sharp reversal from the bidding wars of recent years.Toronto, however, is flashing red. Power-of-sale listings — Ontario's faster foreclosure alternative — have exploded 14-fold since 2021, now averaging 140 a month and hitting a record 1,200 active listings. Distressed sales are growing while resale volumes remain stuck near generational lows.National home prices reveal a market split in two. The benchmark fell 20% from the 2022 peak to $686,800, but this correction is almost entirely in Ontario and B.C. Ontario prices are down 26%, B.C. 12% — yet eight of ten provinces hit new record highs this year, with Newfoundland leading.Zooming in, Vancouver's inventory has soared to 18,100 homes — the highest in 12 years — while the benchmark price fell for the fifth straight month. Toronto's market is drowning in inventory, with prices down $312,000 from peak. Together, these metros are dragging national averages while the rest of Canada continues to climb.This isn't just a cooling cycle — it's a structural reckoning. Population growth is slowing, supply is stalling under community resistance, rents are correcting, and distressed sales are rising. The fundamentals that fuelled Canada's boom — immigration, cheap credit, and confidence — are eroding. The fight for affordability and stability is only just beginning. _________________________________ Contact Us To Book Your Private Consultation:

The Boston School Committee held their second meeting of the school year last night, primarily to present a proposal to change the exam school admissions policy. This was the sole report of the meeting and much of the public comment surrounded this proposal. After the Superintendent's report, Member Cardet-Hernández pressed for updates on graduation rates and summer school outcomes. Superintendent Skipper noted those would come at the October 8th meeting, alongside official enrollment numbers. The district formally presented its recommended changes: Remove all school-based points, which Skipper described as confusing, inequitable, and less impactful over time. Reduce housing-based points from 15 to 10 points, aligning with observed differences in composite scores. Add a “citywide round”: the first 20% of seats at each exam school would go to applicants with the highest composite scores citywide, regardless of tier. Maintain the current four-tier structure, based on neighborhood population, not applicant numbers. Superintendent Skipper emphasized that these changes would ensure fairness, prevent inflation of scores above 100, and preserve the original intent of the 2021 policy. However, School Committee members raised important questions about the implications of the policy shifts. For instance, Member Polanco García pressed for plans to better support newcomers and English Language Learners, whom Skipper admitted still lack sufficient resources. Meanwhile, Member Rachel Skerritt sought clarity on whether the proposal preserves equity while creating a pathway for the city's highest achievers. She also noted the district's failure to deliver on earlier promises to strengthen rigor in grades 4–6, which was promised five years ago. Zooming out a bit, Member Cardet Hernández questioned why BPS continues to frame admissions around three schools instead of tackling system-wide quality, noting families' desire for options across all grades. And Member Stephen Alkins asked about the drop in projected Black student enrollment (from ~20% to 15%) and urged more transparency in data and grading practices. To cap it all off, Chair Robinson underscored the Committee's failure to improve early-grade preparation, warning that focusing solely on exam school admissions leaves thousands of other students behind. Clearly, members have many questions, and it is unclear if this policy change will meet the stated goals of clarity, stability, and simplicity. Exam School Admissions Policy Recommendation:What's Up Next?The Committee will take a final vote on the admissions policy on November 5th. The next meeting will be held on October 8th at 6pm. We look forward to connecting with you then! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Intel (INTC) shares soared to 52-week highs on news that Nvidia (NVDA) would invest $5B in a new partnership between the two semiconductor companies. Rachel Dashiell examines the technical conditions for Intel after the breakout saying $33 will likely act as near-term resistance, with $28 as short-term support. Zooming out to a 1-year timeframe, she says the RSI Momentum study is confirming the upside move saying $37 could be a projected upside move based off of previous performance.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Want to make a nanoscale image of the Mona Lisa? Listener Kodiak does. All they have to do is learn a bit of quantum mechanics, some thermochemical nanolithography, and then tap the genius of ancient superbrain Leonardo da Vinci! EASY!! Scientists did it!! Even though you can't see it without a powerful microscope trust us that she is smirking even harder than usual.While Trace is poking around like Ant Man, Julian roleplays as Frozen's Elsa to see if he can extinguish fire with nothing but an icy blast. Spoiler alert: you may be better off with a magical mystical freeze ray.TRY YOUR HAND AT NANO ARTThanks to Prof. Babak Anasori for coming on the show and explaining nanoscale art to us.

In this episode, we examine the short yet tragic reign of Abijam in 1 Kings 15:1–8, exploring how God's enduring faithfulness to the Davidic Covenant shapes His dealings with unrighteous kings in Judah. Despite Abijam's clear failure to walk in the ways of David, the kingdom is not torn from his line. Why? Because of God's promise to David.We explore how this divine loyalty can create the appearance of partiality, especially when compared to the judgment God brings on the kings of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Is God playing favorites—or is something deeper at work?Zooming out, we reflect on how the book of Kings functions like an autopsy report, diagnosing the spiritual and moral decay that led both Israel and Judah into captivity. The civil war between Abijam and Jeroboam becomes a tragic symbol of Israel turning in on itself—God's chosen people, called to be agents of healing, now self-destructing like a cancerous body at war with itself. The irony is profound: the nation meant to heal the world has become a source of its own affliction.But this is not where the story ends.We turn to Luke 1:30–33, where the angel announces that God will give Jesus the throne of His father David. Here we see the beauty of God's faithfulness—God does not break His promises. Instead, He actively advances the Davidic Covenant through Jesus, who will inherit the Davidic throne in Jerusalem not merely to rule, but to redeem. In Jesus - the Son of David and Son of God, God picks up the broken pieces of Israel's failure and continues the project to heal human nature from the inside out.We close by wrestling with the tension this raises: God's covenant faithfulness may sometimes feel like favoritism, but ultimately it is our hope. Because God keeps His word, the mission is still alive. The King has come—and He's finishing what Israel started.Key Passages: 1 Kings 15:1-8Luke 1:30-33⁠⁠⁠Explainer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Video⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on how to use ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.biblehub.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.blueletterbible.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Leave us a question or comment at our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠website podcast page⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Explore Apple's 2025 accessibility updates, including Vision Pro Zoom, Braille Access, Magnifier for Mac, and new App Store accessibility labels. Learn how Apple is reshaping inclusive tech for low vision, blind, and deaf-blind users.This episode dives into Apple's latest accessibility announcements for 2025, featuring insights from Sarah Herrlinger, Senior Director of Accessibility at Apple.Discover how Vision Pro now supports Zooming on your surroundings, live object recognition, and third-party accessibility camera access. We explore Braille Access, a powerful tool for taking notes, opening BRF files, and even using live captioning on braille displays to support deaf-blind users. We also cover Magnifier for Mac, which leverages an iPhone or external camera for classroom and workplace independence, with perspective correction and integration with the new Accessibility Reader. Finally, learn how Apple's new App Store accessibility labels help users identify apps that truly support features like VoiceOver, Voice Control, captions, and audio description.Relevant LinksApple Accessibility: https://www.apple.com/accessibility/Be My Eyes: https://www.bemyeyes.comiOS Access for All (by Shelly Brisbin): https://www.iosaccessbook.com Find Double Tap online: YouTube, Double Tap Website---Follow on:YouTube: https://www.doubletaponair.com/youtubeX (formerly Twitter): https://www.doubletaponair.com/xInstagram: https://www.doubletaponair.com/instagramTikTok: https://www.doubletaponair.com/tiktokThreads: https://www.doubletaponair.com/threadsFacebook: https://www.doubletaponair.com/facebookLinkedIn: https://www.doubletaponair.com/linkedin Subscribe to the Podcast:Apple: https://www.doubletaponair.com/appleSpotify: https://www.doubletaponair.com/spotifyRSS: https://www.doubletaponair.com/podcastiHeadRadio: https://www.doubletaponair.com/iheart About Double TapHosted by the insightful duo, Steven Scott and Shaun Preece, Double Tap is a treasure trove of information for anyone who's blind or partially sighted and has a passion for tech. Steven and Shaun not only demystify tech, but they also regularly feature interviews and welcome guests from the community, fostering an interactive and engaging environment. Tune in every day of the week, and you'll discover how technology can seamlessly integrate into your life, enhancing daily tasks and experiences, even if your sight is limited. "Double Tap" is a registered trademark of Double Tap Productions Inc.

In this episode of Interlinks, I'm joined once again by Lisa Anderson, President of LMA Consulting Group and one of North America's foremost supply chain advisors. Lisa brings deep expertise across ERP systems, SIOP processes, and manufacturing transformation, and is widely recognized for her work helping manufacturers and distributors modernize operations and enhance customer responsiveness. With her pragmatic approach and clear-sighted industry perspective, Lisa is a valuable voice on how emerging technologies—particularly AI—are reshaping the operational landscape.Our conversation explores the strategic imperative of supply chain visibility in today's turbulent business environment, with a focus on how AI tools can deliver actionable insights. We discuss the foundational systems—such as ERP, MES, and CRM—that enable AI to function effectively, and how organizations of different sizes can adopt and scale visibility solutions. A key theme is the need to balance innovation with discipline: while large enterprises may have scale and systems, smaller firms often outperform through agility, experimentation, and faster decision-making cycles. Lisa also offers practical guidance on pilot projects, process transformation, and the role of human judgment in ensuring AI delivers real business value.Zooming out, the episode situates AI-powered visibility within the broader context of global supply chain transformation. As manufacturing and logistics networks become increasingly digitized and dynamic, visibility is no longer a luxury but a necessity. AI has the potential to move firms from reactive to predictive operating models, enabling smarter allocation of resources, faster customer response, and more resilient planning. But Lisa is clear: technology alone is not enough. The winners will be those who embed these tools within disciplined processes and informed decision-making cultures—where strategic intent meets operational execution. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Val Verde, strap in. The Boss himself joins Whisp Turlington and Geoff “The Angry Man” Garlock for an episode that blows the doors off the very stinky Rock & Roll RV that Geoff lives in. Legendary improviser John Murray becomes Bruce Springsteen, Zooming in live from his legendary album vault to reveal the kind of stories you'll never hear anywhere else:75 Albums in the Vault: Bruce casually admits he's been recording nonstop, stockpiling 75+ unreleased albums — including novelty songs (“Baby Bikini”), stomp experiments, rap-country hybrids, and even an all-gum chewing project.NebraskaTown the Movie: Bruce explains how he secretly directed his own life story while wearing masks of Scorsese, Lucas, and John Milius.Springsteen Covers the '90s: Hear Love Shack reimagined as a dirge about Reaganomics, and Lisa Loeb's Stay belted out Born in the U.S.A. style.What's The Nastiest Thing You've Done in a Movie Theater: Listeners call in, but Bruce tops them all.Sponsored by Farmer Dan Owns Your Favorite Songs, JUGGGGS Mug Emporium and Turn It On Again AgainGuest:John Murray (UCB, The Bosscast, Old Yorkers) as Bruce SpringsteenHere's how YOU can support Val Verde's second choice for rock, 108.9 The HawkSubscribe to the podcast on Apple, YouTube, Spotify or whatever you listen on!Visit our website & sign up for our mailing list: https://1089thehawk.comJoin the Patreon for early access & bonus shows: https://patreon.com/1089thehawkSubscribe to our YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@1089thehawkFollow us on social media: Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, Facebook, Threads Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joining Mike in the studio this week is film maker Floyd Webb. Zooming in from Brooklyn is Fred Klonsky. A brief report on the New York mayoral race is followed by a discussion of the fight against Trump fascism and the role of the Arts in that fight. All this as Trump threatens a military occupation of Chicago and other cities with Black mayors.

Snowflake (SNOW) earnings share a reporting date with Nvidia (NVDA) but on the chart it's a different story as SNOW's been relatively rangebound over the last several years. Brett Crowther leads off with a 5-year chart with a channel between $190 and $100. Zooming into the 1-year chart, he highlights the August breakout and attempts to stay above the longer-term $190 resistance level.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Millionaire WaveRising Black Millionaires, U.S. Owns 10% of Intel, Truth About AI Investments, & Invest Fest RecapThe U.S. government's 10% stake in Intel is raising eyebrows—this move blurs the line between public policy and investment. Is this about national security, creating stable markets, or setting a new precedent of government as investor? On the retail side, Target's outgoing CEO puts leadership strategy into focus: what qualities matter most for a successor navigating a shifting retail landscape?Meanwhile, the market is buzzing with hot takes—Disney is sitting around $120 just as NFL season kicks off, ESPN is folding in NFL Network and RedZone, and the WWE deal is arriving earlier than expected. Is now the smart time to scale in? And with $15,000 to invest, is it better to hyper-concentrate into one high-conviction play, or diversify across four positions? We also ask why traders remain so locked in on $OPEN despite heavy volatility.Zooming out, MIT reports that 95% of AI investments remain unprofitable—are we finally starting to separate hype from reality? Do we trust what's real in AI, or is the bubble still inflating? Jack Dorsey has Sun Day and BitChat in motion—could hardware be next? And with markets pricing in a 90% chance of a Fed rate cut, how confident should investors really be in that outcome?Link to 24 Hour Red Panda Invest Fest Sale: https://ianinvest.com#MarketMondays #Investing #Stocks #Intel #Disney #AI #FedRateCuts #Target #JackDorsey #EarnYourLeisure #WealthBuilding #FinancialFreedomOur Sponsors:* Check out PNC Bank: https://www.pnc.com* Check out Square: https://square.com/go/eylSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/marketmondays/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This week on The Vergecast, Chris Niccolls and Jordan Drake of PetaPixel's YouTube channel join The Verge's Allison Johnson and Vjeran Pavic to geek out about the last half-decade of camera advancements — the good, the bad, and the Sigma BF of it all. Then, Allison is joined by Verge News Editor and fellow phone nerd Dominic Preston to help answer a boatload of listener questions from people contemplating which smartphone to buy next. They help navigate the intricacies of living in a mixed iOS/Android household to the best options for someone who wants a headphone jack (spoiler alert: there aren't many). It's a mega-hotline-turned-therapy session for iPhone Mini owners reluctant to let go of their tiny phones in a world where phones come in two sizes: big and bigger. Further reading: Sigma BF review: Beautiful Foolishness — PetaPixel The Fujifilm X half is Just Plain FUN! — PetaPixel Fujifilm X Half hands-on: whimsical, refreshing, and simply fun Sigma BF review: the perfect camera for a minimalist In pursuit of a viral, five-year-old compact camera Samsung Galaxy S25 review: incredibly iterative Nothing Phone 3 review: flagship-ish If you really want a smaller phone, try the tiny Jelly 2 Oppo Find N5 review: the final evolution of foldables Honor launches the ‘world's thinnest' foldable Motorola spoiled a good budget phone with bloatware The Xperia 1 VII is a greatest hits of Sony R&D The Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra isn't so ‘ultra' anymore The Fairphone 6 no longer feels like a compromise (except in the US) My first DIY phone fix made me a self-repair believer Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold review: in great shape Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 7 review: stunning, bendy, and spendy Ditching my phone for an LTE smartwatch was a humbling experience I took my own advice and bought a last-gen iPhone — I regret nothing How Samsung's Galaxy Z Flip failed me without actually breaking Email us at vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11, we love hearing from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

#realconversations #author #fitness #prison #servicedogs#coma #reinvention CONVERSATIONS WITH CALVIN WE THE SPECIESMeet JOHN CARTER…. “I've been around the block. A lot. Amagazine from the 1960s used to have a monthly feature, “The Most UnforgettableCharacter.”  It works here perfectly.Where do I begin? On several occasions, Zooming with John, my enduring takeawayis a WOW. What a resilient, dedicated, inspiring, and unforgettable guy. Rightto the chase now. A Mafia teen, shot in the head, ninety days in a coma, drugaddiction, prison…. Then a reinvention, rebirth, a few miracles of the humanspirit, now a successful fitness trainer and supporter of Service Dogs andfather. The stuff of great movies and Zoom interviews……”  Calvin https://www.youtube.com/c/ConversationswithCalvinWetheSpecIEs603 Interviews/Videos  9200 SUBSCRIBERSGLOBAL Reach. Earth Life. Amazing People.  PLEASE SUBSCRIBE** JOHN CARTER: Author,"Triggered to Change: A Life Full of Turbulence," Key words: Shot;Coma; Paralyzed; Addiction; Prison; Health Club; Service Dogs; Live fromMassachusettsYouTube: https://youtu.be/AQKlq37lJawBIO: I self-published "Triggered to Change: A Life Fullof Turbulence," an inspiring autobiography, which tells the story of how Iwas shot and partially paralyzed as a young member of the Worcester mafia, putin a coma for 90 days, addicted to drugs, and sentenced to prison. Throughthese hardships, I found a passion for health and fitness and decided I wantedto be a fitness trainer. I now own Titanium Health and Fitness in Brookline,MA!LINKS:  Gym Fitness:https://titaniumhealthfitness.com/Book Website: https://www.turbulencebook.com/TEDx Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2-tcE-L0LgService Dog Project: https://www.servicedogproject.org/**WE ARE ALSO ON AUDIOAUDIO “Conversations with Calvin; WE the SpecIEs”ANCHOR https://lnkd.in/g4jcUPqSPOTIFY https://lnkd.in/ghuMFeCAPPLE PODCASTSBREAKER https://lnkd.in/g62StzJGOOGLE PODCASTS https://lnkd.in/gpd3XfMPOCKET CASTS https://pca.st/bmjmzaitRADIO PUBLIC https://lnkd.in/gxueFZw

Subscribe to Throwing Fits on Substack. You have been selected. This week, Jimmy is Zooming in from Greece to check in with Larry on makeshift sweatsuits, luxury logo belts, Greek beer graphic design, the NFL script has been written, a potential futures bet involving Taylor Swift, how much integrity does Jay-Z really have, toilet paper dilemmas, tapping into a Mad Men rewatch, the block party scene in Brooklyn has changed, against all odds we were somehow selected for the CFDA Fashion Awards Guild so we break down the categories and cast our votes live on pod, checking in on Kith and Ronnie Fieg after their comeback fashion show and the institution they've built, Pinterest's top 10 fall trends predictions give us a look into Gen Z's fried brains, Lawrence went on a double date with friend of the show and Industry co-creator Konrad Kay to Le Veau d'Or and had supposedly the best entree the city has to offer, James breaks down everything happening on his favorite Greek island, partying with crazy Euro guys, 5:30pm lunches, rich boat guy swag, one half of the pod is being impersonated on Hinge in Australia so we review this ridiculous attempt at catfishing, 9/11 weather and more.

Nvidia (NVDA) shares have fallen this week, but one analyst has hiked its price target on the chipmaker ahead of next week's earnings. UBS lifted its target to $205 from $175 while reiterating a buy rating on shares. Kevin Horner examines the recent technical range in Nvidia's stock, highlighting levels at $168 and $184 as areas of support and resistance respectively. Zooming out to a 2-year chart, he sees conditions that could indicate more volatility ahead.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Brendan Keeler's path into healthcare interoperability has been anything but straightforward. After early stints implementing Epic in the U.S. and Europe, he helped hundreds of startups connect to provider and payer systems at Redox, Zus Health and Flexpa before taking the reins of the Interoperability Practice at HTD Health. Along the way, his Health API Guy blog turned dense policy updates into plain-language guides, earning a following among developers, executives and regulators. In this episode, Keith Figlioli sits down with Keeler to examine the “post-Meaningful-Use” moment. They discuss how national networks like Carequality and CommonWell solved much of the provider-to-provider exchange problem, only to expose new gaps for payers, life-science firms and patients. Keeler says the real action right now is in three places where the biggest, most dramatic changes are about to happen: Antitrust pressure on dominant EHRs. Epic's push into ERP, payer platforms and life-sciences services could trigger “leveraging” claims that force unbundling, similar to cases already moving through federal court.  Information-blocking enforcement. Recent lawsuits show courts siding with smaller vendors when incumbents restrict data access, a trend Keeler believes could unwind long-standing moats around systems of record. A CMS-led shift from policy to execution. With ONC budgets flat, Keeler sees CMS using its purchasing power to unblock Medicare claims data at the point of care, expand Blue Button APIs, and accelerate work on a national provider directory, digital ID and trusted exchange frameworks. Keeler's optimism is pragmatic. AI agents may someday chip away at entrenched EHR “data gravity,” but real progress, he says, will come from steady, bipartisan layering of HIPAA, Cures Act and TEFCA foundations. He also pushes back on venture capital's “system-of-action” thesis. Enterprise EHRs remain sticky because switching costs—massive data migration and workflow retraining—are measured in decades, not funding cycles. AI could reduce these problems, but only slowly and only if underpinned by trusted exchange standards. Zooming out, Keeler describes a policy arc that starts with provider-to-provider exchange, widens to payer and patient access, and ultimately points toward a nationwide digital ID that could streamline consent and credentialing. For innovators, his north star is clear: build for identity-verified, standards-based exchange; assume open APIs will become table stakes; and judge success by the friction you subtract from everyday care—not by how flashy the demo is. To hear Brendan Keeler and Keith unpack these issues, listen to this episode of Healthcare is Hard: A Podcast for Insiders. Please note that this episode was recorded earlier this summer, before the CMS meeting, and that some developments have occurred since then.

In this episode of the Alcohol Minimalist podcast, Molly shares another installment in her Summer Content Series, featuring guest content from one of the most influential voices in the alcohol-reduction space—Rachel Hart, host of the “Take a Break” podcast.Molly opens up about Rachel's pivotal role in her own journey to change her drinking habits, describing her as the first person who helped her believe it was possible to rethink her relationship with alcohol. Through books, podcasts, and coaching, Rachel's voice provides clarity, validation, and a methodical approach to mindful drinking that aligned closely with the Alcohol Minimalist philosophy.This featured episode challenges one of the most common self-sabotaging thought patterns: the tendency to make absolute declarations about your identity based on drinking behavior. Statements like “I have no willpower,” “I'm just someone who can't moderate,” or “I must have an addictive personality” are not facts—they are beliefs that shape your experience and become self-fulfilling prophecies.Rachel teaches listeners how to stop making their drinking patterns a reflection of their identity and instead approach every off-plan moment with curiosity, not criticism. Using Rachel's  “Think-Feel-Act” cycle, this episode is a science-based, compassion-forward guide to interrupting old stories and rewiring your drinking habits.Key Topics Covered:Why absolute statements about identity are so damaging to behavior changeHow belief systems reinforce drinking patternsThe Think-Feel-Act cycle and how it relates to drinking habitsA practical approach to examining moments when we go off-planHow to use curiosity instead of criticism when reflecting on cravings and decisionsThe power of zooming into specific moments instead of generalizing your behaviorWhy You Should Listen: If you're stuck in a cycle of overdrinking and self-recrimination, this episode will help you shift from judgment to awareness. Learn why your thoughts—not alcohol—are the real drivers of your behavior, and how small mindset changes can lead to major personal transformation.Mentioned in the Episode:Rachel Hart's Podcast – Take a BreakSunnyside Drinking App – Molly's recommended habit tracking and behavior change toolConnect with Molly:Website: www.mollywatts.comFree Resources: Alcohol Truths 2023 eBookFacebook Group: Alcohol Minimalists: Change Your Alcohol HabitsLow risk drinking guidelines from the NIAAA:Healthy men under 65:No more than 4 drinks in one day and no more than 14 drinks per week.Healthy women (all ages) and healthy men 65 and older:No more than 3 drinks in one day and no more than 7 drinks per week.One drink is defined as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof liquor. So remember that a mixed drink or full glass of wine are probably more than one drink.Abstinence from alcoholAbstinence from alcohol is the best choice for people who take medication(s) that interact with alcohol, have health conditions that could be exacerbated by alcohol (e.g. liver disease), are pregnant or may become pregnant or have had a problem with alcohol or another substance in the past.Benefits of “low-risk” drinkingFollowing these guidelines reduces the risk of health problems such as cancer, liver disease, reduced immunity, ulcers, sleep problems, complications of existing conditions, and more. It also reduces the risk of depression, social problems, and difficulties at school or work. ★ Support this podcast ★

Zooming out from politics, Al Travis asks state representative Walter Hudson about his views on John 3:19.Why not the more popular 3:16?Also, will Walz run for a third term? Have Democrats learned anything? Who else will enter on the Republican side?Support the show

Subscribe to Throwing Fits on Substack. Bite like a snake. This week, Jimmy is Zooming in from Germany to catch up with Larry on having Havaianas and Labubus for breakfast, stealing tees from Kanye West lore, our Copenhagen Fashion Week dinner with mfpen, how to effectively design a seating chart and deliver a toast, crazy neighbors hate functions, how men vs. women gossip, Sigurd Bank gave Lawrence a guided tour of Copenhagen, cargo bike cuck chairs, frigid canal dips, Danish McDonald's review, welcome to spa mansion, James linked with Jockum Hallin for good food and better conversation, going broke because you do your laundry at the hotel, a Stockholm jawnz haul, the shop boy social safety net, spoiler alert: they don't make fish soup in summer, it's almost as if German trains are cursed or something, militant physics tennis training, accidentally booking a clothing optional foreskin forward resort and more.

Building the future isn't just about technology—it's about how we imagine, innovate, and take action together. Jonathan Aberman sits down with Ed Finn, professor and founding director of the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University. Together, they take a closer look at our relationship with AI and discuss why the future needs more human insight, not less. Zooming in on the D.C. area, Victor Hoskins, president and CEO of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority, highlights the talent and energy that make the region a powerhouse for economic opportunity. And James Barlia introduces Station DC, a new hub connecting entrepreneurs, investors, policymakers, and academics hoping to turn big ideas into real impact.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Ravioli Biceps! Just back from an amazing trip to Rocklands, Ravioli shares how board climbing transfers to outdoor climbing, the evolution of board climbing culture over the last decade, how he deals with stopper moves, and some of the misconceptions about board climbing being non-technical.THIS EPISODE IS SUPPORTED BY Mad Rock! Mad Rock's mottos is “CLIMBING SHOULD BE FOR EVERYBODY! Innovative, highly technical and affordable climbing shoes and gear.”Support us on Patreon: HEREVisit our podcast page: HEREFollow us on Instagram: HERE

In this episode of the Contested Ground podcast, Major General (Ret'd) Dr Marcus Thompson, Phil Tarrant and Liam Garman unpack the Cambodia–Thai military confrontation and Australia's economic landscape.  Tarrant and Thompson begin the podcast reflecting on Exercise Talisman Sabre, highlighting how the biennial drills continue to grow in scale and strategic significance with the involvement of multiple partner nations, the live-fire deployment of HIMARS systems, and the strengthening of interoperability between allied forces. The conversation then turns to rising regional tensions, specifically, the flare-up on the Cambodia–Thailand border. Garman explores the historical context behind the clashes and the implications of leaked diplomatic communications, offering a broader perspective on the fluid and often volatile nature of Southeast Asian geopolitics. Zooming out further, the hosts examine internal shifts within the Chinese military. Thompson analyses the recent purges of senior People's Liberation Army figures and what these changes might signal about Beijing's strategic posture in the lead-up to the widely discussed 2027 timeline regarding Taiwan. Finally, the team brings the conversation back to Australian shores, with Tarrant raising concerns over domestic defence priorities while Garman shares his concerns over the national security implications of Australia's sluggish economy.  Enjoy the podcast, The Contested Ground team

This week on Women and Wealth, host Regina Hess returns to a vital topic: Social Security. But this time, she's breaking it down into 10 essential facts everyone should know before claiming benefits. Whether you're approaching retirement or helping a loved one navigate the system, this episode will help you better understand how to make the most of what you've earned. It's no secret that it can be complex from the outside looking in – with so many considerations surrounding the benefits themselves, from when you take them and how you execute that, to understanding what you may be entitled to as you approach retirement. This episode is designed to empower you with clarity and confidence as you plan your financial future so you can navigate this system with ease. Episode Highlights:   0:00 - Introduction 0:31 - Episode beginning 1:05 - Things to keep in mind before claiming SS 1:38 - Changes to your status can have an impact on your benefit amount 2:02 - The year of your birth and.. 3:35 - Taking SS while working 6:15 - Benefits paid to you as a spouse 7:09 - Zooming in on your spousal benefit 8:58 - If something happens to you.. 9:51 - Your benefits may be taxable 11:57 - Be aware of certain types of income 13:22 - Your SS statement is an estimate 15:16 - Action item 16:30 - Episode wrap-up ABOUT REGINA MCCANN HESS   Regina is the author of Super Woman Wealth: How to Become Your Own Financial Hero.  As an advocate for women's financial freedom, she wrote this book to help empower women to take a bigger role in handling their money.     Regina has appeared on Schwab TV, Yahoo Finance, Forbes.com, NTD Television, CBS 3 Philadelphia, Fox 29 Philadelphia, King 5 Seattle, KTLA 5 Los Angeles and Scripps News.  She has also been quoted in numerous articles in publications such as Forbes, Business Insider, U.S. News & World Report, Yahoo Finance, USA Today, USA Wire, Word in Black, WTOP News, Mind Body Green, Money Digest, New York Post, Defender, Authority Magazine, GoBankingRates.com, Scripps and The Muse.   As Founder of Forge Wealth Management, Regina utilizes her 25+ years of financial services experience to help individuals plan, preserve and diversify their wealth.  She focuses on educating her clients while building long-term relationships with them and their families.  Her experience throughout major shifts in the markets, enables Regina to structure balanced portfolios to address specific financial goals. CONNECT WITH REGINA   Website: https://www.forgewealth.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/reginamccannhess/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ForgeWealth Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/forgewealthmanagement/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ForgeWealth Email: reginahess@forgewealth.com Securities offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC www.finra.org, www.sipc.org Third-party posts found on this profile do not reflect the view of LPL Financial and have not been reviewed by LPL Financial as to accuracy or completeness. For a list of states in which I am registered to do business, please visit www.forgewealth.com.   This material was prepared by MFS Investment Management. MFS Investment Management is not affiliated with Forge Wealth Management, Private Advisor Group, or LPL Financial.  

Meg reveals how Playboy ruined Ed Koch's run for governor. Jessica remembers the syringe scare that emptied local beaches on the hottest summer on record.Please check out our website, follow us on Instagram, on Facebook, and...WRITE US A REVIEW HEREWe'd LOVE to hear from you! Let us know if you have any ideas for stories HEREThank you for listening!Love,Meg and Jessica

Meg identifies who was actually responsible for Saturday Night Lives' worst season ever. Jessica reveals how MTV used Remote Control to increase ad sales while launching comedy legends.Please check out our website, follow us on Instagram, on Facebook, and...WRITE US A REVIEW HEREWe'd LOVE to hear from you! Let us know if you have any ideas for stories HEREThank you for listening!Love,Meg and Jessica

#Xbox #FromSoftware #Wuchang #GamingPodcast

Welcome back to The Superhumanize Podcast. I am so deeply honored to have you with me today for a conversation that is close to the very core of what it means to be human.My guest is Dr. Hsien Seow, Canada Research Chair in Palliative Care and Health System Innovation, Professor at McMaster University, and one of the foremost voices reimagining how we approach serious illness and end-of-life care. His work transcends the medical system, inviting us to see palliative care not as surrender, but as a path to reclaiming agency, dignity, and meaning, even, and perhaps especially, in life's most vulnerable chapters.Dr. Seow's book, Hope for the Best, Plan for the Rest, co-authored with Dr. Samantha Winemaker, is a guide to navigating life-changing diagnoses with clarity, courage, and grace. It offers seven keys to transform the illness journey from one of fear and disempowerment to one of hope and preparedness.In today's conversation, we explore the paradigm shifts needed in healthcare, the deeper truths mortality can teach us about life, and how we can each become active architects of our own experience, even when the path ahead feels out of our control.This episode is about much more than palliative care. It is about what it means to live fully awake to our finite nature, and to love, decide, and be present with the preciousness of this human life.Episode Highlights:02:30 – Realizing a disconnect: the moment Hsien noticed future doctors weren't trained to talk about dying, sparking his mission to change the system.04:00 – What palliative care really means: an approach that centers on the full human experience—emotional, spiritual, social—not just medical intervention.06:30 – Why timing matters: most people meet palliative care too late. Hsien and his colleague Dr. Sammy Winemaker push for earlier integration.07:15 – The key concept: “Hope for the best, plan for the rest” — balancing optimism with informed planning.08:30 – Reclaiming power from the medical system: how patients and families can move from passive to activated roles.10:00 – “Zooming out” to see the big picture: why asking what stage you're in is essential to living fully.12:15 – How to move from silence to agency: the role of courageous conversations in healing.14:45 – The ripple effect: illness doesn't just affect the patient—it shapes families and communities.16:30 – Family dynamics and understanding: how knowing someone's coping style reduces conflict and increases compassion.20:00 – What to do when the patient avoids discussion: using gentle invitations instead of confrontations.25:00 – Real-life application: how Hsien's own family used these principles to navigate care with love and tact.27:30 – Cultural myths and medical systems: how we've lost the communal experience of dying and what needs to change.30:15 – Reframing grief and loss: learning from everyday changes how to prepare for bigger transitions.32:30 – Dying as sacred: honoring diversity in spiritual beliefs and values through customized care.34:45 – The invisible load: recognizing and supporting family caregivers before burnout sets in.38:30 – Revisiting roles and expectations: how adaptability sustains families through long-term illness.40:00 – Everyday palliative care: acts of love like cooking, walking a pet, or simply being present.42:00 – Customize your order: bringing your whole self—values, beliefs, and personality—into your care.44:30 – One key question: “What do I need to know about you to give you the best...

Life's a party and so is this episode 7th episode of AJLT season 3. We've got the three great Cs of any party - cake, Carrie Bradshaw and caraoke. Zooming out though, Guy has uncovered this season's most compelling piece of meta-text available - that the relationship between And Just Like That... and its audience, is mirrored by Carrie and Aidan's relationship. We are grateful to our streaming platform overlords who have really done a number on the concept of television itself. Miranda is at her maximum while trying to cheer up Charlotte under the false understanding that her dog has cancer and Tim is in perfect alignment with every decision Harry makes.Watch and support us at twioat.substack.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Author John Birdsall makes his return to the pod to discuss his new book What Is Queer Food? How We Served a Revolution—a deeply personal and sweeping look at the intersection of queer life in the United States, and food culture here. Zooming in from his home in Tucson, John reflects on the stories, people, and moments that shaped the book, and why food has always been central to identity and community. The conversation touches on everything from making writing personal, to quiche, to what it means to write for queer and non-queer audiences simultaneously. Huge thanks to Andrew Talks to Chefs' presenting sponsor, meez, the recipe operating software for culinary professionals. Meez powers the Andrew Talks to Chefs podcast as part of the meez  Network, featuring a breadth of food and beverage podcasts and newsletters. THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW:Andrew is a writer by trade. If you'd like to support him, there's no better way than by purchasing his most recent book, The Dish: The Lives and Labor Behind One Plate of Food (October 2023), about all the key people (in the restaurant, on farms, in delivery trucks, etc.) whose stories and work come together in a single restaurant dish.We'd love if you followed us on Instagram. Please also follow Andrew's real-time journal of the travel, research, writing, and production of/for his next book The Opening (working title), which will track four restaurants in different parts of the U.S. from inception to launch.For Andrew's writing, dining, and personal adventures, follow along at his personal feed.Thank you for listening—please don't hesitate to reach out with any feedback and/or suggestions!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.politix.fmThe Trump administration suddenly wants you to stop asking questions about Jeffrey Epstein. Case closed. Nothing to see here. That client list we promised to release? It doesn't exist. In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:* What is the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory, and why has it persisted so long?* Why are Epstein's old, wide-ranging associations distinct from all the other rich guys who hobnob with politicians and powerbrokers?* How should Democrats react to Trump administration efforts to sweep this under the rug, after dangling it so conspicuously.Then, behind the paywall, Zohran Mamdani and the shortcomings of institutional diversity efforts: the perspective of two white, Jewish, latinos who've grappled with a few box-checking exercises themselves. What's wrong with the assumption that Mamdani must have been trying to game the affirmative-action system? Zooming out, are institutions that request demographic data (universities, employers) doing so for the right reasons? Is there a better way to recruit, or to take account of applicants who've had a rough go in a country with plenty of racial discrimination, than asking them to approximate their ethnic identities?All that, plus the full Politix archive are available to paid subscribers—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.Further reading:* From Brian's archives: Call MAGA's Jeffrey Epstein bluff. * Matt: Yes DOGE failed, and it matters.* Nothing fishy about this!

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

In this explosive episode of Beyond the Paradigm, we sit down with filmmaker Mike OTT, director of McVeigh, to dig deep into the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing — a pivotal moment in American history. Was Timothy McVeigh truly a lone wolf, or does the official story leave too many questions unanswered?We explore the film's bold take on McVeigh's motives, the shadowy figure known as “John Doe #2,” and the controversial theory that federal agencies may have had prior knowledge of the attack. We also touch on alleged links to the Clinton administration, the murky world of informants and provocateurs, and how crisis actor theories continue to shape public distrust in the media.Zooming out, we question how culture itself shapes our worldview — and how government narratives, media portrayals, and national trauma rewire our collective sense of reality. This episode challenges listeners to ask: What do we believe, and who taught us to believe it?Links⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠email:beyondtheparadigm@yahoo.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Beyond the Paradigm - YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠instagram.com/paradigm1979⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠twitter.com/paradigm_79⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠(1) Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support The Show⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/BeyondTheParadigm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠buymeacoffee.com/beyondthep5⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Guest LinksWatch McVeigh | Prime Video

Grab our free podcast script → https://mailchi.mp/podcastprinciples.com/scriptFor most people, podcasting boils down to one thing:Costs.And not just money – but also time and effort – two inputs that can wear you down if you don't have a proper system (and proper help) to produce your podcast.I'm joined by my occasional co-host and the General Manager of Podcast Principles – Jack Gallagher.We discuss the amount of time it takes not only to make episodes week-in and week-out, but also how long you'll need to strategize and gather together the necessary resources you'll need to make your project a success.We also zoom in on some tools to helps defray these costs, our content system and a little bit of good news: how your podcast can help you get money and time back.__________________________________________________

That question echoes straight out of Philippians 1:18, where Paul writes, “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.” In context, Paul was imprisoned, and some people were preaching Christ with selfish motives—maybe even to stir up trouble for him. But Paul's response is striking: what matters most is that the message of Christ is going out, regardless of the messenger's intent. That's a powerful lens for life—focusing not on ego, reputation, or control, but on purpose and impact. Zooming out, the Bible often reframes “what matters” in terms of eternity. In 2 Corinthians 4:18, Paul reminds us to fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, because “what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” And in Micah 6:8, the prophet boils it down to this: “What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” So when you ask, “What does it matter?”—the biblical answer is: it matters if it reflects Christ, if it builds others up, and if it echoes eternity.  Your struggle may be to help someone else. Don't take it as "Woe is Me."  God is in it.  Give Him glory.   Thank you for checking it out.  Have a good week.   Shalom baby.   Kenn    If this is your first listen, welcome.  Faith Journey is a powerful ministry of encouragement led by Rev. Kenn Blanchard. Originally known as the Speak Life Podcast, it was rebranded to create a more concise and impactful experience for listeners. Rev. Blanchard, a seasoned podcaster since 2007, has used this platform to uplift and support hundreds facing crises. Though listener-supported, financial contributions are rarely requested—its true purpose lies in serving others. The podcast has helped those struggling with thoughts of suicide, saved marriages, and touched lives beyond the digital space, ministering to outdoor enthusiasts, bikers, and law enforcement personnel. Faith Journey stands online as a church without walls, bringing biblical hope, and wisdom wherever it's needed most.    

In this episode, "NTI" 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 1, "The secret to awakening is to awaken to You. It is to accept the blaze within as you.", and "Thought of Awakening" 141 & 163 were contemplated.

They are the most iconic shark species of all time, known for their strength, hunting prowess, and long-distance travel. But there is a lot more to great white sharks than their reputation. They are not the mindless killers that the movies would have you believe – in fact, they are a highly curious and elusive species who continue to surprise us. And someone who knows white sharks inside out is Dr Alison Kock, a marine biologist who has spent the last 20 years studying their behaviour and ecology. In this episode, Dr Kock shares everything she knows about the world's largest predatory fish, including a scientific finding that's hot off the press... Time stamps 06.08 - 16.00: Alison's career and passion for sharks 16.00 - 30.00: Great white shark physiology, ecology, and behaviour 31.50 - 40.00: Zooming in on False Bay and Alison's research 41.30 - 54.00: Relationships between humans and white sharks 54.19 - 60.00: Orca predation on white sharks 60.01: New scientific findings on white sharks You can follow Alison on Instagram (@alison_kock) or find out more about her work and research via these links:  https://saveourseas.com/project-leader/alison-kock/ https://www.sanparks.org/conservation/scientific-services/nodes/cape-research-centre/meet-the-team https://sharkspotters.org.za/ You can find out more about the Save Our Seas Foundation by heading to www.saveourseas.com, or by finding us on socials:  Instagram: @saveourseasfoundation Bluesky: @saveourseas.bsky.social X/Twitter: @SaveOurSeas Facebook: Save Our Seas Foundation

This week on group chat, we have Erika Kemp, Lindsey Hein, Stef Flippin, and Peter Bromka.Episode Rundown:Some love for Ali FellerErika's mini 10k race and World Championship team selectionWe Out Here Trail FestThe Zooming DemonsNCAA athletes now being paid and what that may mean for track and fieldCatching up on the Diamond League performancesJane Hedengren's recent results and a chat about high school phenoms

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3622: Kathy Robinson explores how intentionally "zooming in" and "zooming out" can serve as powerful tools to shift your perspective, reduce stress, and reconnect with what matters most. By tapping into awe, from the vastness of the universe to the quantum world of atoms, you gain clarity, emotional resilience, and a practical approach to wellness grounded in awareness and presence. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://athenawellness.com/blog/2021/7/1/shifting-perspective-as-a-wellness-strategy Quotes to ponder: "From the Milky Way to a grain of sand, there's so much awe, so much we don't know." "Zooming out is a great technique when you're mired in the details of your daily routine." "Zooming in gives you more clarity on a practical next step." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3622: Kathy Robinson explores how intentionally "zooming in" and "zooming out" can serve as powerful tools to shift your perspective, reduce stress, and reconnect with what matters most. By tapping into awe, from the vastness of the universe to the quantum world of atoms, you gain clarity, emotional resilience, and a practical approach to wellness grounded in awareness and presence. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://athenawellness.com/blog/2021/7/1/shifting-perspective-as-a-wellness-strategy Quotes to ponder: "From the Milky Way to a grain of sand, there's so much awe, so much we don't know." "Zooming out is a great technique when you're mired in the details of your daily routine." "Zooming in gives you more clarity on a practical next step." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover all of the podcasts in our network, search for specific episodes, get the Optimal Living Daily workbook, and learn more at: OLDPodcast.com. Episode 3622: Kathy Robinson explores how intentionally "zooming in" and "zooming out" can serve as powerful tools to shift your perspective, reduce stress, and reconnect with what matters most. By tapping into awe, from the vastness of the universe to the quantum world of atoms, you gain clarity, emotional resilience, and a practical approach to wellness grounded in awareness and presence. Read along with the original article(s) here: https://athenawellness.com/blog/2021/7/1/shifting-perspective-as-a-wellness-strategy Quotes to ponder: "From the Milky Way to a grain of sand, there's so much awe, so much we don't know." "Zooming out is a great technique when you're mired in the details of your daily routine." "Zooming in gives you more clarity on a practical next step." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ben Watson pops by Morning Movers with a look at Salesforce (CRM) ahead of earnings. On the 5-day chart, he sees support around $270 and a resistance range around $281-$288. Zooming out to a 1-year timeframe, Ben points out a sideways overall trend with its RSI echoing a building bullishness.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

“This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC's People of the Pod, presented by AJC's Women's Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they've navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– AJC Global Forum 2025 News and Video AJC Global Forum 2026 returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the PodFollow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies.  With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey.  To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira.  Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod.  I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs?  Casey Kustin: What's the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick:   That was the first time at my level. Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick:   Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time.  So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl:   Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes.  When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe.  But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises.  But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl:   So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner.  My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me.  And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that.  Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment.  So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense.  Dana Strohl:   I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party.  So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation.  But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes.  I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin:   It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right.  And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira's great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting.  And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik:   My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel?  And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin:   You're absolutely right. There are so many similarities in what we do at AJC and what we did in the government. And the core of that is really those relationships that you build with partners and interlocutors in other countries and other governments, and the foundation, over decades that AJC has laid. Particularly in the Middle East, thanks to 30 years of quiet travel to the region.  It struck me when I first came here, the access that AJC has is nearly the same that we had traveling as members of Congress. And the meetings and the quality and the level of meetings that AJC is afforded in these other countries.  Our missions, which many of you have been on, often feel like congressional delegation trips to me, and the conversations and the candor with which partners speak to AJC is almost the same that was afforded to members of Congress. And that has been comforting, in a way, as you said Manya, Because there feels like there's continuity in the work that we're doing, and it has made me realize that organizations, non-governmental organizations, advocacy organizations, play such a crucial role in supporting the work of a government, of your country's government. And in reinforcing the values and the interests that we as AJC want to communicate that very much dovetail, with hopefully any US administration.  I think that the role that an organization like ours, like AJC, can play in a particular moment, like we're in, where, as we've discussed, there's hyperpartisanship, and we hear a lot, Dana mentioned this. We hear a lot from foreign partners that the way our democracy works with a change in administration every four years is unsettling to some of them, because they don't know if a particular policy or agreement is going to continue the role that we can play, providing some of that continuity and providing a nonpartisan and thoughtful place to have conversations. Because they know that we have that kind of nuanced and thoughtful and nonpartisan insight. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I really appreciate your insights on the roles that you've played, and I think the audience has as well. But I want to pivot back to your role as women. Dana, I mentioned that you were often the only woman at the table. Would you discover that when you arrived at meetings and events? Dana Strohl:   In Washington, DC, and in particular, I'm very proud to have served in the Biden administration, where there were always women at the table. And I will also say that there was a network of women, and it was the same on the Hill. On the hill, there was actually a box of maternity clothes that was kept in then-Senate Leader Harry Reid's office.  And his National Security Advisor called me when she heard I was pregnant the first time, which was during the 2015 JCPOA negotiations on the Hill, which meant that I was super tired and doing all of those congressional hearings and briefings, but there was a network of women who were supporting each other and giving me clothes as I got bigger and bigger. And it continued into the Pentagon and the State Department, where there were always women and when we saw each other at the White House Situation Room or in the different meetings, there was always the quiet pull aside. How are you doing? How are your kids? Are you managing? What's the trade off on your day to day basis? Can I do anything to help you?  And in particular, after October 7, that network of people really kicked into high gear, and we were all checking in with each other. Because it was the most intense, most devastating time to work in the government and try to both support Israel and prevent World War III from breaking out across the Middle East. So that was DC. In the Middle East, I largely assumed that I was going to be the only woman at the table, and so I decided to just own it. There are some great pictures of me always in a pink jacket, but the point you know, was that I expected it, and there were always women, again, against the back walls. I made an effort whenever possible to make sure everyone at the table, regardless of your gender, had an opportunity to speak and participate, but I was also not just the only woman.  A lot of times, I was the co-chair with whatever partner it was in the Middle East, so I had a speaking role, and I felt was incumbent upon me to present a model of leadership and inclusivity in how we engage with our partners, spoke to our partners, listened to our partners concerns, and that that was part of the job. And only once, I remember it very clearly. We were at a dinner after a big meeting, and somebody looks at me, it's a meeting with all, y7all men, all men for a dinner. And they said, Is this what it's like for you all the time? And I said, Yes, it is. And you know, it took two and a half years for somebody to notice, so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, what have you experienced? And have you ever worried as a woman that you weren't being taken seriously? Mira Resnick:   I think that every woman in one of these jobs has imposter syndrome every so often, and walking into the room and owning it, fake it till you make it right. That's the solution. I will. I agree with Dana wholeheartedly that in Washington, I was really proud to walk into the room and never fear that I was the only woman. And I even remember traveling where another delegation was all women, and our delegation was all women, and how surprising that was, and then how disappointing, how surprising that was, but to take notice of the moment, because they don't happen very often.  I think that in Washington and throughout diplomacy, the goal is to pay it forward to other women. And I wasn't the last person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory, and I wasn't the first person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory. But that is, that was, like, my moment where I was like, Oh, this is a strange place to be a woman, right?  But I do find that women really bring holistic views into our policy making, and whether it's meeting with civil society, even if your job is strictly security cooperation to understand the human impacts of your security decisions, or making sure that you are nurturing your people, that you are a good leader of people.  I remember post-October 7, I was looking for some way that I could nurture in the personal life. And I see Nadine Binstock here, who goes to my shul, and Stephanie also. Stephanie Guiloff is also in the audience. She's my neighbor, and also goes to my shul. And after October 7, I took on the Kiddush Committee Coordinator at my shul. So that every week, no matter what I was experiencing at the office and no matter where I was in the world, our community would be a little bit more nurtured. And it was a way for me to like to give back to the community, and at the same time be able to continue to do the hard power work of security cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Mira, Casey, Dana, thank you so much for joining us, sharing your modern-day Miriam experiences. I want to open it up for questions from the audience. Just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. Audience Member: Hi, I'm Maddie Ingle. I'm a Leaders for Tomorrow alum. What is some advice that any of you have for young women like me in the advocacy space and in general. Casey Kustin:   First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to Global Forum and for joining LFT. You've already taken the first step to better arming yourself as an advocate. I think there is, I wish someone had said to me, probably before I met the two of them who did say it to me, that it was okay to take up space around the table. I remember sitting in secure facilities, getting classified briefings from ambassadors, male ambassadors who were 30 years my senior, and watching the two of you in particular i. Not be scared to challenge the back and forth when I as a probably still, you know, mid 20s, early 30s, did have fear of speaking up.  And I wish someone, when I was your age as a teenager, had, and obviously, I had supportive parents who told me I could do anything, but it's different. It's different than seeing it modeled by people who are in the same space as you, and who are maybe even just a couple years older than you. So I would just say to you not to ever be afraid to use your voice. This is a memory that has stuck with me for 15 years. I was in a meeting, sitting next to my congressman boss, with two men who were probably in their 60s, and a vote was called. And you never know on the Hill when a vote is going to be called. So it interrupts a meeting. And he had to go vote, and he said, Casey will finish the meeting with you. And they looked at him and said, Does she know what we're talking about?  Dana Strohl: We have all been there, Casey. Casey Kustin: We have all been there. So even if you're met with a response like that when you try to use your voice, don't let it deter you. Audience Member: Hi, guys. I'm Jenny. This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you guys. My mom is the first female, woman brakeman conductor on Amtrak. So you guys are just so empowering. As a long time Democrat, you guys talked about bipartisan issues. With how the Democratic Party is. I know you guys probably can't go fully into this. Do you have any inspiring words to give us hope when it feels very scary right now, as a Democrat, how divided our party is. Casey Kustin: I work for a nonpartisan organization now, so I'll let them handle that one. Dana Strohl:   I, so were we all on the Hill during the first Trump administration? And there was still bipartisanship. And what I'm looking for right now is the green shoots of our democracy. And I see them. There is thinking through what does it mean to be in this country, to be an American, to live in a democracy? What does democracy do? I think, first of all, it is healthy and okay for Americans to go through times of challenge and questioning. Is this working for us? And you know, the relationship between the government, whether it's legislative, judicial, executive and the people, and it's okay to challenge and question, and I think it's okay for there to be healthy debates inside both the Republican and the Democratic Party about what what this stands for, and what is in the best interest of our country.  And you can see both in polling data and in certain areas where there actually are members of Congress coming together on certain issues, like economic policy, what's in the best interest of our constituents and voters. That there is thinking through what is the right balance between the different branches of our government.  I was talking to somebody the other day who was reminding me this actual, you know, we are, we are in a time of significant transition and debate in our society about the future of our country and the future role of the government and the relationship. But it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. And I found to be that part of my job was to make sure I understood the diversity of voices and views about what the role of the government should be, general views about American foreign policy, which was our job, was just such a humble reminder of democracy and the importance of this back and forth. Audience Member:  [My name is Allie.] My question for you is, what are your hopes and dreams for generation alpha, who will be able to vote in the next election?  Casey Kustin:   I think we all have, all our kids are still in elementary, or Mira, your one is going into middle school now– Mira Resnik: To middle school. Casey Kustin:   So the vast majority of our children are still elementary school age. And for me, I have a very interesting experience of moving my family out of a very diverse community in Washington, DC to Jacksonville, Florida. And it's a very different environment than I thought that my children were going to grow up in, because at the time, we didn't anticipate leaving DC anytime soon, and it's made me realize that I want them to live in a world where no matter what community They are growing up in, they are experiencing a world that gives them different perspectives on life, and I think it's very easy now that I have gone from a city environment to suburbia to live in a bubble, and I just, I hope that every child in this next generation doesn't have to wait until they're adults to learn these kinds of really important lessons. Dana Strohl:   I have two additional things to add. I'm very concerned at what the polling suggests, the apathy of young people toward voting, the power of voting, why it matters. And participation, that you need to be an active citizen in your governments. And you can't just vote every four years in the presidential election, there's actually a ton of voting, including, like the county boards of education, you got to vote all the way up and down you continuously. And that it's okay to have respectful debate, discourse, disagreements in a democracy. So I would like this generation to learn how to have respectful discourse and debate, to believe that their votes matter and just vote. And three, on the YouTube thing, which is terrifying to me, so I'm hoping the educators help me with this is, how to teach our kids to separate the disinformation, the misinformation, and the fiction that they are getting because of YouTube and online. So mine are all elementary schoolers, and I have lost positive control of the information they absorb.  And now I'm trying to teach them well, you know, that's not real. And do I cut off certain things? How do I engage them? How do I use books and when? So they need to not just be active participants in their society, all up and down the ballot, multiple times every year, but they need to know how to inform themselves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Mira? Mira Resnick:   I do hope that our children, as they approach voting age, that they see the value in cooperation with each other, that they see the value of face to face conversation. I think that honestly, this is the value of Shabbat in my household. That you take a break from the screens and you have a face to face conversation. My children understand how to have conversations with adults now. Which is, I think, a critical life skill, and that they will use those life skills toward the betterment of their communities, and more broadly, our Jewish community, and more broadly than that, our global community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone.

This is episode 222 - Zooming out to peer at 1863, and a bit of Namaqualand Copper and Gunny Bags. We've just entered the period of 1863 to 1865. It's also time to take a quick tour of 1863 as is our usual way. While the Transvaal Civil War has ended, the American Civil War is still going gangbusters. In the last 12 months, momentous events have shaped world history. Abraham Lincoln signed the the Emancipation Proclamation in January of 1863 making the abolition of slavery in the Confederate States a War goal. A speculative mania followed in 1853/4, alarming the Government of the Cape. In the 1850s, a wave of speculative mining booms swept across the globe, driven by dramatic gold and mineral discoveries in places like California, Australia, and South Africa. These were fuelled by exaggerated rumours, newspaper hype, and dubious prospecting claims. Tens of thousands of hopefuls chased fortunes, often to remote or inhospitable regions, believing the next strike was just over the ridge. This era gave rise to a kind of "treasure hysteria", where wildcat ventures and fraudulent schemes—what some dubbed “red herrings”—diverted investors and prospectors alike. King Moshoeshoe the first of the Basotho had taken a great deal of interest in the Transvaal Civil War. The Orange Free State had been instrumental — and in particular — it's new president Johan Brandt, in ending the inter-Boer battles. He was also growing more concerned by the signs of increased mining activity which had been going on west of his territory. Ancient peoples who predated the Khoe in the northern Cape had taken advantage of these minerals, there is archaeological evidence they were using iron from the area dug from pits 6000 years Before Present, around 4000 BC. Remarkable really, the use of iron in Southern Africa predates European Iron Age use by 3800 years. There is an excellent short book published by John Smalberger in 1975 called A history of Copper Mining in Namaqualand published which I've used as one of the sources. A specialised company called Phillips and King began exporting the ore in 1852 — a small 11 tons loaded on board a steamer called the Bosphorus which sailed out of Hondeklip Bay. They built a 140 meter long wooden jetty to facilitate loading here. A speculative mania followed in 1853/4, alarming the Government of the Cape. In the 1850s, a wave of speculative mining booms swept across the globe, driven by dramatic gold and mineral discoveries in places like California, Australia, and South Africa. These were fuelled by exaggerated rumours, newspaper hype, and dubious prospecting claims. Tens of thousands of hopefuls chased fortunes, often to remote or inhospitable regions, believing the next strike was just over the ridge.

Sarah and Vinnie are Zooming through the week! Jeff Sperbeck, John Elway's agent, dies following a golf cart accident, and the Bill Belichick discussion continues. Sarah's got your weekend slate of new movies - including one with Florence Pugh! Could you pass a polygraph? Plus, Dick Van Dyke is almost 100-years old! Relationship rumors around Selena Gomez and Sydney Sweeney have us speculating. And Nepal just made climbing Mt. Everest even harder - but it's probably for the best.