Podcasts about zooming

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.__________________________________________________

Video is tricky. However, it looks so simple.  You just stand in front of the camera and give your talk.  I don't know why video saps twenty percent of our energy when it is actually broadcast, but that seems to be the accepted wisdom.  That means that just speaking normally into camera will now look a lot less energetic.  Getting the delivery to be fluent is also a challenge.  Either we do it free style or we use a teleprompter.  Both have their challenges.  What do we do with our hands?  This is an interesting one, because the camera lens seems to have some magic power to reduce our gesture self awareness to zero, until that is, when we see it played back in all its gory glory. I broadcast three TV shows on YouTube every week, so I am doing a lot of video work.  My first weekly TV show was kicked off nearly four years, so I have gained a few insights over that time.  I am not from the media world or have any background in television.  I am a typical businessman who got into this by accident and so it is all pretty much self taught through exposure, practice and repetition.  Yes, I have the advantage of being a High Impact Presentations instructor for Dale Carnegie, but presenting to a live audience and doing it on video is totally different.  Everyone has discovered this fact since we all moved home, to spend a lot of our time in Zoom meetings or their equivalent. I also teach people how to present to the camera and I have noticed a few things.  Invariably their energy is too low.  They are transferring their usual speaking volume to this medium and it doesn't work.  They appear lifeless and boring.  No problem, speak louder, right?  That is what I thought too, but I noticed a lot of people find that daunting.  For them speaking with 50% more energy feels like they are screaming.  Remember we are subtracting 20% immediately to counter the camera lens energy deficit, but on top of that they need to bring even more energy to the talk.  If I ask for 50% more energy, invariably I will get about a 10% increase.  This is why having an instructor or coach is handy, because you can't easily work this out by yourself. Gestures seem to be another area of mystery.  What do I do with my hands?  The most common choice is to do nothing with them.  This is a big missed opportunity to bring physical power to support your verbal message.  I have found there is a 15 second window to hold the same gesture.  More than that and it become weaker and weaker and more and more annoying.  The gestures need to be coordinated with what we are saying, so that they are congruent.  If what we are saying and the way we are saying it don't align properly, then our audience gets distracted.  Once upon a time, the distracted audience would be by focusing on our voice or our apparel.  Now it is on their phone.  For half body video composition, we need the gestures to be held between rib height and the head height, so that they can be easily seen.  For some curious reason, a lot of people hold their gestures at low waist level and apart from being difficult to see, this bit usually gets cut off in the editing process. What we are doing with our face also is important.  Having one facial expression may be very energy efficient, but it looks wooden on video.  Our face should be showing what we are talking about.  If results are good, then look happy.  If they are bad, then look concerned.  If you ask a rhetorical question, then look puzzled.  I think you get the idea.  One thing the camera doesn't like is when we drop our chin down, while we are talking.  It looks like we are talking down to our audience, we also look very constrained.  So we need to keep that chin up the whole time.   Try it for yourself and you will be amazed at the difference it makes, to how we come across to our audience. If we are just speaking off the top of our head, then we had better be pretty good or the video will be butchered in the editing process, as we have to stitch all those corrected mistakes together.  It becomes very jerky in the final version, which is super distracting from our message.  Zooming in and zooming out at these edits makes it appear less choppy, but you still don't want too many of these to have to contend with.  Teleprompters can fix this and a bit of adjusting for font size and speed is needed to find the right balance.  The secret here is to only look at the left side of the screen as the words roll up.  Otherwise, you will find yourself reading from left to right and on screen you will look like you are reading it.  This rather defeats the purpose doesn't it.  Have a look at my shows on YouTube and see if you can tell I am reading it off a teleprompter?  Remember, our peripheral eyesight is good enough to focus on the left side and still read the words which are on that same line off to the right. Video is a different game and we need to make this medium a winner for us.  Try these hints for yourself and your image and impact will be much improved.  

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.    

California's $45 Billion Meltdown: LAUSD on the Brink | The Morning Report with Willie LawsonIn today's explosive Morning Report, Willie Lawson exposes the fiscal time bomb ticking beneath California's shiny surface—and why the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) may be ground zero when it goes off. Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democrat supermajority in Sacramento have driven the state into a staggering $45 billion deficit, blowing through a historic surplus with reckless spending, pandemic windfalls, and permanent program expansions. From climate wish lists to free health care for illegal immigrants, they've governed like the money would never run out. But it has. Zooming in on LAUSD, the largest school district in the state—and the second-largest in the nation—Willie breaks down how district leaders “got drunk” on $5+ billion in COVID relief, used it to hire thousands of permanent staff, and are now scrambling to avoid layoffs by draining reserves and delaying cuts. The result? A nearly $3 billion deficit this year alone. Meanwhile, union demands grow louder, activist programs expand, and California's leaders remain silent as schools edge toward collapse. This isn't just about bad math—it's about bad priorities, broken leadership, and a refusal to face financial reality.

You can read the whole text here: https://dougapple.blogspot.com/ +++++++ I'm Doug Apple...and my heart is on fire. (Luke 24:32) I was training an intern in the art of digital audio editing. I said, “You're going to be doing a lot of zooming in and zooming out.” “Why?” she said. “Because you have to zoom in close to make tight cuts,” I said. “But then you have to zoom back out to listen to the edit and make sure it's right.” The same is true in graphic design, and video editing: a lot of zooming in and zooming out. I did the same as a photographer with my trusty old 35mm camera. I'd zoom all the way in on a subject to set the focus, then zoom back out to see the whole picture. Imagine Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel. He had to get up close to paint, but he had to move away to see the whole thing…which is not easy when you're painting a ceiling that is over 60 feet high! Speaking of 60 feet high, that's how big the presidential heads are that are carved into Mt. Rushmore. For him to zoom out, the sculptor Gutzon Borglum had to climb down the mountain! A lot of zooming in and zooming out…that was my advice for the intern, and that's my advice for all of us. In life we need to do a lot of zooming in and zooming out. The old saying is, "Don't spend your life climbing the ladder of success, only to find that it was leaning against the wrong wall.” We can get so zoomed in on each rung of the ladder that we never zoom out and see if it's up against the right wall. Another old saying is, “They can't see the forest for the trees.” That's because they are so focused on individual trees that they never step back to see the forest, or everything that's outside the forest. We read about a man like this in the Bible. In Luke 12 Jesus told The Parable of the Rich Fool. The man was so successful he had to build more and more storage units to contain it all. The rich man said to himself in Luke 12:19, “You have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” He was very zoomed in on his current success and comfort. But then God lowered the boom on him in verse 20. God said, “Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be?” If only the man would have taken some time to zoom out and see the bigger picture, including eternity and God. In Luke 18 we read about the rich young ruler. Jesus told him to sell his possessions, give the money to the poor, and to follow Him. The man was so zoomed in on his riches, that's all he could see. He needed to zoom out and see the bigger picture, that he was talking to the King of Kings. And the King of Kings is talking to us today. Are we too zoomed in on our present life, our present rung on the ladder, our one little tree in the forest? Psalm 90:12 says, “Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom.” Second Corinthians 4:18 tells us “…the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” In Luke 10, Martha was very zoomed in on what seemed so important that day, all the preparations. But her sister Mary had zoomed out to see the big picture, and that was Jesus Himself, the Lord of All, right there in their house. How can we avoid these mistakes? Yes, we zoom in to take care of details, but then we have to zoom out again to make sure we are on the right track. Because in life, as in digital editing, we need to do a lot zooming in and zooming out. May God bless you today. I'm Doug Apple.

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

Episode Guest:Claire Darley is the Vice President of Go to Market and Sales EMEA at Adobe, where she leads strategic initiatives across the region with a focus on transformation and customer-centric growth.Episode Timestamps:0:00 Introduction – Meet Claire Darley, VP at Adobe1:24 Humble beginnings – Hairdressing in Scunthorpe3:40 Moving to London & landing an IBM internship6:05 “It starts with a yes” – Overcoming fear & embracing change8:30 Acting before you're ready – Career risks & regrets11:00 Feedback fear – Why we resist it & how to overcome14:15 Being super coachable – Asking for feedback with intent17:05 How to reject feedback professionally19:40 The ‘salesman's pause' & power of silence21:20 What makes a great salesperson – Curiosity & listening24:15 Questions over answers – Lessons in leadership27:10 Preparing for business reviews – Zooming out with insight29:45 Starting at Adobe – 16 interviews & instant culture fit32:05 Defining company culture – Kindness, clarity & consistency34:30 Becoming an internal activist – Leading change at Adobe36:55 Launching Adobe Express – Side hustle to scale-up39:10 AI for everyone – Accessibility, provenance & ethics41:30 Future of creativity – Levelling the playing field43:00 Staying energised – Disruption, excitement & impact45:10 Claire's invisible success – Driving change & creating followship47:15 What gets Claire out of bed – Her kids, West Ham & purpose49:05 Closing reflections – Ruthless kindness & career mindsetEpisode Partners✈️ easyJetExplore exciting career opportunities at easyJet, one of Europe's leading airlines. Whether you're passionate about aviation, customer service, engineering, or corporate roles, easyJet offers a dynamic work environment focused on innovation and growth.https://bit.ly/3yCRlNS

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

Zooming in from the Great White North is outlaw country/ contemporary hard rocker Cory Marks who introduces us to his beautiful 9 yr old Karelian Bear dog Teslin who he rescued as a puppy from the dangers of the Yukon where he was playing a show. We get to know more about this unique Finnish breed, his childhood dog Emma and how well Teslin behaves while hanging out in tour buses and green rooms among many other fun stories.Cory will be bringing his brand of Haggard-like country meets straight-up arena rock anthems to a number of festivals this summer in Canada. For dates and tickets visit corymarks.comCory's shout outs go to his local Pet Smart in North Bay Ontario whose grooming services keep Teslin looking her best and the North Bay and District Humane Society who, since 1954, have been a key service provider for animal welfare within the community.  To adopt, foster, volunteer or donate go to northbayhumanesociety.caFor more pics and clips of Cory and Teslin check out our Instagram at @rockerdogpodcast

Smart Money Moves for Therapists in a Shaky EconomyFeeling nervous about the economy? You're not alone—and you're not powerless. In this episode, Julie Herres welcomes financial planner David Frank back to the show for a calming and practical conversation about what therapists can do when things feel financially unstable.You'll learn why panic doesn't serve your practice—and what to do instead. Whether you're watching the market dip, worried about Medicare or Medicaid cuts, or just feeling the pressure of team payroll, this episode is packed with tools and reassurance.Why listen:Understand what market volatility really means.Learn how to protect your business from revenue concentration risks.Get proactive steps to ease anxiety and make grounded decisions.Show Highlights:01:45 – Why anxiety is rising and what's really happening in the market03:00 – Zooming out: what history tells us about bear markets and recovery05:00 – Julie's “set it and forget it” investing strategy08:00 – Dollar-cost averaging explained—and why it works09:30 – How to think like a CEO if you rely on Medicaid/Medicare10:40 – Revenue concentration risk: what it is, and why it matters11:30 – Using “fear-setting” to prepare without panicking14:00 – The value of securing a line of credit before you need it20:00 – The difference between tracking for action vs. emotional reassurance22:00 – How missing a few big days in the market can hurt long-term returns23:00 – Julie's closing reminderClosing Thought: “If you're feeling unsure, that's okay. You don't have to hustle harder, but you can plan smarter. You've got this—and I'm cheering you on.”Links and ResourcesTurning Point HQ – David Frank's Financial Planning Services https://turningpointhq.com/Money for Therapists Practice Startup - https://www.greenoakaccounting.com/startupGreenOak Accounting - www.GreenOakAccounting.comTherapy For Your Money Podcast - www.TherapyForYourMoney.comProfit First for Therapists - www.ProfitFirstForTherapists.comProfit First Academy - www.ProfitFirstForTherapists.com/Academy Podcast Production and Show Notes by Course Creation StudioGet our free KPI tracker to see how you practice measures up to others in the industry! www.therapyforyourmoney.com/kpi

I discuss my interaction with a younger Trader and how we are working on zooming out and maintaining proper perspective when developing new trading strategies and when reviewing trade results.

“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.

Kevin Hincks reports from @cboeglobalmarkets as April's CPI print shows muted inflation data. One aspect of the report that stood out to Kevin: Energy prices up 0.7% month-over-month, with gasoline only down 1 tenth of a percent. Zooming out to the year-over-year picture, energy prices fell 3.7% with gasoline down 11.8% over the past 12-months.======== 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 week's episode, I'm joined by my right-hand man and the general manager of Podcast Principles, Jack Gallagher!Jack sits down with me to discuss some major areas in podcasting, from A.I.'s place in production and content creation – to calibrating the expectations of “success” in podcasting and why you shouldn't sweat the numbers for *at least* 6 to 12 months.We also zoom in on some of the benefits we've seen from both minimal and maximal outsourcing, what managing and running a podcast looks like and weigh in on what is “cheap” or “expensive” in the podcasting world.And for all my fellow ADD brothers and sisters, or even busy professionals rolling your eyes at the runtime, don't forget to use the timestamps to skip to the conversation topic that is most interesting and relevant to you!

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.

Uber Technologies (UBER) shares are under pressure following a mixed earnings report. On the technical front, Rachel Dashiell looks at prior highs near $87 from October 2024 as a level of upward resistance the stock is currently retreating from. Zooming out to a maximum length, weekly timeframe, Rachel says the rideshare company's been making "higher highs and lower lows," while trading between its 2024 range of $87 to the upside and $55 to the downside. ======== 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

https://pfgwm.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/Investing-Simplified-05.04.25.mp3 Navigating the world of finance can be overwhelming, especially when biased advice and outdated strategies cloud the path to financial success. That's why Price Financial Group Wealth Management created Investing Simplified — a podcast dedicated to demystifying the complexities of finance and investing. Join our experienced hosts and guest experts as they break down financial concepts into practical, actionable insights. Whether you're a seasoned investor or just getting started, Investing Simplified is your go-to resource for honest advice and proven strategies to help you build a confident financial future. Meet the Hosts: Matt Mai - CIO & Wealth Manager Matt Sudol - COO & Wealth Manager Bo Caldwell - CCO & Wealth Manager Tune in and take charge of your financial journey with clarity and confidence! Schedule A Complimentary Consultation

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.

In this episode of The First Day from The Fund Raising School, host Bill Stanczykiewicz, Ed.D., welcomes back the legendary Kay Sprinkle Grace to tackle a critical topic: staying resilient in fundraising during turbulent times. Kay emphasizes that the nonprofit sector becomes even more essential when the world feels shaky. She reminds fundraisers that their steadiness provides the strength communities crave, and that their role is to radiate hope, not hoard anxiety. Rather than surrendering to fear, she calls on leaders to embody "radical amazement," seeing each day and each impact as a phenomenal gift. Kay highlights a key shift: nonprofits shouldn't just "diversify" during hard times, they need to solidify. By collaborating with like-minded organizations and reinforcing their core missions, nonprofits can weather the storm stronger together. She shares the powerful story of New Orleans' AIDS organizations banding together after Hurricane Katrina, a vivid example of unity and resilience. Fundraisers, she says, must anchor their work not in scarcity, pleading for help because things are bad, but in abundance, celebrating and showcasing the transformative impact they already have. In tough times, abundance is the secret sauce that keeps the spirit, and donations, flowing. Zooming in on individual fundraisers, Kay throws down some real-world advice: don't be a lone wolf marooned at your desk. Seek community, lean on coaching, and don't be shy about asking for help. Self-care isn't a luxury; it's survival. She warns that harboring anger corrodes resilience and stresses that fundraisers must live the very values they champion. And if your organization becomes a hot mess of broken values and endless negativity? Be brave enough to fix it, or walk away with your spirit intact. Wrapping up, Kay and Bill shine a light on the enduring power of nonprofits through decades of crises, from the civil rights movement to economic downturns to global disasters. In the end, resilience is about renewal: the beautiful dance between stability and change, anchored by purpose and sprinkled with radical joy. Nonprofits are here not just to exist, but to solve problems, and by standing together, focusing on mission, and celebrating the good, fundraisers can be the steady, luminous force their communities need most.

Make informed decisions about your retirement plans, even in a bear market. Learn whether to cancel your vacation plans due to stock market concerns and discover how to manage your investments effectively. Explore strategies like layering for early retirement and understand the implications of drawing down your TSP defined contribution plan. Examine rebalancing your taxable brokerage account, including ETFs and mutual funds, and learn the rules for rebalancing your Roth IRA. Fine-tune your Roth IRA allocation for long-term growth, considering factors like pension plans and risk tolerance. Understand investment benchmarks and how to accurately assess your portfolio's performance. Zooming out to view a longer time horizon typically provides more perspective than comparing everything to your own market high watermark. Compare maximizing your Social Security savings for short-term growth and with the benefits of optimizing based on your specific needs and stress points. Evaluate the role of home equity in your retirement planning and its impact on withdrawal strategies. Does equity count? The answer may be both yes and no. Strategize about moving funds from a 457B to a Roth IRA as you approach retirement, and carefully consider the tax implications. It's usually about taxes today vs. taxes tomorrow. Tune in to the Retire Sooner podcast with Wes Moss and Christa DiBiase for essential insights on these and other crucial retirement topics and send us your questions at https://www.yourwealth.com/contact/schedule-appointment/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Shares of Celsius (CELH) have slipped lower over the past year. But, Rachel Dashiell looks at a possible change in the downtrend pointing to a basing pattern in early 2025. Zooming out to a 4-year chart, she looks at Fibonacci studies to examine the stock's retracement. Rachel says long-term investors are keyed in on the $37-$38 level before possibly retesting $45 to break the downtrend.======== 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

Focus is a superpower every recruiter needs, especially in a harsh market with tough competition. How do you keep yourself organized and focused despite multiple expectations that you have to deliver to your clients, candidates, and if you are a business owner, to your team?Jenny shares the Jenny Diaz Day Plan and how it helps her stay organized and focused every day. She also shares how basic daily tasks help her business navigate this tough market while navigating growth and expansion.Jenny Diaz entered recruiting in 2015. In late 2021, she, Ryan, and another former colleague, James, founded Apex Recruitment Group, a firm that specializes in construction management recruitment throughout DC, Virginia, and the Carolinas. While Jenny has worked in various industries, she has focused on construction management for the last several years. Through her recruitment career, Jenny has had the opportunity to participate in relevant non-profits that make the tough days in recruitment easier. She is currently the Vice President of one such organization, Career Confidence.Episode Outline and Highlights[03:31] How Jenny got into recruiting from studying Hebrew, traveling, car washing, and working on a dude ranch.[12:29] Discussion on “Jenny Diaz Day Plan.”[17:25] Launching Apex Recruitment Group and overcoming initial hurdles.[23:19] The added value of meeting people in person.[27:39] What is it like being married to your business partner?[30:09] Keys to getting her first million.[33:10] Going through challenges and things they would have done differently.[43:34] Jenny shares their growth plans.[48:03] Zooming in on Apex's business culture.[54:37] Business development and client acquisition in a tough market.Jenny's Day Planning ProcessFocus is the super power that recruiters need for sure. Successful business owners and recruiters have a daily hack on how to organize their to do's and make the most of their days. Jenny is no different, and she gladly shared the “Jenny Diaz Day Plan.” “So I have this Microsoft Word doc… I print it out, I take a pencil because the day will change, and I write down whatever's on my Microsoft calendar. I have a list of follow-ups that I'm people I'm going to follow up with. That's usually like five to 30 people depending. I have my three main goals, I have my two jobs. I'm going to work that day if I get it. I have things I'm grateful for, that I've learned.”To summarize her methodology, here are the takeaways:Jenny meticulously plans each day using a printed Microsoft Word document with hourly blocksShe writes her plan in pencil to allow for adjustments throughout the dayHer day plan includes follow-ups, main goals, jobs to work, things she's grateful for, and long-term goalsWriting plans physically rather than digitally creates a stronger commitmentThe planning process helps combat distractions and provides focusJenny maintains this day-planning routine for approximately 90% of her workdaysDo you have a similar approach to being focused and organized?Going Through Setbacks and Valuable Lessons LearnedLike all business owners, Jenny and his team have had a few setbacks that can be considered teachable moments. 2023 was a challenging year for them as they expanded too quickly into new geographies while the market was getting softer. They also hired four additional people, which created financial pressure and eventually forced them to scale back after the overexpansion.Jenny shared critical learnings and adjustments they had to take to avoid reoccurrence. They learned the importance of tracking KPIs over different time periods (weekly, monthly, quarterly).“So one thing I have done this year, just with the team member I'm working with, and he probably hates it, but I'm telling him, listen, every week you're going to fill out this form and you know it's more than just KPIs.”They also used color-coding systems to track performance patterns.“This is what we're doing. Are they green, yellow, or red? I actually have them. I have them, Mark, green, yellow, or red? And you know, if last week was all red, but you're trailing six months are green. Like, let's get back at it if it's all red for six months. Well, this is a story, right?”Lastly, Jenny appreciates how partnership was crucial during tough times as partners talked each other ‘off the ledge'.“But I think the partnership was really helpful in that because we could look around and say, no, get back. Like, come back. Like, we've all been there. You're gonna get over it. You're gonna have a great month soon. I don't know when it is, but like just get back at it.”Business Development and Client Acquisition Tactics in a Tough MarketI also enjoyed the part of our interview where Jenny emphasized the importance of getting back to the basics on business development in a tough market.“But it's, it's the basics. I think we are still big on cold calls. We do business development calls that are cold. We try to do a little bit. I try to do a little bit on LinkedIn or a lot, as much as I can.”Their business development tactics include:Cold calls - the team targets 50 meaningful connections per week.LinkedIn EngagementDatabase management.Jenny Diaz Bio and Contact InfoJenny has partnered with firms of all sizes to successfully recruit entry-level professionals to C-level executives. Since 2017, she has focused on engaging construction management talent in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. She stumbled into recruitment through seemingly unrelated experiences that began with working and studying in Russia and Israel and then ended on a dude ranch outside of Yellowstone. She has learned that the people you meet along the way are anything but chance encounters.Jenny on LinkedInApex Recruitment Group website linkPeople and Resources MentionedGuerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters 3.0 by David PerryConnect with Mark WhitbyGet your FREE 30-minute strategy callMark on LinkedIn, Mark on Twitter: @MarkWhitbyMark on FacebookMark on Instagram: @RecruitmentCoachSubscribe to The Resilient RecruiterIf you've been enjoying the podcast, please take two minutes to leave a review. Your review is greatly appreciated because it helps us attract a bigger audience and help more recruiters.

The guys all hung out in person and Chuk gave an amazing lead at the super secret society's flagship Sunday morning meeting in LA, Bob took a cake from all his old friends and a great time was had by all. Then they jumped on that night to discuss what a great job Chuk had done, medical recovery acronyms, Guns n Roses' first showcase (Bob didn't think they'd make it), the pros and cons of never learning to shoot yourself up, Mike Martt's fringe coat, Chuk and Elijah loved Netflix's Adolescence and Bob hates Zooming all day

Greetings!If you're feeling inundated, overwhelmed, amped-up and generally confounded by these swirling times - you're not alone! This week features some of the most extreme astrology of the year, a massive portal of change. I'll be sharing my Solar Eclipse transmission tomorrow, with all the astro-details about what's going on and how you can work with the powerful planetary energies. But in the meantime…Zooming out to the bigger picture of now - we're in a time of preparation. 2025 really gets going in May and June, on the other side of Mars, Venus and Mercury retrograde, and as Jupiter and Saturn form their third and final exact square.Jupiter-Saturn is a cycle of creation. Jupiter brings the inspiration, enthusiasm, big ideas and vision for the future, while Saturn is the planet of manifestation, strategy and structure - the practical work it takes to bring your dream into reality.Jupiter and Saturn started their square last summer, challenging you to define your vision, and expand beyond your blocks and fears to manifest your big dreams. As Jupiter and Saturn move toward their final square, exact in June, it's GO time! (Paid subscribers can access my webinar all about the square, Faith & Focus to Create Your Most Fulfilling Future).I'm thrilled to once again collaborate with Katie Todd, my good friend and energy worker extraordinaire, to offer a container and structure (Saturn) for your expansion (Jupiter) - Cosmic Container for Earthly Expansion. We're calling in 8 women who are ready to expand for a transformational 8-week journey, starting April 10th. We'll be exploring different issues related to expansion through the lens of the astrological planets. Katie will do group energy work to help you FEEL and co-create with the planetary energies in your body. Each participant will also receive a personal, two-on-one astrology + energy work session from both of us.You can find all the details here, and feel free to hit reply with any questions.love, Emily This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit embodiedaquarian.substack.com/subscribe

Lesley and Emily try to make sense of *that* Chicago Stars match, and Emily names her to 3 grievances with the Stars. They take a look around the league and find a silver lining for the Portland Thorns!Zooming out in the Wide World of Women's Sports: It's daytime basketball season! Emily picks her final four, and Lesley stumbles through the bracket for her picks.Plus! They award the sportsmanship of the week, and take a moment to rant about children playing pro sports.Follow Gal Pal Sports across social media @GalPalSports!

Text your questions, comments, & topic suggestions here! You can also email billy@mindfulmidlifecrisis.com.In this week's episode, I explore how shifting our perspective can turn life's challenges into something meaningful—even humorous in hindsight. Inspired by a conversation with a friend, a powerful quote from Charlie Chaplin, and the wisdom of Hollywood legend Henry Winkler, I reflect on how zooming out helps us see the bigger picture. Through personal stories and mindfulness insights, I discuss how gratitude changes how we view struggles, helping us navigate uncertainty, pivot from failure, and appreciate the moments that truly matter. Plus, I introduce Five Essential Questions to help you cultivate resilience and appreciation, even when things don't go as planned.Key Talking Points:The Power of Perspective: Why life feels like a tragedy up close but a comedy when we zoom out.Henry Winkler's Secret to Joy: How shifting from “being nice” to being grateful changes everything.Mindfulness as a Tool for Perspective: How small shifts in awareness help reframe life's challenges.Turning Hardships into Growth: The role of gratitude in overcoming setbacks and finding hidden lessons.All episodes are available at www.mindfulmidlifecrisis.com.Need a place to start? Check out our Fan Faves Page!Join the Mindful Midlife Community Newsletter! Thank you for listening to The Mindful Midlife Crisis!If this episode resonates with you, please share it with your family and friends.This Week's Sponsors:The B.E.L.L. Center: Expand your understanding of mindfulness and breathwork with their MindHacking Meditation Course.Kari Schwear: Explore what drives your habits, refocus what truly matters, and develop daily tools to start moving forward with Decide30.Genie Love: Schedule your FREE consultation to empower your neurodivergent strengths!Brian Gallagher: Download your Solo Business Blueprint and escape the 9-5 grind!This Week's Affiliates:Buzzsprout:  Launch your podcast today and get $20 worth of credit towards your account!Fiverr:  Get your next project done brilliantly by skilled professionals and earn 10% off your first purchase.Systeme.IO:  Simplify your online business.Riverside.fm:  Record your podcast in studio-quality audio and video.Follow us!Instagram:  @mindful_midlife_crisisFacebook: The Mindful Midlife Crisis PodcastLinkedIn: Billy LahrPlease leave us a 5-Star Review!Support the show

In this episode of Trial Lawyer Prep, host Elizabeth Larrick presents a structured approach to mastering trial preparation. She emphasizes starting with a comprehensive review of your case file, scrutinizing key documents like depositions and expert reports to identify core issues in liability and damages. This initial step involves crafting two crucial lists to streamline your strategy: one for liability and one for damages, ensuring you are aware of potential pitfalls and ready to advocate effectively in the courtroom. The second step is to evaluate your case through the lens of a juror, focusing on worst-case scenarios and simplifying complex issues into clear yes-or-no decisions. This perspective helps in assessing the risks and understanding what aspects need reinforcement. Finally, Elizabeth discusses strategies for fixing or neutralizing any identified weaknesses, whether by gathering additional evidence, reconsidering claims, or adjusting your trial strategy. By following these steps, trial lawyers can enhance their preparation, connect better with juries, and confidently navigate courtroom challenges. In this episode, you will hear: Importance of a comprehensive case file review Crafting liability and damages lists to identify potential issues Evaluating trial risks through a juror's worst-case scenario lens Techniques for fixing or neutralizing problematic issues Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select “Ratings and Reviews” and “Write a Review” then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Supporting Resources: Need that list of books to get your brain excited about trial prep? Go to Episode 134. Link to watch this episode on YouTube. Link to join Elizabeth's Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter: www.larricklawfirm.com/connect Episode Credits If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com Let them know I sent you.

How often do you declare to yourself, “I'm just someone who…” fill in the blank? Can't moderate your drinking? Has an addictive personality? Is broken and has no willpower?   It's easy to turn your frustrations with drinking into sweeping declarations about who you are. But what if these thoughts aren't as true as they feel, and there was an alternative explanation that had nothing to do with you as a person?   Listen in this week to learn how zooming in on one specific moment can reveal the real reason behind your temptations and cravings, and why understanding what's really driving your behavior in each moment is the key to changing your relationship with alcohol.   Find a personalized approach that helps you change your habit in my new book, The Ultimate Guide to Drinking Less, here: https://rachelhart.com/guide/   Discover alternative approaches to drinking less inside our membership program, Take a Break: https://rachelhart.com/tab/   Get the full show notes, transcript, and more information here: https://rachelhart.com/414

We are already in Barcelona this week, well not really but one can dream . Spannabis is still 3 weeks away and that means also the most exclusive underground Hash enthusiast showdown is also just around the corner. We will have Fahi Roldàn @fahi_shark Zooming in from Barcelona where she is preparing for the 6th Annual @theegoclash March 13th if your not familiar with EgoClash then I'm sure the organizer from @3rd_gen_familyfarm Brandon would say your probably not able to hang with the caliber of growers and hashmakers there anyway , but if you think you can and will be in Spain than make it a point to watch this episode and see why this event has become THE event to be at or fall victim to FOMO. We also have 2 great guests in studio First we have Ryan from @unclewiggys a local nutrient company that is run by former commercial growers. With the goal of simplifying the program and getting the plants to fully express themselves. Their 710 line combines salts and bio stimulants for a hybrid solution that works in all commercial settings ,they also work directly with growers cutting out the middleman and saving both $ and giving you the peace of mind knowing that you are part of the “Uncle Wiggys” family. Speaking of Familia we have our friend of the show @weedshouldtastegood, @fermentedplantextracts Miles live in the studio (weather permitting) yes miles needs to make it over the pass but fingers crossed as it's always a good time when we get to hang and it will be great to see him and Ryan fall down the organic rabbit hole. So get that @dabx GO rig charged your @jerome_baker bong Clean with some ice

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/jpmorgan-ceo-dimon-derides-in-office-work-pushback-demands-efficiency-2025-02-13/https://www.barrons.com/articles/jamie-dimon-leaked-audio-jpmorgan-return-to-office-7064ee64

Amid tariff drama, AI developments, and geopolitical uncertainty, supply chain leaders are being pulled in all directions – but tapping into C-suite priorities provides some much-needed clarity. On the latest episode of the podcast, the Zero100 team cut through the noise and pull out key lessons for leaders. Featuring: VPs Research Geraint John and Lauren Acoba and Head of Research Analytics Cody Stack.The making of our latest report, “The C-Suite Agenda: How Boardroom Priorities Are Reshaping Operations” (4:12)How C-suite leaders are responding to tariffs and geopolitical uncertainty (6:01)Resilience on offense and the case for lobbying (8:02)Why executives are getting serious about partner relationships (11:01)How supply chain leaders are wielding AI in the quest for cost savings (13:08)Zooming in on IKEA's AI-powered omnichannel fulfillment system in South Korea (14:20)AI agents: What they are and why they matter (15:36)Unpacking the C-suite's labor blind spot and the workforce of the future (17:33)How supply chain leaders will need to lead differently (21:37)

In this episode of The Mind of George Show, I sat down with my brother in Christ and entrepreneurial powerhouse, Steven Pemberton. From becoming a father at 20 while working at the post office to building and losing multiple businesses, Steven's journey is a masterclass in resilience, faith, and finding value beyond financial success. We dive into the highs and lows of entrepreneurship, how to shift from scarcity to abundance, and why the biggest breakthroughs come from focusing on the gains, not the gaps.Steven shares the hard truths about self-worth, how to keep moving forward when everything seems lost, and the mindset shifts that turned his struggles into massive wins. If you're navigating the rollercoaster of business or life, this episode is packed with wisdom, perspective shifts, and actionable steps to help you turn challenges into opportunities. Get ready for a raw, unfiltered conversation that will leave you inspired and ready to take on the world.The Entrepreneur's Guide to Thriving Through UncertaintyYour Worth is Not Defined by Your SuccessEntrepreneurship is a Rollercoaster, Not a Straight PathFocus on What Actually Moves the NeedleTake Imperfect Action and Sell Before You're ReadySurround Yourself with the Right PeopleWant to dive deeper into mindset shifts, entrepreneurship strategies, and life-changing insights? Follow George and Steven on Instagram, where they share exclusive content, behind-the-scenes moments, and valuable advice to help you thrive in business and beyond. Don't just listen—engage!–We weren't meant to do this alone… Whether it be business, relationships, or life. This is why this is an invitation for you…to join us inside the Relationships Beat Algorithms Alliance!!!Click here for a summary of the Alliance because if you're coming here into the show notes, there's a good chance you already know! ;)—We've made it easy to see George's top 10 book recommendations! Click here to find George's top 10 recommended books for mindset, customer journey, and relationships. —Questions or comments about the episode? I'd love to hear from you! Send me a DM over on Instagram @itsgeorgebryant or pop on over to our free Facebook community, Relationship Beat Algorithms. —Links not showing? Hop on over to our podcast blog, mindofgeorge.com/podcast for all the links from the show notes.—What do we talk about in this episode?[00:00:00] Introduction: Why this episode is one of the most value-packed yet[00:02:00] Steven's journey: From struggling entrepreneur to thriving business owner[00:06:00] The real definition of value and why so many entrepreneurs miss it[00:10:00] Imposter syndrome and how to overcome it with self-reflection[00:15:00] Lessons from a driving instructor: Zooming out for long-term success[00:20:00] Why your network determines your net worth and how to find the right people[00:25:00] The lowest point: Living in a basement and barely affording food[00:30:00] A mindset shift that changed everything—seeing failure differently[00:35:00] The unexpected decision to shut down a $100K/month business[00:40:00] Trusting the process even when the next step isn't clear[00:45:00] The importance of stretching beyond comfort to set a new standard[00:50:00] How to stay committed and keep moving forward through uncertainty

0:00 - Grooming scandal at Columbine HS in Littleton, CO 14:40 - Jamie Dimon's "leaked" audio ripping work-from-home, Zooming, committees... 30:31 - Attack in Munich 50:56 - Why Dan Proft is Single 01:05:07 - Publisher of the Hayride & senior editor at the American Spectator, Scott McKay, explains why this past week of DOGE activity has been "transcendent" for the Republican party and American politics. Scott’s also the author of Racism Revenge and Ruin and his most recent novel From Hellmarsh With Love 01:27:34 - Founder of the League of American Workers, Steve Cortes, on Biden’s Dismal Economic Handoff and the Trump tariff effect. For more from Steve stevecortes.substack.com 01:39:53 - Rebekah Koffler, former DIA intelligence officer and host of the “Trump’s Playbook” podcast, breaks down the issues facing Trump as he brokers a peace deal for Russia/Ukraine. Rebekah is also the best selling author of Putin’s Playbook 01:54:56 - OPEN MIC FRIDAYSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Feeling overwhelmed or even just "meh?" In today's episode, we have a special zooming out meditation to help you find and foster joy, even in challenging times. You'll experience a calming visualization practice, encouraging relaxation and broadened perspectives inspired by the overview effect (we talked about this effect last episode). Enjoy this soothing experience to help you release unnecessary stress and reconnect with a sense of global connection and support. If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review us wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts! Sources and Notes: Joy Lab Program: Take the next leap in your wellbeing journey with step-by-step practices to help you build and maintain the elements of joy in your life. Full transcript here. Please remember that this content is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide medical advice and is not a replacement for advice and treatment from a medical professional. Please consult your doctor or other qualified health professional before beginning any diet change, supplement, or lifestyle program. Please see our terms for more information. If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, help is available. Call the NAMI HelpLine: 1-800-950-6264 available Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. – 10 p.m., ET. OR text "HelpLine" to 62640 or email NAMI at helpline@nami.org. Visit NAMI for more. You can also call or text SAMHSA at 988 or chat 988lifeline.org.

As thousands of corporate warriors return to the office, we're going back to working from home for a ‘Remoted' edition of Corporate Hotline. Prepare for some seriously unhinged workplace stories. On this episode of Corporate Hotline, Ross and Natalie share listener submissions that will make you grateful for your (relatively) normal coworkers. From violent outbursts leading to promotions to espresso-induced hospital visits, we cover it all. Plus, is going topless on a video call a power move? We discuss the do's and don'ts of fantasy football team names and Cash App handles, offer tips for spicing up your Zoom calls, and even tackle the etiquette of vaping during a one-on-one. And don't miss Ross's previously unreleased story about a late-night encounter with an au naturel merchant! Get 15% off your first order by going to https://Blueland.com/DEMOTED Send us your Corporate Confessions, Dear Demoted advice requests, and Shout-outs through the submission form below: https://forms.gle/nJc667dUL65Xh63C6

Join us in this exciting episode of the Property Profits Real Estate Podcast, where we meet Amanda Fadely, a rocket scientist who traded her intense job for the freedom of real estate investing! Zooming in from Cape Canaveral, Florida, Amanda shares her inspiring journey into the world of short-term rentals, including her experiences with properties in Florida and Michigan. Learn how she navigated the challenges of managing tenants and renovating her triplex in the snow-covered hills of Michigan. Amanda offers valuable insights into midterm rentals, the importance of flexibility, and treating your real estate business like a true venture. Whether you're a seasoned investor or just starting, Amanda's story is sure to inspire you to take your next steps toward financial freedom!   ======================== ======================== ================= Want to grow your real estate investing business and portfolio?  You're in the right place. Welcome to the Property Profits Real Estate Podcast

Grease is the word that you heard….at least that's what you would have heard if you were a high level grower looking for that edge. We have some groundbreaking grow inputs to show you this week from our local heroes @growwithgrease there's lots to unpack as this is not a new company but a relaunch from a already successful product line join us and Mike Walsh for all the Greasy details…it's also Dave's 55th trip around the skating rink of Life, In celebration of that we will have a full studio with Matt from @brainstrap_f3 , Spacey from @lab_koat_genetics ,Miles from @weedshouldtastegood,,@whitneyjustice420 from @area420colorado Lance from @grovebags, Kyle from @exotixtech Globfather from @takin.tops.official and more. Zooming in from Thailand we have @greentlife from Tian wishing Dave S̄uk̄hs̄ạnt̒ wạn keid and giving us an update on the latest developments from Asias cannabis hotspot. And finally we @the_james_bean man on the scene who will be introducing to the world “AI Dave”who will do ANYTHING we want unlike real Dave. So get that @dabx GO rig charged your @jerome_baker bong Clean with some ice

Marty sits down with Calle to discuss Cashu. Cashu: https://cashu.space/ Calle on Nostr: https://primal.net/calle 0:00 - Intro 0:36 - Programming is art 5:36 - Zooming out on the struggle for freedom 10:23 - Dealing with the pace of change 14:20 - Unchained & Fold 16:13 - Financial privacy 20:43 - Chaumian ecash history 33:34 - Zaprite & SOTE 35:06 - Ecash on bitcoin 42:55 - Hash pools 48:45 - Interoperable systems 52:11 - We need more privacy and more devs 55:24 - Narrative and communication 1:00:45 - Magic stuff that just works 1:10:19 - Nostr as a gateway to bitcoin 1:17:21 - Wrap up Shoutout to our sponsors: Unchained https://unchained.com/tftc/ Fold https://foldapp.com/marty Zaprite https://zaprite.com/tftc Salt of the Earth https://drinksote.com/tftc Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Nostr https://primal.net/tftc Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

It was a season 10 soft launch with a fully remote show in light of the terrible fires that are still raging in Southern California. Zooming in from several locations, the trinity was joined by friend of the show Mikey Kampmann. Watch or listen to another hour of this week's show with Jaymee Carpenter and the Guess the Premier Game from Doug, support the show and get tons of other stuff with OFFICE HOURS+ at patreon.com/officehourslive with a FREE seven-day trial. Go see Tim on tour this year! Get tickets at timheidecker.com/live. Find everything Office Hours including the merch store at officialofficehours.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“The natural world, with all its varieties of God's creations, shows us so many [other] ways of being,”  writes Kaylee McElroy. Zooming out as far as human imagination can take us may bring our ideas about God and our relationship to the physical world into clearer focus. In Episode 205, Susan and Cynthia are joined by Kaylee for a conversation about everything: structures, darkness, creation, connection, and the convergence of physics and spirituality.