Podcasts about cbss

Steve Baldikoski is an Emmy nominated Showrunner known for Fuller House. He's also worked on Last Man Standing, Glenn Martin D.D.S., Wilfred, and Kristie. Join Michael Jamin and Steve Baldikoski for a conversation about how Steve broke in and what it takes to make it in HollywoodShow NotesSteve Baldikoski on IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0049747/Steve Baldikoski on Twitter - https://twitter.com/finchbot2000Free Writing Webinar - https://michaeljamin.com/op/webinar-registration/Michael's Online Screenwriting Course - https://michaeljamin.com/courseFree Screenwriting Lesson - https://michaeljamin.com/freeJoin My Watchlist - https://michaeljamin.com/watchlistAuto-Generated TranscriptSteve Baldikoski:I mean, you're, you are sort of clued in to, to what your boss likes. Mm-Hmm. , you also have your own tastes. You, you kind of know what the project is supposed to be. I, I, yeah, I don't know. There, there's no formal executive school on how to give notes. That's why it's kind, it's kind of a weird job because there's no training for it. I don't really necessarily know what makes you good or not good.Michael Jamin:You're listening to Screenwriters Need to Hear This with Michael Jamin. Hey everyone, it's Michael Jamin. Welcome to another episode of Screenwriters. Need to hear this. I got another great guest today. This is my old buddy, Steve Bobowski. Steve has written on some of the, some of your favorite shows, as long as your show's favorite shows are ,Steve Baldikoski:As long as they're, as long as you have Terrible Taste and only watch shows that are gone after 13 episodes, andMichael Jamin:Then, then these are your favorite shows. But I'm gonna start, I'm gonna, in no particular order of, of, I think I'm going in order Teenager Working. Remember that show Dag with David Allen Greer Baby Bob. Oh, we're gonna talk about Baby Bob. Okay. Yeah. A U s A. Andy Richter controls the universe. People like that show a lot. I, I'm with her or I'm with her. I'm with her. I'm with her.Steve Baldikoski:I'm withMichael Jamin:Her. I'm with her . Eight. Eight Simple Rules. The New Adventures of Old Christine. That was a good show. The Jake Effect. Big Shots. True. Jackson, I forgot you worked that out. Wilfred. Which you could thank me for Glenn Martin d s, which you could thank me for Kirsty, which I can thank you for. Last Man Standing, whatever, .Steve Baldikoski:Yeah. They don't have anyone to thank for that.Michael Jamin:Thank for that.Steve Baldikoski:Save Me.Michael Jamin:Jennifer Falls, Ned and Stacy. And then of course, you were the executive producer and showrunner of Fuller House, the Full House remake. Steve, welcome to the big show,Steve Baldikoski:. Thank, thank you for having me. It's very exciting to be here.Michael Jamin:Wasn't it exciting, man? Oh man. Oh, and I have to say, so yeah, so we started out my partner and I hired Steve and his partner Brian, on, on Glenn Martin dds. And we were always very grateful. These guys turned in great drafts and we were always extremely grateful. Yeah, thank you. And then we would just shovel more work as, as for gratitude, we would just shovel more scripts in your face. Write this one now,Steve Baldikoski:, that was one of the highlights of my career. That was some of the best times I've ever had.Michael Jamin:We had some, you know, it's funny, I asked Andy Gordon in in a, in a previous episode, I said, and I'll ask you the same question. If you had, if you could go back in time and either remake any of the shows you did worked on, or like rebooted or just work on it again, what, what would they be? Any,Steve Baldikoski:I thought you were gonna tell me. Andy's answer . AndyMichael Jamin:Said if you want, Andy said, just shoot me. And true. JacksonSteve Baldikoski:Uhhuh . I, I, Glen Martin was a highlight, and and I think it was an underappreciated show,Michael Jamin:Certainly was. AndSteve Baldikoski:If, if it weren't in Claymation, maybe someone would've watched it.Michael Jamin:You know, we went on the internet, Seabert and I, my partner and I, we went on the internet and we found some guy talking about Glen Martin. And it was as if he was in the writer's room. It was as if he was, because he, he was right on the money . Like he knew what was good about it, what was bad about it. He had theories as to why ,Steve Baldikoski:I think you, you talking about Alex Berger, the creator,Michael Jamin:, it wasn't Alex. It was something like, it was something like Whacko on the internet, but boy, he was dead on. He was like, he knew exactly what he was talking about.Steve Baldikoski:. Well, one, one weird thing that that happened to me, this is slightly related. When, when Brian, my old writing partner and I took over for house in the last couple of seasons, it was right before the final season, and it was after Lori Locklin had her collegeIssues, legal issues with varsity Blues. On April Fool's Day, there was this article in some Likee News or something where someone did a whole, it was a fake interview with me, but it seemed like it was real. And the reasonings that they were talking about getting rid of Lori's character and what would happen after, you know, she was divorced from Uncle Jesse on Fuller House. W it was so well thought out that it, I thought it had to be written by also someone in the room, Uhhuh, because they actually knew like, specific arguments that specific writers had in getting rid of this person. And then it turns out, only if you clicked the very bottom did it say April Fools. And it was all phony interview with me,Michael Jamin:But still they got it. Right. But itSteve Baldikoski:Was, it, it was so eerie that it was, it was probably probably had better reasons to include her or not include her than we did. So there are a lot of fans out there who understand the shows just as well as the writers Do.Michael Jamin:I, I think so. I, I think even on, people talk about King of the Hill and they remember episodes. I'm like, I don't remember that one. And then they look it up and go, I, I worked on it. I don't tell me what happened. It's like, I don't remember it. You know, it's from, you know, very important to some of these people. And you know, they, they, they watch it all the time. And I haven't watched it in 20 years. ButSteve Baldikoski:But did you, there was a moment where when on Wilfrid where David Zuckerman, the creator didn't even know that he had a logic fallacy in the first episode. Do you know the story? No. I think he was at Comic-Con and he, he was, he, it it was about the pilot of Wilfred where Wilfred is trying to get through the fence and a regular dog would crawl through the fence, but instead Wilfred has an ax.Michael Jamin:Right. AndSteve Baldikoski:And then they said, well, shouldn't I take the ax from Wilf Fred because it's dangerous? And then David said, wisely said, no, you can't grab the ax cuz that means the ax is real. And the second he said that someone in the audience held their hand up and said, well, what about the Bong? Yeah,Michael Jamin:What about the Bong? Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:And David had never considered that.Michael Jamin:Well,Steve Baldikoski:But Jar, that was fascinating that, that he, they had never thought of it on set, but out there. Got him instantlyMichael Jamin:Etro gave a headache to write and remember, like, what, who, and then, and then your part of Brian's likeSteve Baldikoski:That, that anecdote gave me a headache to mention.Michael Jamin:Yeah, it was, I remember he just like, don't you think people just wanna see the dog danceSteve Baldikoski:?Michael Jamin:See the dog dance? That was his pitch. . Oh man. Oh my God, what a show. But did you ever,Steve Baldikoski:This whole section is even inside Wilf Fred.Michael Jamin:Yeah, it is inside Wilfred.Steve Baldikoski:I don't think anyone would appreciate that. But did youMichael Jamin:Ever, even when you were running Fuller house, did you, did you ever turn to the, what do the fans want? Did you turn to the, because there's a lot of pressureSteve Baldikoski:On that actually, I have to say. That was a huge part of Fuller House and it was one of the things I think that the audience loved. And it was a unique situation for me because I had, still, to this day, I've seen two and a half episodes of the original full House.Michael Jamin:Uhhuh .Steve Baldikoski:So I didn't know anything about Full House, but other people did. And so if we would want to throw in, we call them Easter eggs, right? Throw in little Easter eggs and bring back, you know, some character that was in an, in a single episode 30 years ago, we would bring those actors back and the audience would go bananas. Yeah.Michael Jamin:But how, how can, you didn't watch any old episodes or, you know, there's so much,Steve Baldikoski:Why, why didn't I, orMichael Jamin:Yeah, why didn't you?Steve Baldikoski:Well part of it is I, I didn't want to actually be beholden to any of the other of the old stories.Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:Because I mean, even, you know, like Fuller House is a little bit of an old fashioned show, but we didn't wanna make it just like completely stuck in the past and, and a show that is only about, that's referencing the original show. And that was more helpful to just have a perspective of like, what's it like raising, you know, three kids in, you know, modern day California.Michael Jamin:But did you feel a, a strong, I guess, obligation to make sure the fans were happy? Cuz I'm show the writers are writing for themselves.Steve Baldikoski:Oh, oh, for sure. We were doing that constantly and you know, we, we knew it. There were certain things that were like, you know, throwing red meat to the audience.Michael Jamin:Oh.Steve Baldikoski:You know, kind of like, like, like if you're doing the show Fuller House, no. You know, no matter what the story you're doing is, or whatever, if you have to, you bring in a dog wearing sunglasses and the audience goes bananas. And then how do you talk? And a, a baby runs in wearing the same sunglasses.Michael Jamin:Mm-Hmm.Steve Baldikoski: and then just the, the audience like tears of joy in the audienceMichael Jamin:Because that's, that, that was an old staple in the original show, stuff like that.Steve Baldikoski:Yeah. I mean, that's just the kind of thing that they would stoop to, you know, . And so, no, but it was, but it was this, it was this, the Four House is a show that like, you know, it really, it really affected me as a writer cuz it was really that time when every week there were 200 fans in the audience. Super fans who knew every single episode of Full House and Fuller House. And so you would get this amazing instant recognition from the audience that you're writing for them.Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:Especially when you would have those little Easter eggs and you don't get that on a lot of shows.Michael Jamin:Right. YouSteve Baldikoski:Know, like I, you know, may maybe on your Just Shoot Me you would have just shoot me fans, but every seat every week was a super fan.Michael Jamin:No. The weird thing about Just Shoot Me, you know, cause we was, we were there the first four years and the, the first season, probably the first two seasons that the audience, they weren't fans, they were hostages. There was people who came from Free Pizza, , you can tell they wouldn't wanna be there. . And they know the showSteve Baldikoski:Prisoners,Michael Jamin:Prison Prisoners,Steve Baldikoski:You're sailors in for Fleet Week.Michael Jamin:It's basically that. I mean, people listening, it's like you show up on Hollywood Boulevard and they hand out tickets, Hey, who wants to see a taping of the show? And then anyone would show up and they would stay warm, cause anybody to get outta the rain. ButSteve Baldikoski:These, no, these were people who came from not just around the country, but from literally around the world to see the show. Yeah. And they would th these people would center their vacation on coming to the show. And, and so, you know, I I mean I, it was also amazing to be able to, like, after the show, you know, if you knew who the people were you would bring them down and, and they would just get a kick out of walking around the set. Mm-Hmm. . And that was another kind of highlight every week was, you know, having these people, you know, have this awesome experience that they've grown up with these characters in this set. And then they're running around on the set, you know, now that they're grown up and they've got kids who, who like the shows.Michael Jamin:Now this set was a repeat that wasn't,Steve Baldikoski:That was kind of amazing cuz you would, it it wasn't just, it wasn't just fans, it was two generations of fans. Right. You know, it was like people who are sort of our age and then they're kids. Right. And, and so, you know, when network people talk about family co-viewing, it really was that it was, you know, parents who still love the show,Michael Jamin:But it wasn't the set was a remake. Right. It wasn't the actually,Steve Baldikoski:It, it was a remake. But I'll I'll tell you, and this is also part of the weird experience coming onto the show, cuz neither, you know, I had no appreciation really for a full house at the time. So before the first show, and this was the entire first season before it aired on Netflix there was a curtain covering the set. And before they would announce the actors, they would, they would lift the curtain like it, like it was like at the theater. Right. And the first time for the shooting the pilot, when they revealed that to the audience, people burst into tears.Michael Jamin:Wow.Steve Baldikoski:Just seeing the set and the couch looking just like it did in the eighties. And the way they really, really mimicked the original set, you know, to the Inch cuz they had the original plans. It was amazing to see people moved by a set.Michael Jamin:Yeah, I bet. ISteve Baldikoski:Bet. And yeah. And so, so that was pretty unusual. And then any line would get, even a mediocre line would get an aureus laugh from the audience cuz they were all, they've been waiting for 25 years to see this moment.Michael Jamin:Now, I imagine you had some of the writers in the show who grew up with watching the original Fall House, who knew more about the show than, than you did? Who?Steve Baldikoski:Oh, oh yeah. Yeah. For sure. And that's why also I felt I didn't need to see the show that much. I'm not recommending people shouldn't do homework .Michael Jamin:Now, one of the things that shocked me when we, when we were working with you, this is long, many years ago, and maybe it was only a season one or something. You shocked me when you said that you, at one point you were, you started as a network executive. I was like, you what? WhatSteve Baldikoski:Well, yeah, Stu, a studio, executiveMichael Jamin:Studio. SoSteve Baldikoski:Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. I was, I was I was like a director of comedy development at Universal.Michael Jamin:And so tell tell us what, what that means. WhatSteve Baldikoski:Do, should I go back further? Could goMichael Jamin:Back to where you wanna startSteve Baldikoski:To that point. I mean, I never, I never set out to be a writer. I don't even know if you know any of my origin story about this stuff. Oh. I never really set out to be a writer. I always loved TV, but I also love music in, in movies. But didn't even know I was gonna get into the entertainment business until I was trying to blow a year or two before I would get a little bit of work experience and then back to go to law school. You were gonna law school get an mba and I was never gonna be a part of the entertainment industry, but I just lucked into what turned out to be a great job in the mail room at United Talent Agency, uta. And it was like this moment that U t A was on the rise and I, yeah, I was in the mail room where I'm literally working 80 hours a week delivering mail and reading scripts for free and writing coverage, doing that for five months. Then I got on a desk, I worked for Nancy Jones and Jay Surs.Michael Jamin:Oh boy.Steve Baldikoski:I was their first assistants at United Talent, I believe. And then and then I knew it wasn't for me cuz it was really cutthroat. Yes. I, I was learning what I didn't want to do. And working a traditional office that led to I got a job in development. I worked at Aaron Spelling Productions, and then that job got me wait, howMichael Jamin:Did you get a job in development? Cause it's, it is hard to make the transition from being an assistant at a desk to having a non-a job anywhere.Steve Baldikoski:Oh, oh. I, I was still an assistant for Oh, okay. Years. I was an assistant for spelling for one year. Mm-Hmm. , then I was an assistant. I worked for Jamie Tarsus at b c. Right. And that's, and that was kind of the, the, the pivotal moment in my career. Cuz kind of anyone who was Jamie Tarsus assistant moved on to become the next executive. Right. And so that kind of became my path. I was, I, I never set out to do this, but I just kept at getting a job that was just better than the last one. Mm-Hmm. . So I never had the reason to go back to law school. Right. And it was just like they kept on dragging me back in with a slightly better job. So this one year I spent as Jamie's assistant at N B C Frazier had been bought, but not shot.And then Jamie bought friends that year. I can't remember the names of the other shows, but but like, you know, being on set at the pilot of Friends was really that pivotal moment for me where I thought, oh, th this is, you know, really what I wanna do. Like, and I was on the path to be an executive, but I really would look over and the writers seemed to be having a lot more fun. And that's where I, I didn't really even know it, but that was, that was my path to be to being a writer was just kind of hanging out at N B C and, and seeing how things, you know, being a part of. But evenMichael Jamin:When you were an executive development exec, were you thinking, I want to be a writer? Or were you thinking No, no,Steve Baldikoski:Not really. I, I knew like, the executive path was like, was fine and I did that. And on the executive path, when you're no longer an assistant, you get bumped up and you get the office and it was very kind of, there were a lot of fancy trappings. I would wear a suit and I'd drive around all the networks trying to sell co half hour comedies to the networks. And it was it was a good job. But there was just something I still kept on looking at, you know, the writers who were on the floor and thought they were having more fun.Michael Jamin:But Do you, and you were giving notes to writers Yes. As executive. Do you at any point feel like, I don't really, how might, who might I be giving notes to a writer when theySteve Baldikoski:Oh, I, I, I felt that all the time. And because I felt that, cuz I kind of had so much respect for what the writers did. Yeah. That it was, it was hard for me to give as many notes. Cuz I thought the writer probably already had thought these things throughMichael Jamin:Uhhuh .Steve Baldikoski:But where were youMichael Jamin:Getting your notes from then?Steve Baldikoski:What's that?Michael Jamin:Where were you getting your notes from? Where were you getting your opinions from?Steve Baldikoski:Well, I, I have opinions just like, IMichael Jamin:Wouldn't have, I wouldn't have when I was starting it out, I go, I don't know. That's fine to me.Steve Baldikoski:I mean, you're, you're sort of clued in to, to what your boss likes. Mm-Hmm. , you also have your own tastes. You, you kind of know what the project is supposed to be. I, yeah, I don't know. There, there's no formal executive school on how to give notes. That's why it's kind, it's kind of a weird job because there's no training for it. I don't really necessarily know what makes you good or not good.Michael Jamin:And some, a lot of it is just opinion. But I I sometimes you'll get the same notes and which are fair, which is a, you know, start the story journal, whatever. That's a great note that you're always, this is totally valid note. But sometimes I, you know, I've been in meetings and you're like, you get a note, you're like, but that's just your opinion. This doesn't make it better or worse.Steve Baldikoski:Yes. And, and I mean, obviously, you know, that's something you, you will struggle with till the end of time. Yeah. But, but I also always go back to, you know, I, I think there's a, there's a cartoon about this at, at some point, but, but like, if Shakespeare handed an Hamlet, his agent would give him notes. Yeah. And he would say, Hamlet is inactive. Yeah. And then you would make him Mae swashbuckling hero.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Right. Yes.Steve Baldikoski:And that would ruin Hamlet. So, so like, you know, and, and the problem is that like, the, that agent's note would be a well, well-guided note.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Hamlet, that isSteve Baldikoski:A mm-hmm. is a valid thing for him to say, but it also ruins the inherent art of the piece. Yeah.Michael Jamin:You know? Yeah. Had a kick. ButSteve Baldikoski:Then not that writing Glen Martin was the equivalent of ShakespeareMichael Jamin:In many ways. But it wasSteve Baldikoski:Pretty close.Michael Jamin:It was a little higherSteve Baldikoski:. But ,Michael Jamin:We had some fun on that show. But and then when, when you wanted to make the transition, I don't know how, how, how do you do, how did you do that?Steve Baldikoski:So, so, and once, like, and this is just my case, it was shockingly not that hard. My who became my writing partner was one of my best friends in college. And Brian had always wanted to be a sitcom writer. And just kind of had, kind of flamed out a couple of times. And then he was living in San Francisco and having a really excellent career as a, as an advertising copywriter. And I called him up and I told him I wanted to write sitcom with him. And he said no. And then he say he changed his mind.Michael Jamin:Why did he say no?Steve Baldikoski:Cuz I said, fine, I'm, if you don't write it with me, I'm gonna write it with Sue Ale .Michael Jamin:Oh,Steve Baldikoski:Funny. That's a true story. She wasn't,Michael Jamin:Sue wasn't an Sue Nagle who later went on to run H B O and then and Ana and you know, she, she's big, but she, at the time she was, she was, sheSteve Baldikoski:Was not yet an agent or she was a very young one. And we, butMichael Jamin:She didn't wanna write,Steve Baldikoski:Did she? So then we got together and to go to a coffee place to brainstorm. And we got into a, we didn't even make it to the coffee place before we got into a huge argumentMichael Jamin:Over what?Steve Baldikoski:Oh, I don't, I don't rememberMichael Jamin:. This partnership's not going well,Steve Baldikoski:. No, he was, he was not. But, but if you can't make it to the place where you're supposed to think , then it's probably a doom partnership. So anyway, Brian said yes. Mm-Hmm. . And then so over the phone we wrote a spec news radio back when people still did that. Yep. And News Radio had just been on the air. So we wanted to write a show that we loved and also that there weren't a ton of samples of other specs like that. Right. So we, this news radio early on and I gave it to Sue Nagle, she liked it. She gave it to Michael Whitehorn at Ned and Stacy. And we had one meeting Brian flew in from San Francisco. I showed up in my suit from being in an executive. I had to sneak out from Universal and not tell him where I was going. DidMichael Jamin:Michael White hard know you were an executive at the time? Yes, he did. HeSteve Baldikoski:Didn't think, but, but, but that was actually kind of a good thing because Brian was an ad executive. Mm-Hmm. and Ned of Ned and Stacy Right. Was an ad executive. And then also cuz I had, you know, funny corporate stories I think Michael liked that as well. And the fact he gets two people for a staff writer's salary.Michael Jamin:Were you afraid to leave your cushy job?Steve Baldikoski:Less so than Brian. I, if, if I flamed out, I could always go back to being an executive and, you know, that would be fine. Right. And, and in hindsight, that probably would've been the best thing that happened, everyone.Michael Jamin:But Yeah. I mean, itSteve Baldikoski:Wouldn't be here talking to you. I, I, I'd be living in Bermuda by now, .Michael Jamin:Oh, well, you know, learn.Steve Baldikoski:Yes. So, but unfortunately I made it through that year and then made it through the next like 25 years. And so, so that was my, that was my path. And, and it kind of happened really fast that I, so then Michael hired us after that meeting, and then I had to go tell my boss at Universal that not only was I looking for a job, but I had one and it was as a writer.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:And then, and so their business affairs made this big stink that they owned my half of my spec script.Michael Jamin:And what, what are they planning on doing with it?Steve Baldikoski:I, well, that, well, I, I asked them that and I think they were all gonna take my spot in the writer's room.Michael Jamin:Yeah. What you're, they have they own ha you're half of a worthless SPAC script that just got you a job. I don't know,Steve Baldikoski:Value it. It was a weird thing. But they,Michael Jamin:But businessSteve Baldikoski:Affairs won't hesitate toMichael Jamin:Sink a deal whenever possible. . Yes. We remove the joy out of a writer . We have a three hour phone call toSteve Baldikoski:Figure this out. And they, yes, they effectively did steal my joy of that moment,Michael Jamin:. Oh my God. And then, yeah. Then the rest was just one show after another, basically. AndSteve Baldikoski:Then, yeah. And yeah, it started out we got in, at the time there used to be the WB in, in U p n, the Paramount Network. I think like in that, in that time period, this is like 97, 98, there was like the peak of the sitcom. I think there were over 60 half hour sitcoms on the air. And then Brian and I rode that rollercoaster.Michael Jamin:Hey, it's Michael Jamin. If you like my videos and you want me to email them to you for free, join my watch list. Every Friday I send out my top three videos. These are for writers, actors, creative types. You can unsubscribe whenever you want. I'm not gonna spam you and it's absolutely free. Just go to michaeljamin.com/watchlist.So tell me about developing your last project.Steve Baldikoski:Okay, so the, the last project that I just developed I sold it to a ABC with 20th. Mm-Hmm. came to me because it was so personal to what I'm going through as a dad. Mm-Hmm. , my youngest kid is non-binary.Michael Jamin:Okay.Steve Baldikoski:And she she was born a girl, Vivian. And then around time, she was about the second grade, she came to us and said that she, she felt that she was a boy. Right. And so that led us down on this journey. You know, finding out, you know, like having a trans kid and non-binary kid and never knowing anything about it. Right. and that kind of led me to want to write about it after I broke up with my writing partner right at the start of Covid. And I was gonna have to write my first thing. So I was gonna write at first I was actually gonna develop step by step BA based on the same concept. I was unable to sell that to H B O Max mm-hmm. . so instead I redeveloped the idea of me being this like hapless dad sort of middle class working class guy in rural Wisconsin, which is where my mom's family is from.And then having this tomboy kid that he just loves more than anything. Hi. Her, his Maisie all of a sudden informs him that no her name is, she's now Hunter. And you're thinking this as a single camera comedy or what? This was a single camera comedy. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it was structured like a multicam, but, but really that was from, anyway, that was my speck. And what that led me to, to, to, to do is it got me the attention of other people who were in the non-binary trans world. So then ultimately I partnered just through meeting lots of people this woman named Billy Lee, who some people know because Billy Lee was on early seasons of Vander Pump Rules. Okay. and so it was kind of a, like a well-known person in, in the trans community.And then, so Billy Lee and her friend Priscilla had this idea about her own life, which is kind of almost too hard to believe is true. Billy Lee grew up in rural Indiana as a boy. Left home in 18, found out that he wasn't gay, he was actually a, she Right. And went through the surgeries and then, you know, a a lot of turmoil, but then returns back home and fell in love with her best male friend from junior high. And now they're together as an on and off couple. And so it was, how, how do I take that and turn that into a half hour comedy? I know it's a long wind up, but it's a great story that is almost hard to believe. Yeah. AndMichael Jamin:Was her best friend growing up.Steve Baldikoski:Yes. And so we pitched it really as a Netflix H b o Showtime show that would, would show that magic relationship and also have sex and, you know, things that I think would be hard, you know, relatively hard for a, you know, a regular network audience.Michael Jamin:And it's sold,Steve Baldikoski:But it sold to a b ABC because they wanted, there's this great, her relationship with her father is also really what it's about. Right. And it's, it, it is a fa is also a family show about how it took a trans woman to fix this broken Midwestern family.Michael Jamin:Right. AndSteve Baldikoski:Right in ABC's wheelhouse, youMichael Jamin:Know, where where is that now? At likeSteve Baldikoski:A, like a Connor's but with a strong trans element.Michael Jamin:And where is that right now?Steve Baldikoski:It's dead. Oh,Michael Jamin:Steve Baldikoski:Michael Jamin:With every other pilot.Steve Baldikoski:Yeah. yeah. I, I, you know, I can't, I I can't entirely blame them. Like, it, it would be very amazing to see a, b, c put on a show about a trans woman and not have it be one of the peripheral characters.Michael Jamin:Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:I, I, I think that's just a hard sell. Maybe if I was, you know, a more powerful writer, could, could you, you know, jam that down their throat? But I, I don't think, I think the subject matter was exactly their wheelhouse, but also maybe too, too on the bleeding edge for them.Michael Jamin:It, it feels a little like, you know, some somebody somewhere at that H B O show. I love that show. No. Oh yeah. It's a little sim it's it, and there's not trans, but it's, it's similar that, I don't know, that just remind me of It's great. It's a great show. Our friend Rob Cohen directs a bunch of those. Oh yeah.Steve Baldikoski:Oh, I'll have to check that out.Michael Jamin:Yeah. Great show. But, so then, okay, so then what, what else? Like, you, I mean, it's been a while since, you know, since Fuller House, but what was that like? I always ask this, what's it like working with the cuz a lot has changed since you and I broke in. Yes. What is it working on with like the, the new generation of writers?Steve Baldikoski:Well luckily at Four House I was still the new generation of writers . What wasn't thatMichael Jamin:Mean, wasn't that long ago.Steve Baldikoski:I, I still felt young on the show Uhhuh. Cause Cause we had people No, we, we had people who were older and Oh right. And you know, were around the early, theMichael Jamin:Original show.Steve Baldikoski:And so, so it was kind of great to feel like I was on the young side for once. Yeah. but I, I understand what you're, I understand what you're, what you're getting to are like in terms of how the room has changed from started to now, evenMichael Jamin:In terms of preparation because, you know, you can answer any way you want. But it, like, basically there was more when we were coming up, you were on a show for longer. There were more senior writers and you were constantly learning and you were never, I never, you were never like thrown into the hot wa hot water yet. But now I feel like these kids come in and there's no really training ground. There's no, there's even, you know, I think there's an article a couple days ago, there's no mentorship anymore becauseSteve Baldikoski:No, no, no, no, no. There, there isn't. And you know, that's too sad. I think that, I think content in general is as good as it's ever been. Mm-Hmm. . And yet that training system doesn't seem to exist. And I wish it did. When, when we first got in around the Ned and Stacy era, like there still was that you would still feel that like a showrunner would take someone mm-hmm. Under his wing, like Michael Whitehorn did with David Lit. Yep. And Shepherd that person cuz they would have multiple years of Ned and Stacy. And then luckily that turned into King of Queens. Mm-Hmm. and, and you know, soMichael Jamin:There were schools.Steve Baldikoski:Mike were together for a long time. That's the old model. I don't see that anymore. I wish it was there. Because to to be honest with you, like when Brian and I made the jump from co-executive producers of Fuller House to executive producers, it, it was like, we are being thrown to the wolves after 25 years. Yes. Because because of jumping from show to show, to show like younger writers do now all the time. I, I didn't learn those skills mm-hmm. . And so we didn't really know that much about editing, you know, sweetening like it, how's our camera coverage. Right. you know, all all of those little things that, you know, I had to, I had to learn them very, very quickly. And so luckily I had a, a great, you know, you know, crew that all wanted to help us as, you know, learn as well. But yeah, there is no system. I wish there wasMichael Jamin:Like, I even think like multi-camera, like you, back in the day, you'd come out of a school like we basically . We, we kind of came out of the Frazier school cause Levitan came outta Frazier, which came outta the cheer school. And it was like that kind of pedigree that you had and you're just learning from all those people. And then now, like, there's so few multi cams. Like if they were to bring back multi cams, well who's gonna do it? Who knows how to do it? Because it's different than doing a single camera.Steve Baldikoski:It's funny, it's funny you say that because that's why I'm calling onto the business. Yeah. that I'm hoping, I'm hoping that that we can stick around long enough that it will come back at some point. UhhuhMichael Jamin:. Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:I, I love the format. Like, I mean that's, that's one of the things that like really me about Fuller House is you know, I was able to be there for like five years mm-hmm. . and I never really had to worry about, you know, job security and it, it was this amazing place and we, and there were fans of the show and, and it was just great to write for them. And so that spoiled me, you know, now that that kind of is, you know, has gone away now that Fuller house is no longer on the air. Friday night was my drug, you know, cuz you know, Friday night I love putting on a show every week and I miss that.Michael Jamin:Here's my pitch Fullest house. Pay me. That's,Steve Baldikoski:That's, that's a great idea. That's a great, I wonder, I wonder if anyone pitched that to me, before the day I started.Michael Jamin:I wonder if anybody pitched that to me. Your shitty joke. .Steve Baldikoski:So was it one of my low IQ children?Michael Jamin:. Well then, so then what do you do? So what do you do now? I mean you're obviously you're developing and, andSteve Baldikoski:So, so now I I'm, I'm working on a, a, a new multi-camera idea. I'm very excited aboutMichael Jamin:And Gone Steve Baldikoski:Haven'tMichael Jamin:Taken it out yet.Steve Baldikoski:Yeah. no, I'm just, I I I, I think I finally ha I have the pilot story. I'm just trying to populate it with all the other, all the other things.Michael Jamin:Okay. And then, and thenSteve Baldikoski:With all the other characters cuz I basically started with the central character, Uhhuh . It is kind of high concept, but I don't wanna give it away. I I'll talk to you off camera about it. Okay. with the central character and then that led to a bigger world. Then populate that world kind of how to, how I want to, how I wanna fit tonally into that world. Like it's, it's, it's an idea that would, to me, it feels a little in the vein of what we do in the shadows.Michael Jamin:Oh, okay. Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:In terms of like a high concept comedy idea. And because I never worked for him, but like, my hero as a sitcom writer is Paul Sims.Michael Jamin:Okay.Steve Baldikoski:And it, you know, my first spec was Ned and Stacy. I mean, I, I was news Radio. Radio. Yeah. And which was run by Paul Sims, created by Paul Sims. And now he runs mm-hmm. . you know, what we do in the Shadows, which I just think is a brilliant, brilliant show.Michael Jamin:So then what do you have, what advice do you have for people? Do you have any advice for people trying to get into the business now? Well,Steve Baldikoski: that's why I'm here. I thought I was seeking advice from you. Yeah.Michael Jamin:You thought you were a, a job.Steve Baldikoski:I thought people were gonna, I thought people were gonna call in and tell me what to do with my life.Michael Jamin:Yeah, exactly.Steve Baldikoski:I, I mean the, the number one thing is like, if you want to be a writer, I think you probably have to move to LA maybe New York. But if you want to be in TV comedy, I think you have to be in LA Yeah. That's the first thing you have to do is move here and then write all, you can write things that make you laugh. Right. That abuse you, because no one else will probably enjoy it. So you might as well, you might as well . And, and also, and also I think you, you, you have to get creative, you know I think social media is a great way to get noticed.Michael Jamin:Mm-Hmm. ,Steve Baldikoski:My wife happens to be an executive on the TV side, and she bought the Twitter feed shit, my dad says when she wasMichael Jamin:Wild. And that was gotta be 10 years ago now.Steve Baldikoski:And Yes. And I, and I think that was like the first thing that a network executive or that a network has like, bought something on, like no one was buying a Twitter feed at the time. Right. And, and I thought that was pretty clever that Wendy started looking at things like that. And I, I think that's a great place to get noticed. Yeah,Michael Jamin:I agree.Steve Baldikoski:Especially for young comedy writers. Does sheMichael Jamin:Still do that? Does she still actively, does she look on social media for other people like that?Steve Baldikoski:She does that. She also she flips through, they get they get proposals of books that are coming out. Not even books that have been written, but just titles of book proposals sometimes.Michael Jamin:Really. AndSteve Baldikoski:She has scanned through that and bought a series based on one of the blurbs that she read aboutMichael Jamin:That I'veSteve Baldikoski:Never heard that. That was, that that was actually the show Atory.Michael Jamin:I Okay. Cuz that's a good title. ISteve Baldikoski:Never heard thatMichael Jamin:Before. So I would, I would, I've always, cause my advice to given people is, well, it's gotta be a bestselling book, but you're sayingSteve Baldikoski:Oh, oh, oh. I'm not, oh, I'm not suggesting that's a way to get noticed,Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:To, to write a book. Although it's not a bad idea. If you have a great life story, write a book or put it on TikTok.Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:I think, I think just if you have a comic voice, there are a million ways to get it out there. Yeah. and my dear friend, a guy named David Arnold was a writer on Filler House and just started showing, you know, doing TikTok videos of, of him and his wife and kids. And then he, like, I think Ellen DeGeneres was the first to share one of his videos, and then that blew up for him. And then he ended up, he was getting sponsored and he was a, he was a standup comic and it was helping out with his standup business. Yeah. And so at the age of, you know, 53, he was discovered on new media, you know, andMichael Jamin:And what would hasSteve Baldikoski:Become little tiny sketches about his family.Michael Jamin:Oh, I, let's talk about Kirsty, which was you, you were, to me, that was a lot of fun. So that was a Kirsty Alley show. Yeah. And you guys brought us in. They needed a a freelance. I don't know why they, but they wanted to have somebody freelance even though you got a, a great writing staff. Oh,Steve Baldikoski:.Michael Jamin:And I like, we're like, we'll do it. And thenSteve Baldikoski:I think, I think our, I think I think your agent said that your teeth were falling out and if you didn't write a script for the medical Oh,Michael Jamin:Not at all. Honestly,Steve Baldikoski:That show,Michael Jamin:Because that was a bunch of heavy hitters on that show. Yeah. I really enjoyed it. We were only sat, we only sat in for a couple days. We walked you guys, we walked in and then you guys said, okay, here's the story. We, we broke it, kind of go write it. We're like, okay. And but it was a, itSteve Baldikoski:Was to start Ted Damson. Sson.Michael Jamin:Yeah. And, and then, and Marco punted it for se the next season thinking it was gonna be a season two Marco, there's no season two . You don't punt that. You shoot it today before, before they pull the plug. Steve Baldikoski:The old, we will use this we'll use scripts season two. Yeah.Michael Jamin:The old season twoSteve Baldikoski:Trick. I don't know if that was him being tricked or you being tricked.Michael Jamin:Honestly, we had a great time. It wasSteve Baldikoski:A great script. It was a greatMichael Jamin:Script. It was fun. It was just fun sitting in with a bunch of people. Yeah, well, a bunch of writers that I respected. SoSteve Baldikoski:No, that was an amazing, that was an amazing experience. I, I, we like Claris Leachman did the show. Mm-Hmm. like some really, you know we, we wrote an episode for John Travolta. Yeah.Michael Jamin:And was it Michael Richards and Ria Pearlman. And it was like, these are good, these are heavy hitters, these are great actors. So, andSteve Baldikoski:The, the night that Claris Leachman did the show, we went out for drinks afterwards, Uhhuh with her. And I ended up sitting next to Kirsty Allie's assistant. And it wasn't until about 10 minutes into my conversation when she mentioned reincarnation, that I realized that I was talking to a high level Scientologist. And then I, and then I noticed she was doing all these Scientology tricks with me, like deep deeply staring into my eyes and not blinking until I blink. It was, it was, it was very bizarre.Michael Jamin:Wow. I I think we can,Steve Baldikoski:That's, that, that's, that's a good enough reason to become a sitcom writer is Yeah. To have someone do Scientology mind tricks on you. ThoseMichael Jamin:Are, that those are all these, those are always good stories when you Yeah. Can you go hang out on the past? Hang out. Yeah. And then what aboutSteve Baldikoski:When, when Clarus Leachman is far from the craziest person at the table? .Michael Jamin:She was, she was pretty wild. Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:Michael Jamin:Did I ever work? I'm trying to remember if I ever worked with her on something. I think I did, but I can't remember what it was.Steve Baldikoski:Gotta be. Just, just shoot me.Michael Jamin:It might have been. I don't remember. I, I, you know, but Okay. Well let's get to baby, let's get to the, what everyone wants to talk about Baby Bob.Steve Baldikoski:Oh,Michael Jamin:, let's go. YouSteve Baldikoski:Saved the best for last.Michael Jamin:I saved the best for last. Let's talk about baby. Well,Steve Baldikoski:I, I believe that Baby Bob was the highest rated show that I've ever been on,Michael Jamin:But they canceled it so fast.Steve Baldikoski:They canceled it. Yes. I think that was a, that was a disconnect where the high, high ups meaning like Les Moon vest when he was running CBSs, I think he wanted Baby Bob to be on the air. Oh. And so that he developed it like two or three times with multiple casts.Michael Jamin:Right. We gotta have a talking baby.Steve Baldikoski:And it was, and, but the, but the Talking baby always stayed the same based on these commercials. Was it Geico? Yes. I think his Geico commercials with the baby Ba with Baby Bob interviewing Shaq Yeah. Is, it's the concept that got everyone all hot and bothered. And so, so Les Moonves bought the show. This is my version of the story, I'm sure it's only partially accurate. But he didn't really include the lower level executives who absolutely hated the show. And so, as Brian and I got hired on the show, we thought, Hey, it's a c b s show. They must like the show. But the reaction from the executives after every table read was basically, how dare you,Michael Jamin:How dare how dare you have the baby talk? How dare you. WhatSteve Baldikoski:Like, just everything about the show seemed to offend the, the c bs executives incivility who were in charge of the show.Michael Jamin:Were, were there anything advertised guys in it? Were they involved at all?Steve Baldikoski:No, not, I don't think so. Kenny Kenny Campbell is the voice and mouth of the baby. Uhhuh . And then actually I didn't know much about babies when I was on the show, but then now when I look back, I realize how creepy it is that a baby has a full set of adult teeth. Yeah. Yeah. That are prominent. If I saw a baby like that in real life, I would run.Michael Jamin:Do you think that was the problem with the show? Steve Baldikoski:, this is the baby's teeth? Well, well the Mike Saltzman, my dear friend who Yeah. Saltman created the show, described it as Frazier, and they happened to have a talking baby.Michael Jamin:The other, so the other Oh, Freeman was Frazier had, okay. Frazier. All right.Steve Baldikoski:And they just happened to have a talking baby. IMichael Jamin:SaltmanSteve Baldikoski:That was, that was Mike'sMichael Jamin:And what, what were the writers do? Did, yeah.Steve Baldikoski:I don't have a lot of memories. . Okay.Michael Jamin:SoSteve Baldikoski:There were a lot of late nights and one night, I think it was about midnight, that I got into a shouting match with one of the other writers about whether or not Baby Bob was a genius.Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:And the other writer was taking the stance of he's not a genius, he's only talking at six months. Mozart was writing symphonies at, at five or seven, and I was shouting and I was yelling about the other side that Mozart was not talking at sick at six months.Michael Jamin:And was everyone looking at you both outta your mind? ?Steve Baldikoski:Yes. Like, it's midnight. Can I go home?Michael Jamin:Can I go home? How get the baby to dance? That's all.Steve Baldikoski:But, but, but, but, but I mean, part of the lesson there is even a show that you think is so, so simple or terrible that you could write it in it, in its in your sleep. Uhhuh . It's not that way. No. No. Because even a show like that is very hard to write. Yes.Michael Jamin:Yes. BecauseSteve Baldikoski:You have so many layers of people to Please,Michael Jamin:Yes. People ask me is they say is a, is a, is a great show. Hard to write than a bad show. No, they're all, they're all kind of hard to write for different reasons. Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:And that, that was, I mean, definitely a lesson. And then another lesson was despite what we felt like, I like it, it is sort of embarrassing to be on a show like Baby Bob when you're on the Paramount lot and then the Frazier Golf Cart drives by and you're in the same business, but you're not in the same business. But when it came to the ratings, baby Bob did huge in the ratings. Yeah. Yeah. And it was like one of the top, I think it's one of the top new comedies that year.Michael Jamin:And that's so interesting. And, and that's, that's the thing people don't realize as well, is that you, you may be a great writer, but if you're in this lane, it's hard to get out of that lane cuz that's how people see you. Yes. And if you're in a great, even if you're even a bad writer on a great show, now you're in that lane. You're in a great ri you're, you know, you, you're inflated. So Yeah. Yeah. yeah. People don't quite realize that.Steve Baldikoski:Yeah.Michael Jamin:And you take, you gotta take the job, you gotta get you, but you take the job you get, you know, so Yeah. And,Steve Baldikoski:And, and you really, and you really don't know if it's gonna pan out.Michael Jamin:No.Steve Baldikoski:Like I remember talking to Al Jane and Mike Reese mm-hmm. when we worked with them and asking them when they got started, they started on the, started on The Simpsons I think coming off of Gary Shaline show and when they were pitched coming on to do this cartoon on Fox.Michael Jamin:Right.Steve Baldikoski:They thought, I think that they thought it was, it was not good for their career.Michael Jamin:It would kill their career. Yeah. And, and now it would make no difference, honestly. Now you what? You take a job, you know, whatever job you can get, you take a job, you know? Yeah. But back then you could make decisions. You could make choices.Steve Baldikoski:Yes. Yeah. I, yeah. And, and interestingly, like back when Brian and I were making lists of shows, we would wanna be on Uhhuh, Simpsons was like a C-level list at the time.Michael Jamin:Uhhuh Really? CauseSteve Baldikoski:We liked it, but we thought it was imminently. We, we didn't, no one still knew it was gonna be on the airMichael Jamin:40 years later.Steve Baldikoski:Yeah. And you know, cuz cuz being on The Simpsons, I think it was like uncool. Then it became cool, then it was uncool.Michael Jamin:Well, in a way it's a little bit of, it's almost golden handcuffs if you're on the Cho. That that's if you're on the Simpsons now, you you're not gonna leave. Yeah. Cause it's job security and get ready to, for writing Bart jokes for the rest of your career, you know. Yeah.Steve Baldikoski:But the crazy thing is that there are writers who are still there, who were there when I was in the mail room at United Town. Sure.Michael Jamin:Yeah. SoSteve Baldikoski:Th there are peopleMichael Jamin:Who, they've made a career at it who,Steve Baldikoski:Yes. So I was in the, I was on the business side of the business. I became an executive and then I was a writer for 25 years. Yeah. And they're still doing the job from the day I got into the business.Michael Jamin:It's so interesting. It's just so, yeah. It's, and I would think creatively it's hard, but you know, you, but the money will make, will make you feel better. You know,Steve Baldikoski:Money makes a lot of things feel better.Michael Jamin:You crying for your 50? Is there a 50 bill? . I wouldn't know what a 50 bill looks like. Fascinating. Dude, thank you so much. We have a good chat. We had a good time.Steve Baldikoski:Steve. Thanks for having me.Michael Jamin:Thank you so much. This is, I, I don't know, I'm always fascinating in, in learning people's journeys and how they got there and so thank you so much for, for being on my little show.Steve Baldikoski:Thank you. And hopefully you have stuff that you don't have to cut.Michael Jamin:Oh, , sorry folks. If you heard the version that, the edited version, we had a trash, a lot of stuff. ,Steve Baldikoski:.Michael Jamin:All right everyone, thank you so much. Remember, we offer, we got a lot of great stuff for you on my website. You can get on my newsletter, you get my free all that stuff. Go to michaeljamin.com and find out what we got there. And I got another webinar coming up. All right everyone, thanks so much. Until next, next week, keep writing.Phil Hudson:This has been an episode where screenwriters need to hear this with Michael Jamin and Phil Hudson. If you'd like to support this podcast, please consider subscribing, leaving a review and sharing this podcast with someone who needs to hear today's subject. For free daily screenwriting tips, follow Michael on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok @MichaelJaminWriter. You can follow me on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok @PhilAHudson. This episode was produced by Phil Hudson and edited by Dallas Crane. Until next time, keep writing.

Carin Bosman, stigter en spesialis in waterbestuur by CBSS gesels oor die toestand van die grootste damme in die land, hoeveel geld nodig is om die instandhouding nou te doen, asook wie die damme in stand moet hou.

För 30 år sedan återuppstod de baltiska staternas självständighet. Sovjetunionen föll sönder, hopp föddes om ett nytt demokratiskt Ryssland . ett fritt demokratiskt Polen och ett enat Tyskland . Förutsättningar uppstod för ett nytt livaktigt Östersjösamarbete. Kunde det bli "säkerhet genom samarbete"? Med Parisstadgan (1990) och omvandlingen av Europeiska säkerhetskonferensen, ESK till Organisationen för Samarbete och Säkerhet i Europa, OSSE (1995) förändrades värdegrunden och den politiskt institutionella grunden för alleuropeisk säkerhet. Östersjöstaternas Råd (CBSS) etablerades 1992 men inte med mandat för försvarspolitiskt samarbete. Viktiga samarbeten inleddes bland annat gällande räddningstjänst, brottsbekämpning, mot människohandel, gränskontroll, miljöförbättring, energisamarbete, kultur/högre utbildning. Senare tillkom EU:s Östersjöstrategi. I I Östersjöregionen dominerar EU-medlemmarna och EUs fokus på Östersjöregionen ökade efter att Norden och de baltiska staterna inledde ett formaliserat ”5+3-samarbete”. Andra subregionala samarbeten har också tillkommit. Trots dessa samarbeten och deklarationer om en "säker och trygg region" och målen att ”bygga förtroende och relationer grundade på tillit" har många förhoppningar som fanns för 30 år sedan försvagats. Rysslands illegala annektering av Krim anses vara en utlösande orsak. Till det kraftigt försämrade regionala samarbetet. Vad har dessa samarbeten uppnått? Vad är förutsättningarna för att utveckla dessa? Sammanfattningsvis vad är utsikterna för en säker, trygg och välmående Östersjöregion i samarbete i framtiden? Dessa frågor belystes i ett seminarium den 23 november kl 18.00 på ABF Följande deltagare i panelen: Estlands nya strategi för förstärkt nordiskt och baltiskt samarbete Mikael Laidre, ”Deputy” vid Estlands ambassad i Sverige Sveriges suveränitetsstöd till Baltikum och Östersjöregionens säkerhet Björn von Sydow, fd talman, försvarsminister Samarbete och säkerhet I Östersjöregionen Jessica Svärdström, departementsråd, bitr chef UD:s enhet för europeisk säkerhetspolitik Baltic Sea Youth Platform and the cooperation among other NGOs in the Baltic Sea Region Aline Mayr, Baltic Sea NGO Network Slutord: Anders Ljunggren, fd Sveriges ambassadör I Estland, ordförande I Föreningen Norden (Stockholm Moderator är Krister Eduards, styrelsemedlem i Östsällskapet Arrangörer: OSSE-nätverket, Östsällskapet, Föreningen Norden (Stockholm), ABF (Stockholm) ​

On this episode host Patrick Alex sat down with Mario Mello, Operating Partner at American- Brazilian fund Valor Capital to discuss their latest US$ 230M SPAC vehicle, how it came into being, the nitty gritty aspects of SPAC structuring and why they are an opportunity for emerging markets to provide more liquidity. During the session, we dive also into Mario experience concerning board structure, dynamics and the role of board observers. On this episode you will learn: Nitty gritty aspects of SPAC structuring and Valor's ownThe importance of Board transitions ("It is eternal till it lasts")Insurtech trends in the region (before their latest investment in Chilean insurtech scale-up Betterfly was announced) Importance of being humble and Mario's take on success in life and how to contribute to society You can follow Mario on LinkedIn and Twitter.  More on Mario Mello's biography below: Mr. Mello is a Board Member and Operating Partner at Valor Capital Group. Mr. Mello has over 30 years of experience in the financial services and technology industries. Prior to joining Valor, Mr. Mello served as General Manager and General Director for Paypal Latin America for 8 years. In addition, he has served as Executive Vice President at Visa Latin America, Statutory Director of Banco Real (acquired by Santander) and also a member of the Board of Directors of Cielo, CBSS and Fidelity Systems. Mr. Mello is currently a Board Member of Developer company Tenda and Founder and President of Civic Nonprofit Start Up – O Poder do Voto. Mr. Mello received a BSE in Civil Engineering from the Polytechnic School at the University of São Paulo

In episode 58 of The Secure Developer, Guy Podjarny talks to Shannon Lietz, DevSecOps Leader and Director at Intuit. Shannon is a multi-award winning leader and security innovation visionary with 20 years of experience in motivating high performance teams. Today on The Secure Developer, we interview Shannon Lietz from Intuit. She is a multi-award winning leader and security innovation visionary with 20 years of experience in motivating high-performance teams. Her accolades include winning the Scott Cook Innovation Award in 2014 for developing a new cloud security program to protect sensitive data in AWS. She has a development, security, and operations background, working for several Fortune 500 companies. Currently, she is at Intuit where she leads a team of DevSecOps engineers. In this episode, she talks about the future of security and the progress the industry has made in closing the vulnerability gaps by, inter alia, maintaining continuous testing, ongoing production, and building sufficient capability within teams to know a good test from a bad one. But the problem is a long way from solved, and she shares with enthusiasm about the new buzzword called “securability” and how this measure can be standardized to uplift the security industry as a whole.Transcript[0:01:27.9] Guy Podjarny: Hello, everyone. Welcome back to The Secure Developer. Thanks for tuning in. Today, we have really maybe one of the originators, the pioneers of DevSecOps with us and really a bright security mind in Shannon Lietz from Intuit. Thank for coming out to the show, Shannon.[0:01:42.2] Shannon Lietz: Super excited to be here. I love this show.[0:01:46.4] Guy Podjarny: Shannon, we have a whole bunch of topics to cover. Before we dig in, tell us a little bit about yourself. What is it you do? How you got into security?[0:01:53.5] Shannon Lietz: Awesome. Yeah, I've been in this industry for over 30 years and that makes me a dinosaur, as I always say. I feel the placement journey on an ad is to really try and help the industry and take some of the lessons I've learned over that long career and really try to make a change. My goal at this point is really to make a dent in the security problem as a goal for my life and my career.As part of it, I got into this basically with lots of curiosity and didn't even realize it was a mostly male journey. Nobody told me when I decided that computers were fun. I learned through lots of hard knocks, but basically this wasn't a path carved out for women. I thought, “You know what? The heck with it. I always do things that people tell me I shouldn't be doing.” I started out with computers at a really young age and eventually, learned how to do some really neat things that again, shouldn't have been done.At the time, they called it hacking. I thought, “Well, you know what? I want to be a hacker, so cool.” Then eventually, it became illegal and I was like, “Okay, that's not a job.” My dad was horrified by the fact that this could be a problem. Eventually, it turned into actually it was a job. You just had to do it a certain way. That was the beginning. I mean, when I started in computers, nothing was really illegal per se. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was interesting and that shaped some of this industry.Along the way, there's lots of trials and tribulations. Yeah, I started there and I've been a developer, so I've written code. I'm so sorry to anybody who's still maintaining my code, God forbid. Then as you look back on 30 years, you're like, “Wow, I could have done a lot of better things.”Then I got into the security and I've even done ops. I always said that if I needed to make money and pay my bills that I would ops for food, and so I ops for food. Then eventually, I smooshed it all together and created a term that some love and some hate and whether – here we are.[0:03:50.9] Guy Podjarny: Yeah. Definitely has become the terminology of choice, the depth of the – we had a rugged DevOps, we had also some variance, but it's very clear that DevSecOps is the term that emerged.[0:04:02.0] Shannon Lietz: That's cool, because I've got a new one coming.[0:04:06.0] Guy Podjarny: We've got some great further pioneering here to air on the show. Just a little bit from a companies and industries' experience and so we don't completely jumped around, like a whole bunch of things. I think right now, you are at Intuit, right? Before that, you were at ServiceNow?[0:04:23.9] Shannon Lietz: I was. I was at that wonderful other cloud company. I like cloud companies as they seem to be fun. I was also at Sony before that. I mean, my track record is pretty much financial. I did telco work. I mean, I've had about 22 companies that worked for in this period. I've been at Intuit now for almost eight years, which is the longest job I've ever had.[0:04:44.3] Guy Podjarny: Yeah. Well, definitely changing the streak here. What is it you do at Intuit?[0:04:47.9] Shannon Lietz: I run the red team here at Intuit. It's relatively large. I would say it's an adversary management practice. A lot of people think of red team as something that's relatively surprising. We put a lot of science behind our red team capabilities. We've really been working on moving it forward to adversary management and trying to make it so that we make this more scientific. I'm into a lot of math and science around trying to artfully measure the things that we all want to do, which is to make software more rugged and to make things more resilient, so that we can do the things we love, which is solve human problems.[0:05:21.6] Guy Podjarny: When you talk about red team, what's the – I like to geek out a little bit about org structure.[0:05:25.6] Shannon Lietz: Totally.[0:05:26.2] Guy Podjarny: What does that red team get divided into?[0:05:28.6] Shannon Lietz: I got to measure my red team recently to find out how many headcount I had. I was pretty surprised. We have about 53 people and we also just started a part of the red team in Israel. I've got four more people there that are doing red team. Actually, we've been pushing the bounds. We're applying more to application security and also, business logic issues. That's neat. I think that we're always the willing participants to emerge and try to innovate in a lot of different security spaces. I'm excited to see how that really advances us.My org structure, I have mixed threat Intel with our red teamers. Also, we have this other group that basically runs a continuous exploit system. Essentially, we built containers to essentially exploit all the things that we worry about, so people can feel pretty comfortable that things are going 24 by 7. Internally, yeah.[0:06:27.5] Guy Podjarny: Are these a known set of attacks? Is it more regression-minded, or is it more almost bug bounty? Like something that –[0:06:34.3] Shannon Lietz: Yes. I say that way, because it's a mix of a lot of things. Anything that could cause us to have a security escape is something that we put into this engine. The way that I tell it is if you can conceive of it and it could be automated, it should go onto our platform and that platform basically runs it across our attack surface, for our production attack surface, our internal attack surface.Not everything yet that I'd love to see it do but eventually my feeling is that that platform becomes really the way for us to continually level up against some of the exploitable surface. I think it's the way in which most companies are going to need to go and I think it's the path forward, is to really figure out how to do full resilience and regression testing against your attack surface for both the things that you know and the things that you learn and pull that information in to essentially get there before the adversaries do.The big mission is get ahead and stay ahead of adversaries and understand your adversaries for your applications. I think that people design their software, but they don't think about what the potential anti-cases are, or thinking about – I always say that security is basically a developer's edge case.The security edge case is really important, but a lot of times people don't have time for it. My job in my mind is to make it faster for people to think about the edge case that it's going to give an adversary an advantage, to allow business to do what it needs to do and figure out where the risks are to help mitigate those risks, so that we can do the things that help solve customer problems. Instead of - everybody's been talking the road to no. I got to tell you, early in my career, I was the road to no. Everybody would rat around me. It was the coolest thing. I was definitely that little picture with the little house in the middle, or the little guard shack in the middle and the gates and the snow.I love that one, because it's always a reminder to me. I actually framed a copy for myself, so I could keep myself humble. Because the people that now I feel we support and subscribe to the things that we do to help them, they're coming, they're asking and that behavioral change was something that had to start in us first, in me first and then basically extends out to everybody that you touch and help.I think that being meaningful in their lives to try and help change how people think about things is actually the journey forward for security. For me, this adversary management capability has extended into things like we're using AI, ML. Now my team fully codes. When I first started this, I remember I have this really cool little – with DevSecOps, I have this really cool little presentation and I framed that for myself, because we do these things to remind yourself of where you came from.It had a snail and a hare in it and a little lane that I developed. I was trying to explain basically, this was the path to go faster in a secure way and a safer way. I'll never forget that, because I delivered it here in San Diego to the ISSA. It was a small room of about 30 or 40 people who had never heard of what DevSecOps was and they were like, “This lady's crazy.” I think it's been eight years since that talk. It feels like it just flew by and there's so many people now that you hear are starting to see more security in software that their products and services are getting better. Is it perfect? No. Have we taken a significant dent out of the stuff that was out there at one point? I think the answer is yes.I just saw some metrics from github about how the fact that they have vulnerabilities showing up and 20% of all the vulnerabilities that are showing up, they basically have seen that they're getting closed. That's in no small part to a lot of companies that are out there that are providing that information to developers, so that they know about these things, that they're not having to go figure it out on their own.I mean, for the companies I've worked for where that wasn't available, developers are like, “What should I worry about?” We're like, “Oh, we just need to go get CBSS for you and here's a set of a spreadsheet. Go figure it out for yourself, dude. Thanks.” I think that was a serious problem, because it inhibited their ability to develop safe software, because they didn't have the time to go figure out and crunch the spreadsheets. I mean, let's all be honest. That's basically a full-time job for a security practitioner. Something has to be able to build the software, so you can do something with it. From my perspective, there's a lot that goes into this.[0:11:00.9] Guy Podjarny: There's a bunch to unpack. I want to make sure I was taking you like a bunch of a subsequent questions. Let me backtrack a little bit. First on the – I love that notion of that continue effect. Yeah, this is something to use exploits of the elements. I've often thought about bag boundaries and the likes as I almost like the continuous monitoring, or chronic monitoring, or telling you if something is wrong.I think this type of internal system makes a lot of sense to ensure that the questions you know to ask at least alongside that the red teaming and the creativity get continuously asked and you don't go back and that you can go buy that at scale. How do you maintain that? Do you take feeds in from basically the botnets out there? Is it more about fixes or problems that before they have already seen in your surroundings? What would you say are rough primary ingredients of the types of attacks that get run?[0:11:55.1] Shannon Lietz: Oh, gosh. We take in everything. If there's no data set, I turn away, because honestly, there's always nuggets in everything. They always tell you like, no two scanners actually scan the same things. They never scan them alike the same way. I think people are really creative about how they test for security problems, so we take in any bit of data we can get. We've taken in stuff from a variety of product vendors who do scanning. We're looking at the build materials, companies all the stuff we can get from them. Anybody who is basically asserting a CVSS score, a CPE score, a score of any type that would actually reflect a vulnerability of a significant risk. All of those things are useful.To me, they're lagging indicators, however. The other things that we take in is threat intel. We're constantly looking for vendors and providers that have information that can help us get ahead. Why not be able to find the zero day, or what about signatures that are actually written against your company specifically? Why not harvest those, use them, learn from them and then replay them against your systems? Because essentially, that's a really great way to be able to build up your catalog of how to make yourself harder to beat from a resilience perspective. That took a lot of years to learn.I will tell you this is not, “Hey, by the way, this is what we're going to do,” eight years ago. It was a lot of trials and tribulations and my little sign on the back wall here that basically says, “Bang your head here.” It's been banged a lot of times. I mean, hey.[0:13:18.6] Guy Podjarny: You take all that information and then your team you said, codes. And builds it like this is an operational system that runs and runs those experts against production, or more against staging [inaudible 0:13:28.9]? How do you handle that?[0:13:30.4] Shannon Lietz: What is production? I mean, that's really cool. We got we got rid of that in what? 1980? No, I'm just kidding. Production to me is everything. Nowadays, even development systems are production, right? Even a lot of these capabilities that are out there, they're significant in a way that you'd think. Pretty much at this point, if your developers are down and the productivity is lacking, aren't you down essentially?[0:13:57.2] Guy Podjarny: Absolutely. I love the approach. All these systems are production and they're all impactful to the systems. Oftentimes, the one of the concerns that happens when you run these continuous tests against the customer for saying, we're moving to more production –[0:14:11.5] Shannon Lietz: Production?[0:14:12.4] Guy Podjarny: When you run it, there's always this fear of, “Hey, you're going to mess something up.” [Inaudible 0:14:16.2].[0:14:17.1] Shannon Lietz: Don't take production down. It's the one rule, right? That one rule. Don't take production down, which is why you've got to think about everything as production. If you delineate that this system is okay, but that system is not okay, to me you miss the major principle, which is if you're going to do resilience testing, you need to be mindful of the things that you're testing. You need to test your tests, right? That's a thing.You need to be able to build your tests in a meaningful way, not just throwing garbage at a system, but throwing something that's precision-oriented, that you're looking for a specific issue and that you're actually harvesting that issue as an escape. Not that you're poking around at it in a way that actually doesn't really provide that precision. My mindset about testing and production and resilience testing is that major principle. Everybody's always said like, “What are your rules for your team?” I'm like, “I have one rule. Don't take production down.” Because honestly, that's actually a meaningful issue for most companies, especially ones that are in the software industry.I think the second piece of this puzzle for us is build enough capability in your teams to understand what's a good test, what's not a good test, have that scientific set of principles about how you actually develop those tests to be able to make it so that they work in your organization. That's essentially why I think – I'd love to say that eventually, this trade craft will be able to be moved into the teams, that's possible and I think that as we commoditize in the industry that these tests that you could run are actually being built by external companies and there's ways to actually create them and they can be tuned and tweaked and developers could run them.I think it absolutely is possible for us to get to true DevSecOps, which is a developer can build safe software, operate it and they can eventually continually secure it and have it resilient against attackers. I eventually think that that is possible for an individual to be able to do those things, but not without assistance. It's not without buying specialty capabilities. We have to as a industry in my mind, be able to create that Nirvana, so that we're not also burdening people.What I would say right now is if you look at some of the surveys that have come out, the DevOps, DevSecOps surveys about burnout and some of those things, well, the problem - and I did a huge study on this - is we're not seeing enough investment in small businesses that are trying to solve the commoditization of security in the way that it's actually going to be meaningful. Because I'm not sure that people really grok the full problem space of making it so that developers could leverage these services and capabilities, so that they can do the work of integrating it, but they don't necessarily have to invent and understand every facet of it, so that they're the expert practitioner.Because, I just think that's what the difference is between having a security team that's off to the side that does it for people and having it be something that somebody can fully integrate into their workload.[0:17:19.4] Guy Podjarny: Yeah, absolutely. I love also, so you mentioned about how your team now codes and that was actually one of the other bits that really – how have you seen that skill set? This is definitely a forward-thinking approach and I see a lot of the guests in the show talk about how their teams today code. How have you seen the evolution there? What were some of the –again, you've been touting DevSecOps for a while. What was your timeline and your views of changing that skillset? Which skills do you feel are needed less, if you're assuming you don't just want to increasingly perfect individuals on the team to build –[0:17:55.1] Shannon Lietz: How do you trade it?[0:17:56.0] Guy Podjarny: Sacrifice more coding skills today.[0:17:59.7] Shannon Lietz: Yeah, exactly. How do you trade the workload of today for the workload of tomorrow? It's definitely a challenge. I think when I first got started, I probably trivialized it a little bit, because I already had some coding skills so I was rebranding it to myself and realizing it's important in my life.At the time, as a oversight on my part to be so cavalier about it being less than difficult, because I think it is a difficult practice to be a developer. I think there's so many things to consider, like you're not just code slinging if you were. You're actually looking at the human problem and trying to find an elegant solution that can be easy for people to really embrace. You're lowering the complexity for them, right?When we first got started, I think it was like, well, Ruby's easy enough. Let's all do Ruby. There were some definite opinions about whether we would do Ruby or all the other languages of choice. Frankly –[0:18:55.3] Guy Podjarny: There hasn't been [inaudible 0:18:56.2] languages.[0:18:57.7] Shannon Lietz: No, never. There's never opinion in the bunch for that at all. I had a few people who could write some Ruby code and I had some people who do Java and this, that, the other thing. I think Ruby ultimately, because Metasploit was on Ruby and well, a bunch of people have done modules and things like that. It was just easier that way. There's definitely a lot of hacking tools that started out in Ruby that's migrated to different languages.Some of my team now does Python. We've definitely gone after different languages along the way. Some folks are doing Go. Everything has its place. When we first got started, it was easier for us to all go together on one language that was going to help level everybody up. Meaning, it was easy enough, it wasn't necessarily a compiled language. You didn't have to get onto all the harder stuff. We started with what I would consider an easier language to address. Some might actually find that to be different, right? They might say, “Hey, Ruby's not that easy.”I'll say that that was just a choice that we made together. It started with only a few people and obviously, now most of my team that codes. I can't even think of one person on the team at this point that doesn't code. If a manager has to do something quite often, they're breaking open a SQL query at the least to go run even a report as an example.Even the managers are finding themselves having to code. They're putting things together, snapping in APIs. That was a big thing now. The question is what do you really trade off? I would say and I'm going to say it, because I think it's really what does get traded off. I think your code migrates into from policy into code, and so you're not writing as many documents, frankly. I think that code that's well documented is really a wonderful thing. I don't think enough people put enough comments in their code at this point. I read code all the time and I'm like, “Could you just comment a little bit more? I don't know why you made that choice.”[0:20:48.9] Guy Podjarny: [Inaudible 0:20:48.11].[0:20:49.9] Shannon Lietz: No opinions. No strong opinions at all. Over-commented code is also a disaster, so I know. I would say where the industry seems to be heading is we're lightening up on documentation. There's reams of paper that are being saved and trees across the world that have been released from the horrible death of paper policies. I think that's actually where some of it's coming from.I also think that the other thing that is fueling the ability to migrate from one to the other is there's not as many meetings. It used to be that security was a meeting after a meeting after a meeting. The time that you were sinking into those things to go convince people and whatnot, it's for them to go do the work and you to manage them doing the work and all of that is basically being walked back to, “Hey, I have code that will solve that for you. If you could adopt it, that would be great.” Literally, I'm seeing programs being built by people who know what needs to go into them and that gets converted into something you need to onboard, so it's really migrating towards the – security is migrating to the way of microservices if you ask me.[0:21:52.0] Guy Podjarny: Yeah. Those are great insights, right? Fundamentally, if you build solutions, you build tools, you're a service provider. You don't need to be peeking behind people's shoulder all the time, which in turn in the form of meetings, or chasing somebody to read the document, will take up your time.[0:22:10.0] Shannon Lietz: Absolutely.[0:22:10.9] Guy Podjarny: We're building, like you've got this valley around, like we're evolving. Made all sorts of comments is all about they know, like maybe not quite in fact want it, but it's under evolution in the industry. What would you say today – you talked a little bit about DevSecOps, so if we cling to that term, what would you say are the biggest gaps? More like, what's rolling it out and rolling out the mindset, what areas do you feel we don't know to do yet, or people are especially resistant to?[0:22:39.4] Shannon Lietz: The stuff that I like to dig into. Over the years, there's lots of insights here. I would say that the biggest aha moment for me, the needle mover that's really starting to fuel people coming closer to a better state is having measurement. All the maturity models are right. It just takes a lot to convince yourself that they're right. I used to love and hate maturity models, because you're always writing so many documents to get to level three.I keep telling people, why do you need level three when you can get to level four? Which is really measurement. I would say that the DevSecOps thing, along the way the real challenge, like we keep saying culture. What I am finding and it's again, aha moment is it's really about how we talk about security and what it means to our businesses and having some of that business acumen as security practitioners is just missing in our industry.Now I'm spending a lot more time thinking about the business, if you were. What does it mean to have risk tolerance as an example? What security does actually thought about at the business level? The answer commonly is yes, most companies consider, especially public companies because they are required to report on significant changes in outages, especially if they're going to be materially impacting revenue and things like that. I would say that the business is definitely attuned to the fact that those are happening.I think the challenge is how do you actually take something that's non-monetary? You have things like fraud and other types of outages. They might be monetary. Some things are non-monetary. As an example, you might have an event that happens, an incident that happens. It takes time to resolve. You may have an investigation that you have to go do to make sure that nothing bad happens, right?The question is ‘is that something for the books?' Is it in your risk tolerance thought process? I think that's something that DevSecOps needs to address. I think another couple of DevSecOps things that need to be addressed is where's the market? I mean, we really do need to commoditize. There are not enough capabilities and products out there at a significant level. The science of how you apply them, we just haven't figured out how to really get developers yet into the mix. My belief is that companies that are actually trying to solve the developer problem, being able to adopt, commoditize capabilities and services where you take security knowledge and capability and you package it all up and you make it developer-friendly, so they know where to put it in their CICD pipeline has a significant impact on making their software more resilient and the usage of their software pretty good too.[0:25:22.9] Guy Podjarny: Amen to that for sure. You and I have both talked a lot. One of the topics we're excited about over a year is indeed trying to crack the measurement problem. You've alluded to a new buzzword, a new framework for us called ‘securability'. Tell us about it.[0:25:38.6] Shannon Lietz: I am super jazzed about it, because we put a lot of time and effort into sciencing the heck out of security, right? I guess along the way, I used to have other measurements that I thought I can get – if I could just teach a developer how to use this metric, it'll blow their minds and they'll love security and I'll do something about putting security into that stuff. I guess I changed my mind about the quest and I realized, actually I need to figure out what developers care about, so that I can have them understand what security means to them, so that we can actually get them to address it as part of their process, whatever that might be, whether they're using CICD or they're hand-jamming their code. I mean, there's a lot of different ways in which software gets built.Essentially, measuring the resiliency of software from a security point of view is essentially the craft, right? The idea behind a measurement that moves the world forward, I think is in understanding the behavior you want. In my mind, the behavior I want is I want a developer to be able to decide whether or not the security they have for their product is good enough. From my perspective, securability is a 59s measure, because if you're going to do anything, you make it 59s. I mean, I learned along the way. I work for a telco. You learn a lot about 59s and eventually, you get told 59s isn't enough and you're like, “Are you serious?” I'm just going to go for the 59s. Honestly, if somebody can show me a 59 secured system, I would love it. It would be amazing. I would say so, right? The way we've thought about this is meaningful is that you can utilize securability at a very low level on a single component, a library even and you can also roll it up a little bit at a time, right?Being able to roll up measures, I think is also significant. That has I think a meaningful piece of the puzzle. From my perspective, securability, big 59s means that it's now something that you don't actually have to teach a developer what 59s means. You've already lowered that intensity of learning, right? Because you're already applying something that they're pretty consistent with.The question is then, what's the denominator, from my security practitioners perspective? Well we've all wanted to know what the bill of materials was for anything we work on. If you can imagine, CMDB and some other types of systems that are providing resource understanding for you. You know what your attack surface is. There's all kinds of companies out there right now that are trying to tell you what your attack surface is from the outside of a vantage point of an adversary, so that you know, like “hey, that's on the Internet. Did you know that?”People are like, “Oh, my God. I didn't know that was on the Internet.” Honestly, I think those are amazing companies, because they're really solving the denominator problem of basically, figuring out what your bill of materials is. Once you figure out what your bill of materials is, then you essentially have the opportunity of figuring out all the known defects that are out there, that could actually have a meaningful impact on your attack surface. As an example, you might have a CBSS10 that's out there. That's going to apply to a handful of your resources maybe, or all of them.Say you had a million resources with the same CBSS book, that's a bad day, because that's a lot of attackable surface, right? Then the question is so what do you do with that? What's the numerator on it? The numerator is the escape. I like to say that escapes are a variety of different things. I'll start with just a simple one, which is you got an internal red team, they pone you, they send you a ticket, in our case it's a P0 ticket. You want to basically take that P0 ticket over that splittable surface.If you only have one on all those different resources, that means hey, you're really firewalling great. You probably have a good zoning and containment. Fantastic. You've got some mitigating controls in place and you're one over a million. I would love to be one in a million, right? That would be amazing. Again, your securability is super high. One in a million awesome.Let's just say that you had a one-for-one problems. Let's say there's actually only one system out there that has a problem, but it's literally you're going to get an escape one-for-one. You have zero securability. That's a big problem. The question then is once you have that ratio, let's just say you have zero securability against that particular issue, let's just say you have a lot of adversaries that would love to come after you and they are and they're going after that specific resource with that specific attack. You're breached. That's essentially a very simple way of explaining security to somebody who wants to understand it, wants to do the right thing.I think that resilience capability is super important and exploitability focusing there, understanding how to bring your losses to bear. Companies all the time have fraud against their systems. They have security problems against their systems. The escape of the red team is one aspect, but you might even have losses you've got in your incident capabilities, right? If you can imagine, why aren't you putting your incidents over your exploitable surface, right? If you had 30 incidents in a month and you know they applied to some of your exploitable surface area, your exploitable opportunities, then essentially you had a calculation that said you actually had more risk and your risk was realized, right?I think that that allows us to have people really take responsibility and be accountable for the security that they're implementing or not implementing, right? It makes it so it's super easy for them to know on the face of it without a lot of interpretation or subjectiveness that they're either doing well there or not.[0:31:08.9] Guy Podjarny: Do you see securability as a measure that every organization then develops for its own surrounding? You need to add mileage, then look mapped out your security threats, say bill of materials and know more abilities. Something that is very clearly measurable, could also be like whatever, misconfigurations, right? We know buckets left open, or open access points. You do those and then you see the exploits and you see that become new backward calculate. I mean, that's I'm referring to is putting the time to invest in historically understanding the exploit surface you had, the incident, whether full-on groupers, or just forensics abilities and all that that happened on top of that then calculate that? Or do you see it as a standardized, this is how we can measure security. 59s for uptime are –[0:31:58.6] Shannon Lietz: I think it's all.[0:32:00.2] Guy Podjarny: They're a standard metric, right?[0:32:01.3] Shannon Lietz: I think it should be a standard metric. I think you should have to put your bill of materials into your software, it rolls into a system, you have telemetry based on that bill of materials that helps you to understand your attack surface that you have testing that's going against to help you to monitor it. It should be a real-time system that helps you to understand how you're doing from an LED's perspective on security and it's measuring your resilience constantly. If adversaries are measuring your resilience too, then it should help you to find those problems as well.I also think that you should be able to leverage that same methodology to go backwards, looking and figure out like, hey, do we miss something? To your point, could you hand calculate it? Absolutely. It'll be really easy if you have a bill of materials. Then going forward, you should be able to forecast it. What I like to say is that when somebody designs a system, they should be able to understand their bill of materials and where they think that there might be adversary happenings, so I could imagine in the future we're going to find a company out there that's going to say, “Hey, we're monitoring your bill of materials and we actually see adversary interest in these key areas of your bill of materials,” so your likelihood if you have resiliency issues in those areas is very high that it's going to be a problem for you specifically.I do think the way in which it's been invented is really important about it being specific to your company, but I also think it makes things shareable. If I wanted to share information with another company, I should be able to share the securability information in a reasonable way without necessarily telling somebody all the bits and details of my security program. Hopefully, that's also helping people have the conversation that says, “Hey, yours is 99.9%, but mine's 97% because we don't see the same adversaries as you do and the amount of adversaries that we encounter is much less.”People are having those risk-based conversations in a meaningful way at a business level, because really, this isn't just the software developers, but it's also to solve for people that have to have those conversations, where you're not talking about hey, you're not doing it the right way. The how isn't the thing of focus anymore. You're actually talking about the why and the what, right?You're really getting into the business level conversation of what is your measure? Why is that appropriate? If you can build trust on that why and what, because that's where you build trust, you don't build trust on how, you build trust on why and what, then you can actually create a meaningful ecosystem of people who are doing the right thing for the right reasons with the right intent, so that you can establish a much bigger barrier against adversaries.[0:34:40.9] Guy Podjarny: How do you see – I mean, I think the idea is compelling in the sense, what will aspire to the measure of how secure you are, or securable you are maybe in this term. How do you meld in, I think the bill of materials of the known components, while there are some disagreement in the industry should have some factual elements, or you were using this component who has this known vulnerability. How do you see a custom vulnerability that are also security risks that related fit into this probability in your code, or a misconfiguration?[0:35:13.7] Shannon Lietz: I love that conversation. It's not a different score. All the same. I'm so tired of us talking about whether it's in the library, outside the library, upside down from the library. Who cares? It is all part of the bill of materials. If you have a configuration, it's part of your bill of materials. You configure it a certain specific way to work with your software package. We really need to focus on the bill of materials standard that says, this is actually if I had to look at your system, rebuild it, whatever it might be, I could actually have information that suggests what risk you took and why.If you wanted to leave open port 80, I shouldn't have to find it out from some scanner out there in the world. I should know your intention was to leave open port 80, or it was a mistake and you're taking accountability for it. You're having a system that even knows that your intent was this design, so that bill of materials is actually also about your design constraints and your design intent is really important in my mind.[0:36:09.3] Guy Podjarny: In this model, the more detailed your bill of material, to an extent if you provided more information, you might actually get a lower score. You're not tricking anybody with your own. It's your own system you're trying to do it. The more information in it, the more accurate your score is, whether it's higher or lower. Is that –[0:36:26.6] Shannon Lietz: That's right. Well and in addition, you benefit from providing a much more accurate bill of materials, because the downside to not doing it is that adversaries actually find it before you do, before your friendly partners do. It would be much better to be accountable for good security than to find out from bad guys. From my perspective, it's only benefit to be able to identify these intents and design, so that you can actually route it out. I think that's about the principles of resilience, right? Is we all want to be resilient.If we're afraid to actually put this information in because we might be judged by it, I think I would rather be judged by an internal friendly red team adversary than to be judged by an external unfriendly adversary who's going to cause your company to have challenges, right? From my perspective, they're very different.[0:37:20.1] Guy Podjarny: Yeah. Very well said. Have you been experimenting with the securability within Intuit? Are you using that measure?[0:37:26.6] Shannon Lietz: Yeah, absolutely. We've been working with it directly for about a year and a half, and so we've got lots of information data. We've done a lot of work with it. I would say in the initial states of doing anything different than the rest of what everybody else does, your why is so important. Honestly, I started looking around in the industry and I questioned a lot of the things that were out there, because they just weren't solving some of the problems.I believe securability will eventually lead to the capability of us all automating it and even making systems be able to do self-resilience. If you have a good intent and you can do resilience measurement, eventually we might be able to automate risk most of the time, right? Automating risk and complexity, I think is a right thing to actually chase. I was looking at most of the things that were out there, most of the frameworks and there's nothing to say that they're bad, because I actually think most frameworks are pretty awesome that somebody even tried it in the first place.I don't see anything that's really solving for that notion of automating this, so that it can actually be done by a system and it can be something that can be a support system for your developers. From my perspective, that was the why. I think at Intuit, we've done a job to basically try to always be better than we were last year at everything that we do. That's a wonderful aspiration and I love the mission.From my perspective, securability has become a thing. Is it in its final states where we fully mature on it? No, we're not. I am definitely interested in the things that we have ahead of us, because securability is worth it. I think that solving for these problems, there are no small feat because just like DevSecOps, what securability is missing right now is the companies that are going to help create it, change it, commoditize it, make it easy to digest, make it consumable.If you look at the availability market, that's what securability could be for our industry is you look at the billions of dollars that have been generated by monitoring and availability capabilities that are out there and there's a real market opportunity to be had around trying to bring this to bear for our developers.[0:39:30.9] Guy Podjarny: Yeah. I love the idea. We talk about its effect on [inaudible 0:39:34.0] more measuring security, because it is about capturing the full more than security, but also specifically security related information, from configuration, to dependencies, to known flaws, to various other elements within this bill of materials that moves around. Then you're able to layer on top of that all the known attack surface, security flaws that you have.Then once you do those and you measure it, because DevSecOps follow through the opposite of that. One of the core principle is you can't measure it. If it moves, measure it. If it doesn't move, measure it in case it moves, right?[0:40:16.0] Shannon Lietz: That's right.[0:40:17.4] Guy Podjarny: Doing with that and not doing it in the world of security. Would definitely be keen to see it evolve and definitely build there on our end.[0:40:27.1] Shannon Lietz: I'd love that.[0:40:28.6] Guy Podjarny: I think this is – we can probably go on here for –[0:40:32.3] Shannon Lietz: For hours, probably.[0:40:34.3] Guy Podjarny: An hour longer, but I think we're probably a little bit over at already in time. Before I let you go, Shannon, I like to ask every guest that comes on – anyway, you've already given a whole bunch of advice, but ask for one more bit, which is if you have one smaller bit of advice that you can give a team looking to level up their security foo, what would that bit of advice be?[0:40:56.3] Shannon Lietz: Yeah. Somebody who's looking at, but to look up their security skills and try and up-level, I would say the one question you should ask yourself is how many adversaries does my application have? Because it's the curiosity around that question that will lead you to better places. That I think just having that goal of trying to solve that question will lead you down to find people that you can contribute to, or collaborate with that will help you answer that question.I think once you do answer that question, it's mind-blowingly obvious what you have to do to fix the problems that might actually be in your applications and in some of the code that you are writing.[0:41:35.6] Guy Podjarny: Very cool. Well, definitely sound advice focus. Shannon, this has been excellent. Thanks a lot for coming on the show.[0:41:43.3] Shannon Lietz: Thank you.[END OF INTERVIEW]

We welcome CBSs own Will Brinson on to dive into the Conference Championship games after having an interesting chat on the state of the media covering sports betting and the future of this space.

B-Mac And Herd break down Week Zero (don't worry, sugar and caffeine haven't been eliminated from this week's matchups). Samford-Youngstown in the Guardian Kickoff Classic at 3 ET on ESPN, and Colgate-Villanova at Noon ET on CBSS. We also talked about some big-time QB battles that just were resolved. Tune in!

B-Mac And Herd break down Week Zero (don't worry, sugar and caffeine haven't been eliminated from this week's matchups). Samford-Youngstown in the Guardian Kickoff Classic at 3 ET on ESPN, and Colgate-Villanova at Noon ET on CBSS. We also talked about some big-time QB battles that just were resolved. Tune in!

On this episode of the "Dailicast Moment" host Chris Laning speaks with Peter Stewart, a long time radio presenter and host of the "28 Day Flash Briefing Briefing". Today, they wrap up their discussion by talking about what they see as the future for dailicasts. TRANSCRIPT:   CHRIS: With your "Dailicast Moment" for today, I'm Chris Laning from NeighborhoodStage.com. Now today I'm going to finally wrap up my conversation with Peter Stewart from the "28 Day Flash Briefing Briefing". If you haven't caught any of these dailicasts from earlier this week, you want to go back and listen because Peter is a wealth of knowledge on this subject and even though I'm in and I've been doing dailicasts and I tell you guys how to do it, I continue to learn from him not only on his "28 Day Flash Briefing Briefing", but even just in the ones he's done for us this week. So Peter, once again, welcome to the "Dailicast Moment". PETER: Chris, you're very kind. Thank you very much indeed for your words. CHRIS: I think it's been very clear among people this week if they haven't picked up on it that both you and I are extremely passionate about this format. We see big things for this format! So I kind of wanted to take a moment to discuss where we see this format going and what kind of increase in listenership we think it might be in the near future. PETER: I really think that flash briefings, Chris are the sleeping giant of what a Amazon Echo devices have got. As I understand it, they were almost put in as a bit of an afterthought and were mainly for the professional broadcasting companies. You know the BBCs and the CBSs is of this world to be putting out information almost hourly. You know, updated news bulletins of content they already had. I don't believe they thought that it was going to be opened up for everyone to be able to get in there to do these dailicasts or briefcasts, these micro podcasts or to give them their proper name, the flash briefings. I really think they are undiscovered at the moment, but they are just waiting to be discovered and to be opened up. PETER: Let me give you a few ideas. I really think we call them estate agents over here in the UK, in London, but I know you refer to them as real estate agents. What a fantastic opportunity for real estate agents to really own the area. And I don't mean to have a flash briefing talking about you know, a four bedroom detached house with two bathrooms and a large garden and an in and out drive. I don't mean that. That's far too much advertising! Who's going to be listening to that time and time again every single day? You won't. However, if you're a real estate agent, you should be owning your geographical area. You should be talking about the news that's happening in your area. You can become known for that, particularly with fewer and fewer local newspapers. You can be talking about the schools and the education system. How good your local schools are. How clean the local parks are. Talk about local events. Talk about how far it is to the beach. About developments or road closures that are going on because something's going to be retarmacked or there's been a burst water main so avoid this area. Be known for your local geographical area. And then when people want to move from one side of the city to the other or if people want to move into your fantastic city, then they we'll already know you are an authority in that. You're staking your claim in knowledge of the local area. And if you are giving that kind of advice perhaps along with, I don't know, DIY tips around the house, then people will come to you. Your name is going to be front of mind when people want to buy or sell their home. As an example of how a local business can really use flash briefings to be loud and proud on this new platform. CHRIS: And I love that example and that's one of the things that I think both you and I are out there trying to convince people to do and saying, look, you know, look into this, see what you can do in your industry and take advantage of the fact that it's still relatively new. I mean that's changing. I mean even the last six months and there was be like maybe 10, 15 new flash briefing showing up every day. Now you go in there, there's 30, 40, maybe 50 new ones a day. So people are starting to catch on. You need to jump in now to claim your niche and go with it. PETER: Absolutely. And all the time people are doing slightly different things. I've got a few ideas in the back of my mind for a couple of things, which I'm hopefully going to be launching in the next few months or certainly by the early part of next year. But think of maybe quizzes and competitions or formats. Think of creativity. Think of perhaps the kind of radio shows or radio formats, radio competitions, radio features that are already used out there. May be on your local station or maybe on PBS or something like that. Whatever you do, don't steal them. However you can mix some ideas with something that is a passion of yours already and put something out that really cuts through that is really creative and can grab other people by the ears. I was going to say by the scruff of the neck, by the ears to show what a force this is to be reckoned with. It's sign up marketing. People will sign up, will subscribe to listen to what you have got to say every single day. You shouldn't be advertising on it, but you can stake your claim and you can put your name of your business front of mind. CHRIS: Now I'm going to make one point in this. I'm probably going to talk about this on a future "Dailicast Moment", but while I have you on the line, I just wanted to be, if you're out there looking for an idea, don't go out there and you find somebody doing something similar to yours and go, ah, it's already being done. I guess I can't do that. There is room for similar shows in that vein. And the second part of that I would say is don't feel like it's a competition. You know, I'm sitting here talking to you. Obviously your's came out way before mine and we do have similar topics. But I think people can listen to both of ours and get different views, different types of information that just rounds that out. So like I don't look at you as a competitor. I look at you as somebody that I enjoy listening to and being in the same space and hopefully together we can really promote dailicasts. PETER: Absolutely Chris! You're very generous and thank you. And I love the work that you're doing as well and how you've been dividing up the different content topics and the different angles that people can choose has been tremendous as I've been listening to your back catalog. So thank you for all your doing in this space and I really appreciate you asking me along to speak on your dailicast about flash briefings. CHRIS: Not a problem. And I will say now that I've gotten past the 30 to 40 day mark, I see the beauty in your 28 day repeating every month. That's a brilliant idea! PETER: Well again, bit of kind of creativity if I could kind of pat myself on the back. But yeah, taking the idea of a short course and putting it out as a flash briefing and anyone can do that. Not necessarily as a flash briefing course, but again, a 28 day course because obviously that's the shortest month in the calendar. And to just go through one to 28 so people listen on the first day of the month for the episode one and they work their way through in those kind of bite sized chunks. They are a little bit longer than most flash briefings. It has to be said. However, if you're really keen on learning how to do a flash briefing to market your brand, your business, yourself, your hobby, your charity, your nonprofit, then perhaps sign up to the "28 Day Flash Briefing Briefing".. It's free to listen and it's available on all Amazon Echo devices. Speaker 2: My guest has been Peter Stewart, who is the host of the "28 Day Flash Briefing Briefing" And again, I've mentioned this before, I definitely recommend you go and add that because you will learn so much from them. Thanks again, Peter for being here on "Dailicast Moment". With your "Dailicast Moment" for today, I'm Chris Laning from NeighborhoodStage.com Have a great day.    

Jerry Whitworth talks about his days working on CBS's SURVIVOR, Traveling the World, and surviving a heart attack with style while surfing.

Cliff Godwin's club heads to the Magnolia State to play the 8th-ranked Mississippi State Bulldogs (10-1) this afternoon! The Pirates (8-4), who are ranked anywhere from 14th-25th in the polls this week, will play the Bulldogs at 4pm EST. To get the lowdown on Chris Lemonis' club, we were joined by Steve Robertson of GenesPage.com--Mississippi State's 247 Sports site. We also talked to Taylor Eldridge of Kansas.com & the Wichita Eagle about the Pirates first ever visit to play the Shockers tonight! Tipoff is 9pm on CBSS.

Cliff Godwin's club heads to the Magnolia State to play the 8th-ranked Mississippi State Bulldogs (10-1)  this afternoon! The Pirates (8-4), who are ranked anywhere from 14th-25th in the polls this week, will play the Bulldogs at 4pm EST. To get the lowdown on Chris Lemonis' club, we were joined by Steve Robertson of GenesPage.com--Mississippi State's 247 Sports site. We also talked to Taylor Eldridge of Kansas.com & the Wichita Eagle about the Pirates first ever visit to play the Shockers tonight!  Tipoff is 9pm on CBSS.

Accompanying the regular shenanigans this week were talking Mad Max: Fury Road with a spoiler free review. DC TV continues it's domination with The first trailers for CBS's Supergirl, CW's Legends of Tomorrow and TNT live action Titan news as we count down to Hannibal season 3 and The Strain season 2. Plus, Comic reviews for The Walking Dead #141, Convergence #6 and Secret Wars #2. All this and Tom Hanks as Pinhead? This week on The House of Gozer Podcast.   

Edition #800 A parody of itself   I'm eternally grateful for how ridiculously terrible the mainstream media is. If not for their utter and nearly constant failures I'm quite sure I never would have been inspired to start this show in the first place.    Ch. 1: Intro - Theme: A Fond Farewell, Elliott Smith  Ch. 2: Act 1: New Boss's Past Reflects Future Of CBS News - @greennewsreport - Air Date 1-9-14 Ch. 3: Song 1: Failing - The Laryngospasms Ch. 4: Act 2: CBSs 60 Minutes Loosing Creditability - @CitizenRadio - Air Date 1-8-14 Ch. 5: Song 2: Truth - Amos Lee Ch. 6: Act 3: When the Media Does It's Job, It Looks Something Like This … - Rachel @maddow - Air Date: 01-03-2014 Ch. 7: Song 3: Talk to me - Stevie Nicks Ch. 8: Act 4: There's reason to fight total monopolization - @FAIRmediawatch - Air Date: 2-14-14 Ch. 9: Song 4: Do the right thing - Beres Hammond Ch. 10: Act 5: The War On Fox Is Over - @theyoungturks - Air Date: 12-22-13 Ch. 11: Song 5: Bookends - Simon & Garfunkel Ch. 12: Act 6: Brave New Films: The antidote to corporate media - Best of the Left Activism Ch. 13: Song 6: Activism - Shihan Ch. 14: Act 7: Least Credible Historian Is Expert on Glenn Beck Show - @jimmy_dore Show - Air Date 12-27-13 Ch. 15: Song 7: Unsee - Dearly Beloved Ch. 16: Act 8: MSNBC Interrupts Congresswoman on NSA for Report on Justin Bieber - @davidpakmanshow - Air Date: 01-27-14 Ch. 17: Song 8: What's up? - 4 Non Blondes Ch. 18: Act 9: Which media outlets stand up to those in power? - @FAIRmediawatch - Air Date: 2-14-14 Ch. 19: Song 9: Hide the truth - Chronicle Ch. 20: Act 10: The media shrugs, again - @onthemedia - Air Date: 2-14-14 Ch. 21: Song 10: In my arms - Jon Foreman Ch. 22: Act 11: Wow, Fox News Is SCREWED - @theyoungturks - Air Date: 01-28-14   Voicemails: Ch. 23: Life is scientific, personhood is a purely moral distinction - Mara from Pittsburgh Ch. 24: Drug addicts can't boycott drugs - Jamie in Cincinnati   Leave a message at 202-999-3991   Voicemail Music:  Loud Pipes - Ratatat   Ch. 25: Final comments on the realities of the arguments needed to win political and issue campaigns   Closing Music: Here We Are - Patrick Park   ACTIVISM: Brave New Films from Robert Greenwald   Sources/further reading: "Unmanned: America's Drone Wars” Trailer ”OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism” Trailer Follow Brave New Films on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube for announcements and new video shorts. "Robert Greenwald Takes on Obama's Out-of-Control Drone Warfare in New Documentary: ‘Unmanned’” from Alternet   Written by BOTL social media/activism director Katie Klabusich   Produced by: Jay! Tomlinson   Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunes!

The Summer Replay Series continues on Franchise Today with an Encore Presentation with Dina Dwyer-Owens, Chairwoman & CEO of The Dwyer Group. As you may recall Dina appeared on CBSs hit reality show "Undercover Boss" on Jan. 22 (and recently replayed in August) for a journey that today has connected her to her companys service brands on a whole new level. Dina joined host, Paul Segreto, to share her personal experience that showcased her as a woman in a man's world, riding a lawnmower, unloading a water heater, installing commercial exit signs and repairing a stove among the many highlights. In light of the then upcoming International Franchise Association Annual Convention, Dina and Paul also tapped into Dina's experience as the former Chairperson at the IFA in 2009 to provide some insight into the important annual event. In addition, the future of franchising and challenges created by tightened credit and economic uncertainty was also discussed.

Wendi Adamek, external faculty fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center (though she will soon be assuming a position at the University of Sydney), gave a talk entitled "Zen and the Environment: It's Not What You Think" on December 2nd, 2010,...

Jason Ānanda Josephson, assistant professor in the Department of Religion at Williams College, gave a talk entitled "Heretical Anthropology: Imagined Buddhisms in Early Modern Japan" on November 12th, 2010, as part of the Columbia University Buddhist Studies Seminar. Download Podcast...

Jin Park, associate professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at American University, gave a talk entitled "Zen and Reality: Questioning the Identity of Korean Zen Buddhism" on December 3rd, 2010, as part of the Columbia University Buddhist Studies...