Podcast appearances and mentions of jeff goldsmith

Jeff Goldsmith is a composer currently residing in the Twin Cities. He tells us about his latest works both in and beyond Minnesota. Find out about his style and check out his work: https://www.jeffgoldsmithmusic.com/   Linktree https://linktr.ee/filminminnesota www.filminminnesota.com Follow us on Instagram: @filminminnesota Get episodes early with Patreon www.patreon.com/filminminnesota YouTube www.youtube.com/@filminminnesota 

Maryland's 50-year experiment with the hospital rate-setting system stands out as a unique and long-lasting initiative – but has it accomplished its goal of reducing health care costs? This rate-setting scheme has been sustained due to additional Medicare funds supplementing the model, an additional $20.6 billion through 2017. It's also inspired CMS's All-Payer Health Equity Approaches and Development (or AHEAD) pilot program. The Maryland model has come under scrutiny with a paper published in HFM Magazine entitled “Maryland's example is no solution to healthcare's true crises.” It finds that the state's health costs remain higher than the national average, even though the system was designed to reduce hospital and overall health care costs.Our guest is the author of the paper and president of Health Futures, Inc. - Jeff Goldsmith. In this episode, will discuss the history of the Maryland model, the findings of his paper, the impact on hospitals and health care costs, and propose alternative solutions for reducing costs.Topics discussed include:Implications for the state – findings from Goldsmith's paperEmulating the scheme – feasibility of replicating the Maryland model elsewhere and cautionary notes for policymakersRefocusing health care goals – what solutions to access and cost should CMS be considering instead?What's next – the future for hospitals More: Jeff Goldsmith is the President of Health Futures, Inc. He speaks on the future of health care- covering topics like technology, economics, leadership health care trends and policy analysis. Goldsmith is also a strategist and mentor to leaders in the health care industry.  He has also taught at several prestigious universities and worked in the private sector as a consultant. 

The Florida Supreme Court handed down dual abortion rulings this week. One said voters will be allowed to decide in November whether to create a state right to abortion. The other ruling, though, allows a 15-week ban to take effect immediately — before an even more sweeping, six-week ban replaces it in May. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden is doubling down on his administration's health care accomplishments as he kicks off his general election campaign. Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health, and Tami Luhby of CNN join KFF Health News' Julie Rovner to discuss these stories and more. Also this week, Rovner interviews health care analyst Jeff Goldsmith about the growing size and influence of UnitedHealth Group in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack. Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too: Julie Rovner: Politico's “Republicans Are Rushing to Defend IVF. The Anti-Abortion Movement Hopes to Change Their Minds,” by Megan Messerly and Alice Miranda Ollstein. Tami Luhby: The Washington Post's “Biden Summons Bernie Sanders to Help Boost Drug-Price Campaign,” by Dan Diamond. Lauren Weber: The Washington Post's “Bird Flu Detected in Dairy Worker Who Had Contact With Infected Cattle in Texas,” by Lena H. Sun and Rachel Roubein. Joanne Kenen: The 19th's “Survivors Sidelined: How Illinois' Sexual Assault Survivor Law Allows Hospitals to Deny Care,” by Kate Martin, APM Reports. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

THIS WEEK Rob & Kay are discussing worldbuilding – again. It's not just for hobbits! Our hosts take you through how important expanding your the world of your screenplay is going to be in the marketplace going forward in 2024 (and beyond). This Week's Resource:   Air is up on Prime, it was one of my favorite films of 2023, but I've been following the story of it's screenwriter, Alex Convery, via podcast for most of 2023, because I feel like his story is kind of like the Cinderella story we all want, but even within the Cinderella story, it's the story of doing The Work. And The Q & A w/Jeff Goldsmith is not only one of my favorite podcasts, but it breaks Alex's story down in a way that demystifies the process. Notes From the Episode:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zack's Original Instagram video⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (for our Twitter Drama Bumper) Alligator Man Scene from Atlanta The Poly Couple ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy your own Vomit Draft Notebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy your own Plot Fold Screenwriting Map⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠How to Make a Movie for $1000⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kay's  Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Rob's Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zack's Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email us(!)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

In the latest episode of Risk Management: Brick by Brick, it's the last day of InsureTech Connect 2023, but Jason Reichl still has time to chat with one more of the leading figures in the Risk Management world. This time, he's with Jeff Goldsmith, VP of Marketing at CompScience, an organization named number one InsurTech startup by Sønr and ITC. By harnessing the predictive power of data, CompScience is empowering risk consultants with computer vision that can predict accidents before they happen.

Han är regissören bakom storverk som Pulp Fiction och Kill Bill. Hör berättelsen om filmnörden som gjort ultravåldet mainstream och dominerat Hollywood i decennier. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. Under 30 år har filmmakaren Quentin Tarantino karvat fram sin unika plats i Hollywood. Hans filmer har belönats med flera Oscars och Harvey Weinstein har kallat honom lika viktig för filmbolaget Miramax som Musse Pigg var för Disney.Det var den numer sexualbrottsdömde och ökände filmproducenten Weinstein som producerade alla Tarantinos filmer - fram till #metoo-upproret 2018. Han var ett slags fadersfigur för Tarantino, som växte upp med en frånvarande pappa och B-filmer istället för vänner som sällskap. P3 ID om Quentin Tarantino handlar om ett svekfullt Hollywood och den ibland gränslösa relationen som kan uppstå mellan skådespelare och regissör, men också mellan regissör och filmproducent. Om filmer som är fulla av referenser till filmhistorien, medvetna musikval och ofta närbilder på nakna fötter. Och om Tarantinos övertygelse om att få skildra våld, sex och knark precis så grafiskt och brutalt som han vill.Nu sägs det att han bara har en enda film kvar i sig. I avsnittet hörs bland andra skådespelaren och modellen Christina Lindberg och filmvetaren och journalisten Emma Gray Munthe.Avsnittet gjordes av Studio Olga hösten 2023Programledare och avsnittsmakare: Vendela LundbergProducent: Sally Henriksson och Carl-Johan UlvenäsLjudmix: Fredrik NilssonLjudklippen i programmet är från SVT, Sveriges Radio, WTF with Marc Maron, The Howard Stern Show, The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith, The Joe Rogan Experience, KILL BILL: VOL. 1 Featurette - The Making Of, Directors Guild of America och Channel 4.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday September 28 at 1pm PST 4pm EST are futurist Jeff Goldsmith: author and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); and patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson).

Jeff Goldsmith discusses how trust is foundational in health care relationships, whether it is between patients and their caregivers, among clinicians, or between clinicians and the institutions for which they work.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday August 17 at 1pm PST 4pm EST are futurist Jeff Goldsmith: medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee); policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1); and patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson);

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday July 20 at 1pm PST 4pm EST are futurists Jeff Goldsmith; patient advocate Robin Farmanfarmaian (@Robinff3); Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune); and our special guest Investor at Bessemer Sofia Guerra (sofiaguerrar)

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday June 29 at 1PM PT 4PM ET are futurist Jeff Goldsmith: medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee); patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson) and Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune).

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday June 15 were double trouble futurists Jeff Goldsmith and Ian Morrison (@seccurve); patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson); Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune); and policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1). Lots of discussion about United and their hold on the US health care system, the continued hype around AI, and where the rubber is meeting the road or not on health equity.

When KFF Health News' “What the Health?” podcast launched in 2017, Republicans in Washington were engaged in an (ultimately unsuccessful) campaign to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. The next six years would see a pandemic, increasingly unaffordable care, and a health care workforce experiencing unprecedented burnout. In the podcast's 300th episode, host and chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner explores the past and possible future of the U.S. health care system with three prominent “big thinkers” in health policy: Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania, Jeff Goldsmith of Health Futures, and Farzad Mostashari of Aledade. Click here for a transcript of the episode.Further reading by the panelists from this week's episode: Health Affairs' “Nine Health Care Megatrends, Part 1: System and Payment Reform,” by Ezekiel J. Emanuel.Health Affairs' “We Have a National Strategy for Accountable Care, So What's Next?” by Sean Cavanaugh, Mandy K. Cohen, and Farzad Mostashari. The Health Care Blog's “What Can We Learn From the Envision Bankruptcy?” by Jeff Goldsmith. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday June 1 at 1PM PT 4PM ET were double trouble futurists Jeff Goldsmith and Ian Morrison (@seccurve), and delivery and platform expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis). Lots of discussion about Kaiser and Geisinger and what this means about the model for the future of care delivery. Do incentives or professionalism matter more?

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday February 23 at 1PM PT 4PM ET are futurist Jeff Goldsmith, and delivery and platform expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis);

Kelli and Zara interview Zara's family friend, Seyi River: an award-winning screenwriter, director, composer, chef—though he doesn't agree—and much more.Add Kelli's debut DOWN THE WELL to your TBR: Bookhype - https://bookhype.com/book/show/9824bda1-0dc8-4934-a8ba-cd6a8733f3b0/down-the-well Goodreads - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/87798019-down-the-wellPreorder Samantha's debut THE LEGIONNAIRE: https://inimitablebooksllc.com/the-legionnaire & don't forget to register your preorder at https://inimitablebooksllc.typeform.com/LegionnairePre to receive some exclusive character artwork! Or, get an EXTRA piece of art & skip registration by ordering from https://www.riverbendbookshop.com/legionnaireseyiriver.comhandtales.life should be functional (assuming 2023 is your target date)Twitter: https://twitter.com/SeyiRiverInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/seyiriver/Twilight without blue filter: https://twitter.com/twilightreborn/status/1503407995077726210 Resources recommended by Seyi for screenwriters:Read screenplays & watching films (Google them)Syd Field's book (wouldn't read it now but he did—Zara actually liked it when she read it a decade ago): https://amzn.to/3d7KgL7John August: https://johnaugust.com/Jeff Goldsmith: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-q-a-with-jeff-goldsmith/id426840843Bird by Bird by Ann Lamott (screenwriters should read it too): https://amzn.to/3QKSc2q-https://ko-fi.com/writeish

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday January 19 at 1PM PT 4PM ET were futurist Jeff Goldsmith; THCB regular writer and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1);

Mike Hoa Nguyen, assistant professor of education, faculty affiliate at the Institute for Human Development and Social Change, and faculty affiliate at the Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools at New York University, leads the conversation on affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, Vice President of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We are delighted to have Mike Hoa Nguyen with us to discuss affirmative action. Dr. Nguyen is assistant professor of education at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. He's also a faculty affiliate at NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools and a faculty affiliate at NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. Additionally, Dr. Nguyen is a principal investigator of the Minority Serving Institutions Data Project. And prior to coming to NYU he was at the University of Denver. He has extensive professional experience in the federal government and has managed multiple complex, long-term intergovernmental projects and initiatives, focusing on postsecondary education and the judiciary and has published his work widely, including in Educational Researcher, The Journal of Higher Education, and The Review of Higher Education. So Mike, thanks very much for being with us today to talk about affirmative action. Could you give us an overview of where we are, the history of affirmative action, where we are now, and examples of criteria that are used by different institutions? NGUYEN: Well, hello. And thank you so much, Irina. And also thank you to the Council on Foreign Relations for having me here today. It's a real honor. And thank you to many of you who are joining us today out of your busy schedules. I'm sure that many of you have been following the news for Harvard and UNC. And, of course, those cases were just heard at the Supreme Court about a month ago, on Halloween. And so today thank you for those questions. I'd love to be able to spend a little bit of time talking about the history of sort of what led us to this point. I also recognize that many joining us are also experts on this topic. So I really look forward to the conversation after my initial remarks. And so affirmative action, I think, as Philip Rubio has written, comes from centuries-old English legal concept of equity, right, or the administration of justice according to what is fair in a particular situation, as opposed to rigidly following a set of rules. It's defined by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in 1977 as a term that is a broad—a term, in a broad sense, that encompasses any measure beyond a simple termination of discriminatory practice adopted to correct for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future. Academics have defined affirmative action simply as something more than passive nondiscrimination, right. It means various organizations must act positively, affirmatively, and aggressively to remove all barriers, however informal or subtle, that prevent access by minorities and women to their rightful places in the employment and educational institutions of the United States. And certainly one of the earliest appearances of this term, affirmative action, in government documents came when President Kennedy, in his 1961 executive order, where he wrote that the mandate stated that government contractors, specifically those that were receiving federal dollars to, quote, take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard of their race, creed, color, or national origin. Certainly President Kennedy created a committee on equal employment opportunity to make recommendations for this. And then later on President Johnson later expressed—I'm sorry—expanded on President Kennedy's approach to take a sort of more active antiracist posture, which he signaled in a commencement speech at Howard University. In the decades following, of course, political-legal attacks have rolled back on how affirmative action can be implemented and for what purposes. So in admissions practices at U.S. colleges and universities today, really they can only consider race as one of many factors through a holistic process or holistic practices if so-called race-neutral approaches to admissions policies have fallen short in allowing for a campus to enroll a racially diverse class in order to achieve or reap the benefits of diversity, the educational benefits of diversity. Federal case law established by the courts have affirmed and reaffirmed that colleges may only consider race as one of many factors for the purposes of obtaining the educational benefits in diversity. So starting with the Bakke decision in the late 1970s, the Court limited the consideration of race in admissions and replaced the rationale for the use of race, specifically the rationale which was addressing historic and ongoing racism or systemic and racial oppression, instead in favor of the diversity rationale. So, in other words, if a college or university wishes to use race in their admissions, they can only do so with the intention of enhancing the educational benefits of all students. It may not legally use race as a part of their admissions process for the purpose of acknowledging historical or contemporary racism as barriers to equity in college access. If we fast-forward to something more recent, the two cases out of Michigan, the Grutter and Gratz case, what we saw there were really—significant part of the discussions of these two cases were really informed and conversations really about the educational benefits of diversity. That was really a key aspect of those cases. Lawsuits challenging the use of race in college admissions after those two cases now can sort of be traced to Edward Blum, a conservative activist, and his organization, Students for Fair Admission, or SFFA. So Blum has really dedicated his life to establishing what he calls a colorblind American society by filing lawsuits with the goal of dismantling laws and policies seeking to advance racial justice. This includes redistricting, voting rights, and, of course, affirmative action. So in 2000—in the 2000s, he recruited Abigail Fisher to challenge the University of Texas in their admissions program. The Court, the Supreme Court, ultimately ruled in favor of Texas in the second Fisher case—Fisher II, as we call it. And so that's actually where we saw Ed Blum alter his tactics. In this case he established SFFA, where he then purposefully recruited Asian Americans as plaintiffs in order to sue Harvard and UNC. So the cases now at Harvard—are now certainly at the Supreme Court. But one sort of less-known case that hasn't got a whole lot of attention, actually, was—that was sort of on the parallel track, actually originated from the U.S. Department of Justice more recently, during the Trump administration, which launched an investigation into Yale's admissions practices, which also focus on Asian Americans. And this was around 2018, so not too long ago. And certainly Asian Americans have been engaged in affirmative action debate since the 1970s. But these lawsuits have really placed them front and center in sort of our national debate. And so I think it's really important to also note that while empirical research demonstrates and shows that the majority of Asian Americans are actually in support of affirmative action, a very vocal minority of Asian Americans are certainly opposed to race-conscious admissions and are part of these lawsuit efforts. But interestingly enough, they've received a large and disproportionate share of media attention and sort of—I stress this only because I think popular press and media have done a not-so-great job at reporting on this. And their framing, I think, sometimes relies on old stereotypes, harmful stereotypes, about Asian Americans, and written in a way that starts with an assumption that all Asian Americans are opposed to affirmative action when, again, empirical research and national polls show that that's certainly not the case, right, and much more complex than that. But anyway, so back to what I was saying earlier, in sort of the waning months of the Trump administration the Department of Justice used those investigations into Yale to file a lawsuit charging that Yale in its admissions practices discriminates against Asian Americans. This lawsuit, the DOJ lawsuit, was dropped in February of 2021 when President Biden took office. So in response to that, SFFA submitted its own lawsuit to Yale based upon similar lines of reasoning. So I think what's—why bring this up? One, because it doesn't get a lot of attention. But two, I think it's a really interesting and curious example. So in the Yale case, as well as in the previous DOJ complaint, Ed Blum notes specifically that they exclude Cambodian Americans, Hmong Americans, Laotian Americans, and Vietnamese Americans from the lawsuit, and thus from his definition of what and who counts as Asian American. I think this intentional exclusion of specific Southeast Asian American groups in Yale, but including them in Harvard, is a really interesting and curious note. I've written in the past that, sort of at the practical level, it's a bit—it's not a bit—it's a lot misleading. It's manipulative and advances a bit of a false narrative about Asian Americans. And I think it engages in what we call sort of a racial project to overtly reclassify the Asian American racial category, relying again on old stereotypes about Asian American academic achievement. But it also sort of counters state-based racial and ethnic classifications used by the Census Bureau, used by the Department of Education, used by OMB, right. It does not consider how Southeast Asian Americans have been and are racialized, as well as how they've built pan-ethnic Asian American coalitions along within and with other Asian American subgroups. So the implications of this sort of intentional racialized action, I think, are threefold. First, this process, sort of trying to redefine who is Asian American and who isn't, demonstrates that SFFA cannot effectively argue that race-conscious admissions harms Asian Americans. They wouldn't be excluded if that was the case. Second, it illustrates that Ed Blum and his crusade for sort of race—not using race in college admissions is actually really not focused on advancing justice for Asian Americans, as he claims. And then finally, I think that this maneuver, if realized, will really disenfranchise educational access and opportunity for many Asian Americans, including Southeast Asian Americans and other communities of color. Of course, this case hasn't received a lot of attention, given that we just heard from Harvard and UNC at the Supreme Court about a month ago. But I think it provides some really important considerations regarding the upcoming Supreme Court decision. Nonetheless the decision for Harvard and UNC, we're all sort of on pins and needles until we hear about it in spring and summer. And I was there in Washington for it, and so what I'd actually like to do is actually share some interesting notes and items that sort of struck out to me during the oral arguments. So I think in both cases we heard the justices ask many questions regarding the twenty-five-year sunset of using race in college admissions, right, something that Justice O'Connor wrote in the Michigan case. I think the solicitor general, Solicitor General Prelogar's response at the conclusion of the case was really insightful. She said—and I'm sort of paraphrasing here about why we—in addressing some of the questions about that twenty-five-year sunset, she basically said that society hasn't made enough progress yet. The arc of progress is slower than what the Grutter court had imagined. And so we just suddenly don't hit 2028—that's twenty-five years from the decision—and then, snap, race is not used in college admissions anymore. There was also a lot of discussion regarding proxy approaches to so-called race-neutral admissions, right, yet still being able to maintain some or similar levels of racial diversity. I think what we know from a lot of empirical research out there is that there's really no good proxy variables for race. Certainly Texas has its 10 percent plan, which really only works to a certain extent and does not actually work well for, say, private schools that draw students from across all fifty states and the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. And again, as the solicitor general stated, it doesn't work well for the service academies either, for really similar reasons. I do think the line of questioning from the chief justice again related to what sounded like a carveout exemption for our U.S. military schools, our service academies. What's really interesting, and might be of actually specific interest for the CFR community, of course, our service academies practice affirmative action and are in support of it. And this was also argued in an amicus brief written by retired generals and admirals. And they argued that race-conscious admissions is necessary to build a diverse officer corps at both the service academies as well as ROTC programs at various universities across the country, which, in their words, they say builds a more cohesive, collaborative, and effective fighting unit, especially, quote, given recent international conflicts and humanitarian crises which require our military to perform civil functions and call for heightened cultural awareness and sensitivity in religious issues. And so, to a certain extent, I think that same line of logic can also be extended to, for example, our diplomatic corps, and certainly many corporations. We also saw briefs from the field of medicine, from science and research, have all written in support of race-conscious admissions, along the same sort of pipeline issues as their companies and organizations. And they argue that their work benefits from a highly educated, diverse workforce. But what was interesting, was that there wasn't much discussion about Asian Americans. It was only brought up sort of a handful of times, despite the fact that certainly that's sort of the origin story of the sets of lawsuits. And perhaps—to me perhaps this is simply an indication that the case was really never about Asian Americans from the beginning. And certainly the finding from the district court shows that Asian Americans are not discriminated in this process at Harvard. And so we will all sort of see how the Court rules next year, if they uphold precedent or not, and if they do not, how narrow or how broad they will go. Justice Barrett did have an interesting question in the UNC part of the case about affinity groups and affinity housing on campus. So, for example, my undergraduate alma mater, UC Berkeley, has this for several groups. They have affinity housing for Asian Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, women in STEM, the LGBTQ+ community, Latinx students, among many, many others, actually. So I think a possible area of concern is if they go broad, will we see a ban on these types of race-based practices on campus? Would that impact sort of thinking about recruitment efforts? So these so-called race-neutral approaches, sort of recruitment and outreach services for particular communities. Or would that impact something like HBCUs and tribal colleges, HSIs and AANAPISIs, or other MSIs? How does that all fit in, right? I think that line of questioning sort of sparked a bit of concern from folks and my colleagues. But I think, though, in conversation, we don't think the Court has really any appetite to go that far. And I'm certainly inclined to agree. But end of the day, that line of questioning was rather curious. And so, with that, I thank you for letting me share some of my thinking and about what's going on. And I would really love to be able to engage in conversation with all of you. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you so much. And we'd love to hear now from you all questions and comments, and if you could share how things are happening on your campuses. Please raise—click on the raised-hand icon on your screen to ask a question. If you're on an iPad or tablet, you can click the More button to access the raised-hand feature. I'll call on you, and then accept the unmute prompt, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question in the Q&A box or vote for questions that have been written there. And if you do write your question, it would be great if you could write who you are. I'm going to go first to a raised hand, Morton Holbrook. And there you go. Q: I'm there, yeah. Morton Holbrook from Kentucky Wesleyan College in Kentucky. Thanks, Professor Nguyen. Sort of a two-part question here. One is, how do you reconcile apparent public support for affirmative action with the number of states, I think ten or twelve states, that have banned affirmative action? Are their legislators just out of touch with their people, or what? And the second part is, a recent article in the Washington Post about UC Berkeley's experience, where the number of African American students simply plummeted down to about 3 percent, and at the same time that campus is still very diverse in other respects. Have you made a study of all the states that have banned affirmative action? Have they all had that same result with regard to African Americans? Or where does that stand? Thank you. NGUYEN: Thank you. Thank you for the really excellent question. I think it's about—I think you're right—around nine, ten or so states that have banned affirmative action. You know, I'll be completely honest with you. I'm really just familiar with the bans that were instituted both in California and in Michigan, and those were through state referendums, right, and not necessarily legislature. So in this case, this is the people voting for it. And so I think that's a really tough nut to crack about how do you reconcile these bans at the state level versus sort of what we see at the national level. And so I think this is sort of the big challenge that advocates for racial equity are facing in places like California. They actually tried to repeal this in California recently, in the last decade. And again, that failed. And so I think part of the issue here is there's a whole lot of misinformation out there. I think that's one key issue. I sort of said in my opening remarks there that, at least in some of the popular media pieces today about these cases, the way Asian Americans are sort of understood and written about is really not aligned with a lot of the rich empirical research out there that shows quite the contrary, as well as sort of historical research that shows quite the contrary. And so I think there's a lot of public opinion being formulated as well as, again, just sort of misinformation about the topic that might be leading folks to think one way or another. To your second question about UC Berkeley, my alma mater, you're right. After that Prop 209 ban, you saw a huge decline in undergraduate enrollment, specifically of African American students. And so Berkeley has been trying every which way to figure out a race—a so-called race-neutral approach in order to increase those numbers. And I think they are trying to—they are really trying to figure it out. And I think that's why UC Berkeley, UCLA, other institutions submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard, in support of UNC, because they know that there are not a lot—when you can't use race, that's a result that you end up with. And that's because there are just not good proxy variables for race. SES or economic status is often talked about a lot. That again isn't a good variable. Geography can—to a certain extent can be used. All these can sort of certainly be used in some combination. But again, they do not serve well as proxy variables. And I think that's why we see those numbers at Berkeley. And I think that's why Berkeley was so invested in this case and why all those campus leaders submitted amicus briefs in support of Harvard and UNC. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question or first written question from Darko Spasevski, who's at the University of Skopje, North Macedonia: Do you think that in order to have successful affirmative actions in the higher education this process should be followed by affirmative actions in the workplace? Are the benefits—if the affirmative actions are only promoted at the level of higher education but are not at the same time continuing at the workplace? I guess it would be the opposite. Is it—you know, basically, should affirmative action be promoted in the workplace as well— NGUYEN: Yeah, I think— FASKIANOS: —once you get past the higher education? NGUYEN: Got it. Yeah, I think I understand that question. Actually, this was something that came up during this recent Supreme Court case. Again, the solicitor general was talking about specifically the briefs from the retired generals and admirals, as well as from various executives and corporations, talking about how affirmative action is so important at the university level because then it helps build a pipeline to recruit folks to work at those organizations or serve in the military, as well as that it trains all students, right, and lets them access and achieve the benefits of diversity and use that in their future employment, which research from areas of management show that that increases work productivity. It increases their bottom line, et cetera, et cetera. And so actually, in that argument, the—I think it was Justice Alito that asked, are you now arguing for this in the private sector, in corporations? And the solicitor general quickly said no, no. The context of this lawsuit is specifically or the position of the United States is specifically just focused here on higher education. And I think that certainly is relevant for this conversation today, as well as sort of my own area of expertise. But I think my colleagues in the areas of management and a lot of that work shows, I think, similar types of results that, when you have diverse workforces, when you have folks who can reap the benefits of diversity interactions, interracial interactions, then there are certainly a lot of benefits that come from that, in addition to creativity, work efficiency, so many things. And so, again, I'm not here to sort of put a position down regarding affirmative action in professional settings, only because that's not my area of expertise. But certainly other areas of research have pointed in similar directions as what's sort of shown in the higher-education literature. FASKIANOS: (Off mic) Renteln? And let's see if you can unmute yourself. If you click on the unmute prompt, you should be able to ask your question. Not working? Maybe not. OK, so I will read it. So— Q: Is it working now? FASKIANOS: It is, Alison. Go ahead. Q: Thank you. I'm sorry. It's just usually it shows me when I'm teaching. Thank you for a really interesting, incisive analysis; really enjoyed it. I wanted to ask about whether it's realistic to be able to implement policies that are, quote, race-neutral, unquote, given that people's surnames convey sometimes identities, ethnic and religious identities, and also activities that people participated in in professional associations. And when people have references or letters of recommendation, information about background comes out. So I'm wondering if you think that this debate really reflects a kind of polarization, a kind of symbolitics, and whether, while some worry about the consequences of the Supreme Court's decisions, this is really something that's more symbolic than something that could actually be implemented if the universities continue to be committed to affirmative action. NGUYEN: Really great question. Thank you so much for asking it. This was actually a big chunk of the conversation during oral arguments for both at UNC and both at Harvard, right. The justices were asking, so how do you—if you don't—and this was sort of the whole part about when they were talking about checking the box, checking sort of your racial category during the application process. And so they asked, if you get rid of that, what happens when students write about their experiences in their personal statements or, as you said, recommenders in their letters in about that? And so this was where it got really, really—I think the lawyers had a really hard time disentangling it, because for people of color, certainly a lot of their experiences, their racialized experiences, are inextricably linked to their race and their identity. And so removing that is, at an operationalized level, pretty hard to do and pretty impossible, right. So they actually had some interesting examples, like one—and so they're asking hypotheticals. Both lawyers—both the justices on all the various spectrum of the Court were asking sort of pointed questions. Where I think one justice asked, so can you talk about—can you talk about your family's experiences, particularly if your ancestors were slaves in the United States? And so the lawyers—this is the lawyer for SFFA saying that would not—we cannot use that. They cannot be used in admissions, because that is linked to their race. But can you—so another justice asked, can you talk about if, you know, your family immigrated to the United States? Can you—how do you talk about that? Can you talk about that? And the lawyers said, well, that would be permissible then, because that doesn't necessarily have to be tied to a racial group or a racial category. So again, it's very—I think what they were trying to tease out was how do you—what do you actually—what would actually be the way to restrict that, right? And so I guess, depending on how the justices decide this case, my assumption is or my hope is, depending on whatever way they go, they're going to—they will, one way or another, define or sort of place limits if they do end up removing the use of race. But I completely agree with you. Operationally, that's not an easy thing to do, right? And when do you decide what fits and what doesn't fit? And that will be the—that will be a big, big struggle I think universities will face if the courts ban the use of race in college admissions. FASKIANOS: Let me just add that Alison Dundes Renteln is a professor of political science at the University of Southern California. So I'm going to go to the next written question, from Clemente Abrokwaa at Penn State University: Do you think affirmative action should be redefined to reflect current social-demographic groups and needs? NGUYEN: Oh, that's such a fun question, and particularly for someone who studies race and racial formation in the United States. And so I—you know, this is—this is an interesting one. I think—I think sort of the way we think about—at least folks in my profession think about race versus sort of the way—the way it's currently accounted for in—by state-based classifications/definitions, those tend to be a little bit behind, right? That's normal and natural. But I think what we've seen in the United States over time is race has—or, racial classifications and categories have changed over time and continue to evolve, right? The Census—the Census Bureau has an advisory group to help them think through this when they collect this data. And so—and so I'll be honest with you, I don't have a good answer for you, actually. But I think—I think that certainly, given the fact that racial categories do shift and change over time and the meaning ascribed to them, we certainly need to take a—if we continue using approaches for—race- or ethnic-based approaches in college admissions, that's something that absolutely needs to be considered, right? But at the same time, it also means, as we think about sort of the future and what does that look like—and maybe, for example, here we're talking about folks who are—who identify as mixed race. But at the same time, we need to look historically, too, right? So we don't want to—the historical definitions and the way people would self-identify historically. And so I think—I think, certainly, the answer, then, would be—would be both, right? But what a fun question. Thanks for that question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the moderator prerogative here and ask you about: How does affirmative action in higher education in the United States relate to, you know, relations abroad? NGUYEN: Yeah. Well— FASKIANOS: Have you looked at that connection? NGUYEN: Sure. I think—I think that—I think that's really, really interesting. So something that we wrote in our amicus brief particularly regarding—it was sort of in response to SFFA's brief and their claim, which was about sort of why Asian Americans here were so exceptional in their—in their academic achievements. I think that's a—tends to be a big stereotype, model minority stereotype. That is how Asian Americans are racialized. So one thing that we sort of wrote in our brief was this actually is really connected to a certain extent, right—for some Asian American groups in the United States, that's linked to U.S. foreign policy and U.S. immigration policy about who from Asia is allowed to immigrate to the United States, what their sort of educational background and requirements are. And so I think when we think about the arguments being made in this lawsuit and the way Asian Americans are discussed, certainly one key aspect there is certainly connected to historic U.S. foreign policy, particularly around—as well as immigration policy, particularly around the 1965 Immigration Act. So certainly they are connected and they're linked. And something that we—that I wish more people could—more people would read our brief, I guess, and get a good understanding of, sort of to add to the complexity of this lawsuit. FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go back to Morton Holbrook. Q: Yes. Still here at Kentucky Wesleyan College. Speaking of amicus briefs, what do you think of the Catholic college brief from Georgetown University? Here we have a Court that's been very partial towards religious beliefs, and they're arguing that their religious beliefs requires them to seek diversity in college admissions. How do you think they'll fare in that argument? NGUYEN: Yeah. This was also brought up in—during oral arguments. I can't remember if it was during the UNC part or the Harvard part. And I'll be completely honest with you, I haven't read that brief yet. There's just so many and I wasn't able to read them all. But this was a really interesting—really interesting point that was sort of raised in the courts. And I don't—I don't—I don't have a good answer for you, to be completely honest. I'm not sure how they're going to, particularly given that these—that this Court seems to be very much in favor of religious liberty, right, how they would account for that amicus brief from the Catholic institutions. And so that will be an interesting one to watch and to see—to see how it's framed, and certainly it would be interesting if they played an outsized role in the justices' decision-making here. But great question. Great point to raise and something I'll add to my reading list for this weekend. FASKIANOS: So Alison Renteln came back with a question following on mine: Why are numerical quotas acceptable in other countries like India but not in the United States? NGUYEN: Yeah. Great, great question there. You know, also in other places like in Brazil. And so we, in fact, used to use numerical quotas before the Bakke decision. It was the Bakke decision, University of California v. Bakke, that eliminated the use of racial quotas, also eliminated the use of what I said earlier about sort of the rationales for why we can practice race-conscious admissions, which was it cannot be used to address historic racism or ongoing racism. In fact, the only rationale for why we can use affirmative action today as a—as a factor of many factors, is in order to—for universities to build campus environments—diverse campus environments of which there are benefits to diversity, the educational benefits of diversity that flows for all students. And so, yeah, it was the—it was the Supreme Court in the late 1970s that restricted the use of quotas among many other—many other rationales for the practice of race-conscious admissions. Thank you for that question. FASKIANOS: Great. And I'm going to go to next to raised hand from Emily Drew. Q: Great. Thank you. I'm listening in from Oregon, where I'm a sociologist. Thank you for all of these smart comments. My question is a little bit thinking out loud. What do you think about—it feels like there are some perils and dangers, but I'm hoping you'll reframe that for me, of some racialized groups like indigenous people saying, well, we're not a race anyway—we're tribes, we're nations—so that they're not subject to the ban on race-conscious practices, which, it's true, they're a tribe. They're also a racialized group. And so I'm struggling with groups kind of finding a political way around the ban or the potential ban that's coming, but then where does that leave us in terms of, you know, each group, like, take care of your own kind of thing? Can you just react a little bit to that? NGUYEN: Yeah. Thanks for that really wonderful question. Fascinating point about, yeah, the way to say: We're not a racial group. We're sovereign nations or sovereign tribes. I think what we're going to see, depending on how the courts go, are folks trying—schools potentially trying a whole host of different approaches to increase diversity on their campuses if they're not allowed to use some of these racial categories like they've been doing already, in a holistic approach. And so, yeah, that might be a fascinating way for indigenous communities to advance forward. I will say, though, there was one point, again, in the—during oral arguments where they started talking about sort of generational connections to racial categories. And so they're saying if it's my grandparents' grandparents' grandparents, right, so sort of talking almost about, like—at least the way I interpreted it, as sort of thinking about connecting one to a race via blood quantum. And so when does that—when does that expire, right? And so is it—is it—if you're one-sixteenth Native American, is that—does that count? So there was a short line of questioning about that, and I think the—I think the lawyer tried to draw a line in the sand about, like, at what point do you not go—what point does it count and when does it not count. And I think that's actually a bit of a misstep, primarily because that should be determined by the sovereign nation, by the tribe, about who gets to identify as that—as a member of that nation or that tribe and how they—I think—you know, I think, talking to indigenous scholars, they would say it's about how you engage in and how you live in it, rather than—rather than if it's just a percentage. So, again, those will be the tensions, I think, that will—that already exist, I should say, regardless of the Court decision. But a fascinating point about states sort of exercising indigenous law there to see if that would be a way to counter that. Certainly, I should—I should have said at the top of this I'm not trained as a lawyer. And so I have no idea how that would be sort of litigated out, but certainly I imagine all different entities will find ways to move through this without—in various legal fashions. And I was talking to a colleague earlier today about this and he said something about at the end of the day this might be something that, if Congress decided to take up, they may—this would be an opportunity for Congress to take up, to maybe develop a narrow path for institutions. But certainly it's—the courts seem to be the favored way for us to talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: There's a written question from John Francis, who is a research professor of political science at the University of Utah: If the Court were to strike down affirmative action, would state universities give much more attention to geographic recruitment within their respective states and encourage private foundations to raise scholarship funds to support students of color who live in those areas? NGUYEN: Great, great question there. And I think that would be one of many things that universities are doing. We're seeing schools where the states have banned affirmative action do things like this, in Michigan and certainly in California. But to a certain extent, it actually doesn't work—I guess in California's context—that well. I think, if I'm not mistaken, the head of admissions for UC Berkeley said in one of many panels—he's wonderful, by the way—on one of many panels, like, that doesn't work very well in the California context because only so many schools have sort of that large concentration of African American students and for them to sort of go there and recruit out of that. So it's not a—the sort of geographic distribution is not so easy and clean cut as—I think as one would normally perceive. And so it actually develops a big, big challenge for state institutions, particularly state flagship institutions, in particular geographic contexts. Now, I don't know if that's the case, say, in other parts of the country. But certainly within the UC system, that seems to be a prevailing argument. And I think more than ever now, everyone has been looking to the UC system for insight on what they—on how to approach this if the courts decide next year to ban the use of race. I should also admit that—or, not admit, but proudly declare that I'm a product of the UC system. All of my postsecondary education is from those schools. And so I know that this has been a constant and ongoing conversation within the UC system, and I imagine that will be the case for schools both public and private across the country. But I think part of that calculation then requires institutions to think about not just from private donors, but really from state legislatures as well as the institutions themselves have to really think about how they want to dedicate resources to achieving diversity if they don't—if they're unable to use race. I think a tremendous amount of resources. So, to a certain extent, it's going to make institutions put their money where their mouth is. And so we'll see if that—this will all be interesting areas to investigate, depending on how the courts decide come next year. FASKIANOS: There's a raised hand or there was a raised hand from Jeff Goldsmith. I don't know if you still have a question. Q: Yeah. So I've been trying to figure out exactly how I might want to pose this question, but I was struck by—sorry, this is Jeff Goldsmith from Columbia University. I was struck by the line of questioning that you mentioned from Justice Barrett about affinity housing and your thoughts about how narrow or far-reaching a decision striking down affirmative action might be. And I guess it seems like there is the potential for at least some gray area. And you know, we run things like summer research programs that are intended to bolster diversity. There are in some cases—you just sort of mentioned the scholarship opportunities focused on increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds. And I guess I'm just sort of curious if you have any speculation about how narrow or far-reaching a decision might be. NGUYEN: Thanks for that question. Yeah. So I think this was—we—prior to the—to oral arguments, people had sort of talked about this a little bit. Would this be consequential? And I—in fact, the day before—the day before oral arguments, I was on a different panel and I sort of brought this up. And actually, a federal judge in the audience came up to me afterwards and said, you know, I don't think the Court's got a lot of appetite for that. And I said, hey, I completely agree with you, but certainly, you know, we've—in recent times we've seen the Court do more interesting things, I guess, if you'll—if I can use a euphemism. And so—and so, it almost feels like everything's on the table, right? But I think, generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree that if the courts strike down race-conscious admissions, they will do it in a very narrow and highly-tailored way. That was my feeling going in. That was my feeling on October 30, right? Then, on Halloween—October 31—while listening to the—to the oral arguments, you had that very short exchange between Justice Barrett, specifically during the UNC case, ask about affinity groups and affinity housing, and it felt like it sort of came out of left field. And not—and so I think that raised some curiosity for all of us about what—about why that was a line of questioning. But nonetheless, I think at least my—I've never been a gambling person, but if I were I would say that if they do strike it down that I think the justices wholesale don't—I don't think they would have a large appetite to do something so broad and sweeping like that. At least that's my hope, if that's the direction we're moving in. But I guess that's why I said earlier that we're sort of all on pins and needles about that. And if that is struck down, then I think that's got a lot of consequences for scholarships, recruitment programs, summer bridge programs, potentially minority-serving institutions, and all of the above. So, yeah, I—again, it seems like that's a big reshaping of postsecondary education, not just in admissions but sort of the way they operate overall. And I don't know if that would happen so quickly overnight like that. But that, at least, is my hope. FASKIANOS: (Off mic.) There you go. Q: (Laughs.) Thank you so much for your talk. Clemente Abrokwaa from Penn State University. And my question is, right now there is a push for diversity, equity, and inclusion in many areas. How is that different from affirmative action? NGUYEN: Well, great question. And actually, that's a really difficult one for me to answer only because I think if we were to go and ask ten people on the street what did we mean by diversity, equity, and inclusion, everyone would give you sort of a very different and potentially narrow or a very broad definition of what it means, right? But I think with respect to affirmative action, particularly in a higher-education context, it is specifically about college admissions, specifically about admissions and how do you review college admissions. And in this case here, there is a very narrow way in which it can—it can be used for race—in this case for race, that it's got to be narrowly tailored, that it can only be a factor among a factor in a broad holistic approach, that you can't use quotas, that it can't be based on rectifying previous or historical racism, and that the only utility for it is that it is used to create learning environments where there are educational benefits that flow from diversity and the interactions of diversity. Versus, I think, broader conversations about DEI, while of course centered on admissions, right, which is sort of one of many dimensions in which you achieve DEI, right? We like to think that—and I'm going to be sort of citing a scholar, Sylvia Hurtado, out of UCLA, who argues that, admissions help contribute to one dimension, which is the composition of a university, the sort of just overall demographics and numbers of that university. But there are many other dimensions that are important in order to create learning environments in which we can achieve DEI-related issues. That means that we have to look at the institution and the way it's acted historically and contemporarily. We have to look at behavioral interactions between people on a university. There are psychological dimensions, among many others. And so that's how I think about it. I think that's how at least my area of scholarship and in our academic discipline we think about it and for folks who study education think about it. And so hopefully that answers your question. And, yeah, hopefully that answers your question. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Alison Renteln: What policies appear to be the best practices to increase diversity at universities, including disability? And what are the best practices from other countries? NGUYEN: Oh, wow, that's a really good question. So we—you know, I think—I think a lot of other countries use quotas. Brazil might be sort of the example that most folks think about when they think about the way affirmative action's practiced abroad. And certainly that's not something that we can do here in the United States. So that's—that—really, really important consideration. Sort of other practices that I think that are—that are not sort of the ones that are narrowly tailored by the courts are what I said earlier about sort of what the UC system has to really do and has to really grapple with, right, are using every sort of—everything that they can think of under the sun to go out and try to do outreach and recruit and build those pipelines throughout the entire education system. There's been some work by some wonderful folks in our field—Dominique Baker, Mike Bastedo—who looked at even sort of just a random sampling, if you were able to do a lottery system, and that has actually found that that doesn't actually increase diversity either, and so—racial diversity either. And so I think that's—so, again, this all points to how crucial affirmative action is in being able to use race in order to achieve compositional diversity on a college campus, and that other proxy variables just don't even come close to being able to help estimate that. And so, yeah, that's—I should also note that really, we're only talking about a dozen or so schools. Oh, I'm sorry, more than a dozen, but a handful of schools that this is really a big issue for. Most schools in the United States don't necessarily—are not at this level of selectivity where it becomes a big issue of concern for the national public. Nearly half of all of our college-going students are at community college, which tend to be open-access institutions. And so something also to keep in mind when we talk about affirmative action. FASKIANOS: Thanks. We only have a few minutes left. Can you talk a little bit more about the work of NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools? NGUYEN: Yeah. So I'm a faculty affiliate there, and maybe I'll preface by saying I'm new to NYU. I just came here from the University of Denver, and so I'm still learning about every wonderful thing that Metro Center is doing. It's led by a wonderful faculty member here named Fabienne Doucet and really focused on sort of a handful of pillars—certainly research on education, but also a real big tie for communities. So real direct engagement with schools, school systems in order to advance justice in those schools. And so they have a lot of contracts with school districts and public entities, as well as nonprofit groups that come in and work as an incubator there on a host of issues. And so I think the work there is really exciting and really interesting. It tends to be—and I should say also very expansive. So the whole sort of K-12 system, as well as postsecondary. And I think that's the role that I'm looking to play there, is to help contribute to and expand their work in the postsecondary education space. FASKIANOS: Great. And maybe a few words about your other—you have many, many hats. NGUYEN: Oh. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: NYU's Institute for Human Development and Social Change. NGUYEN: Yeah. They do some really wonderful, interesting work. And it's really, actually, a center and a space for faculty to come in and run a lot of their research projects, including my own, which is the MSI Data Project, where we are looking at all the various different types of minority-serving institutions in the United States, how they change over time, and how the federal government thinks about them and accounts for them, as well as how do the schools themselves think about them, all with the goal here in order to work with students of colors and give them access and opportunity. I should say, depending on how you count them, MSIs enroll a huge and significant proportion of all students of color, almost half, in the country, despite making up such a small percentage, about 20 percent, of all college and universities. And so this is—certainly when we talk about affirmative action, we—I think a lot of folks center it around racial justice or social justice. I think sort of the other side of the same coin here are schools like minority-serving institutions which enroll and provide access to and graduate a really significant proportion and number of students of color and certainly an area that we need to bring a lot more attention to when we talk about issues of race and education. FASKIANOS: OK, I'm going to take one—try to sneak in one last question from John Francis, who's raised his hand. You get the last one, John. Q: OK, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Oh, that's great. So my question is—has a certain irony to it, but there's been a great deal of discussion of late that men are not succeeding in college, but that women are, and that certainly should be encouraged, but also there should be ways to find perhaps even changing when people start out in elementary school how that may be shifted to help men later on. And in this discussion, when we're looking at that issue and it's gaining some latitude, some strength, should we think about that as a possible consideration that universities should have greater latitude in making decisions to reflect the current set of demographic issues, be it race or gender or others? Has this argument come to play any kind of role? NGUYEN: Great question and a good last one, and if I can be completely honest, not an area that I'm—gender-based issues are not an area that I've done a whole lot of work in, if really any work, but I will attempt to answer your question as best as I can here, which is, I think—and sort of connected to sort of the larger conversation and question that we had that someone posed earlier about sort of the complexity and changing nature of racial and ethnic categories and what does that mean, and how do universities address that? And I think this is again where it requires universities to have some flexibility and nimbleness and autonomy to be able to address a lot of these issues, including what you're talking about, John, depending on the context and the times in which we are in. You know, certainly one big area also connected to—for men in postsecondary education is sort of the huge gap we see for men of color from particular groups, and really we see foundations, we see the Obama administration really play—invest in this work. So, John, from what it sounds like, it sounds like I agree with you here about—that universities need flexibility and autonomy to be able to address these issues. Now, that may—at the same time, we don't want to dismiss the fact that the experiences of women in postsecondary education—while certainly we see numbers increasing in enrollment in a lot of aspects, in certain disciplines we see a sharp decline; we see—in STEM and engineering fields, in the way those disciplines may be organized to sort of push out women. And so I think, again, this is why it requires some nimbleness and some autonomy from the universities to be able to design approaches to support students of different types of diversity on their campuses, in particular areas, disciplines, and majors. And so I think that's the—I think that's the challenge, is that we need to be a lot more intentional and think more precisely and run our analyses in ways that make sense for particular intersectional groups on campus and in the areas of which they're studying. So yeah, I think that's the—one of the big challenges that universities are facing today and certainly depending on how the courts rule, we'll see if that ends up restricting autonomy and removing tools or allowing those tools to remain for various types of targeted interventions for various minoritized groups. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Well, Mike Nguyen, thank you very much for this terrific hour and to all of you for your questions and comments. This is really insightful and we appreciate it. Welcome to New York, Mike, your first New York—holidays in New York. So we will be resuming the series in January and we will be sending out also the lineup for our winter/spring semester of the Academic Webinar series, which is really designed for students, later this month. We do wish you all luck with administering finals this week and grading them and all those papers; I don't envy you all. We have different deadlines under—at the Council that we're working on right now, so it will be a busy month, but we hope that everybody enjoys the holidays. We will resume in January, in the new year, and I encourage you all to follow us at @CFR_Academic on Twitter. Visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thanks, Mike, for this, and to all of you. NGUYEN: Thank you so much for having me. Really an honor. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Take care, everybody. (END)

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday December 8 will be futurist Jeff Goldsmith; privacy expert Deven McGraw (@healthprivacy), and employer and care consultant Brian Klepper (@bklepper1). Deven has a bunch of insights from her new study on health data access!

Vi pratar Andor!   Länk till the Q and A with Jeff Goldsmith

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Thursday November 17 were futurist Jeff Goldsmith; THCB regular writer and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@mlmillenson); fierce patient activist Casey Quinlan (@MightyCasey); and Olympic rower for 2 countries and all around dynamo Jennifer Goldsack, (@GoldsackJen). This was quite the conversation!

After an early Fall hiatus, THCB Gang is back!! Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) for #THCBGang on Thursday November 10 were medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee); futurist Jeff Goldsmith; THCB regular writer and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); and policy consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1). You can imagine that elections were on our collective minds.

This week, Kay, like Backstreet, is back, and we're talking about writing for the future! And to help us, I've managed to convince a guest I've wanted to have on for a long time, Liam O'Donnell, writer and director Beyond Skyline and Skylines to come on and tell us what it's like. We also share some nice news about losers (racists/incels) losing, and Roadmap Writers taking L's on teaching writers about Blockchain. Our Weekly Resource: Speaking futuristic, I'd like to shout out my friend Christopher English and his comic book magazine, Realms, which is up on Amazon, for free if you have Amazon/Kindle unlimited. And by its own description, explores science fiction, fantasy, and steampunk themes, as well as dystopian worlds, alternate realities, multiverse themes. Realms promises a wild ride in every issue. Notes From the Episode: Zack's Original Instagram video (for our Twitter Drama Bumper) The Podcast from Jeff Goldsmith that made Rob fall in love with Liam Liam's Podcast, Action for Everyone Liam O'Donnell on Twitter Rob's YouTube Channel How to Make a Movie for $1000 Zack's Twitter Kay's Twitter Rob's Twitter Email us(!)

Jag och branschveteranen Calle Johansson-Sundelius vädrar och bollar varannan vecka våra tankar kring spel, filmer, tv-serier och nördgrejer tillsammans i detta kompletterande upplägg där fokus ligger på frekvens och aktualiteter.Notera att du med varje nytt Virtuellt-Veckan får ytterligare över en timme fördjupat snack och framför allt själva intrycksdelen genom att stötta detta initiativ på Patreon! Hjälp oss hålla igång denna seglats — om den nu råkar gillas! Tack på förhand!Nämns i podden görs följande:Nyhetssvepet:Super Mario Bros-trailernStadia läggs ner Meta Quest Pro Overwatch 2-kaoset Har Phil Spencer teasat streamingkonsol samma vecka som Stadia skrotas? Edgerunner-effekten på Cyberpunk CDPR har jättemånga projekt på gång Victors ämne:Kontroversiella Kortisar:Bästa Switch-spelen: Inbakad kontroversiell åsikt: (gillar inte Breath of the Wild)Super Mario OdysseyLuigi's Mansion 3Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle (uppföljaren Sparks of Hope 20 okt!)Zelda: Link's AwakeningMetroid DreadBubblare:Splatoon 3Super Mario Maker 2Kirby and the Forgotten LandLysande Switch-uppgraderingar:Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's FuryMario Kart 8 DeluxeDonkey Kong Country: Tropical FreezeJag hoppar nog av House of the DragonLeaving Las Vegas (1995) Chinatown (1974) I podden QA with Jeff Goldsmith kan man höra David Lynch bekräfta allt det man misstänkt; att alltifrån Eraserhead till Inland Empire är improviserad nonsens Calles ämne: Binge- vs weekly-serier

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on Sept 1st were THCB regular writer and ponderer of odd juxtapositions Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); the double trouble of vaunted futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) and Jeff Goldsmith, and Consumer advocate and CEO of AdaRose, Lygeia Ricciardi (@Lygeia). Great conversation going from the personal (Jeff's Covid August & Ian's tour round the wilds of Canada) to the policy and political.

This was a special early in the day edition of #THCBGang. It was at 9.15am PT/ 12.15 pm ET (so if you are coming at 1pm it won't be live today at the normal time as it's already happened!). It was part of the Primary Care Transformation Summit which has been running since Monday and continues to the end of Friday. It's a who's who of everyone in primary care. You can check out the wider agenda but we were on immediately before the day 3 keynote from head of CMS Innovation, Liz Fowler. Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) to discuss primary care and more were are WTF Health host & Health IT girl Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa); futurist Jeff Goldsmith; & Dan O'Neill (@dp_oneill) who is now at primary care group Pine Park Health.

Jeff Goldsmith, author of some of the most detailed research on the UnitedHealth/Optum conglomerate, is in the house with Jared and guest co-host James Gardner to discuss the payvider's approach to coopetition, from their blueprint for building consumer-first services, to the players that they don't consider to be competitors.  All that, plus the Flava of the Week about hospitals' Plan B. How is Paul Keckley urging hospital boards and C suites to change course, and how does it impact the critical business components of Consumer Transformation?  Thanks to Persado for spreading the awesome, yo! Persado provides healthcare organizations with pre-developed, pre-optimized marketing messaging focused on improving health goals and business objectives. (#223) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) will be fierce patient activist Casey Quinlan (@MightyCasey); Jennifer Benz (@Jenbenz); Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune); patient advocate Grace Cordovano (@GraceCordovano); policy consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1); Jeff Goldsmith; Jennifer Benz (@Jenbenz); PLUS Adam Pellegini (@adampellegrini) from cancer navigation company Jasper Health. It really was a great conversation about what to do (and what is being done) to make the experience better for people with cancer and those that love them.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang on April 14 for an hour of topical conversation on what's happening in health care and beyond were fierce patient activist Casey Quinlan (@MightyCasey); futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) and Jeff Goldsmith; Jennifer Benz (@Jenbenz); and policy consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1).

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang at 1pm PT 4pm ET Thursday for an hour of topical and sometime combative conversation on what's happening in health care and beyond will be: double trouble futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) & Jeff Goldsmith; consultant focusing on platform business models and strategy Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis), & back after a long while analyst and Principal of Worksite Health Advisors Brian Klepper (@bklepper1).

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) on #THCBGang at 1pm PT 4pm ET Thursday for an hour of topical and sometime combative conversation on what's happening in health care and beyond will be: Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune); the double trouble of vaunted futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) & Jeff Goldsmith, WTF Health host & Health IT girl Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa). Today's special guest returning to #THCBGang is the “I make unicorns” King Bill Taranto from Merck GHIF (@BillTaranto).

In this episode, Bree Luck and guest Jeff Goldsmith, Ph.D. , founder of Health Futures, Inc. discuss the history and the future of healthcare in the United States -- and what it means for women in perimenopause and menopause.Jeff GoldsmithHealth Futures was founded in 1982 by Jeff Goldsmith. Jeff Goldsmith is one of the nation's foremost health industry analysts, specializing in corporate strategy, trend analysis, health policy, and emerging technologies. He has worked across the health system- hospitals, health plans, physician groups, pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and health manufacturing and distribution sectors- advising senior management and Boards. Health Futures also helps guide venture and private equity investment in emerging technologies. Jeff Goldsmith writes and lectures actively on health policy, financing, and technology, both in the United States and overseas. You can find an active archive of his writings and topics at www.healthfutures.net.After this episode, I created a PDF for listeners to access: 5 Tips for Talking to Your Medical Care Provider about Menopause and Perimenopause. You can get your copy of the PDF HERE.Leave a voice message HERE!Follow us on Instagram!Schedule a chat with Bree @ The Lovely UnbecomingJoin the Pause to Go Discussion GroupThanks to our Sponsor! https://codebasecoworking.com/ Special thanks to WTJU 91.1 FM & The Virginia Audio Collective for the support and the space to record! Did you love this episode? Leave us a review !

Today at 1pm PT 4pm on #THCBGang I'll host the double trouble of vaunted futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) & Jeff Goldsmith, and medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee) for an hour of conversation and banter about the health care system, the world in politics, and whether “Don't Look Up” is a spoof or a documentary.

Joining Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) for an hour of topical and sometime combative conversation on what's happening in health care and beyond were — medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee); futurist Jeff Goldsmith; fierce patient activist Casey Quinlan (@MightyCasey); and policy consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1). Plenty of talk about voting rights, the future of American “democracy” and much more, and we did get back to health care eventually. A great & fun, while important, conversation!

S1E4: Simplifying the Healthcare Administrative Burden with Jeff Goldsmith, PhD, President of Health Futures. Healthcare's administrative burden, documentation, and billing requirements continue to rapidly increase. But the move to a digital environment has hidden the continued explosion of content. Now in some cases the information is part of the additional data we are capturing on our patients. Our ability to capture data and incorporate this into the health record is no longer limited to basic vitals intermittently gathered manually. And this data explosion is only set to further explode as we start to include the unexplored large data sets of genomics, proteomics, and the biome to mention a few. And with this the continued demands placed the clinical staff to document their activities in order to receive payment. How do we de-complexify healthcare? We don't need or want Moneyball medicine where the data is entered by the very staff, we are wanting to deliver the best possible care. Your better pill to swallow is to simplify or as Jeff puts it, de-complexify the system, apply Ockham's razor to every one of your non-direct patient related processes and remove the ones that don't add value. To stream our Station live 24/7 visit www.HealthcareNOWRadio.com or ask your Smart Device to “….Play HealthcareNOW Radio”. Find all of our network podcasts on your favorite podcast platforms and be sure to subscribe and like us. Learn more at www.healthcarenowradio.com/listen

Following last week's sojourn in Europe where I couldn't quite pull an impromptu European-based THCB Gang together, we are back on home turf. Join me at 1pm PT – 4pm ET Thursday 18th November when I'll host delivery & tech expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis), the double trouble of vaunted futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) & Jeff Goldsmith, and Consumer advocate & CEO of AdaRose, Lygeia Ricciardi (@Lygeia).

I am so thrilled that as part of my East coast jaunt I got to do another special #THCBGang. This one is with the amazing Alex Drane, CEO of Archangels. Who among other things has almost singlehandedly changed the conversation about SDOH and lots more in this country. And you know that's true because Jeff Goldsmith has said as much on #THCB Gang many times. Listen to Alex's career trajectory as an entrepreneur; how she discovered and publicized the “Unmentionaables“; the good and the bad of her leaving Eliza, and the incredibly important work she is doing with Archangels. All packed into 45 mins!

Hospitals are not just the four walls of a building; they are also the backbone in an American community. As the pandemic continues across the country, Chip and Jeff Goldsmith examine how hospitals learned to treat a disease without a proven cure or readily available therapies. They also spoke about what characteristics were displayed by hospitals that demonstrated successes during the past 18 months of this COVID-19 crisis. Jeff is the President of Health Futures, Inc. The two discuss the benefits of the ever-evolving hospital as well as its changing role in health care.

Episode 62 of “The THCB Gang” will be live-streamed on Thursday, June 17th at 1pm PT -4PM ET. Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) will be joined by regulars futurist Jeff Goldsmith; policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1); Suntra Modern Recovery CEO JL Neptune (@JeanLucNeptune); and medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee).

Episode 58 of “The THCB Gang” will be live-streamed on Thursday, June 17th at 1pm PT -4PM ET. Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) will be joined by regulars futurist Jeff Goldsmith; policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1); Consumer advocate & CTO of Carium Health, Lygeia Ricciardi (@Lygeia); and–after way too long an absence–economist & consumer expert Jane Sarasohn-Kahn (@healthythinker)

Episode 56 of “The THCB Gang” was recorded live on Thursday, June 3. Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) was joined by regulars: medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee), THCB regular writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard) and health futurist Jeff Goldsmith; WTF Health host & Health IT girl Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa) snuck in later after she finished up at the Going Digital: Behavioral Health Conference across the virtual street.

Episode 53 of “The THCB Gang” was live-streamed on Thursday, May 5 at 1pm PT -4PM ET. Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) was joined by regulars: futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) and Jeff Goldsmith; privacy expert and now entrepreneur Deven McGraw @HealthPrivacy; policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1); medical historian Mike Magee (@drmikemagee), and THCB regular writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard)

Episode 51 of “The THCB Gang” was live-streamed on Thursday, Jan 21. You can see it below! Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) was joined by regulars: futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) and Jeff Goldsmith; privacy expert and now entrepreneur Deven McGraw @HealthPrivacy; and digital health guru Fard Johnmar (@fardj). We really dug into vaccines, vaccine passports and what they means for the future of health and society. Great conversation, benefitting a lot from having a fabulous lawyer on the show!

In the first part of our conversation with healthcare futurists Jeff Goldsmith and Ian Morrison, they said it’s time to reconsider the social impact of hospital systems because of the vital role they played during the pandemic. In this episode, Ian and Jeff discuss how large health systems should be leveraged as the country rebuilds its public health infrastructure. 

Healthcare futurists Jeff Goldsmith and Ian Morrison say it’s time to reconsider hospital systems' social impact. In a recent Health Affairs editorial, the two write health system scale has been essential to procuring personal protective gear, expanding bed capacity, and quickly standing up telemedicine solutions. 

The April Fools joining me on THCB Gang today will be policy expert consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1), futurist Jeff Goldsmith, policy and tech expert Vince Kuraitis (@VinceKuraitis), and patient safety expert and all around wit Michael Millenson (@MLMillenson). There's vaccines, a 4th wave, Texas reopening, Florida never having closed, and a whole mess of health policy.

Screenwriters Will Collins (Wolfwalkers) and Kevin Lehane (Grabbers) chase down Tom Cruise's best running scenes in this bumper episode! Did you know Tom Cruise runs in almost every film? Even the ones where he's wheelchair-bound! What a man. So, strap in and let Will take you through it as we find out is Cruise the fastest man in movies?As referenced in the episode, you can listen to the excellent Jeff Goldsmith interviews with Chris McQuarrie at theQandApodcast.com. You can contact the show with any comments, questions, or scene suggestions through Twitter or email us at bestbitspodcast@gmail.com! Merch is available to purchase through RedBubble. All proceeds help us produce the podcast. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps us out and allows others to discover us. Thanks for listening!Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-best-bits/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

A Tune Up Radio 188. adását hallgathatjátok, melyben kedvenc podcastjeinkről és Youtube-csatornáinkról beszélgetünk. Résztvevők: Ákos, Gáspár, Lóri, András PODCASTEK: Vox Rádió (András) - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUDWesKx-zgpCpDcVFP4Eog Filmbarátok (Ákos, András) https://www.youtube.com/user/FilmbaratokPodcast Vakfolt (Ákos, András) https://vakfoltpodcast.hu/ Filmklub podcast (András) https://www.mixcloud.com/vferi/ Nyilvános vetítés (Ákos, András) http://nyilvanosvetites.hu/ Párnacsata (Ákos) https://anchor.fm/parnacsata The VR Happy Hour (Ákos) https://www.twitch.tv/wearethevr Balázsék (Ákos) https://soundcloud.com/balazsek Felütés (Gáspár) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClCHZKasdrjdDzr2a_sW_tQ The /Filmcast (András, Ákos) https://www.slashfilm.com/category/features/slashfilmcast/ Cast of Kings (András) https://play.acast.com/s/castofkings The One Who Knocks (András) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ones-who-knock-a-breaking-bad-podcast/id544599736 Decoding Westworld (András) https://decodingwestworld.com/ Peaks TV (András) https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/peaks-tv-a-twin-peaks-podcast-david-chen-8eNR4PbMyKX/ DLC Podcast (András) https://5by5.tv/dlc ReelBlend (Ákos) https://www.cinemablend.com/podcasts Scriptnotes (Ákos) https://johnaugust.com/scriptnotes Team Deakins (Ákos) https://teamdeakins.libsyn.com/ The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith (Ákos) http://www.theqandapodcast.com/ Breaking Bad Insider Podcast (András) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-bad-insider-podcast/id311058181 The Director's Cut (Ákos) https://www.dga.org/Craft/Podcast.aspx Blockbuster (Ákos) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/blockbuster/id1451112935 Cinematic Sound Radio: Flagship Show (Ákos) http://www.cinematicsound.net/category/the-flag-ship-show/ Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend (Ákos) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/conan-obrien-needs-a-friend/id1438054347 Checkpoint Podcast (András) https://soundcloud.com/st-ki YOUTUBE-CSATORNÁK: Dalfutár (Gáspár) Lessons from the Screenplay (Ákos) Every Frame a Painting (András) Patrick (H) Willems (Ákos) Tabletop (Geek & Sundry csatornán belül) (Gáspár) Redlettermedia (András) AGBO (Ákos) How to DAD (Gáspár) Nostalgia Critic (András) Lindsay Ellis (András) DP/30: The Oral History Of Hollywood (Ákos) Chris Stuckmann (Ákos) Dicebreaker (Gáspár) Outside Xbox + Outside Xtra (Gáspár) Your Movie Sucks (András) The VR (Ákos) Indeimaus (Gáspár) Girlfriend Reviews (András) Fun with Geeks (Ákos) Prepare to Try - RKG (András, Gáspár) The Reel Rejects (Ákos) Let's Game It Out (Gáspár) Crowbcat (András) Marz (András) Partizán (Ákos) Modern History TV (Gáspár) Wolfcrow (András) The Hollywood Reporter Roundtable (András) Corridor Crew (Ákos) Taskmaster (Gáspár) Winkler Róbert (András) Team Coco (Ákos) Scam Nation (volt Scam School) (Gáspár) FrettedAmericana (Gáspár) Támogass minket Patreonon: https://www.patreon.com/radiotuneup SOUNDCLOUD https://soundcloud.com/radiotuneup SPOTIFY https://open.spotify.com/show/6g69TlNlr7jk0ojcM05aAb ITUNES https://podcasts.apple.com/hu/podcast/tune-up-radio-podcast/id1460229855?fbclid=IwAR0kyH86OgonL8mzsAfFnDCQHDIVEvQcyUX8wD8BA-vL5h5Lk9di3Dp12Ko MP3 LINK: https://www.mediafire.com/file/o7fkpvx41w6t2cv/tuneup188.mp3/file Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/radiotuneup/ Twitter: @radiotuneup Ákos Twitter fiókja: @lennoxasaki E-mail: tuneup314@gmail.com

Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) was joined by regulars: futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) & Jeff Goldsmith, surgeon and now digital health entrepreneur Raj Aggarwal (@docaggarwal), radiologist Saurabh Jha (@roguerad), and patient advocate Robin Farmanfarmaian (@Robinff3). Like the nation we took a big collective sigh of relief. We then talked a lot about COVID vaccinations, what the newly (sort of) Dem-led Senate is going to do on stimulus and health care , and we fnished on all that money pouring into digital health, while the stock market goes crazy. It was all good grist for the #THCBGang's mill.

Episode 37 of “The THCB Gang” will be live-streamed here 1pm PT / 4pm ET on Thursday, Jan 7. You can see it below! Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) will be joined by regulars: data and privacy expert Deven McGraw, (@Healthprivacy), Patient entrepreneur extraordinaire Robin Farmanfarmaian (@RobinFF3) and consultant/author Rosemarie Day (@Rosemarie_Day1). Balancing them out will be the Y chromosome owners futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve), Jeff Goldsmith and THCB regular Kim Bellard (@Kimbbellard) Other than than mob riot in the Capitol, the Georgia senate race, most of the world on COVID lockdown, the vaccines, the new Administration, and wishing each other a happy new year, there's little to talk about….

Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) was joined by not one but two of America's leading health futurists Ian Morrison (@seccurve) and Jeff Goldsmith; Patient advocate Grace Cordovano (@GraceCordovano); health writer Kim Bellard (@kimbbellard); employer health expert Jennifer Benz (@jenbenz); and surgeon and innovation dude Raj Aggarwal (@docaggarwal). There was lots of conversation about who is going to pay for what health care. What are big employers going to do. How is the vaccine going to roll out and are we ready? What does it all mean for the future of hospitals, doctors, employers, innovation and more.

Matthew Holt (@boltyboy) will be joined by some of our regulars: WTF Health Host Jessica DaMassa (@jessdamassa), radiologist Saurabh Jha (@RougeRad), MD-turned entrepreneur Jean-Luc Neptune (@jeanlucneptune), benefits communications leader Jennifer Benz (@jenbenz), THCB's Editor-in-Chief me (zoykskhan) and guest Jeff Goldsmith, President of Health Futures, Inc and National Advisor, Navigant Healthcare. The conversation followed the post-election frenzy around COVID-19 response, the vaccines, the ACA, and what a Dem. president means for the United States in terms of health care.

In this episode of Fireside Chat, we sit down with Jeff Goldsmith, Ph.D., President, Health Futures, Inc. to discuss healthcare payment models and the need for commercial companies, providers, and the government to lower the administrative burdens on providers to increase usability. We also talked about the contrast of the U.S. fee for service payment model with other western countries to which the U.S. is frequently compared.

Jeff Goldsmith is President of Health Futures, Inc and National Advisor to Navigant Healthcare. For over a decade, Jeff was a lecturer in the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago, on health services management and policy. He is one of the nation's foremost health industry analysts, specializing in corporate strategy, trend analysis, health policy, and emerging technologies. Wait till your hear his predictions for the future of health and healthcare.  Visit A Second Opinion's website here: https://asecondopinionpodcast.com/ Engage with us on social media at: Facebook Twitter Instagram

Jason gets another 20 pages written. Exhausted but plowing ahead. Catherine works on a dress. A guy on twitter volunteers to come help on set. Jeff Goldsmith interview with Pet Cemetery guys. Subscribe to the filmmaking journey as each day Jason chronicles his first micro-budget, indie film. Follow along for all the up-and-downs of the filmmaking process and be inspired to make an INDIE FILM! Twitter: @MrJBaum jasonbaumgardner.com Film updates: MyFirstIndieFilm.com

In a flashback episode, host Jeff Goldsmith interviews co-writer Christopher McQuarrie about Valkyrie. Download my podcast hereCopyright © Unlikely Films, Inc. 2008, 2019. All rights reserved.

Join host Jeff Goldsmith to tune into the 2019 WGA Awards. Download my podcast hereCopyright © Unlikely Films, Inc. 2019. All rights reserved.

Holly Gennaro McClane: portrayed in Die Hard by Bonnie Bedelia, John McClane's estranged wife reflects the conflicts and contradictions facing women at the time the film was made – and even still today. She's a working woman, a mother, and a wife. But there’s no consensus on whether she’s also a damsel in distress, or if she – like so many other conventions that Die Hard challenges – goes beyond your typical 80s action movie female lead. Let us know what you think! Drop us a line at diehardwithapodcast@gmail.com, or visit our site at www.diehardwithapodcast.com   Links How Did This Get Made? mini-sode 199.5 (Paul's recommendation is at 33:29) The Q&A Podcast with Jeb Stuart and Stephen E. de Souza, hosted by Jeff Goldsmith Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History, by James Mottram and David S Cohen John McTiernan: The Rise and Fall of an Action Movie Icon, by Larry Taylor   Source Links Another Angry Woman, Making fists with your toes: Towards a feminist analysis of Die Hard Deep Focus Review, The Definitives: Die Hard Empire Magazine, October 2018 issue, Tower of Terror (p. 98) Mental Floss, 19 Things to Look for the Next Time You Watch Die Hard MovieTime Guru, Die Hard: First Impressions Last Script Secrets, Die Hard analysis The Guardian, Die Hard at 30: how it remains the quintessential American action movie   Guests Reed Fish Ed Grabionowski Sasha Perl-Raver Adam Sternbergh Katie Walsh Scott Wampler   Get In Touch Email Website Twitter Facebook Instagram Patreon   Full Episode Transcript Welcome to the podcast, pal. My name is Simone Chavoor, and thank you for joining me for Die Hard With a Podcast! The show that examines the best American action movie of all time: Die Hard. Welcome to the fourth episode! A lot has happened Die Hard-wise since the last show. I want to get to everything, so I’m just going to jump in with a big thanks to Paul Scheer and the How Did This Get Made podcast. He recommended the show on one of his mini-sodes, and I’m stoked he likes the show, and took the time to give it a shout out. I’m still not sure how he heard about this show in the first place, but however he came across it, I’m glad he did! Also, a couple of weeks ago I went on a spur-of-the-moment road trip to Los Angeles to see the Los Angeles Historic Theatre Foundation’s screening of Die Hard, which was followed by a Q&A with both screenwriters, Jeb Stuart and Stephen E de Souza, hosted by Jeff Goldsmith of Backstory Magazine. Now, the entire conversation is available to listen to and there’s a link in the show notes. Aaaand you can hear me at about one hour, twenty five minutes in, because you know I just had to ask a question. Although it was really hard just picking one. Anyway, go listen to the whole thing because it’s absolutely fascinating. I learned so much. I literally sat in the audience with a notebook and pen and took notes like it was for school. One of the funniest things was, this was Jeb and Stephen’s first time being interviewed together, which I could not believe. They talked about the process of writing Die Hard, but also talked about their writing habits in general. I’ll bring up just one tidbit I learned that they shared in the Q&A. So, when you go through Hans’s gang, only two of them survive: Theo, and the pretty French dude who’s trying to run away with an armful of bearer bonds before McClane knocks him out. I’d just never kept track of all the gang members like that before. So, I think, if they’re gonna do a sequel anyway, they should bring Theo back. Just sayin’. Finally, I got two books in the mail the other day that I’m excited to dig into. The first is Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History by James Mottram and David S. Cohen. I had that book on pre-order the moment I found out about it, and it’s a huge tome that covers all of the Die Hard movies in detail, with these pieces put in between the pages – kind of like a pop-up book, but nothing… pops – it has storyboards, sketches, script pages, and my favorite, an envelope of photos taken to use as props in the film. The second is the book John McTiernan: The Rise and Fall of an Action Movie Icon by Larry Taylor. Larry contacted me on Twitter and kindly offered me a copy of the book, and I can’t wait to read it for deeper insight on Die Hard’s director. Okay, a few more pieces of business. You can always contact me and share your thoughts on Die Hard and this podcast by... Email Website Twitter Facebook Instagram There’s also a Patreon for the show – it takes an incredible amount of time to put this together, so any contribution helps me to offset the cost of creating it, and is a real vote of encouragement. Patreon Shout out to our new contributors, Heather and David. Thank you so much! You can also support Die Hard With a Podcast by leaving a review on iTunes. With more starred ratings and written reviews, the show becomes more visible to other potential listeners, so please share the love and let me know what you think! All right. On to our main topic. When we first see Holly Gennaro – or Holly McClane – she’s walking through the Nakatomi Corporation’s Christmas party, which is already in full swing. But she’s completely focused on a stack of papers in her hand as she brushes past her partying coworkers. She has shit to get done. And that’s mostly how I think of Holly. She’s a woman with shit to do. And not Ellis, not Hans, and not even her husband John can distract her from doing what needs to get done. Holly Gennaro, as portrayed in the movie by Bonnie Bedelia, turns out to be the character who most split people’s opinions. There’s no consensus on whether she’s a damsel in distress, or if she – like so many other conventions that Die Hard challenges – goes beyond your typical 80s action movie female lead. She’s characterized as cold… and warm. Strong… but not having an agency. A good wife and mother just doing her best… or a woman trying and failing to have it all. Even I go back and forth on these. As one of the very few women in Die Hard, Holly Gennaro McClane comes to represent changing societal roles that had mostly been left to romantic comedies. Holly’s portrayal as a working woman, a mother, and a wife reveals the conflicts facing women at that time – and the conflicting viewpoints of the culture around her. Let’s start as we did with our examination of John, and go into her character as written in Roderick Thorp’s 1979 novel, Nothing Lasts Forever. She’s a totally different person, I think even more than how John was changed from the page to the screen. Retired former detective Joe Leland – who would later become John McClane – goes out to Los Angeles for Christmas to visit his daughter, not his estranged wife. Stephanie Gennaro – Steffie – is a divorced mother of two and an executive at Klaxon Oil. We see her through her father’s eyes, and it’s not a pretty picture. She’s sleeping with Ellis, and she’s been doing coke. Which I guess you would expect from someone sleeping with Ellis. It’s also reeeally awkward that her dad is putting thought into who his daughter is sleeping with. Also, there’s this: “Leland thought she looked tired. For years she had been five pounds too heavy, and now it looked like ten. With cocaine in her life, he had to be glad to see that she was still eating.” Yikes. The events of the book transpire pretty much as they do in the movie. The employees are held hostage by terrorists – real terrorists in the book, not thieves – and Joe / John gets away and begins taking them down one by one. But when we get to the final showdown with Joe and the terrorist leader Anton Gruber, there’s a big, big difference. Spoiler alert for the book: Steffie goes out the window with Anton. So yeah, the book is kind of a downer. Movie Holly, thankfully, is a much less tragic character. In Jeb Stuart’s draft of the Die Hard script, this is how Holly is introduced. She turns into: That’s the Holly we know. And the Ellis we know, unfortunately. There’s a movie goof I’d like to point out. For all the drama over which last name Holly uses, if you look at the name on her office door, you can see that it’s misspelled. On her door it says “H. M. Gennero” with a second E instead of an A. I just thought that was amusing. Maybe McClane would have been easier to spell… According to Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History, casting for Holly’s role was part of a larger strategy of casting warm actors with a lot of depth to balance out Willis’s tough cop. Casting director Jackie Burch chose Bedelia, a New York stage actor who had won a Golden Globe for playing Shirley Muldowney, the first female hot rod racer in the 1983 movie Heart Like a Wheel. Bruce Willis liked Bedelia being brought on board. “Bruce thought that Bonnie would be wonderful; he had enormous respect for her as an actor, and he was so right!” said director John McTiernan. “She was again completely a working-class lady, but solid and honest as the day is long – and that is who he [McClane] would have as a wife.” We actually don’t know all that much about Holly. Like with John, we meet her without a lot of exposition of her background; we have to pick up the context clues. We don’t know anything about how she met John, how she got her job. It leaves a lot of room for us to speculate – speculate about her history, and therefore what her motivations are in the film. Holly’s roles as a working woman, a mother, and a wife allow us to project our own feelings and beliefs onto her, so I’m actually not surprised that the people I talked to ended up with very different assessments of her. It’s also worth noting that there’s a cultural gap between how she was viewed in 1988 versus today, so we need to constantly ask ourselves, is this what the film is trying to say, or is that what I’m taking away from it? The thing we’re most sure of when it comes to Holly is that she is a powerful, high-ranking working woman inside this large corporation. She works hard, and has been rewarded for her efforts. She’s got a corner office, a secretary of her own, and... [CLIP - DIE HARD - ELLIS - SHOW HIM THE WATCH]   Holly tries to downplay her success to John, since it’s already a sore spot in their marriage. But she’s still wearing that watch, and she doesn’t mask the fact that she has even higher ambitions. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - I HAVE AN EYE ON HIS PRIVATE BATHROOM]   Katie Walsh, film critic for the Tribune News Service and LA Times. KATIE WALSH I think that it’s nice to see Holly in a executive role. I think a lot of times, you have like films like 9 to 5 where the working women are more secretaries, or they start as secretaries and they move up to something better. I think it’s nice to see the way that, she says, “I had an opportunity and and I took it.” And we don’t have to really explain how Holly got there, we just understand that, you know, she’s obviously a valued member of the team, Takagi really likes her, she’s doing a great job. And so I think that it’s kind of nice to see that there’s an effortlessness to her success . And I think that’s a bit of an anomaly, otherwise I think 80s movies were constantly showing how women had to like, struggle and get to that role. In the films of the 80s, we can see the intersection of corporate culture and second-wave feminism play out on screen. Unsurprisingly, it’s a mixed message. We applaud the ambition of women escaping the “pink collar ghetto,” as they call it in Nine to Five. In that 1980 film, Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin, and Jane Fonda are secretaries who are held down, underestimated, and harassed at the office – until they kind of by accident take out their boss. After holding him hostage at his home for weeks, he escapes and returns to the office, only to see that while he was gone, the three women made changes that drastically improved the morale and performance of his workers. In 1988’s Working Girl, Melanie Griffith plays Tess McGill, a woman driven to improve herself and grow her career as she works for a coldly calculating executive played by Sigourney Weaver. When her boss is laid up with an injury, Tess takes over her office, her home, her wardrobe, even her boyfriend, and uses them to execute her own business plan. Which is actually pretty creepy if you think about it. But she’s the hero of the story, so her chutzpah gets rewarded when she’s given a job by the executive she had been pitching. In these films, we see likeable women with low-ranking office roles climb the corporate ladder to success, and we applaud them for their determination. But there’s also the reverse. Women who are already high-powered businesspeople are forced to reckon with their desire for a family, and end up taking a step back from the workplace. In 1987’s Baby Boom, Diane Keaton is made the guardian of a baby girl when a distant relative dies. She’s a busy executive – with the biggest shoulder pads there could possibly be, they’re more like helipads instead of shoulder pads – and at first she refuses to take responsibility for this child. But of course, something inside her melts and she bonds with the child and quits her job – something unthinkable at the beginning of the movie – to devote herself to raising this girl… and to creating a nice little business of baby foods, too. Now, the 1983 film Mr Mom focuses more on Michael Keaton’s character learning to deal with being a stay-at-home dad after losing his job, but we also see his wife, played by Teri Garr, return to the workforce. She’s met with immediate success – but in the end, her lecherous boss and her desire to be with her family pushes her to scale back her time at work. In these films, we can’t say that these women are punished for their ambition, but we do get the message that these women are wrong. They’re wrong to focus on their careers, and once they realize what’s really important – raising a family – that’s how they can get their happy ending. Adam Sternbergh, novelist, contributing editor to New York Magazine, and pop culture journalist. ADAM STERNBERGH I think it’s also not a mistake that the movie uses this kind of marital discord around the idea of a husband and wife dealing with the fact that the wife has a powerful career, or a more important career than the husband. That was also very much of that moment in history and it was, you know, around the same time that movies like Mr Mom were coming out. And you know, America, to some extent was at the cineplex was grappling with this idea that women are successful, and they’re in the workforce and traditional roles are changing. And you know there was this idea in the movies that this was this incredibly new and novel thing, this sort of ascendant woman in the workplace, and the men around her are all trying to deal with the fact that, whoa, she’s got responsibility and she’s got a real job. Bonnie Bedelia is a great actor and was sort of perfectly cast in Die Hard, so I think that she has a sort of gravity that I think some of the other sort of similar characters in the other movies don’t have. And I think they handled it well in the movie. You know her relationship with Mr. Takagi is sort of established early on, that she’s this trusted lieutenant of his. So I think even in her smaller role you take her seriously in a way that you never quite manage to take Melanie Griffith seriously in Working Girl. Women in these executive roles are judged for “trying to be a man;” some do try to take on characteristics coded as masculine in order to sort of disguise the fact that they’re a woman. You know, if women are perceived as weak, then she must not display emotion, she must be even tougher than the men around her. Unfortunately this can backfire, as a woman controlling her emotions is often seen not as stoic, but as cold. KATIE WALSH You know, I think it’s interesting, the way they portray the essential conflict of their relationship, which is that she wants a high powered career, and he clearly has an idea about more traditional values in their gender roles and their marriage, taking his name, that sort of thing. But I think Holly has kind of toughened herself to exist in that world. And so she has kind of like, I mean as we see her at the party and stuff, it’s like she has to put on this front a little bit of, I’m tough, I can hang with the boys, nothing bothers me. So she’s a little bit colder and more brittle in a way. And I hate to describe a woman that way, but she does have like a hard shell a little bit throughout the movie. And John is more like nakedly emotional, or at least we see him being more nakedly emotional about the situation. Sasha Perl-Raver, writer, correspondent, and the host of FX’s Movie Download. SASHA PERL-RAVER I have in my head Joan Cusack wearing a power suit with giant shoulder pads and a huge Aquanet bang wave, and Reeboks on top of nude tights. But the working woman of the 80s was somebody who had to have it all, she has a great career, she had a great sex life, she wasn’t afraid to let you know about it. She’s Sigourney Weaver. But not Ripley Sigourney Weaver, she’s Working Girl Sigourney Weaver. She’s a working woman in the 80s. Was a little brash, a little bit ball-busting, and usually had to be taken down a peg. Like it tended to be more of like the villain character than the hero. Like I’m thinking of Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Mannequin. In Mannequin she’s trying to do the corporate takeover and she’s overpowering and she really needs to be one of the people that falls in like a vat of tar at the end. All of those women sort of in the end, it was their drive that ended up being the hubris. SIMONE: Does Die Hard do that with Holly? SASHA: Of course they do that with Holly. She had to come all the way across the country and drag her children and leave her husband? You deserve to be held hostage in Nakatomi Plaza. When we talk about working women of the 1980s, the first thing to come to mind, even before the sexual politics, is the fashion. Maybe the fact we think of the fashion is already gendered because we’re talking about women here, but it’s a powerful image. As we’ve heard, there are iconic pieces that come up over and over again: shoulder pads. Big hair. Bright eyeshadow. Power suits. White sneakers over nude hose. Holly’s look is very much in this vein, but also more sophisticated – just as her character is, compared to those who came before her. According to Die Hard: The Ultimate Visual History, costume designer Marilyn Vance conceived Holly’s look to convey professionalism and power, using browns and pinks that complemented Bonnie Bedelia’s hair color and skin tone. A business suit was never an option. “She was a softer character,” says Vance. “But at the same time, she had a very important position, so her clothing, to me, had to be suede and leather and something more sumptuous. And it was the right time of year for that because it was Christmastime.” Vance shopped for Holly’s clothes at Saks Fifth Avenue, then had the studio’s costume department use them for inspiration when creating the character’s wardrobe. “The whole idea was for her to be strong but not tailored,” says Vance. “She’s soft as a person but she still means business.” And let’s not forget the importance of Holly’s Rolex. Given to her as a reward for her hard work, it’s symbolically sacrificed at the end of the film, as John unclasps the band so that Hans loses his grip on her and falls from Nakatomi Tower. The symbolism is pretty heavy-handed. The thing that represents her corporate life must be released so that she can keep her family life. And, you know, her life-life. But at least there’s ambiguity about whether or not she’ll give up her job at the end of the film. Concessions are made: losing the watch, Holly using the last name McClane – and we’ll talk about that more in a minute – but she doesn’t also declare that she’s quitting her job and moving the family back to New York. One more thing about the watch. Jeb Stuart, Die Hard screenwriter, has a nitpick. He says: “Anyone who’s ever owned a Rolex knows that watch isn’t gonna just open. It’s a sealed clasp! I brought that up at a production meeting and everybody looked at me like I was insane.” Now, I’ve never owned a Rolex, but if someone wants to send me one so that I can test this out myself, you are more than welcome to. But more than just looking the part, Holly is a natural in the workplace. She’s a good boss, making sure the work gets done, but also looking out for her employees, whether it’s sending her secretary Ginny off to enjoy the party, or negotiating better treatment for her fellow hostages. Even Hans has to acknowledge that. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HANS - MR TAKAGI CHOSE HIS PEOPLE WELL]   Reed Fish, director and screenwriter. REED FISH Yeah, I think Holly was portrayed pretty sympathetically. I mean, maybe not in the context of the late 80s where it’s like some affront that she’s going to use her maiden name. But you know, she was a good boss, right? She had a pregnant assistant she was always looking out for her. And she was someone who seemed to put her team members above herself, you know she was in a situation, a hostage situation, and she seemed to be looking out for everyone else before her. So it’s pretty sympathetic. Holly’s office is decorated with the trappings of one of her other roles: mother. Images of her children play a pivotal role in the plot of the film, even if they barely appear in the movie themselves. Pictures of her and her kids fill the shelf behind her desk. In frustration, Holly slams one family portrait facedown on the shelf, hiding the only evidence of her marriage to John from Hans. And Hans finds that portrait when reporter Richard Thornberg interviews little Lucy McClane on TV – Holly’s horrified face at seeing the McClane children on camera gives her connection away. For his part, John spends a moment looking at pictures of his kids in his wallet, a reminder of the way things used to be, and how he’d like them to be again. We never actually see Holly with her children. This makes sense narratively, as pretty much the entire movie takes place at her office just as the Christmas party starts. It’s hard to say how Holly is as a mother, but we do get a short scene with her on the phone with her daughter Lucy. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - ON THE PHONE WITH LUCY]   Holly’s tone becomes warm, and she smiles to herself as she talks to her daughter. She’s comforting and reassuring without promising too much – after all, Holly doesn’t even know if John will make it home for Christmas. The ability for Holly to work a demanding job while still having children is a dilemma faced by working women in a way that working fathers never seem to worry about. It also speaks to class and racial divisions, where we must acknowledge that Holly is extremely privileged to even attempt to have it all. Holly relies on her housekeeper Paulina to watch her children while she’s at work. It makes me think about that scene in the awful, awful Sex and the City 2 movie where Charlotte and Miranda complain about how hard motherhood is when they both have full-time help, and they cheers their Cosmo cocktails in honor of the “women without help.” Yeah, thanks Sex in the City 2, thanks for that shoutout from two women having cocktails at a resort in Abu Dhabi. Die Hard of course doesn’t go in depth on this issue, but we get a glimpse of it. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - ON THE PHONE WITH NANNY]   KATIE WALSH I also think it’s interesting to think about her relationship with her nanny. And how upper class working women often rely on women of color and that type of domestic labor in order to both have kids and be in the working world. So there are multiple industries and levels of classes that are going on in the sense of, how do I be a working woman and be a mother and be a wife, and it’s sort of like, one’s gotta go for Holly, and she’s gonna be a mom and she’s gonna be a working woman but she can’t really be a wife. So you see that struggle, and I think at one point she says to the nanny, “What would I do without you?” and it’s such a small moment but it really illustrates that you really can’t be everything to all people at all times in those roles. Die Hard’s emotional arc for its lead character, John, hinges on his relationship with his wife. Now, we know Holly is a good employee and boss. We think she’s probably a pretty good mom; it’s hard to tell but we don’t have anything totally contradicting that. But Holly as a wife – this is where she most obviously can’t have it all. By prioritizing her other two roles, Holly shirks her role as a wife. She leaves John behind, even leaves his name behind. Holly’s use of her maiden name becomes a particular sticking point in the film. [CLIP - DIE HARD - JOHN - YOU DIDN’T MISS MY LAST NAME]   Then again, John doesn’t sound like he was a supportive husband. [CLIP - DIE HARD - JOHN AND ARGYLE - GREAT JOB TURNED INTO A GREAT CAREER]   So, should we be blaming Holly? Is she putting herself and her career first, and dragging the kids along with her? Or is she doing what’s best for her family, and leaving John behind because he’s not going to support her in the way that she needs? ADAM STERNBERGH If you think too much about their marriage, though, it seems quite problematic. Like, she’s moved with the kids across the country and he stayed in New York. The movie doesn’t really explain why he would do that; it quite seems – at least to a modern perspective, it seems quite a dramatic choice for him to just refuse to move with his kids, and be separated from his kids. But again this is the sort of time period between like, on one end, Kramer Versus Kramer, and on the other end Mr. Mom and movies like that, so obviously there was a lot of issues that were being worked out in the movie theaters about men and women and families and who was the head of the house, and how we were going to like work that all out together. One way to get a read on what the movie is trying to say about Holly is to see how she compares to her husband. As the couple fights, whose side do you take? Is she treated more sympathetically, or is he? Opinions are split. Ed Grabianowski, pop culture writer and horror and fantasy author. ED GRABIANOWSKI I think the intent was to make Holly a little less sympathetic because I think in that era, the whole working woman image and the idea of it, a woman who puts her career before family is somehow neglecting her responsibilities or something like that. I guess it depends on how tied you are to the idea of a traditional family. So I think anyone who is is going to find Holly very unsympathetic, and anybody who’s more interested in feminism and equality among men and women is going to find Holly more sympathetic. So overall I find Holly sympathetic, but I definitely understand where John McClane is coming from. And I don’t feel unsympathetic towards him, because I don’t think like, he didn’t set out to do anything bad. He just reacted shittily to a situation that happened to his family, that wasn’t necessarily what he wanted. And that happens to people, you know, like regardless how you feel about family structure in general, like just stuff happens to your family and you’re like, I don’t know how to deal with this and sometimes you fuck it up and you have to go back and fix it. And that’s what John is doing. I guess in that way, it sort of comes out a tie. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - I KNOW WHAT YOUR IDEA OF OUR MARRIAGE IS LIKE]   The fact that we don’t know what John and Holly were like at the beginning of their relationship can leave you wondering how they were even together in the first place. SASHA PERL-RAVER If you say that opposites attract, I get that, but I don’t think that opposites marry and have children and are then suddenly torn asunder by a move across the country, or whatever other things are the reasons that they actually broke up. I think that they – she is too no-nonsense to have been with him for as long as she was. She seems to me a very pragmatic woman who would not have taken his stuff, and they would not have gone to the altar. Unless it was like, a Las Vegas 36-hour situation. They make no sense to me. What do you think? SIMONE: I think they probably got together, they were younger; there was probably some hot chemistry. You know, they’re both attractive and there’s passion; they seem like passionate people. And then they actually get married and have kids and she shifts that passion to the career. And they don’t talk about the reasons for taking this job but I would have to assume, at least she’s telling herself she’s doing it for the sake of her family, that this will help take care of them or something. And just drifts apart from John and they sort of evolve as people on their own. And so when you see them later, they’ve already moved far apart. SASHA: And I always assumed she took the part because she was sick of dealing with this workaholic, New York City police guy who was always off with his trigger finger like at the ready, and she just wanted to have a nice, stable life so she got the job working for the Nakatomi Corporation so she could provide for her family and not have to worry about him. Or maybe! She was always afraid he was going to get himself killed on the job, so she pulled away to protect her heart and had to make sure she didn’t have to live on like a widow’s severance or whatever. What’s that called? SIMONE: It’s not like a pension. Like a benefit? SASHA: Whatever the death benefit would be. Maybe that’s what it is. Maybe she always knew that he was too wild. And she just wanted to make sure – she, she seems very stable. Very stable. It’s true that at first glance, John and Holly seem like opposites. But at their cores, they’re both very determined – and stubborn – people. Scott Wampler, news editor at Birth. Movies. Death., and host of the Trying Times podcast. SCOTT WAMPLER I think it’s complicated, to borrow some terminology from social media. I think that Holly is – I think that they’re both career people, and when you have two people that are that invested in their careers and then they have kids, shit gets complicated. Holly’s thing is that, you know, she got moved out to LA for a job, or she chose to move out to LA for this job. I can’t fault her for that. I also can’t fault John McClane for being mad that she pulled up roots and took the kids out there. I can imagine not being thrilled with that either. So I think it’s sort of a draw in terms of who my sympathies would lie with more. And I also think they’re both a little dickish in their own ways. In this sense, I do believe them as a couple. And I can see what attracted them to one another. You know, on a physical level, and just on a worldview level. You know? REED FISH I think that that whole Holly-John dynamic, but for me it felt like very just unreal? Because it didn’t seem like someone in her position would be with someone like him. And maybe it’s one of those things where their lives were, you know, when they first got together ten years ago their lives were much different, and then her career took off. But like I never really saw what the deal was, why they would ever be together, and why, say, anyone would ever want to be with John McClane romantically whatsoever, at all. ‘Cause clearly he is not someone you’d want to be married to, in my opinion. I feel like the dynamic between Holly and John – there’s good tension there, but I just didn’t find the relationship all that believable. It didn’t seem to me that she would be with him. I really have to do some mental gymnastics to figure out the scenario where those two characters would have gotten together and gotten married and had kids. These unanswered questions about the couple’s past leaves us unsure about their marriage’s future. But there are clear signs that both hope for a reconciliation – they just need to get out of their own ways first. When Holly calls her housekeeper Paulina, she tries to play it cool, but you know she wasn’t intending on using that spare bedroom if John came home. She likewise tries to act disinterested with John himself, not let on how bad she wants him... [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - I HAVE THE SPARE BEDROOM]   … Until, of course, she finally opens up. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - I MISSED YOU]   And John has to blow it by picking a fight with her, right at that moment. But we know that John loves Holly. He spends the entire movie putting his life on the line for her. At the end of the film, we don’t know how their marriage will fare once they get home. But at least for a moment, we get a happy ending. [CLIP - DIE HARD - ARGYLE - RUN INTO EACH OTHER’S ARMS]   John and Holly exit Nakatomi Tower together, holding each other, happy to be safely reunited. When John introduces her to Al Powell, Holly takes a turn. [CLIP - DIE HARD - HOLLY - HOLLY McCLANE]   This one line always ends up at the center of analyses of Holly’s character. What does it mean? Is Holly going to give up her career and go back to being primarily a wife and mother? Is she just in a particularly generous mood because she just escaped with her life? In my personal opinion, I believe that because John introduced her to Al as Holly Gennaro, using her own preferred name, with no hesitation, that she felt it was time to make a concession. And if both John and Holly are willing at long last to make concessions, they have a future together. Well, if we ignore the sequel films, anyway. Another way to try and analyze how Die Hard treats its female lead is to compare it to other action films. So: Is Holly considered a damsel in distress? After our analysis of her character, we can tick off some pros and cons. Let’s say Holly is a damsel in distress. Well, she… Is literally being held hostage. And when the villain finds out her connection to the hero, the villain targets her specifically to cause the hero emotional pain. It can be argued that she has no agency, no ability to make decisions or act pro-actively to save herself: she just sits with the other hostages and waits. Her emotions betray her when she sees her kids on TV. And finally, we do get a peek at her bra by the end of the film. But what does Die Hard do differently? Holly’s not the only hostage, of course. She’s being held with men and other women. The villain first uses another man – Ellis – to try to manipulate our hero; Hans is using whoever he thinks might have a connection to John, regardless of gender. Holly doesn’t act fearful throughout the film – except for the very last bit where’s she’s hanging out of a 40th floor window, which, who could blame her? And finally, maybe she does have agency. Maybe she thought about trying to escape or sabotage the villain’s plan. But it could be that she assessed her options and decided that trying to go along with the villains’ plan would give her the best outcome. We know she’s an incredibly level-headed and pragmatic person. ADAM STERNBERGH And she gets a lot of great moments in the film. The film totally does not discard her or disregard her. She is very strong in her own right and gets to – and is quite instrumental as to how the whole thing plays out too. Which in hindsight might not seem like a big deal, but at the time it also felt like a break from the sort of standard action movie foil, heroine, damsel, exactly. Whether or not Holly is a damsel in distress leads us to our final question of this episode. Is Die Hard a feminist film? Yeah, okay, that even sounded funny to me. I’m gonna go ahead and say “No” here. I think that a film has to be doing more to actively challenge the patriarchy and promote women’s rights and explain women’s issues to be called feminist. But I do think that Die Hard was working a little harder than other films at the time. Die Hard is elevated above all other action films of its time in nearly every aspect: story, acting, the craft of the film. And I think in so doing, it put a little more thought into Holly too. Her character, with all her positive attributes and flaws, achieves a level of humanity that many other films deny their female leads. As we discussed in the last episode, what makes the character of John McClane such a beloved hero is his humanity. It makes sense that his wife would have her own humanity shine through, too. In our next episode, we’re going back to the beginning. We’re going to take an in-depth look at Roderick Thorp’s novel Nothing Lasts Forever to see where the seeds of Die Hard were sown. Thank you to our guests Ed Grabionowski, Sasha Perl-Raver, Scott Wampler, Reed Fish, Adam Sternbergh, and Katie Walsh. Be sure to check the show notes on the website to learn more about them. Thanks again for joining me, and yippee-kai-yay, motherfuckers!

Ryan Connolly is an American Filmmaker and the Creator/Host of Film Riot, a DIY filmmaking youtube channel with over 1 million subscribers. Besides producing over 800 plus episodes for his show, Ryan has also written & directed several notable short films and also runs the Triune Store (Online Film Assets). His filmosophy and dedication are truly inspiring. Please enjoy!  Show Notes   [2:30] Interview starts [4:30] Early film equipment struggles  [8:00] Dean Cundey stories [13:00] What creativity means to Ryan [18:30] Balancing film mode and family mode [22:30] Ryan’s advice to those who think they are not creative [25:00] Film career motivation and advice [35:30] Early filmmaking   [44:30] What gave Ryan the filmmaking bug? [47:00] Onset attitudes and tips with Ryan [59:00] Time wasting and hustle mode [1:00:00] Pitching projects  [1:10:00] Ryan’s Triune Store, what it offers, and how he runs it  [1:15:00] How Ryan prevents from burning out [1:18:30] What type of person does it take to run a successful youtube channel? [1:25:00] Ryan’s inspirational resources include reading Film Scripts from http://www.simplyscripts.com/ or https://johnaugust.com/apps/weekend-read, DGA Directors cut podcast https://www.dga.org/Craft/Podcast.aspx, Script notes podcast https://johnaugust.com/podcast, Jeff Goldsmith writing Q & A podcast http://www.theqandapodcast.com/, Master Classes https://www.masterclass.com/  [1:32:00] See Film Riot material @ youtube.com/filmriot, www.filmriot.com and reach out to Ryan on Twitter @ryan_connolly http://twitter.com/ryan_connolly [1:34:00] Closing questions and last words from Ryan

In a flashback to 2010, host Jeff Goldsmith interviews screenwriter-director Julie Davis along with actor Christa Campbell, actor Jamie Kennedy and actor Stormy Daniels about Finding Bliss. Download my podcast hereCopyright © Unlikely Films, Inc. 2010, 2018. All rights reserved.

Suzanne calls Jeff Goldsmith, President of Health Futures, Inc and National Advisor to Navigant Healthcare, to learn why he has long been cynical of accountable care organizations (ACOs) and inquire about other market-based strategies that may more effectively improve health care.

As the year winds down, PULSE CHECK is casting an eye outside of Washington and on what’s coming next for health care. And that's why this week's conversation is with one of the industry's big thinkers — Jeff Goldsmith, who grapples with these questions as a health care futurist and Navigant advisor. Jeff sat down with POLITICO’s Dan Diamond to discuss what a futurist does and how his predictions have panned out (starts at the 1:20 mark), the trend toward hospital consolidation and what providers are doing right and wrong (9:00), where the health care industry stands and the signals being sent by Washington, D.C. (17:45), and a lightning round on what’s next for major sectors (28:00). At the end of the episode, listen to a special excerpt from POLITICO MONEY, Ben White’s new podcast on politics, finance and economics, with this week’s episode focused on Republicans' tax bill fight. (Starts at the 31:10 mark). We’d appreciate your help: Please share PULSE CHECK and rate us on your favorite podcast app! Have questions, suggestions or feedback? Email ddiamond@politico.com. Stories and book referenced on the podcast: Dan's story on 'McHospitals': https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/08/hospital-chains-dominate-health-care-000574 Jeff's 1981 book, "Can Hospitals Survive": https://www.amazon.com/Can-Hospitals-Survive-Jeff-Goldsmith/dp/0870942484

I talk about going on a tour of the Dupont Circle Underground in Washington, DC as well as the 2016 movie Lion.   Here is a link to the photo I talk about on the show.   Here is a link the the podcast The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith

Im ersten After Dark von Abspanngucker quatschen René und Alexander wieder über alles was sie so geguckt und gehört haben. Nachrichten sind auch mit uns (über den nächsten Star Wars). Viel Spaß! Alexander redet über Lady Dynamite, Poltergeist (das Original!) und die erste Folge von Preacher. René muss erst mal was klarstellen und redet anschliessend über Terminator Genisys, The Night Manager und The Primary Instinct. Als kleinen Bonus gibt es noch einige Filmpodcastempfehlungen von René: – The Moment with Brian Koppelman – How Did This Get Made? – The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith – Happy Sad Confused In den Filmnews reden wir über die Nachdrehs von Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. Die Musik ist von Bombay Blaque (Danke Arnob!): https://soundcloud.com/bombayblaque/cal-city-calibrator Info Vielen lieben Dank an unsere Steady Abspannfreunde Michael, Patrick, Rüdiger, Severin, Felix und Nenad! Wollt ihr uns auch unterstützen? Dann findet ihr uns auf Steady unter steadyhq.com/abspanngucker Alternativ könnt ihr uns auf Paypal eine Spende hinterlassen Wir freuen uns natürlich immer auch über Reviews auf iTunes Unsere Titelmusik ist von Arnob Bal aka FamLi. Ihr findet ihn auf Twitter unter @ArnobBal Ihr findet uns unter abspanngucker.de twitter.com/abspannpodcast facebook.com/abspanngucker podcast@abspanngucker.de

Season Two! Third time's the charm... The Doctors try to fill in the cracks -- and wind up sticking their fingers in: Midnight Special, Credence Clearwater Revival, Jeff Nichols,10 Cloverfield Lane, John Goodman, Birdman, The Revenant, Alejandro Iñárritu, Harold Pinter, David Mamet, Leo DiCaprio, Charlie Brown's Christmas Special, The H8ful Eight, Kurt Russel, Quentin Tarantino, The Sixth Sense, Listener Mail, Freddy Got Fingered, Hudson Hawk, Bruce Willis, Moonwalker, Excalibur, John Boorman, Sid & Marty Krofft, Deliverance, Lord of the Rings (1969), Helen Mirren, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Patrick Stewart, Ciaran Hinds, Game of Thrones, Political Animals, Glenn Close, The Debt, Tom Wilkinson, Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, Mosquito Coast, At Play in the Fields of the Lord, John Lithgow, Tom Berenger, Daryl Hannah, Aidan Quinn, Cathy Bates, Hector Salamanca, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Raul Julia, William Hurt, Peter Matthiessen, Battlefield Earth, The Alamo, John Wayne, At Long Last Love, Peter Bagdanovich, The Last Picture Show, Paper Moon, What's up Doc?, Barbara Streisand, Cole Porter, New York, New York, Beyond the Sea, Kevin Spacey, The Brown Bunny, Vincent Gallo, Chloë Sevigny, Caligula, Cut Throat Island, Grindhouse, Robert Rodriguez, Heaven's Gate, To See or Not to See: The Big Short, Steve Corel, Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling, Marisa Tomei, Hamish Linklater, The New Adventures of Old Christine, Melissa Leo, Rafe Spall, Christopher Eccleston, Spotlight, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, John Slattery, Stanley Tucci, Hail Caesar!, Coen Brothers, Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Scarlett Johansson, Alden Ehrenreich, Francis McDormand, Channing Tatum, Gene Kelley, Deadpool, Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Gotham, TJ Miller, The Witch, Robert Eggers, Zootopia, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, Finding Dory, Jungle Book, Star Trek Beyond, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Tina Fey, Margo Robbie, Martin Freeman, Alfred Molina, Christopher Abbott, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Eye in the Sky, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, The Boss, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage, Tammy, Ben Falcone, Spy, SNL, Bill Murray, Ben Kingsley, Christopher Walken, Gary Shandling, Jon Favreau, Star Wars: Phantom Menace, Pennies From Heaven, Steve Martin & Louie Prima. Questions or comments? Contact: Adam & Gregor at: show@hollywoodrx.net or tweet them at @hollywood_rx. Review us on iTunes... Today! Like us on Facebook. Or both. Read more at http://hollywoodrx.libsyn.com/#9VfpmPPE0qlX7t6T.99   Recommended Podcasts: Filmspotting Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith

Season TWO continues... The Doctors embark on a metaphysical journey in search of answers. Along the way, the find: Jeff Nichols, Take Shelter, Michael Shannon, Mud, Shotgun Stories, Loving, Joel Edgerton, Q & A with Jeff Goldsmith, Sicario, The Walking Dead, Dermott Mulroney, Jon Barenthal, The Gift, Jason Bateman, Left Behind, Roland Emmerich, Boardwalk Empire, Man of Steel, Superman v. Batman, Terrence Stamp, The Limey, Bat Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Tigerland, Joel Schumacher, Pearl Harbor, Kangeroo Jack, Jerry O'Connell, Elvis and Nixon, Kevin Spacey, Kirsten Dunst, Interview with a Vampire, Drop Dead Gorgeous, Bring it On, Virgin Suicides, Spiderman (franchise), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Fargo (TV, season 2), Adam Driver, Star Wars: Force Awakens, Girls, Lena Dunham, This is Where I Leave You, While We Were Young, Jane Fonda, Sam Shepard, Paris, Texas, Diane Keaton, Voyager, Julie Delpy, Sweet Dreams, Jessica Lange, Transformer (franchise), Steven Spielberg, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Richard Dreyfus, Baby Boom, Leonard Nimoy, Mud, Robert Altman, Come Back to the Five and Dime, jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean, Secret Honor, Fool For Love, Kim Basinger, Bloodline (tv series), Kyle Chandler, Linda Cardellini, Sissy Spacek, Ben Mendolsohn, Chloë Sevigny, Seinfeld, Sophie's Choice & The Fifth Element. Questions or comments? Contact: Adam & Gregor at: show@hollywoodrx.net or tweet them at @hollywood_rx. Review us on iTunes... Today! Like us on Facebook. Or both. Read more at http://hollywoodrx.libsyn.com/#9VfpmPPE0qlX7t6T.99   Recommended Podcasts: Filmspotting Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith

Welcome to Season 2, episode 1!!!  While trying to save the world from aliens and beloved character actors, the Doctors fend off John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Wintead, John Gallagher, The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin, Olive Kitteridge, Francis McDormand, Richard Jenkins, Deathproof, Quentin Tarantino, Kill the Messenger, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Sky High, Spectacular Now, Smashed, Aaron Paul, Nick Offerman, Megan Mullally, Mary Kay Place, Brie Turner, Octavia Spencer, Alex of Venice, Cohen Brothers, Raising Arizona, Nicolas Cage, Adaptation, Factory Girl, Final Destination 3, JJ Abrams, Cloverfield, Dan Trachtenberg, Roman Polanski, Knife in the Water, Dead Calm, Nicole Kidman, Billy Zane, Josh Campbell, Matthew Stuecken, Damien Chazelle, Whiplash, Alien, Aliens, 2016 Oscars, Luc Besson, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, The 5th Element, Toys, The Phantom Menace, E.T., the Extraterrestrial, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Melissa Mathison, 2016 Oscars Oscar Pool Results: Alicia Vikander, Chris Rock, Stacey Dash, Tom Hardy, Sylvester Stallone, Mark Rylance, Spotlight, Straight out of Compton, Brooklyn, The Big Short, Cedric Lamar, Louie CK, Leo DiCaprio, Eddie Redmayne, Ridley Scott, Christopher Nolan, The Danish Girl, Saoirse (Schwareese) Ronan, Brie Larson, The Room, George Miller, Fury Road, Ennio Morricone, Margaret Sixel, Lenny Abrahamson, Revenant, Alejandro Iñárritu, & Midnight Special. Questions or comments? Contact: Adam & Gregor at: show@hollywoodrx.net or tweet them at @hollywood_rx. Review us on iTunes... Today! Like us on Facebook. Or both.Read more at http://hollywoodrx.libsyn.com/#9VfpmPPE0qlX7t6T.99   Recommended Podcasts: Filmspotting Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith

Marcus Rosenthal and Jeff Goldsmith from Revolve Robotics show off the KUBI, the world's first portable video teleconference device! We discuss how KUBI is changing the definition of what it means to have a remote presence. For more about KUBI and other stories, visit www.CollaborationSuperpowers.com.

After analysing awards-nominated screenplays, Stu and Chas turn to the original screenplays that struck it biggest at the box office in 2013: GRAVITY and FROZEN. Do bigger films stick more closely to the archetypal story structures espoused by Vogler and Snyder? We start discussing GRAVITY at around 7'33" and FROZEN at 54'40", although discussion does skip back-and-forth at times. LINKS: GRAVITY screenplay by Alfonso Cuarón & Jonas Cuarón KCRW's The Business Podcast with Alfonso Cuarón KCRW's The Business Podcast with David Heyman Framestore's jaw-dropping Gravity Show and Tell (YouTube) Gravity from Script to Screen Featurette (YouTube) FROZEN screenplay by Jennifer Lee KCRW's The Business Podcast – Jennifer Lee and Kristen Anderson-Lopez The Q&A Podcast with Jeff Goldsmith – Frozen Scriptnotes Podcast – Frozen with Jennifer Lee Excerpt of Shane Black from The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith - Iron Man 3 - quoted under Fair Use. Not covered by our CC license. Allen Palmer on Where he disagrees with the Hero's Journey and his suggested Hero's Inner Journey. Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic Plots is, in a way, an interpretation of the Hero's Journey and The Monomyth. Please send feedback to ask at draft-zero.com. Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or RSS.

I was lucky enough to sit down and have a great conversation with Senior Editor and fellow podcaster Jeff Goldsmith about his magazine Creative Screenwriting and his screening series where he has Q&A's with he best of the best. We discuss Sundance, their Screenwriting Expo, the state of indie film and how to tell a good story. If you enjoy this interview I highly recommend his podcast, one of my favorites. Thanks again Jeff!