Episode 14: Upstanders Rise (Season finale)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kevin Aldridge (00:00):
So what do we mean by the upstander ripple
effect?

Werner Coppel (00:06):
Stand up against hate and prejudice, even if it
does not affect you

Jackie Congedo (00:13):
from moral dilemmas in today's headlines,
upstanders who rose for justiceand stories of survival,

be prepared to walk away from this conversation
inspired and motivated.

Welcome everybody to the upstander
ripple effect, Episode 14. Icannot believe we are at episode
14 themed Upstanders Rise. I'mJackie Congedo

and I'm Kevin Aldridge,

and we are so excited to be wrapping up the
first season of the UpstanderRipple Effect, and just feeling
so much gratitude today for allof the people who've made this
possible, the people who'vesupported this effort from the
beginning, the folks behind thescenes who are doing so much of
the lifting on the productionside, but also everybody who's

(01:00):
taken time to be with us alongthis journey and listen in and
share their feedback. So we willbe back with another season, but
this is the last of the firstseason, and I want to start by
giving a shout out to my amazingco host Kevin for his recent
award, which is nothing thatsurprises me, because I know

(01:23):
you're the best, but stillcertainly worth celebrating the
AP Cleveland Press Club firstplace award for best news
commentary.

Yeah, thanks

congratulations to you.

Thanks. Thanks.
You know, I always say, youknow, we don't do the work for
the the awards. We do itbecause, you know you believe in
the importance of democracy andkeeping people informed, but
it's, but it's always gratifyingwhen you know your colleagues
and observers of the industryrecognize your good work. And so
it's, it's humbling, but makesyou re energized to go out every

(01:57):
day and continue to fight thegood fight for for all the
readers and viewers out

you are fighting the good fight. I think about
that every time I read one ofyour pieces. It's so, so
thoughtful. You're so in orderto talk a lot, actually, in this
episode about hypocrisy andpolitical hypocrisy, or, you
know, cognitive dissonance, ifyou want to say it in a, you
know, more PC or nicer way. AndI just think you embody the

(02:24):
spirit of what it means to beable to really reflect
critically on your own ideas.
Yeah, yeah. And that's the kindof thing that people need to see
modeled more often. So you're,you're teaching all of us that,

yeah, I appreciate that. You know, I try
to be honest. You know, one ofthe hardest things that you know
we do in life is learning to behonest with ourselves about
ourselves and what our true andintentions are, our motivations,
our fears. And that's the partof you know, the work that you
kind of have to do with yourselfto to where no matter what you

(02:58):
do or what direction you go inor what you say, at least, you
know that it's coming from agenuine place of who you are in
that moment, right? And then,then you just deal with that.
And it's, it's just kind ofbeing more real versus,

yeah, being fake authentic. Yeah, exactly, yeah.
And that comes through. And Ithink everything you do, also,
for our friend in the statehouse.

Yes, Dani Isaacson, who just this week,
was named the Ohio HouseMinority Leader. And so I can't
think of a better person forthat position than Donnie. I
mean, when you think about thework that he did here in
Cincinnati with his own company,Cohear, you know, he spent a lot
of time gathering perspectivesand listening to people and

(03:43):
trying to use that informationto problem solve, to come up
with solutions that work. And Ican't think of anyone who's
better equipped to try to bringabout common ground consensus,
you know, and what has been, Ithink, a bit of a dysfunctional
State House over the last fewyears. And I'm encouraged by the

(04:06):
fact that that Dani is going tobe going to be leading things
from the Democratic side. Ithink he's going to do a great

job, yeah, and he has, I think, a unique way,
like you said, of create... sortof building bridges where they
don't exist. And that is thework of government. I mean,
that's the work ofbipartisanship and and I look
forward to sort of what histenure holds for the state, and
congratulations to him. Also,just wanted to mention that I

(04:32):
just saw Dani At our UpstanderAwards, which we just wrapped
up. And every year, you know, Icome out of that thinking, Wow.
I didn't think we could. Wecould do what we did last year
again, and we did it. We really,we really did it. So along with
many other elected friends whoattended on both sides of the
aisle, both parties, we werereally had a great evening

(04:55):
celebrating upstanders. And sowe'll talk a little bit more
about that later. And. Um, but Iwant to start with some current
events and sort of thinkingabout, you know, maybe a new
perspective, somethingdifferent. You know, you could
listen to any new show and learnabout if you haven't. Might want
to check your pulse if you don'tknow about what we're going to

(05:16):
talk about next, but if you knowfor the facts and figures, we
always try to see how we canunpack things in a way that
maybe just takes a deeper lookor exposes something that people
haven't been thinking about,particularly in the you know, in
light of how with the historythat we teach tells us about how

(05:39):
to think about thingscritically, and so obviously the
world has changed substantiallysince we were last doing one of
these. And you know, we are nowin a place where there's
conflict in the Middle East thathas, I think, expanded in scope
significantly with theinvolvement of the U.S. in Iran,

(06:01):
and sort of, you know, reallysurprising news that happened on
Saturday, and the response to ithas been really interesting, and
I think, has exposed some thingsthat are worth talking about,
related to how people, you know,stay within or break out of
their identity politic, and whatkind of pushes people to side in

(06:24):
certain ways, on certain thingsand not on other things. And you
know, when is breaking the rulesokay, and when is it not so it's
just been interesting. Yourcolleague, Carl Weiser, did an
interesting piece in theEnquirer about the way this has
just changed all kinds of partyline alignment that we sort of

(06:48):
traditionally see, which ispretty interesting.

Yeah, well, you know, I used to listen to, there
was a radio host. His name wasJoe Madison, and he went by the
name of the Black Eagle. And heused to have a saying that says
there are no permanent friendsand enemies, only permanent
interests. And so I think yousee that at work here, as you

(07:12):
see people crossing party lines.
It's not about necessarilyfriends or enemies. Because, you
know, I think in this case,where you see, you know, Greg
Landsman, who has been probablyone of the staunchest critics of
the President, now sort of beingon his side as it relates to the
bombing of Iran being a goodthing. And that is because, you

(07:34):
know, obviously Greg is veryclose to, you know, being Jewish
is very close to what's beenhappening in Israel. And
there's, there's a personalinterest there, there's a,
there's a a vested interest inwhat's going on there. So he's
coming at it from a particularangle of where his interest
crosses over, whatever is,whatever other issues that he

(07:59):
might have had politically withthe President on this particular
issue of interest, they're ableto find common ground there. So
I think you know. And then viceversa on the other side, you've
seen some people who arenormally in the President's
corner, who are sort of breakingranks in the on the GOP side to
be somewhat critical of hisdecisions there, whether or not

(08:22):
they're they're constitutionaland what for So, yeah, it's very
interesting just to see howthis, this sort of thing, sort
of plays out in it, and it kindof makes us do A deeper
evaluation and a check ofourselves behind, sort of where
do we really stand on issues,and what is it that we really

(08:46):
believe in, and do we reallybelieve in it, or is it
situationally, things that webelieve in, that that we believe
in it when it's our party orit's our guy, but we don't
believe in it when It's theother party and their guy. And
so I, I've always got thissaying that, I say that, I think
that, I say that the essence ofpolitics is hypocrisy, right?

(09:07):
Because that's, that's, inessence, what it is. It's each
party kind of vilifies the otherfor the same things that they do
when they're in power, right?
And but they don't see it as thesame, because they see their
cause as righteous. And soanytime we see our cause as

(09:27):
righteous, sometimes the rulescan be bent for that, yeah, and
then other times they can, youknow, I use the example of if
you are someone who has aproblem with our immigration
system in the southern border,and you say, Hey, we're the rule
of law, and people need tofollow the law when they come

(09:47):
over the come into this country.
They need to come in the rightway. If not, they need to go,
well, technically, that kind ofis the the rule of law for our
country. But then there arepeople on the other side who
say, ah, we ought to havecompassion. And, you know, yeah,
people should come in the rightway, but they're fleeing
injustice and things of thatnature. They're already here. So
we should, we should flex therules to show compassion,

(10:09):
because we see that as arighteous cause to welcome these
people into America. So, butwhen we say, hey, bending the
rules to keep a nuclear weaponout of the hand of an enemy that
has said that death to Americaand Israel, maybe we maybe the
the ends justify the means ofbending the rules a little bit

(10:33):
by not following, you know,going to congress first, right,
and getting permission that thatthis is a righteous thing, to
keep dangerous weapons out ofthe hands of an enemy that would
see is destroyed. And then thereare people, some of those same
people, who want to bend therules for immigration, say, at

(10:53):
shouldn't be bending them there.
Yeah, shouldn't be bending themthere. So where do the rules
apply, and when is it, you know,when is it okay to break the
rules? And is that in the eye ofthe beholder?

Yeah. I mean, I think so. One thing I just want
to go back to related to Greg,because I think it's important
that, yes, Greg is Jewish. YesGreg is, you know, supportive,
obviously, of Israel's right todefend itself and to exist as a

(11:27):
sovereign country. And you knowwhat I've heard from Greg is,
sort of what you what you justshared, which is, of course,
those things are considerations,and they're part of, inherently,
part of who I am. But when I'mthinking about my political
support for this policy or thismilitary action, or, you know,

(11:48):
whatever it may be, I'm thinkingof, you know, I'm taking my role
as a U.S. elected official,congressional elected official,
seriously to say, you knowwhat's How can I best represent
the first district, District ofOhio in in this perspective and

(12:09):
and what's good for us? And Ithink he has said, and I know he
feels strongly this way. It's inCarl's piece. You know that this
is an attempt to end this chaos,bring about peace and to avoid
what would be a catastrophicevent. So, you know, we can
debate all day what was on theground in Iran, and you know,
what's the evidence we have ofthat? And but I think there has

(12:33):
been, from Greg's perspective,you know, it's not just about
Jewishness. It's not just aboutIsrael. It's about threats to
the U.S. It's about Iran'sposition in sort of the global
context as potentially a nuclearpower at some point or close to
and the threat that that posesto sort of global security. So

(12:55):
it's just just an importantdistinction that it's, it's,
yes, he has maybe a specialinterest in thinking more
carefully about some of thesethings because of his awareness
and identity. But I think hispositioning on this has more to
do with his feelings about whatthis could the implications of a
nuclear Iran for the UnitedStates and for sort of global

(13:18):
security. But I also want topick up on where you left off,
which is this idea of breakingthe rules. And it's interesting,
when you think about thehistory, you know, some of the
perpetrators during, you know,as they were on trial in the
aftermath of the war. You knowtheir defense, what they tried

(13:41):
to say in defense of themselveswas, well, those were the laws.
We were following the laws,right? Yeah, there. This was
legalized exclusion, right? Imean, you could say the same
about our own history in thiscountry, right? So, you know,
the law is important, andprocess and policy is really

(14:02):
important, but it doesn't alwaysdictate morality and how we
navigate that is really achallenge, right? Like in search
of a more perfect union in ourcontext, but in the context of
the history, you know, that's,that's a pretty bad excuse,
right? That I, I participated inthis because it, it was what the

(14:23):
law told me to do when it wasso, contrary to what we all know
from a human standpoint, from avalue standpoint, is the right
thing, right? The the masskilling of millions of innocent
people is unjustifiable. So,yeah, it's just, it's, it's
interesting to think about,because you want to say, well,

(14:44):
the solution to that is, let'sall agree to a set of laws, and
let's follow those, and let'snever, but sometimes laws are,
aren't, right?

We don't, yeah, we don't. We don't always agree
on the laws, right? I mean,that's, that's part of this.
You. Democracy that we, that welive in. And again, you know,
even King himself said that, youknow you're not obligated to
follow any laws that are thatare unjust. Wherever they're
unjust laws or injustice, you'renot under any kind of moral

(15:15):
obligations to follow thoselaws. And so then that's where
you sort of get into this murkyarea about what people then
what? Yeah, people's values andmoralities are not all the same,
as much as we like to think thatthey are. You know, I remember,
you know, Barack Obama andvarious politicians have said
this, where they talk aboutAmerican values, right? Do any

(15:38):
of us know what that like reallymeans anymore. I think there's
kind of like a vague generalityabout what we think about what
we think American values oughtto be, the ethos of what it is
to be American, yeah. But whenwe see some of the actions and
the things that we're taking andsome of the laws that are being
passed, I think one wouldreasonably question, depending,

(16:01):
depending on where you are,like, what are, what is
America's values these days? Imean, I think that's one of the
overarching questions, I thinkthat we're all wrestling with,
and it's one of the things thatmany folks are challenged by
with this administration,because you feel like that there
are things that are being donethat are not representative of

(16:21):
what American values are, butthose things are being couched
under the American Americanvalues, right? So it's like, so
that's the the tension of wherewe are in this moment, yeah.

And part, part of that, I think, just has to do
with, like, shared we talked alot about this, the shared set
of facts or lack thereof. Youknow, how can we all have a
common narrative and a commonsort of expression of values
when we're not drinking from thesame information source, or we
don't have a sharedunderstanding for what's real
and what's not? Sointerestingly, our amazing
producer, Anne Thompson, found apiece about this, this sort of,

(17:00):
we want to put hypocrisy nicely.
We would say cognitivedissonance, right? More
scientific, that's the like,academic way, non judgmental way
to say you're a hypocrite is youhave some cognitive dissonance
issues. And so she found thisreally interesting piece out of
it's on neuro launch. Actually,it's out of the space of sort of

(17:20):
political psychology around thephenomenon of cognitive
dissonance. And I think there'sjust It cites a couple of really
helpful strategies for breakingfree from the mental maze,
strategies for reducingcognitive dissonance in
politics. And so I just thinkthese are worth looking at. A

(17:42):
lot of them hit on some of thesame themes that we've I'm
bumping the microphone that wetalked about, we've talked about
all along over the course of theseason. You know, first the you
know, how do we encourage morecritical thinking and self
reflection? You know, start byasking yourself some tough
questions. Why do you believewhat you believe? So instead of
being so entrenched in what youalways thought you knew, maybe

(18:04):
just be a little bit morecurious about your own
assumptions and ideas.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that goes
back to what I was sayingearlier about being honest with
yourself and doing, you know,doing your honest assessment of
why you are where you are in themoment, and why are you feeling
the way that you feel? I mean, Ithink for many people, when we
just using the Iran situation asan example, I think if you're
one of those people who are infavor of the bombing, and I

(18:34):
think we all sort of agree thata nuclear Iran is a bad thing,
but what really propels people,I think, in this moment, is this
sense of urgency, the threat,the fear, maybe that's
associated with that. And weknow that when we when we have
moments of fear, particularlywhen there's past trauma related

(18:57):
to that, that that doesn'talways produce in us the most
clear, clear eyed and clearheaded thinking in situations,
because we're acting in a veryprimal part of ourselves that
says, safety first, defendourselves first. Sometimes, no
matter what that no matter whatthat takes, or at whatever cost

(19:20):
that is and it can lead us tosometimes making bad decisions
or even going too far. So Ithink we've got to ask
ourselves, like, what are wefeeling in these moments, and
what is going through us that'scausing us to say either I agree
or disagree with this in thismoment, and why do I feel so

strongly? Yeah, and that leads into this sort of
second tip about promotingexposure to diverse political
viewpoints, which you know athing or two about. Clearly, the
Cleveland Press (club) agreeswith you, agrees with me, that
you know a thing or two aboutthat, because they've recognized
you as someone who does a goodjob with this, which is serving
up, you know, a full buffet ofthoughts and. Opinions and

(20:00):
justifications for thosethoughts and opinions. I think
it's really important thatpeople, as we've talked about,
confront those things. And Ilove that this says that might
feel like entering enemyterritory, but you might be
surprised at what you learn, andyou might make a friend or two.
Seems like a little I getpollyannish in this moment.
Might feel that way, but Iactually think that if we get

(20:21):
more curious, not just about ourown assumptions, but about other
people's perspectives and ideaspolitical viewpoints, are we
what are we so afraid of? Are weafraid of being wrong? Are we
afraid of learning somethingthat we didn't consider? You
know, yeah,

I think yes. And then I also think there's like
we're sort of in this moment.
And I've heard people say this,that if somebody particularly
now disagrees with youpolitically, that you can't be
friends with them, like youcan't have a conversation with
somebody who sees thingsdifferent. And people have
bought into this notion that youknow, if you're liberal versus

(20:56):
conservative, then whicheverside you're on the opposite side
is evil, and you can't have aconversation like there's not,
not saying that's the case witheverybody, but, but in far too
many cases, that's the case. Andwe sort of have bunkered in, in
this, in this moment that nowsays, I can agree or concede
anything to the other side,because that will normalize it.

(21:18):
Right? I heard a lot of thiswith people who, maybe even if
you agree with the strike, butyou don't want to give donald
trump any credit, yep, you can'tsay, right, oh, it was a good
strike, or this, that or theother, because I don't want to
normalize Trump in any way,because there's a whole lot of

(21:41):
other things that I come alongthat I don't Yeah, agree with.
Yeah, yep. And so a lot ofpeople feel that way, yeah. And
so I think it's hard to it'shard to do the second point when
you take that attitude ofsaying, I can't fraternize with
the enemy in any way, andthere's no merit to anything
that they that they have to say,nor will I believe it, because I
don't think they're operatingfrom

Yeah. They're not honest brokers,

yeah or not, yeah. And so it's very hard for
people to be willing to sort ofcross that line. But you got to
ask yourself, How do you everbring those people into
knowledge of anything differentif you're not willing to engage
in those and they're tough. Imean, I don't look these are
going to be hard, frustratingconversations, yep. And I ge

Not something to do, like, on an empty stomach,
been up all night, right? And Iget fill up our tank and then
take a crack at it, and

I get everybody's not built to do
that. I'm not suggesting thatwhen you're in the height of
your emotions, that you try tohave these conversations, pick
your spots and pick your places,where you are in a space to be
able to receive and have thatconversation. Probably the best
time is not right. Whensomething happens and you're
you're super fired up about it,that's probably not the best

(22:58):
time to have that conversation.
Sit with it, with yourself for awhile, and then figure out, how
do you engage somebody else? Andbe willing to be you said it,
one of the things that we're notwilling to do enough is to be
willing to admit to ourselvesthat there's a good chance that
we're wrong, that we there'sinformation we don't have, and
be willing to accept informationthat's correct, but it runs

(23:24):
counter to our narrative likethis. Like right now they're
having this conversation abouthow much damage did the strikes
actually do, right? And thereare some reports that are out
there that are saying, well, itdidn't do as much damage as the
Trump administration says. Andyou know, of course, the
President comes out and he says,ah, that's garbage. You know,
they got it wrong. Now, we don'tknow, like right now, because

(23:47):
there's a lot of information outthere, but let's just say, for
the sake of argument, thosereports are correct. You got to
be able to move to a place whereyou say, just because accurate
information that doesn't back upmy narrative. That's not a
reason for me to reject it.

Inconvenient truth.

Yeah, absolutely. We got to be willing
to accept inconvenient truthswhen they when we were, when
we're confronted with it, andsay, You know what I was I was
wrong about I had badinformation. It's okay to be
wrong. The reality is is most ofus are way wrong. We're wrong
way more than we're right.

And it would be great if we had a political
culture that incentivized, that,that rewarded that, you know,
that didn't, at the very least,didn't like, you know, penalize
that. I feel like we're in aplace in our politics where it's
like, Well, you shouldn't waver,you know. I mean, we're seeing
that in the critique right nowof of people, you know, like
Greg, or the critique of just,you know, related to, like,

(24:47):
folks in the Maga wing talkingabout, you know, well, this
wasn't what he ran on. And nowI'm so it's like just, just
having the ability to, yeah.
Live in that space where you'reopen to facts that might run
contrary to what you have stoodfirm on or what you believe. I

(25:08):
mean, that's and that's thethird piece. Embrace fact
checking and media literacylike. So I see this as like, be
critical about your ownthoughts. Be, you know,
encourage critical consumptionof other people's thoughts and
ideas and other viewpoints, andthen critical consumption of the
actual facts. That's animportant part, absolutely. And
lastly, this idea of fosteringopen mindedness and intellectual

(25:32):
humility, okay to admit, as yousaid, when you're wrong that you
don't have all the answers, andinstead of it being, again, a
weakness, or treated as aweakness in sort of our body
politic. Embrace it as a sign ofintellectual maturity when we
see somebody who says, You knowwhat, those are new facts. And
so as a responsible human beingwho's in this case, elected to
do a complicated job on behalfof a lot of people with high

(25:55):
stakes, I'm going to take thatinto account, and I might change
my position about this,absolutely, and it would be
great if we had an electoratethat said, good for you.

Yeah because we get, we get stuck on what in it,
particularly in politics. Andit's a, it's a gotcha kind of
thing, right? It's like you saidthis, but here's what, here's
what you did, and politiciansuse it because it's the way to
get elected. I've got to inorder for me to win, right? Like

(26:25):
politics at its heart is like,in order for me to win, I've got
to point to how the other guyfailed, right? And so failure is
the measure by which we use toturn over our politics, right?
So, you know, if a president inhis first couple years isn't
doing, you know, what we thoughthe would do, or the results

(26:47):
haven't been exactly what wethought, then the House and
Senate may change hands, and nowyou've got different leadership,
and then we elect a newpresident in a couple years
after that. So, so there, soyou're right. There is no reward
for somebody saying, you know, Ithought this conditions change.
I came into some newinformation, and we're gonna go

(27:08):
in this direction now,regardless of what I said
before, in in any other area, wewould admire someone who had the
ability to recognize newinformation, and say, yeah, and
say, You know what, I might havebeen wrong about that right? But
in politics, it's a deathsentence. It's a death sentence,

(27:31):
and that's why you get so manyof these politicians. Now, no
matter where they are, they willdouble down, even if they're
they know it's even if they'reterribly wrong and they know
it's a mistake, but admittingthat you're wrong in politics
is, is political suicide. Thereis no reward for it. You you
lose your seat, you lose youknow, you lose the house, you

(27:52):
lose the Senate, you there.
There is no incentive forbacking down.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I think that's
something you want to talkabout. What we can all do, we
should try and be part of aculture that actually rewards
and incentivizes that, and atthe very least doesn't, doesn't
punish people who learn newfacts and take that into account
and shift and make newassessments. I mean, I think

(28:18):
I've, I'm thinking about manydifferent political, you know,
actors or elected leaders whoalong the way, have done that.
And, you know, on both sides ofthe aisle, I feel like Hillary
was criticized for that. Manyhave criticized folks like Rob
Portman, you know, when he sortof changed his position on gay
marriage and gay rights becauseof his own family. Yeah, it's

(28:41):
like, well, I have new facts. Ihave a upfront look at what this
is, and I've just decided that Iwas wrong about that. So I just
think it would be something thatwould be great for as a society,
for us to kind of shift theincentive structure there.

But the key thing there is in this, it talks
about intellectual humility andyou and one has because if
there's nothing that humblesyou, it's life experience. To
use the Rob Portman example,right? Everything sounds good
until it lands on your doorstep,and now you have to deal with
it, and suddenly theseideologies that you had are very

(29:17):
different when you now have toexperience this for yourself or
someone close to you, does itchanges your perspective? And so
many times we speak out ofschool about things that we
haven't experienced and that wehave no real frame of reference
for. And so what I always try toconsider is this, is that what I

(29:38):
- no matter how smart I am, orhow smart I think I am, what I
know is vastly outstripped bywhat I don't know, right? I know
there's way more that I don'tknow than what I do know. And it
takes a certain amount ofhumility to be able to say I
don't know right, like that'sand I fight against. Because

(30:00):
particularly when people expectyou to know, right, like my
wife, as she thinks I knoweverything in the world about
football, right in the NFL. Soand most of the time I do. I
know a lot, but I don't knoweverything. So every now and
again, she'll ask me a questionthat I genuinely don't know what
I have, but I have theexpectation of yourself, of
myself, of giving her theanswer, because I don't want to

(30:22):
say to her I don't know, becauseI'm supposed to know everything,
right? I'm the football expert,so now she's asked me something
that I don't know, and I have tosit there in that moment and
say, am I gonna make somethingup to She'll never know, even if
I be like, I could tell heranything, cuz she doesn't know
she's asking me. So can I makesomething up? Just so I don't
have to admit that I'm wrong? Ordo I say, You know what, I don't

(30:45):
know that? I'll have to lookthat up. Yeah. And so
admittedly, I've gotten betterover the years of doing that, of
being able to say, You knowwhat, I don't know that. And
then she always gives me a hardtime, like, I can't believe you
don't know that I thought she's

not creating the kind of social, political
culture that incentivizes thatkind of humility makes you all
the more resistant, probably thenext time. Yeah, so, you know,
we think about hypocrisy. It'sthere's been some, some pieces
written recently related toresistance and some of the

(31:21):
hypocrisy baked into how wethink about resisting, which I
think is also a worthwhile sortof exploration for our
conversation about currentevents. And there's, there's two
pieces here I think that kind oflend themselves to this this
topic. One is by a colleague inthe field of Holocaust, memory
and history. Luke Berryman, thetitle is, "I Study the

(31:45):
Resistance Against the Nazis.
Here's What the U.S. left CanLearn from It." So you know,
this is, this is for the sake ofsort of thinking about, in this
case, we're talking about whatthis scholar has to say about
resistance to the Nazis. Andhe's positioning that as as sort
of a, you know, something we canwe can learn. And in this case,

(32:05):
he's saying the American leftshould learn. Now you could
argue that, you know, theAmerican right has its own
lessons to learn aboutresistance in other historical
contexts, or in this historicalcontext. So I'm not making a
political statement to comparethe two, but for the sake of
this scholarship and thisauthor, that's his, that's his,

(32:26):
and that's, that's sort of thethesis he's he's posing. And I
think that this piece is sointeresting in how it talks
about, it talks about, you know,he studied this. He studied
resistors in this period ofhistory, and sort of pulled out
the nuggets of, like, what, whatwas the distinguishing

(32:51):
characteristics of resistanceduring this period? And he talks
about how, how they didn't havea slogan or an outfit or a flag,
they didn't even bother to givetheir group a name. Their first
and only concern was a clearpath toward justice for at least
some of the Nazis victims. He'stalking particularly about a

(33:14):
German activist. In this case,it's it's really about this idea
that that well, he says it here,sought to improve life for
themselves and others in thehere and now in any way they
could, no matter how small theresistors I researched. By
contrast, he's talking, youknow, by contrast to some of the
movement on the left today werelaser focused on creating
change, not just, you know,trying to say we don't like what

(33:41):
is right, or we're sort ofbashing what exists. But instead
saying, what are we fightingfor? What do we want to see
different or better, and how dowe engage in positive action
that brings brings that about.
So I just found this articlefascinating to see that there

(34:03):
was, you know, there's there'shistory, there's research in the
history around this, and thatnot only were these people,
turns out, you know, this is ahelpful way to think about
resistance, but also it waseffective. Yeah, you know, they
were more effective than peoplewho just wanted to stand on the

(34:23):
sidelines and throw stones andsay, well, not that

for sure, I mean, and this will, you know,
this kind of leads to and intothe Eric Ward's piece that we'll
talk about here in a minute.
But, but it's about the work,not the talk, right? So it even
goes back to, I think, was itGandhi who said, you know, be
the change that you want to thatyou want to see, and so when
you're focused on the work, whenyou're focused on the change,
when you're focused on whatyou're for instead of just what

(34:46):
you're against, you get thingsdone when you think about people
who are the most effective,right? They're not necessarily
the loudest people or the peoplewho talk. They're. Ones who get
down and they do the work, andwhile everybody else is is
talking and debating, they'regetting moaning, yeah, they're

(35:06):
getting things done. And so Ithink that this is what it talks
about, in terms of theresistance, no matter how small
the effort, focus on the workand and again, I think this
comes down to leadership,because I think people are
reflective, reflections of theleadership that that they see.
And again, going back to ourpolitics, our politics is so

(35:27):
much on focused about, what areyou against? Right? Like we in
the last few elections, it'sbeen, maybe not since Barack
Obama, right? Have we? Have wehad an election where the
election has been about people,someone having a vision of what
you're voting for versus votingagainst. I'd say the last three
or three election cycles, youknow, going back to 2016 have

(35:51):
all been about what we'reagainst, not what we are not
necessarily what we are for. Andwe need to figure out some kind
of way to to get back to that.
And it's difficult when all ofthe voices from the leadership
are playing that same tune, andfolks are on social media, you

(36:16):
know, talking and arguing andchattering and going back and
forth. What we need is moreworkers. We need more people who
are interested in working forthe change and doing less talk,
because the talk isn't doinganything other than dividing us

Yeah, and particularly negative talk,
further.
particularly like What's badabout, what's bad about, and
that's not to say that weshouldn't be vigilant. We
shouldn't call things out, or,you know, make sure that we're
watching for that. But insteadof just speaking out against,
what are we speaking for? I justthink it's so interesting

(36:50):
listening to this author'scharacterization of effective
resistance he's talking about,you know what? What are the
hallmarks of resistance that'sgrounded in that are effective,
that were effective during thattime. And he says, by contrast,
I was always struck by the senseof shared humanity among the
resisters that I discovered likethe lower level British

(37:12):
intelligence officials whopersuaded members of the German
public to help them smoke outNazi war criminals after 1945 or
Leon Bass, the Black Americansoldier, who drew on his own
experiences of segregation todeepen his understanding of the
suffering of the Jews. Sufferingof the Jewish people he
liberated from Buchenwald. Sothis idea, I think, of shared
humanity, centering sharedhumanity, is one key defining
characteristic of what really,actually is not just, I think,

(37:35):
morally righteous resistance,but grounded, effective
resistance, absolutely. And thenthe other one is, yeah, I mean,
whatever their case, the case,when their moment of realization
comes, we must be ready toembrace them. He's talking
about, you know, the degradationtoo often that happens on both
sides of the aisle, about the,you know,

you talked about shared humanity, right? It's,
it's, I think the thing thatwe've got to recognize in this
country is, is what, first ofall, is that we're all
Americans, right? That we, weall should be playing for the
same team, right? There, therethis notion of, you know, two
different Americas, right? Like,that's that, and civil war and

(38:19):
all this stuff. We got to putthat on the deck, and recognize
that we're all Americans, thatwe have a shared humanity, and
part of that is, is notparticipating in the
dehumanization of the otherside. It's hard, you know, it's
hard to bring somebody back intofellowship and allyship that
basically you've raked over thecoals. I mean, if anybody

(38:40):
thought about it personally? Ifyou had somebody who just talked
about you like an absolute dog,right? It's hard for you to come
to the table with that person atsome point and say, let's work
together. Let's be friends. So Ithink if our goal is to try to
be a more perfect union and healthis country, we're not going to
get there by degradating, youknow, are the other side to the

(39:03):
point where we can't possiblycome back together, because
there's the feelings are toohard, and I think that we've got
to keep that in the front of themind and learn how to respect
each other's experiences andpoints of view, even if we
disagree to the point of where,at some point we got to be able

(39:25):
to come, you know, we've got tobe able to come back together as
a country.

Yeah. Yeah. He says, "If there's one thing I
learned while writing this bookabout effective resistance, "
(you know, in the 1930s and40s,) "it's that effective
resistance," (to the far right,or in any case, to anything that
you resist right, if you knowyou're on the right, you're
resisting the left or the farleft,) "is never just about
defeating the enemy. It's aboutcreating a better future for

(39:50):
everyone." And that locks intowhat you're saying. We're, you
know, we are one nation. Sounless we just plan on changing
that, we. Have to figure out howto, you know, do this in a way
that gets us there together. Howdoes that? How does that happen?

It happens with creative thinking. You know,
speaking of people who are smartand far smarter than than me,
you know, I was listening toNeil deGrasse Tyson the other
day. I was watching a video withhim, and, I mean, he just got
this guy just makes me feel likea first grade student every time
I hear him talk. But heessentially talked about, like,
part of our problem is we don'tthink creatively enough about

(40:30):
how to create new things. Likepart of what we're seeing now is
culturally and how things arechanging, and we're trying to
take a changing culturalenvironment, and continue to fit
it into the same old box that'salways, boxes that we've always
had. Instead of thinking like,you know, just using the
transgender sports thing as a asan as an issue, you know, he

(40:54):
said, why aren't we thinkingabout new ways to, you know,
engage in sports, versus insteadof just thinking like, you know,
the old boxes that we always,yeah, he talked about it like,
even in boxing, they havedifferent weight classes
because, you know, somebodywho's 250 pounds is not gonna
fight somebody who's like 145you know, it's like, we're

(41:17):
capable of coming up with newways of Doing things, but we're
sort of locked in this, thismentality. And it goes back to
the the kind of make Americagreat again, philosophy, not
just picking on that, but thatis a philosophy that's that's
endemic of an idea that therewas this once perfect way of
doing things, and that's theonly way of doing things. And we

(41:39):
got to get back to that insteadof recognizing that we are
different. You know, we're adifferent country, and we're
going to be a different countryin 20 years than we are today.
And if we still keep trying todo things back in the way we did
in the 1930s 40s and 50s, that'sjust not good, because people
are different, times aredifferent, and we've got to be
able to think creatively about,how do we move forward and

(42:01):
again, create something thatworks for everybody? Yeah?

Yeah. So this piece also mentions, just to
give a shameless plug for someof our work, you know, what's
giving him hope, right? This isa guy, again, who studies
resistance was giving him hope.
He says, "Teachers andlibrarians are championing, the
written word as a tool ofresistance. Colleagues in the
field of Holocaust education arecollaborating on free and

(42:25):
innovative events to inform thepublic about the collapse of
democracy in the 20th century,early 20th century Europe, and
to establish what we can learnfrom it today." So we actually
just hosted our first one ofthese sort of exploring, you
know, let's, let's actually talkabout what it did look like. You
know, we don't have tohyperbolize. Like, let's, let's
talk to scholars who havestudied and researched this

(42:45):
history. What did the Nazi riseto power - what were the
hallmarks of the Nazi rise topower, and what were they not?
Right? Let's not overreach.
Let's just take a criticalexamination of the facts of
history and understand them forwhat they were. So we're working
on that series now. We have moreinformation about that in the
show notes. And I just think, Ithink this whole idea of, you

(43:09):
know, how do we how do we build?
How do we not just tear down,but how do we build? How do we
think about effective, effectiveresistance. Resistance, it's not
grounded in cognitive dissonanceor hypocrisy, but that's that's
that's grounded in sharedhumanity, that's grounded in
thinking about, what does goodlook like, not just what is not
bad. I say that all the time,but that's how we think about,
you know, in the museum, right?

(43:30):
We have the Holocaust Gallery,which talks about the, you know,
what is, what does it look likewhen the worst of humanity has
a, you know, prevails, or has away to, uh, takes hold, despite,
of course, the many upstanderswho were who were doing the
right thing. But you know, wedidn't build a humanity gallery,
and we're, by the way, nowworking on a new humanity

(43:51):
gallery. That's going to say,here's what it looks like to go
against what we're doing in thehumanity space is saying, Here's
tools for how to be the best.
And to your point about whatdoesn't exist, we have to
envision that. We have to say,like, oh, okay, well, it's not
enough just to not be that thatthing. The question is, what can

(44:12):
we be? Yeah, what does good looklike? And how do we use these,
in our case, character strengthsas a toolkit to unpack our own
potential in that way.

One of the things that made America great
and the country that it, that itis, is we used to aspire to big
things, right? Like the - we,we dream big. We thought big. We
came up with big things. Now Ithink we think too small. I
think we've become small mindedin many ways. And I think that's

(44:44):
a symptom of what you talk aboutabout, it's more of, how do we
not be this, versus what do wewhat do we aspire right? You
know, what is? What is the bestversion of ourselves? The
potential looks like, and wecan't shrink from the size of.
That. Because I think whatsometimes happens is we get
discouraged, because big dreamscan seem overwhelming or

(45:08):
unattainable, and no, you're notgoing to get there overnight.
None of the greataccomplishments that that we we,
we've ever had, happenovernight, but it was sustained
work toward it. Yeah, right. Andyou take the you take the small
victories. You celebrate thesmall successes, but you keep
chopping wood.

You know well, and fear and scarcity are the
enemy of creativity, right?
Like, you can't operate out of acreative space mentally, like,
in terms of, you know, thephysiology of the brain, like,
if you're stuck living in aplace of, like, fight or flight,
you're not thinking in anexpansive way. There's no
potential sort of dreaming,potential work happening there.
So I think being more interestedin what we are building than

(45:50):
what we are tearing down is is,is an interesting way to think
about this. Our friend andvisionary. Talk about somebody
who makes me feel like a firstgrader every time I read. Every
time I read what he writes. EricWard just wrote a piece, and for
Newsone, "You Don't Get to BurnIt Down if You've Never Built a
Damn Thing." And I'm just usingthat because those are his

(46:10):
words, yeah. And he says, youknow, it's a beautiful piece.
It's so powerful. And Iguarantee you, it doesn't matter
who you are or what side ofanything you're on, it will
challenge you. It says, youknow, so at the very end, he
says, "If you came here lookingfor a manifesto, this is it. We
will not escape the fire just tofan its flames elsewhere. We
will not carry the master'stools and call them liberation.

(46:32):
We will not build new systemsthat mirror the violence we
claim to oppose." I mean, ifthat's not a mic drop and that
challenges everybody, right? Hesays, "We need warriors of
repair." And then he finisheswith, "I'm not asking
permission, I'm calling forcourage. I'm invoking grief as
resistance. I'm part of buildingsomething that doesn't yet have

(46:54):
a name, but you'll know it whenyou see it. It will look like
life." Yeah, that's not aboutkilling in the name of killing.
It's not about violence in thename of violence. It's not an
eye for an eye. It's about whatdoes good look like, and how do
we build that, build towardsthat.

I mean, you know, I'm a fan of Eric. I'm
probably, you know,

we were like the co-chairs of the Eric Ward fan
club.

Groupie - is that a derogative term? I mean,
I would, you could characterizeme as that when it comes to
Eric, it's, it's because he has,he has such knowledge and such a
heart and such a perspective,and then he has the ability to
be able to weave that into wordsthat don't just hit you
mentally, they hit youemotionally as well, and really,

(47:37):
really challenge you. And it's,I would encourage people to go
find this piece. It's great. Iwish we published this in the
Enquirer right, to be

Right? It's really good.

Yeah, it's, it's, it's really, really,
really good.

But yeah, time to call him probably, and ask if
you could, yeah.

I mean,

it's a great piece. Yeah. I mean, he raises

a good point about and I think the ending
that he had was, was very goodthere, when he talked about
life, right? Like that is thechoice that we face every day.
We can give life or we can takelife like that's, that's the
reality of every single day,every choice that we make. And
this is, this is a very like aspiritual concept for me, when I

(48:20):
think about this, is that, arewe life givers, or are we life
takers? And I try to live mylife, not perfectly, but every
day, thinking about, how do Igive life versus taking away,
even in my criticism, how do Ihow do I give life? How can I be
critical of somebody withouttaking their life, leaving them,
leaving them something thatsays, appealing to your bet, the

(48:44):
best part of yourself, even inthe criticism. And I think, you
know, Eric does a great job ofreminding us of that and his
challenge, I think about sort ofwhat we hear about, you know
peace through strength, or willget peace through war, like it's
it's almost like these, theseare notions that run counter to

(49:08):
each other. It's like, you know,peace is life, war is death. So
how do you get life from death?
Is sort of the the question thatwe have to ask ourselves, which
is, why a lot of people who youknow, whether it's Martin Luther
King or Gandhi or people whowere, you know, against this
notion of war, you know,consistently against this notion

(49:30):
of war, it's because theyunderstood that, you know, you
don't get you don't get lifefrom killing, and that is
something that we have to reckon- reconcile is, is, how do we
when we all have these differingagendas, these different
challenges that we have, how dowe create life and avoid the

(49:53):
choices that lead, you, know, toburning? Things out,

yeah, yeah, yeah. And I would say that, you
know, no one's naive over here,right? There's, there's a
pragmatism to all this, andthere are real threats. And, you
know, all of that is true, and Ilove his, you know, thinking
about, we need warriors ofrepair. You know, it's like the
oxymoron of that is, is reallypowerful, but it's so true,

(50:24):
like, if we're going to befierce about something, let's be
fierce in a way that centers ourshared humanity. Let's be fierce
in a way that is sort of likeradically inclusive and grounded
in in in that. And I think, youknow, we got a chance to
celebrate that. We got a chanceto celebrate that on Sunday.
Well, by the time you'relistening, it's probably not

(50:45):
last Sunday, but it's maybe afew Sundays ago this month in
June, with our Upstander Awards,celebrating just an outstanding
slate of amazing everydaypeople. These are not like the
folks who get the accolades.
These are people who are justsomething moved them. They found
their moment. They harnessedtheir character strengths, and

(51:05):
they said, you know, as we'vetalked about, there's something
that I can do about this, andI'm I see a better future for
this, and I'm going to activateto get that done. And so, yeah,
I mean, it was amazing. And ofcourse, we named the awards
after our survivors and otherupstanders, and we have their
family members come and helppresent the awards. I mean, it's
just, it is the most high-vibes,recharging event. And I'm not

(51:29):
just saying that because I'm alittle, obviously a little
biased. I have heard that.

With good reason, though

Thank you. I appreciate that - from every
corner of all of ourconstituents that you know this,
this is like a total recharge ina moment that has continues to
be a challenge. So it was great.
And just to see also, like someof the Upstander Award winners
from last year coming back, andnot just coming back, but
wanting to reconnect with thefamilies that the awards they

(51:59):
got were named after like is soand so going to be here. I want
to take a picture and thensharing that stuff. I mean, some
of the things that people havesaid about what this has meant
to them, folks who've won theawards is really will bring
tears to your eyes. It was somoving.

You know what's great about and this has just
been a great transition, how allof this is run together, you
know, what's great about theUpstander Awards, and I get this
a lot to being in the newsindustry, is that the people
you're honoring are the peoplethat we talk about who've kept
their heads down and are doingwho are doing the work for
change. So chances are youprobably haven't heard of any of

(52:35):
these folks or their stories,because they're not blowing
their own horn. I always tellpeople, they're like, Well, why
aren't? Why are you becausepeople who do good things, like
they aren't seeking the press,they aren't calling the Enquirer
or the TV station and saying,Hey, look at me. Why? Because
they're busy doing the work.

Yeah.

And so it's not that they don't want to be
recognized because, as you said,they appreciate it when people
take time to recognize them, butit's because they're busy doing
the work. They're not talkingabout it to anyone other than
those who are helping in themission and who are going to be
beneficial of it. So theupstander awards are a great
thing, and even when we get anopportunity to highlight folks

(53:13):
in the in the paper, becausewhat it does is it lets other
people out there know thatthere's work being done, and
that they're good people doinggood things, because the bad
stuff has no problem, right?
Getting out there, right? Andyou can be fooled into thinking
like, oh man, they're only badpeople and bad things happening,
yep. But nothing could befarther from the truth. And so

(53:36):
somehow or another, not theindividuals themselves, but
those of us who are in thisspace of communicating and
getting the information out,have to be able to find ways,
like, whether it's the upstanderawards or things of that nature,
to be able to highlight, elevatethat stuff, so that people say
it's not all bad.

It's not all bad. And also, that's person's
just like me. They have the samecharacter strength I do like,
you know, what's to stop me fromsaying, How do I activate my own
sort of engine to bring aboutpositive humanity? Yeah, and so
that's, that's what we did. Wewant to highlight one. I wish we
had more time, but we're justgoing to highlight one of the

(54:16):
awards that we gave out on atthe Upstander Awards about so
it's named after a couple by thename of Mark and Margaret Merin,
who had this incredible story ofsurvival and and had a young son

(54:41):
right when the war broke out andthey they had to make a very
tough decision to put their soninto hiding. And this child in,
I mean, baby, right, less than ayear old, survived, I think,
three different camps,

wow

And his parents just never gave up hope. And
after the war that they wouldfind him. And they looked and
they looked and they looked. Andthen when they couldn't think
they could look anymore, theylooked and they found him. And
he didn't even know his ownname. He was two years old, and
we were able to actually talk toHarry in Indiana, who still-

(55:18):
their son, who's still with us.
And he came back on for theawards and presented this award.
So I'm standing here on thestage, looking at Harry coming
up the ramp, thinking you are amiracle. The fact that you're
here is nothing short ofmiraculous. When you think about
what happened to children whowere five months old, yeah,
Jewish children in Europe whowere five months old, who were

(55:38):
caught in the camp system. Imean, it's, it's nothing short
of miraculous that he survivedthis and then we were able to
recognize this award for hopebecause his parents, that's what
saved Harry's life. In manyways. That's what brought him
back to his family. Is thisundying hope that his parents
had, that he would be found,that they could find him against

(56:01):
all odds. So we gave the awardthe Mark and Margaret Merin
Award for Hope to a friend offriend of mine, not because he's
a friend of mine. He happens tobe a friend of mine. Mitch
Morris, who is doing amazingwork around empowering young
people and addressing somechallenges around gun violence

(56:24):
and walking with people throughstruggle in that way, just such
an unsung hero in my eyes. Andso it was special to have Harry
there to present the awarddirectly to Mitch and just
passing of that torch ofcharacter strength, you know,
like who's taking the strengthand who's carrying that legacy

(56:45):
today? So we want to show youthe little video we put
together, sharing that story,and then we come back and talk
about

Voiceover Lea Lachey (56:54):
Marc Merin was born in Germany. Margaret
Friedman Merin in theNetherlands. They married in
Amsterdam in 1939 and had a son,Harry, just as the Nazi grip
tightened across Europe. Forcedinto hiding in 1942 they made
the painful decision to hideHarry separately. In 1944 he was

(57:16):
captured, but survivedBergen-Belsen and
Theresienstadt. Every day,Margaret searched for his name
among survivor lists. One dayshe saw "Janneman Israel" and
said, that is our Harry. Againstall odds, she was right. Hope
brought them back together.

Voiceover Drew Lachey (57:34):
Today, Mitch Morris brings that same
hope into Cincinnati's innercity communities.

Mitch Morris (57:39):
I've seen a lot of pain in our city and our
community, and I just feel thatwe need to better do something
about it.

Through the Phoenix program, he helps
adults leave street life behindthrough save our youth. He
mentors teens, creates jobs andbuilds safer futures, offering
structure, purpose and pride.
Mitch meets people where theyare in crisis, in conflict, and
walks with them towardssomething better.

Mitch Morris (58:05):
The parents will have lost family members to gun
violence over the years, and...
how simple it is for somebody tomake a bad decision, to cause
somebody's families in thatripple effect. And so I just
feel I have to be able to try todo something to turn that thing
around.

Because for Mitch Morris, hope is a
daily practice, and it alwaysshows up.

So yeah, I mean, an incredible story, right, with
the miracle of survival, themiracle of finding your child
who you know you had to separatefrom at five months old, and
then and then, recognizing thatthrough mitches amazing work
today, all through that sort ofshared sense of hope, it was
really special. It was one ofmany amazing stories and moments

(58:51):
at the awards this year. Soshout out to to Mitch. And also,
it was great to sort ofre-engage with Harry, who was
there to help give the awardthis year. It was so special.

Yeah, it's, I mean, just, you know, honing in
on that theme of hope. I thinkthe work that Mitch does is
exactly that, you know, just interms of trying to bring hope
and and, you know, sort ofrecovery and healing for folks
here in the city who suffer fromfrom gun violence and the trauma

(59:25):
associated with that, and it'sone of the bigger issues that we
have going on in Cincinnatiright now with the violence that
we see in so many families beingaffected by it, you need more
folks like Mitch who are outthere, you know, doing the hard
work of helping people put theirlives back together, you know,

(59:45):
after tragedy.

And if you've ever met Mitch like, you just
get this overwhelming feelinglike he is not in it for the
like, this is not about awards.
This isn't about recognition orspotlight. It's really because
he believes in what he's doing.
And he cares a lot about ourcity, cares a lot about. The
people he helps. And, yeah, it'sjust really inspiring to to see
him recognized in this way, andto hear from him, I mean, to

(01:00:11):
hear what it means to him to be,to be an upstander. So before we
close out for our first season,we want to end on our upstander
shout out. We were thinkingabout, you know, who we should
recognize, and we wanted to putthe spotlight on our friend
Jesse Eisenberg, who came tobasically be the celebrity host

(01:00:34):
of this year's Upstander Awards.
He threw out the first pitch atthe Reds game, and he recently,
you know, the reason we we askedhim to join us this year is
because of his most recent workin the space of Holocaust
memory. He, you know, wrote,directed and and actually
starred in "A Real Pain," whichwas the Oscar award winning -
Kieran Culkin won, won the awardfor Supporting Actor in that

(01:00:56):
film about two cousins who arecoming together in their own
sort of dysfunction. It'sactually really a funny movie to
retrace their late grandmother'ssort of journey through World
War II, through that time andthrough the Holocaust. And it's,
it's, it's all of the things youcan imagine. You know, the

(01:01:16):
awkward moments and thepoignancy and this severity of
the history sort of as thebackdrop to a very human story
about two cousins trying tonavigate their own pain. Yeah,
it's really so beautiful. So hetalked a lot about that. I got

(01:01:36):
to interview him. That waspretty fun, yes, and yeah. And
then he was just, he just was areally great guy, just a normal
dude, you know,

Kevin Aldridge (01:01:45):
yeah. Well, you know, a lot of times when we
think about people who achievethat level of celebrity or fame,
that, you know, we think they'reso far removed from the rest of
us. And it's always refreshingwhen you meet someone like
Jesse, who shows you that, youknow, just because you're in
Hollywood, just because you'vebeen on the big screen, that
they're still as relatable asanybody else, and those are the

(01:02:09):
types of folks, when you meetthem like that, that you become
fans of like even if you even ifyou may not have been a fan of
him. Prior to that, I've foundso many other people who I
really like or have become fansof, it's because you you see
them in, yep, in real life, oryou see them in real situations,
and they're actually like realhuman beings, not sort of like

(01:02:32):
the pretentious, you know, elitesort of Hollywood types is
sometimes, you know, sometimessome are or as they're
portrayed. And so it's, it'sit's good to know that that
he's, he's one of thedown-to-earth

Jackie Congedo (01:02:44):
It's actually interesting. We should, we would
give him a shout out on thisepisode, because we've talked a
lot about intellectual, youknow, humility, about curiosity,
and Jesse really, like I waswith him for 48 hours, not
obviously, continuously, but,you know, over the course of two
days, and that shines through,like, over and over again, and

(01:03:05):
how he is with everyday people.
Just, you know, in his in hisconversations, he's so curious,
he's actually very hard to movesuggestions.
Who's using their characterthrough a crowd, because he's
wants to really understand, andstrengths to stand up for
positive humanityhe's like, follow up questions.
And this is not just for youknow me or our board chair. Is
this was everybody he met. Hewanted to really learn more, and
he was so curious. And andcuriosity, I think, is like the

(01:03:28):
part of one of the keys tounlocking that intellectual
humility, right? It's like, ormaybe it's the other way around.
I think they probably feed eachother. So he's, he's really an
upstanding guy, and we hopehe'll come back maybe next year
to join us for the UpstanderAwards as a guest, and
appreciate him taking the timeout of his busy, very busy life

(01:03:50):
- He's working on another filmright now - to join us. So thank
you, Jesse.

(01:04:31):
Let us know your thoughts onthis episode. Our email is in
the show notes. You can listenanytime on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts, or visitholocaustinhumanity.org/podcast

(01:04:55):
you can also connect with us onInstagram and Tiktok
@holocaustandhumanity and X andFacebook @cincyhh., The
Upstander Ripple Effect is aproduction of the Nancy & David
Wolf Holocaust & HumanityCenter. The Center's mission is
to ensure that the lessons ofthe Holocaust inspire action
today. This series is part ofthe Cynthia & Harold Guttman
Family Center for Storytelling.
Visit us in person at historicUnion Terminal in Cincinnati,

(01:05:17):
Ohio, or online anytimeholocaustandhumanity.org.
Managing producer is AnneThompson. Consulting producer is
Joyce Kamen. Technical produceris Robert Mills, and technical
director is Josh Emerson. Theopening sequence is by Ken
Furman. Select music is by KickLee, and this is recorded at
Technical Consulting Partnersstudios in Cincinnati, Ohio

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 14: Upstanders Rise (Season finale)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

All Episodes

Episode 14: Upstanders Rise (Season finale)

On Purpose with Jay Shetty