JAM

Excellent information for throwback to Nixon era crimes

Revisado: 02-16-25

Rachel Maddow is a national treasure. Her mind works across multiverses of data and distills messy puzzle pieces into understandable news that remains compelling and relevant. She is back for the first 100 days of 45v2 (47), and it is a daily reminder of how much she is missed.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Excellent & thorough democracy discussion

Revisado: 11-09-24

Absolutely great discussion with knowledgeable guest. Wish the election had made the decision choices this clear!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Misinformation is extremely concerning

Revisado: 03-26-24

Emily states that someone on her YT video stated that the amount of data in the Rust case is greater than twice the amount of data in the Library of Congress. This immediately seemed incorrect, and it absolutely IS incorrect information. Which makes me apply the trial/witness standard of if one thing they are stating as fact is not a fact, then one can disregard their entire testimony. This is not testimony, but given Emily is a former prosecutor and lays her claim to fame at being a 17+ year attorney distilling “facts not f-c-e-ry” for her audience, this is really a low bar for “fact checking”. The Library of Congress website clearly states that currently they have 74 Terabytes online and available, but that is a SMALL FRACTION of what they need to digitize, which they anticipate will be in the many PETABYTES realm.

I have listened to EDB for years and generally enjoy her wit and her “facts”, but lately she seems to have lots of slip ups with regard to facts (she read the Alec Baldwin sanctions request as though it was his case dismissal request for well over an hour in a live broadcast before she was alerted repeatedly by LawNerds watching that she was not actually reading the dismissal request after all!!!)..as well as just being away from broadcasting more & more so she can follow DMB as well as attend multiple Real Housewives junkets. She clearly has lots of time & money to spend, so maybe spend more time gathering facts before telling your audiences about relying on you to distill facts from f-c-e-ry. I hope she reads this and actually takes it to heart, especially since I am a long-time listener & watcher and have plenty of LawNerd and PawNerd merch to prove it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Misinformation equates to dismissing all

Revisado: 03-26-24

Emily states that someone on her YT video stated that the amount of data in the Rust case is greater than twice the amount of data in the Library of Congress. This immediately seemed incorrect, and it absolutely IS incorrect information. Which makes me apply the trial/witness standard of if one thing they are stating as fact is not a fact, then one can disregard their entire testimony. This is not testimony, but given Emily is a former prosecutor and lays her claim to fame at being a 17+ year attorney distilling “facts not f-c-e-ry” for her audience, this is really a low bar for “fact checking”. The Library of Congress website clearly states that currently they have 74 Terabytes online and available, but that is a SMALL FRACTION of what they need to digitize, which they anticipate will be in the many PETABYTES realm.

I have listened to EDB for years and generally enjoy her wit and her “facts”, but lately she seems to have lots of slip ups with regard to facts (she read the Alec Baldwin sanctions request as though it was his case dismissal request for well over an hour in a live broadcast before she was alerted repeatedly by LawNerds watching that she was not actually reading the dismissal request after all!!!)..as well as just being away from broadcasting more & more so she can follow DMB as well as attend multiple Real Housewives junkets. She clearly has lots of time & money to spend, so maybe spend more time gathering facts before telling your audiences about relying on you to distill facts from f-c-e-ry. I hope she reads this and actually takes it to heart, especially since I am a long-time listener/watcher and have plenty of LawNerd and PawNerd merch to prove it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Like that Eric Bland is here but other two are not great

Revisado: 09-26-23

Yes, Mandy Matney is one of the other two “hosts” for this podcast, but seriously the information feels so incredibly biased that it is a hard slog to get through, which is unfortunate as I was very interested in what Eric Bland had to say about these legal issues.

I wish in regard to legal information, the lawyer (I do think he is the only lawyer of the 3 hosts) would be the person providing primary information. I listen to several LawTubers and would say that almost any of them are preferable to this group..others present the facts and relevant legal issues with a mild bias, whereas this podcast group present information with massive bias and minimal law insights.

My recommendation is to pass on this podcast. (And no, I do not know any of the podcasters or the people they discuss whatsoever..I think AM is a horrible person who should be in jail forever based on all of his massive and many horrific felonies..but two of these hosts actually seem over the top giddy for anything bad to happen to the entire family, and also seriously paranoid about the entire Murdaugh family.)

I hope maybe Eric Bland will create a legal podcast which is either a solo endeavor or one where he has his law partner working on it with him. I think they are both respectable attorneys with real insights into applicable laws that govern the many negative things AM has done across the span of many, many years. Here’s hoping!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

If you don’t like LBJ or Lady Bird, this book is for you.

Revisado: 01-17-22

Extremely biased statements about Lady Bird Johnson, which makes one wonder if the author isn’t good friends with Robert Caro. Like the Caro books, Lady Bird cannot set one foot forward..according to this author Lady Bird was frugal to the point of being cheap, she was a neglectful mother for her two daughters, the two daughters could not stand one another during the decade of the 1960s, LBJ was horrible to her at all times, she was a manipulative person, her Lady Bird Express campaign through the South was abysmal and she complained about it, and she only came upon beautification projects as they were forced upon her as First Lady. These statements are simply not true, but they are laid out in the book repeatedly. True biographers should provide a balanced look at a person, and not a hatchet job.

Too bad there are not any balanced books on Lady Bird Johnson as of yet (besides her own White House diary which does not give much information prior to or post-Presidential years).

I learned very little about who Lady Bird really was from this book, and felt like I wasted 15 hours to slog through it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Worth hearing the initial investigative reporter’s POV

Revisado: 07-22-21

I have loosely followed this story for years, and absolutely remember the Vanity Fair story years ago about JE (I have subscribed to VF for decades). I found Vicky Ward’s accounting of what happened to be completely plausible and very detailed for giving her perspective on why the original VF article passed on reporting the sex abuse charges, how JE was protected by his wealth and powerful friends, and how the abused women were repeatedly up against a mountain in trying to get real justice against the horrors of who JE truly was.
Any female that has lived or known overwhelming male power, absolutely can understand the reality of the circumstances of Vicky Ward’s inability to get male editors at VF to take this story about underage girls seriously. One must remember that this story is largely before MeToo, so getting traction on reporting bad behaviors of a powerful man was not easy at all.
I listened to this entire podcast series straight through as it was just so interesting. I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about the “behind the scenes” information that never was reported due to JE’s power while he was alive.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

More salacious accounting of affairs throughout entire marriage, not just last year

Revisado: 07-11-21

The title subheading of this book clearly states that the book is intended to be about JFK & Jackie’s LAST year of marriage, but this book is really about their entire relationship, warts and warts and warts and all. If you want to learn about the many affairs of JFK, then this book has many names and places all queued up throughout the pages. But if you actually want an in-depth study on their marriage during the last year of JFK’s life, a pivotal time when his Presidency matured, when they lost their son Patrick shortly after his birth, when they became closer in marriage than any other time, then only the last 1/4 of this book is what you are wanting to read. Even then, it still includes far too many tangents about affairs, but maybe that is what sells books. I wish the author had actually spent more time researching their final year together as I do believe that would be a book worthy of 100% of the pages and not just 25%.

The performance of the narrator was excellent..he was great at voice changes for different people quoted throughout the book. Thank you for making the effort in doing this, that does take a true skill to do!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Unfortunately extremely one-sided account

Revisado: 06-28-21

Although I listened to the entire podcast and found many positives (like the laws that protect elders from abuse and also laws that allow family to visit hospitalized & hospiced elderly parents/family that are estranged), there was a distinct distasteful feeling about the entire situation and how biased the story being told was against the widow. I don’t know the full story on this family feud, but really no one knows the full story..each person in their family has their story and unfortunately this is the story of one daughter and her perceptions of what was best for her Dad. Having lived a similar circumstance when my Dad died (not that my Dad was whisked away and hidden, but that my mom had very different views of what should be done after he died compared to what my Dad always wanted and stated), I learned that recognizing others have valid reasons for what they do and everything is not always done with malice, is a worthwhile perspective to consider. Maybe when this daughter had both of her full-siblings and uncle all agree to a settlement during arbitration, she should have stood back and realized that anger hurts the person who holds it more than anyone else. And spite towards a woman her Dad loved seems not like the legacy he would have wanted her to carry forward in his name.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Great stories from a master storyteller

Revisado: 02-24-21

Regardless of whether you like Dan Rather’s politics, this is a humorous, self-deprecating, touching, historical jaunt of great stories about Texas, family, Presidents, Vietnam and life. I laughed out loud and cried several times in the short 100 minutes of this great listen. I would recommend it to anyone.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona